Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - December 10, 2008 B-01 PH/SMAGENDA ITEM & CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FM AGENDA TITLE: Conduct a public hearing to consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to not certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) regarding the Lodi Shopping Center project located at 2640 West Kettleman Lane. MEETING DATE: December 10,2008 PREPARED BY: Interim Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and consider the two appeals of the Planning Commission action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Two appeals have been filed concerning the certification of the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) for the Lodi Shopping Center. The law firms of Sheppard Mullin Richter& Hampton LLP on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (the proposed anchor tenant) and Remy Thomas Moose and Manley, LLP on behalf of Browman Development Company (the applicant) have filed the appeals. Both of the appeals seek review of the Planning Commission's action on October 8, 2008 declining to certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the project. Since both appeals are for the benefit of the project proponents and make the same arguments, they will be treated concurrently in this staff report. The original Final Environmental Impact Report and the associated Lodi Shopping Center project came to the Planning Commission on December 8, 2004. At the conclusion of that meeting, the Planning Commission certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved a Use Permitto allow the construction of the Lodi Shopping Center, the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter and a Tentative Map to create 12 parcels. Two appeals were filed concerning the Planning Commission's certification of the FEIR and approval of the project. The City Council considered the appeals. On February 3, 2005, the City Council certified the FEIR for the Lodi Shopping Center project. On February 16, 2005, the City Council approved the Use Permit for the construction of the Lodi Shopping Center, allowed the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter, and approved the Tentative Map to create 12 parcels. The Council added to the Planning Commission's condition regarding the existing Wal-Mart building by allowing various options and expansions. The City Council's approval of the Lodi Shopping Center was challenged in court on environmental grounds. On December 19, 2005, the San Joaquin County Superior Court found the EIR to be deficient with respect to cumulative urban decay impacts and energy impacts. The Courtfound the balance of the environmental document consistent with CEQA. The Court ordered the City to void the project approvals, pending correction of the deficiencies in the FEIR. The Court also ordered APPROVED: Blair Ki ity Manager the City to vacate approval of the following Planning Commission and City Council resolutions approving the project: a) Planning Commission Resolution PC 04-64 certifying the EIR 03-01 adopted on December 8,2004; b) Planning Commission Resolution PC 04-65 approving Use Permit U-02-12 and Tentative Parcel Map 03-P-001 adopted on December 8,2004; c) City Council Resolution 2005-26 certifying the EIR 03-01 adopted on February 3, 2005; and d) City Council Resolution 2005-38 approving Use Permit U-02-12 and Tentative Parcel Map 03-P-001 adopted on February 16, 2005. On May 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 2006-81 rescinding the above listed Planning Commission and City Council Resolutions relating to the Lodi Shopping Center. The City Council also adopted Resolution 2006-82, authorizing agreements with two consulting firms to prepare revisions to the Lodi Shopping Center EIR that was found deficient by the Superior Court. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisionsto the Lodi Shopping Center EIR: In the case of Lodi First v. Citv of Lodi, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. OV025999 ("Lodi First"), the Court ordered revisions to the discussions of cumulative urban decay impacts and energy impacts. In all other respects, the Court found the EIR to be legally sufficient under CEQA. However, the City decided to make revisions to three additional areas of the EIR, including the statement of project objectives, the discussion of agricultural resources, and the discussion of project alternatives. These areas of additional analysis were the subject of a lawsuit entitled Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. OV026002 ("C.O.G."). The C.O.G. case was resolved after the court's decision in Lodi First by a stipulated order of dismissal, preserving to the C.O.G, plaintiffs the right to continue to assert certain previously made claims as to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The Revised EIR document includes only the above five (5) sections which were revised or augmented. Since the remainder of the original EIR is not subject to further review, the original EIR, as amended by the Revisions to the EIR document, cures the deficiencies identified by the Court. The Revisions to the EIR were subject to the full administrative and public review. A Notice of Preparation ("NOP) was prepared describing the legal context, a project description and a brief overview of the topics to be covered in the Revisions document. The NOP was made available to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for State agencies, was sent to non -state agencies, and was posted and made available to the public to solicit input on the five (5) sections that were revised in the FREIR. After a period of analysis and formulation, the Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) was prepared. The City filed a Notice of Completion ("NOC") with the State Clearinghouse and posted, published, and distributed the Notice of Availability of the DREIR. This began the public and agency review period for the document. The length of the public review period was 52 days. During the review period, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 14, 2007, to receive oral and written comments on the DREIR. The City prepared formal written responses to all the comments received as well as an addendum section indicating further revisions made to the document. The revisions, comments on the DREIR, and responsesto comments constitutethe FREIR for the Lodi Shopping Center Project and are presented for certification. 904643.2 Summary of Specific Impacts and their Mitloations: A. U rban Decav I mpacts The revisions to the EIR re -analyzed the potential for urban decay due to the cumulative economic effects of competing retail projects. This analysis was prepared by the economic consulting firm of Bay Area Economics (BAE). The REIR analyzed the regional effects of Wal-Mart Supercenters as well as the effects of the commercial area of the Reynolds Ranch development project. The BAE study found that existing retail centers in Lodi may be subject to a reduction in sales due to competition from new retailers within the proposed project. The study also found that it is possible that one or more businesses can close and the affected properties could be subject to long-term vacancies under cumulative conditions. However, while such closures and vacancies are possible, they are not reasonably foreseeable. The BAE study concluded that if closures and long-term vacancies were to occur, they would not result in total neglect or abandonment thereby leading to urban decay or physical deterioration. As explained in the REIR and the BAE analyses, the evidence gathered as part of the economic analysis is insufficient to support a finding that the project alone would result in or contribute to business vacancies or a downward spiral resulting in physical deterioration or urban decay. No urban decay or physical deterioration is reasonably foreseen to occur, and that is the test under CEQA for an environmental impact. Consequently, the FREIR finds that there are no cumulative urban decay impacts and no mitigation measures are proposed. Even without an identified urban decay impact, the City has committed to aggressive code enforcement measures to ensure the abatement of any nuisance within the City and to prevent the physical deterioration of communities. In this vein, in August of 2008, the City added another member to its Community Improvement Division by hiring a new Supervising Community Improvement Officer. The REIR analyzed the Reynolds Ranch project at approximately 640,000 square feet. As a result of the City Council's most recent approval of the Reynolds Ranch project at 750,000 square feet, the City asked Matt Kowta, a Principal with BAE, to review the previously prepared study and the potential impacts of the additional area. The memorandum from BAE is included as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report. In summary, the conclusion is that "This review process has shown that even if BAE had assumed that Reynolds Ranch was to be developed with 750,000 square feet of retail space when preparing the October 2007 analysis, the conclusions and findings would not have been significantly different than they are at present." Thus, the additional space does not change the impact conclusions of the REIR. Additionally, the recent Reynolds Ranch EIR Addendum, which analyzed the impacts of the larger project, did not find any additional economic or urban decay impacts as a result of the increased project size. Based on this information, the REIR concluded that while it is possible that the proposed project, in combination with the Reynolds Ranch project, will result one or more business closures, it is not reasonably foreseeable that such closures would lead to total neglect or abandonment of the business or urban decay. Should there be a business closure, the potential for physical deterioration will depend largely on the commitment of the property owner to maintain the property. Should the owner fail to maintain the property, City code enforcement staff would pursue active and aggressive enforcement as previously directed by City Council. Accordingly and as further explained in the REIR, even assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario that results in one or more business closure, urban decay impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center, when combined with the economic effects of projects such as Reynolds Ranch, would result in a less -than -significant cumulative urban decay impact. 904643.2 B. En_ ergo The REIR also addressed energy impacts. The analysis found no significant energy consumption impacts or impacts on energy supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. C. Aaricultural Resources. The original EIR found an impact from the conversion of approximately 40 acres of prime agricultural use to urban uses to be a significant and unavoidable impact because there is no feasible mitigation that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant impact except for an outright prohibition of all development on prime agricultural lands. The REIR confirms the significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources, but requires the project applicant to obtain a permanent agricultural conservation easement over a single parcel of land of at least 40 acres of prime farmland. The easement shall be located in San Joaquin County, excluding the Delta Primary Zone as currently defined by State law, and shall be in current agricultural use or be put into agricultural production. D. Proiect Obiectives and Alternatives. The remaining revisions to the EIR modified the project objectives and changed the alternative project location that was analyzed. The original alternative location was the Reynolds Ranch project site. As this site is subject to an active development application, a new site at the northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton Road was evaluated. The above sections were the focus of the revisions to the EIR for the Lodi Shopping Center and modified impacts, mitigation measures, findings, and statements of overriding considerations have been prepared as is included in the proposed resolution of certification. Planning Commission Meeting October 8.2008: As noted, on October 8, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the FREIR, as well as the requests for a Use Permit for the project in a C -S Community Shopping Zone, approval to sell alcoholic beverages within the Wal-Mart store, a Tentative Map to subdivide the property and Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for the site and building plans for Wal-Mart. The Planning Commission heard testimony from 38 people. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes are attached which provide an overview of the various points raised. Following the public hearing, the Commission discussed its issues with the project. A few Commissioners were uncomfortable with the conclusions of the revised environmental document and believed that additional information would be necessary in order for them to certify the revised environmental impact report. The main area of concern was the adequacy of the urban decay analysis. To a lesser extent, the potential energy impacts of the project were questioned. Finally, two Commissioners expressed interest in receiving information concerning the project's impacts on greenhouse gas impacts. After concluding its discussion on the adequacy of the FREIR, the Commission ultimately declined to certifythe FREIR. As indicated in the background section of this memorandum, the economic analysis was prepared by BAE. BAE has been in business since 1986 with over 20 professionals in four offices across the country. In that time they have provided services in a variety of areas including real estate 904643.2 feasibility studies, strategic planning, revitalization, public-private transactions, public financing, fiscal and economic impacts analyses, and development advisory services. They are experts in the field. CEQA case law allows the City to defer to the environmental conclusions reached by the experts that prepared or contributed to the EIR, even though others may disagree with the underlying data, analysis, or conclusions. Due to the Planning Commission's action on the environmental document, no action was taken on the applicant's other requests. Should the City Council decide to certify the FREIR, the Planning Commission must hold a subsequent hearing to review and make a determination on the project approvals. FISCAL IMPACT: None FUNDING AVAILABLE: None {j,V_ Jpnradf Bartlam !�—' terim Community Development Director Attachments: Sheppard Mullin Richter& Hampton Appeal dated October 10, 2008 Remy Thomas Moose and Manley Appeal dated October 13, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes from October 8, 2008 Planning Commission packet from October 8.2008 Draft Resolutions 904643.2 Anneal Letters Sheppard Mullin 10/10/08 Remy Thomas Moose & Manley 10/13/08 Sheppard Mullin 11/25/08 FourEmbarcadero Center i 17th Floor I San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 415-434-9100 office I 415-434-3947 fax I www.sheppordmuN;n.com UiftrIsDirect Line: 415-774-2993 jdavidof@sheppardmullin.com October 10,2008 Our File Number: 15CM-130407 VIA E-MAIL AND FEDEX Ms. Randi Johl, City Clerk 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to not certify the Lodi Shopping Center EIR (October 8,2008 Planning Commission agenda item 3a Dear Ms. Johl: We submit this letter on behalf of our client, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"). Wal-Mart hereby appeals the Planning Commission's decision to not certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01; State ClearinghouseNo. 2003042113) ("EIR") for the Lodi Shopping Centerproject ("Project") to the City Council. The Planning Commissionheld a public hearing on October 8,2008 to hear public testimony and to consider the Project EIR and Project entitlements (Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Site Plan and Architectural Review). Wal -Mart's public affairs and governmental relations senior manager, Aaron Rios, presented testimony on behalf of Wal-Mart in connection with the Planning Commission's decision on the EIR and Project entitlements. The Planning Commission voted five to one to not certify the EIR. The Planning Commission failed to take action on the Project entitlements. City staff and its team of expert consultants have worked on the EIR for over two and a half years. We believe that the EIR complies with the December 19,2005 Superior Court ruling and that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding by the City that the EIR complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. Thus, we respectfully request that the City Clerk place this appeal on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. SHFPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Clerk October 10,2008 Page 2 Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Please contact us if you need additional information. ;:I //U—� Judy V. Davidoff for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP W02-WFST:5ENS 1k401088009.1 cc: Rad Bartlan City Community Development Director Steve Schwabauer, City Attorney Blair King, City Manager REMY. THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY. LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL H. REMY 1944-2003 455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 TINA A. THOMAS OF COUNSEL Telephone: (916)443-2145 Facsimile: (916)443-90V E-mail: info@rtmmlaw.com JAMES G. MOOSE WHITMAN F MANLEY WHITMAN ANDREA K LEISY TIFFANY K WRIGHT SABRINA V TELLER ASHLE T CROCKER October 13.2008 VIA FACSIMILE & OVERNIGHT MAIL (209)333-6807 Ms, Randi Johl, City Clerk 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 JENNIFER S. HOLM.AN MICHELE A. TONG AMY R. HIGUERA HOWARD F. WILKINS III AMANDA R. BERLIN JASON W, HOLDER LAURA M. HARRIS KATHRYN C. COTTER CHRISTOPHER J. BUTCHER BRIAN J. PLANT OFCOUNSEL Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's decision not to certify the Lodi Shopping Center EIR (October 8, 2008), Planning Commission Agenda item 3a. Dear Ms. Johl: We submit this letter on behalf of our client, Browman Development Company ("Browman"), for purposes of appealing the Planning Commission's decision to not certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2003042113) prepared for the Lodi Shopping Center project ("Project"). The Project includes the construction of a variety of commercial and retail uses, including a Wal-Mart Supercenter. We appeal pursuant to the City of Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.88 and, specifically, section 17.72.110. We have included the required appeal fee. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 8,2008, to hear public testimony and to consider the Final Revised EIR and Project entitlements (conditional use permit, tentative map, site plan and architectural review). The Planning Commission voted not to certify the Revised EIR against the recommendation of staff and without relying on any substantial evidence refuting the conclusions of staff. The Planning Commission failed to take action on the Project entitlements. City staff and the City's independent consultants have worked long and hard on the Revised EIR. The Revised EIR includes a detailed socio-economic study and energy analysis. The Revised EIR is responsive to the December 19, 2005 trial court ruling for Ms. Randi Johl City Clerk October 13,2008 Page 2 which it was prepared. Substantial evidence in the record supports a finding by the City that the EIR complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). We therefore respectfully request that the City Clerk place this appeal on the next regularly scheduled City Council agenda. We anticipate filing additional comments for the City Council's consideration in the near future. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Please contact me if you need any additional information at this time. Very truly yours, Andrea K. Leisy cc: Jon Hobbs Alexis Pelosi ?lil 1!oor I Four F: nbarcarlero C_(?nter I San Francisco, CA 1;41 I1-4106 115-434-9100 offi, o 415-434-39 j 17 lax I wwwsheppardrnullin.corrr A T T O R N E Y S A T 1. A W Wi itcr's Direct Line 415-774-2993 jdavidoff@sheppaldmull,,, coin November 24,2008 - - EE D Our File Number: I SCM -t' 30407 NOVa 7-008 COMMUNITY DEVE'LOPMENT DEPT VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL CITY OF LODI Honorable Joanne Mounce Mayor City of Lodi 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95242 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's October 8,2008, Decision Not to Certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center. Dear Mayor Mounce and Honorable City Council Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") and Browman Development Company ("Browman") in support of their respective appeals of the Lodi Planning Commission's decision on October 8, 2008 to not certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report ("Revised EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 20030421 13)prepared for the Lodi Shopping Center project ("Project"). As we explain in this letter, the City and its staff have worked diligently for years to prepare the Revised EIR. Contrary to the claims of those who are economically motivated to oppose the Project, the City has fully complied with its legal responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in preparing the Revised EIR. For this reason, we request that the City Council grant our appeals, and certify the Revised EIR. SUMMARY The Revised EIR being considered by the City Council represents several years of hard work by the City its consultants and by Wal-Mart and Browman. It is a detailed and exhaustive document that fully responds to the concerns raised by the San Joaquin Superior Court in rejecting the previously certified EIR. The Revised EIR also addresses the issues raised in a second lawsuit filed against the prior approval as explained below. The Revised EIR analyzes five (5) issues: socio-economic impacts and their potential to cause, indirectly, physical effects to the environment; energy impacts; project objectives; agricultural resources and project alternatives. The Revised EIR therefore complies SHEPPARI) MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 2 both with CEQA's "remedial" requirements as well as the San Joaquin Superior Court's prior Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate. As explained in detail below, the Revised EIR fully analyzes the Project's economic impacts, including the potential for urban decay. The analysis considers the trade area, population and housing trends, household incomes, labor force trends, taxable retail sales, market "leakage," estimated sales and competing retail centers. It examined actual performance of competitive stores in the local market and takes a very conservative approach by underestimating the potential population growth. It analyzed re -tenanting issues, including the impact that backfilling the existing Wal-Mart store would have on re -tenanting other retail spaces. Additionally, the analysis specifically considered the cumulative impact of the Lodi Shopping Center and Reynolds Ranch. The BAE study was updated in October 2008 to take into consideration the approximately one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of additional retail space approved by the City Council for the Reynolds Ranch project and not originally analyzed. The Revised EIR's conclusion that the Project would not cause urban decay is supported by substantial evidence. The Revised EIR's economic analysis also considered the Project's potential to impact Downtown Lodi. This analysis is supplemented by a separate memorandum prepared by the Community Development Department. Both analyses were consistent in their conclusion that Downtown Lodi provides a unique retail environment by, for example, fostering boutique retail shopping opportunities which do not directly compete with the types of uses proposed at the Lodi Shopping Center, including Wal-Mart. Despite the Revised EIR's conclusion that the Project would not have a significant economic impact on Downtown Lodi, Wal-Mart and Brownian voluntarily agreed to make a monetary contribution to the City to be used towards improving Downtown Lodi. The contribution was negotiated as part of the conversations leading up to the conditions of approval. It is not being paid as mitigation. Thus, the voluntary contribution is outside the scope of the EIR and is part of the conditions of approval for the Project. The Revised EIR considered five (5)project alternatives. Since the project objectives were modified, the range of these alternatives was expanded to include different sized sites and different locations. CEQA does not require that every alternative be considered. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6.)The scope of alternatives analyzed in the Revised EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA. It provides the City Council with a reasonable range of alternatives that permits a reasoned choice so far as environmental aspects are considered. While other alternatives may exist, they fail either to meet most of the basic Project objectives, are inconsistent with City policies and goals, or are infeasible. Finally, although as a matter of law the City was under no obligation to analyze this Project's potential impacts on global warming, Wal-Mart and Brownian commissioned such SHEPRUID MULLIN RICHTER S HAAiPTON LLP Joarme Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 3 an analysis. The report concludes that the Project would not have a significant direct impact on climate change and that any potential effects in the cumulative context are speculative. This is in part because the Wal-Mart store being proposed in Lodi will be a premier energy-efficient store. It will include the most current green technologies available to Wal-Mart at the time the store is built and will continue Wal -Mart's commitment to finding ways to build stores that can reduce its impact on the environment. In short, because the Revised EIR frilly complies with CEQA, we respectfully submit that the City Council should certify the document. PROJECT AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Lodi Shopping Center project has been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in the two environmental impact reports prepared for the Project. The original Environmental Impact Report ("Original EIR') (State Clearinghouse No.2003042113) identified and analyzed thirteen (13) environtnental topics: land use planning; agricultural resources; geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; biological resources; cultural resources; aesthetics; traffic and circulation; noise; air quality; hazardous materials; utilities and service systems; and public services. Only three (3) environmental topics or issues were determined not to be significant as part of the initial scoping for the Original EIR: mineral resources; population and housing; and recreation. The Planning Commission reviewed and certified the Original EIR,and, after its own review and analysis, the City Council upheld that decision and certified the Original EIR. Two separate lawsuits were filed against the Original EIR' . The San Joaquin Superior Court dismissed one lawsuit for failure to exhaust their administrative remedies (Lodi II).. On the other lawsuit (Lodi I the Court ruled the Original EIR to be inadequate on two (2) grounds: failure to consider the two Stockton Supercenters in the cumulative analysis of economic impacts and failure to include a specific discussion of energy impacts in the EIR. All other challenges to the Original EIR were rejected. 2 The first lawsuit was Lodi First v. City ofLocli, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. CV025999 ("Lodi I") and the second lawsuit was Citizensfor Open Government v. City ofLocli, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. CV026002 ("Lodi II"). Some comments or questions have been raised concerning the traffic impact analysis. It is important to point out that the court upheld the traffic analysis prepared as part of the Original EIR. The Project, however, will be required to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans if the Revised EIR is certified and the Project is approved. Caltrans is likely to impose conditions or requirements on the Project during that process. Until an application is filed with Caltrans, the scope or extent of those requirements is not known. While it is premature at this time (i.e., before the Revised EIR is certified and Project approvals are obtained) to submit an application, preliminary discussions with Caltrans SHEPPARD iMULLIN R[CHTER & HAMPTON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 4 Almost ten months after the court's ruling in the first lawsuit, the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, overturned the trial court's decision dismissing the Lodi lI lawsuit. Because the City had already begun preparing the Revised EIR, all parties agreed to a stipulation for dismissal and order to stay the dismissed lawsuit while preserving the petitioners right to pursue prior claims on remand.3 As a result, the City expanded the scope of the Revised EIR to include project objectives, agricultural resources and project alternatives Over the next few months, the City's consultant, Pacific Municipal Consultants ("PMC" )prepared a Revised EIR for the Lodi Shopping Center. In its entirety, the Final Revised EIR is over two hundred (200) pages, not including the separate one hundred (100) page urban decay analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics ("BAE"),the six (6) page supplemental review of the Lodi Shopping Center Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis prepared on October 1, 2008, or the ninety (90) written or oral comments received during the public comment period on the Draft Revised EIR.. The Revised EIR thoroughly analyzes the impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center as required under CEQA and as set forth in the Lodi I court ruling and mutually agreed- upon stipulation. DISCUSSION I. The Scope of Review for the Revised Lodi Shopping Center EIR is Limited Based on the Doctrine of Res Judicata or Claim Preclusion The Lodi Shopping Center Original EIR was revised to analyze five (5) impact sections that were subject to revisions by the San Joaquin County Superior Court or subject to augmentation based on the stipulation for dismissal and order. The remainder of the Original EIR was determined by the court to be legally adequate under CEQA. Under the doctrine of res judicata the City is not required to revisit all the potential environmental effects of the project anew. Res judicata is the legal doctrine of claim preclusion. It provides that where a claim has already been litigated in another proceeding either by the same parties or parties with the same primary right, that claim cannot be re -litigated.' The California Court of Appeals applied this doctrine in the CEQA context in the case of Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.AppAth 1180. indicate the Project should be able to obtain an encroachment permit without significant changes to the "Project" or current site plan. A copy of that stipulated order is attached as Attachment A. See Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002)28 CalAth 888, 896. SHEPRIM MIJUIN RICHTER & HANIPTON LLP Joanne MOUnce November 24, 2008 Page 5 I n Federation of Hillside, the respondent city certified an EIR prepared for a general plan framework. In the first appeal, petitioners challenged the city's CEQA findings and analysis with regard to the project's water resource and traffic impact impacts. The Court of Appeal agreed with petitioners claims regarding traffic impacts, but denied the appeal on all other grounds. The city then adopted new findings and a statement of overriding considerations essentially mirroring the original ones, except with regard to traffic. Petitioners challenged the city's findings, and raised new claims regarding water, waste water, solid waste, open space and utilities. Using the doctrine of res judicata, the Court of Appeal barred petitioners claims that could have been raised in the first challenge to the EIR or were already decided in a prior appeal. The Court held "unless [the city] substantially changed the project, which it did not do ... [t]he city had no obligation to update the analysis of environmental impacts in its adequate EIR.iS The fact that new documents or information became available after the city made its original CEQA findings or determination does not change this holding." Here, as in Federation Hillside, neither the City nor the applicants has "substantially changed" the project; thus, the doctrine of res judicata applies. Parties are precluded from raising new cliallenges that were either rejected during the prior litigation, or which could have been raised by the petitioners but were not. Based on the piling in Lodi I and the stipulated order in Lodi II, the only issues required to be analyzed in the Revised Lodi Shopping Center EIR were: the potential for urban decay from socio-economic impacts, energy impacts, project objectives, agricultural resources and project alternatives. All other issue areas under CEQA are barred.' If. The Revised EIR Adequately Analyzes The Potential Economic Effects of the Lodi Shopping Center Project Staff and the City's independent expert consultants have thoroughly analyzed the potential for the project to, indirectly, cause urban decay from the socio-economic effects of the project, including to Downtown Lodi. Under CEQA, the issue is not whether the Project will have an economic impact on other retail establishments in Lodi, but whether the Project will trigger a chain reaction, leading to foreseeable, significant physical urban decay.' CEQA is not Federation of Hillside, 126 Cal.AppAth at 1204. 6 See id. at p. 1203. 7 The Project will, however, need to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and obtain necessary permits from various state and local regulatory agencies including Caltrans and the San Joaquin County Air Quality District. 3 See Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town cfApple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 430, 446 ("social, economic and business concerns are not relevant to CEQA analysis SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAM13TON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 6 concerned with a project's purely social or economic impact on a particular business or person and is not a "fair competition statutory scheme."" Instead, CEQA requires a finding of significant impact only if the economic or social effects of a project will lead to foreseeable adverse physical changes to the environment. la Here, the economic analysis prepared for the Revised EIR by BAE found the Lodi Shopping Center would not have any significant impacts to the physical environment by causing urban decay. The economic/urban decay analysis prepared for the Revised EIR is extensive and supported by numerous appendices and tables analyzing the trade area, population and housing trends, household incomes, labor force trends, taxable retail sales, market "leakage," estimated sales, and competing retail centers. It analyzed the Project's potential for both direct and cumulative urban decay impacts and assessed whether these economic effects would translate, through a chain of causation, into reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects in the form of physical urban decay. The economic report prepared for the Revised EIR by BAE took a very conservative approach to analyzing the potential indirect effects of the Project from socio- economic impacts. It was prepared in October 2007 and acknowledged the softening real estate market and the impact it may have on projected growth." The report relied on the Claritasl2 projected growth rate established for Lodi (1.3 percent) and the trade area (I. I percent), which is lower than the overall rate for San Joaquin County (2.3 percent) and lower than a rate (3-4 percent) that could have been justified at the time given the approved major residential projects near the Project. This slower growth rate is due to the City's growth control ordinance and limited available residential land, which has resulted in growth that lags behind other communities in San Joaquin County. unless it is determined that those concerns will have a significant effect on the physical environment"). 9 See Waste Management ofAlameda County Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.AppAth 1223, 1235;Friends of Davis v. City d Davis (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1004, 1021. 10 CEQA Guidelines, § 15131; Pub. Resources Code , § 21082.2, subd. (c); CEQA Guidelines, § 15382; Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005)130 Cal.AppAth 1 173,1182. f > BAE Report, 2007, pg. 6, 73. 12 Claritas is a national research firm that provides demographic and economic data for cities and counties. It is typically based in part on the most recent U.S. Census Data. SHEITM) MULLIN RICHTER & HA,MPTON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 7 The BAE report also did not rely solely on a leakage analysis in assessing retail impacts, but rather looked very carefully at local conditions. The report examined actual performance of the competitive stores, compared that to industry benchmarks and then analyzed the potential impact of adding additional retail to the marketplace. It included an analysis of sales that would be captured by the Project from existing outlets and analyzed the Project's specific impact on grocery stores, general merchandise stores, drug stores and Downtown Lodi. In each case, the report concluded that the Project would not result in urban decay. A. The Urban Decay Analysis Included a Detailed Discussion of Re -Tenanting', Reynolds Ranch and the Project's Impact on Downtown. The BAE report also analyzed the potential for re -tenanting of vacant space. Because the analysis was based on conservative underlying growth estimates, however, this impact may be overstated. The report recognized that the Project may result in the closure of one or more existing retail outlets in the trade area and that it may be challenging to re -tenant some of the vacant spaces. It acknowledges that the re -tenanting of the vacant Wal-Mart property could "conceivable absorb demand that might otherwise be absorbed by other closures,i13 Even with these potentially overstated impacts, the report still found that the Project will not have a significant urban decay impact. 14 The cumulative impacts analysis in the BAE report is also exhaustive. It analyzes the cumulative impact of the Project and Reynolds Ranch on nearly every shopping center in the City of Lodi. The report discusses and analyzes the potential difficulty that certain centers may have in re -tenanting major anchor s�aces and the impact that may have on smaller retail spaces, including the potential for closure. It acknowledges that the cumulative impact of the Project and Reynolds Ranch may lead to "substantial cannibalization of retail sales from existing outlets in Lodi and the trade area. 06 While it is possible that this cannibalization could potentially result in vacancies, vacancies per se do not necessarily result in a significant adverse effect on the environment under CEQA. As a result, under the thresholds of significance used by the City, the BAE report concludes the Project will not have significant cumulative urban decay impact. The conclusions reached in the BAE report have been validated in two separate memorandums prepared or commissioned by the City. The most recent memorandum was prepared oii October 1, 2008, by BAE and analyzes whether the increase in size of Reynolds Ranch project, which added an additional four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet of new 13 BAE 2007 Report, pg. 61. 14 BAE pg. 61. 15 Id. at 66-67. 10 Id. at 68. SHEPRIU) MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 8 retail without an urban decay analysis, changed any of the conclusions in the original BAE October 2007 report. The original BAE report analyzed Reynolds Ranch with a maximum of 640,676 square feet of retail, which was 109,324 square feet less than what the City Council recently approved. The October 1,2008 BAE memorandum concluded the increased square footage of Reynolds Ranch did not change the original analysis or conclusions because the change in sales diversion from existing stores, based on the new size of Reynolds Ranch, was thirty-four (34) percent. The original assumption for sales diversions from existing stores was thirty (30) percent. This four (4) percent increase in sales diversion was estimated not to be significant. A second memorandum was prepared in November 2007 by GRC. This memorandum analyzed the economic conditions in Downtown Lodi and was transmitted to the City Manager with an assessment by the Community Development Department of the Lodi Shopping Center's impact on Downtown Lodi. A copy of this memorandum is attached as Attachment B. The Community Development Department concluded the Lodi Shopping Center Project's impact on Downtown Lodi would not create "a physical impact requiring CEQA mitigation." 1' This memorandum fornis the basis, however, for the City's exercise of its police powers, and serves as the justification for the proposed Downtown fee to be paid as part of the Project, despite the City's conclusion that the project will have a less than significant impact on urban decay. 18 In sum, the economic or urban decay impact of the Project has been determined by three studies and analyses to be less than significant under CEQA. The substantial evidence supporting BAE's less than significant impact conclusions is not negated by opponents' citation to their own conflicting opinions. The City is also entitled to rely on the adequacy of their code enforcement program, including the requirements that nuisances be abated. III. A Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives was Considered and Analyzed in Compliance with the Requirements of CEQA, Which Does Not Require Every Possible Alternative Be Considered. The Revised EIR for the Project considered five (5)potential alternatives to the proposed Project. These included a No Project Alternative, an Alternative Land Use, a Reduced Density Alternative, a Reduced Project Size and an Alternative Project Location. These 17 GRC Memo, pg. 1. 18 The Lodi Shopping Center is slated to be located in the City's proposed Redevelopment Area. There are no plans by Wal-Mart or Brownian, nor is there any intent by Wal-Mart or Browman, to use any potential future Redevelopment Area funds or monies to satisfy the voluntary Downtown contribution. tiEIF.['PAItD M[J1IL[N R[CuER & HAMPTON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 9 alternatives meet the Revised EIR's project objectives, which, in fact, were modified to allow an expanded range of alternatives to be considered.' 9 Under CEQA, an EIR should consider alternatives that provide a substantial environmental advantage over the proposed project. CEQA only requires an EIR to describe a range of "reasonable alternatives" to the project, or the project location that would "feasibly attain" most of the project's basic objectives while avoiding or substantially reducing any of the project's significant effects." CEQA requires that the EIR evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives, but does not require that every alternative be analyzed. Instead, the range of alternatives proposed must simply "permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned."*' Here, the range of alternatives discussed meets that standard. After a preliminary review of the five (5) alternatives considered, three were selected for further discussion and analysis: No Project Alternative, Reduced Project Size Alternative and Alternative Project Location. Further analysis of the Alternative Land Use alternative was not warranted because any other use would conflict with local plans, policies and regulations. Further analysis of the Reduced Density Alternative was also not warranted because it would not reduce or change two of the Project's significant impacts and would create an inconsistency with City policies. The Project site is zoned "C -S Commercial Shopping," which has a purpose of developing commercial shopping facilities outside the central business district. Residential development is prohibited in this zone. Business or office park development may be permitted in this zone but it is not permitted under the General Plan designation of "NCC Neighborhood/Community Commercial." Thus, only the type of development proposed, commercial shopping, would be consistent with the site's zoning and general plan designation and any other type of use would require a General Plan Amendment and Zoning change. Since CEQA only requires that an EIR consider alternatives that provide a substantial environmental advantage over the proposed project, analyzing a reduced density development is unwarranted because such an alternative would not reduce the two unmitigated significant impacts (e.g., agricultural resources and regional air quality) to less -than -significant levels. Moreover, such a use of the site would create an inefficient use of land and simply shift 19 The revised project objectives no longer include a requirement that the commercial center consist of at least 30 net acres or that it complete the development of the "Four Corners" area. See Revised Draft EIR, pg. 31-32. 20 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126(A). 21 San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc y v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 750. SHEPPAM) MULLIN RICHTER & iimrrON LLP Joamie MOUnce November 24, 2008 Page 10 development pressure to other property in the City. It would also not be consistent with City policies, which promote compact and efficient development patterns to minimize agricultural land conversion.'` One additional alternative mentioned by those who are economically motivated to oppose the Project is expanding or redeveloping the Wal-Mart store on its existing site. This alternative, however, is not feasible for several reasons. First, it would not meet the other project objectives such as "provid[ing] a commercial center on a large, undeveloped lot in close proximity to an existing highway. ,23 Second, insufficient land exists to allow the current Wal- Mart store to expand as proposed. Third, any expansion would eliminate approximately half of the parking field in front of the existing store and encroach on the parking field of the retail space to the west. In fact, eminent domain from other retailers or landowners may be necessary under this alternative. Because of these facts such an expansion of the existing Wal-Mart store is infeasible. Finally, a review of the alternatives included and analyzed in the Revised Final EIR shows that a good faith effort was made by the City and PMC to incorporate all feasible alternatives in the EIR .2`` The alternatives considered are reasonable and could feasibly obtain most of the basic Project objectives, even though they may not meet every objective and may be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the Revised EIR is not unduly limited or narrow and complies with the requirements of CEQA. IV. Additional Analysis Prepared in Response to the Planning Commissioner's Concerns Regarding Project's Impact on Global Warming Shows That the Project Will Not Have a Significant Impact on Climate Change. Pursuant to the doctrine of res, judicata, as discussed above, and because climate change is not a new issue, the Revised EIR was not required to analyze the Project's potential to contribute to global warming. Despite having had ample opportunity to raise the issue of climate change during consideration of the Original EIR, the issue was not raised, nor was it raised by petitioners in Lodi I or Lodi II in their petitions for writ of mandate. Because petitioners did not raise or litigate the issue, they are now precluded from doing so at this time. Wal-Mart, and 22 City of Lodi General Plan, Land Use Element, Goal B, Policies 1-6, p. 3-4 - 3-5. 23 Revised DEIR, pg. 31-32. 24 It would not be feasible to analyze a Reduced Project Size without the proposed Wal- Mart store since a main project objective is "[t]o expand the existing Wal-Mart to a Wal- Mart Supercenter with more retail space and the addition of grocery sales." (Revised DEIR, pg. 31.) Similarly, it is not feasible to analyze a different Alternative Project Location since no other suitable sized sites exist within the City. (SeeRevised DEIR, pg. 94.) SHGPRIRD MULIAN RICHTER & HAMPTON 1111 Joanne MOUnce November 24. 2008 Page 1 t Brownan, however, recognize the importance of global warming and the concerns expressed by several of the Planning Commissioners. They "heard" the Planning Commission's concerns on this issue at the October 8, 2008, hearing and as a result, commissioned the preparation of a climate change analysis report to analyze the Lodi Shopping Center's potential contribution to global warming. A copy of this report is attached to this letter as Attachment C. A. The Michael Brandman Associates The climate change analysis report is consistent with existing requirements under CEQA and is not intended to amend the Revised EIR that has been prepared. Instead, it is a stand-alone technical report and analysis intended to provide the City of Lodi with infonnation concerning the project's potential greenhouse gas emissions. The report may be relied on by the City Council Members in evaluating the project's impact on climate change. As a preliminary matter, the Council should be aware that no State or regional regulatory agency has adopted thresholds of significance or modeling methodology to measure the impact of a project on climate change. The report relies on the draft thresholds for greenhouse gases recently issued by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA) white paper. This approach is the current generally accepted standard for analyzing a project's potential to effect climate change. The climate change analysis includes a detailed project level analysis of existing and potential greenhouse gas emissions. It calculates the carbon dioxide generation and greenhouse gas emissions associated with project construction, project operation and potential demolition of the existing Wal-Mart store. It analyzes mitigation measures required in other impact areas, design features, and conditions of approval and their ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After a detailed discussion and analysis, it concludes that the project would result in a project specific less than significant impact to climate change. It also concludes that approval of the project would not hinder or delay California's implementation of AB 32, and is in fact, consistent with AB 32 scoping plan measures.zs The report also includes a cumulative -level analysis. It recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions from the project would be small in comparison to globally generated and/or California generated emissions. The report concludes, however, that quantifying and analyzing the potential effects of the Project, on a cumulative and global level, would be speculative. CEQA does not require a discussion or analysis of speculative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines § 15 145.) Here, the project's cumulative impact on climate change is speculative because (1) no cumulative list of project climate change exists; (2) no approved greenhouse gas 25 AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires greenhouse gas emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & MMI'TON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 12 reduction plan for the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County exists, and (3) no adequate climate change models are available to measure the project's incremental effect on cumulative climate change. B. The Proposed Wal-Mart Store Included Energy Efficient Measures that would Reduce the Store's Energy Demand and Global Footprint. The proposed Wal-Mart store will be a premier energy-efficient store. On October 6, 2008, Wal-Mart submitted a letter to the Community Development Director outlining some of the green features of the proposed store. This letter was in response to a letter from Lodi First that commented on the energy and global warming impacts of the proposed Wal-Mart store as well as discussed Wal -Mart's High Efficiency (HE) test program. A copy of Wal -Mart's letter is attached as Attachment D. As indicated in the letter, the proposed Lodi Wal-Mart store will contain the most current green technologies available to Wal-Mart at the time the store is built. Some of these features may include: • Daylighting (skylights/dimming) - This system automatically and continuously dims all of the lights within the store as the daylight contribution through skylights increases. • Night Dimming - Lighting is dimmed to approximately 65% of typical evening illumination during the late night hours. • Energy Efficient HVAC Units - Super high efficiency packaged heating and air conditioning units that are 4-17% more efficient than required by California's Title 24. • White Roofs - White membrane roofing is used in order to increase solar reflectivity and lower cooling loads. • Recycling: - Wal-Mart stores include huge amounts of recycled material. (A) Steel recycling: Current construction standards on Wal-Mart buildings include a substantial amount of recycled steel. Stores are built with nearly 100% recycled structural steel. Wal-Mart structural steel suppliers use high efficient electric arc furnaces that use 50% less energy to manufacture recycled steel. Using recycled steel means less mining for new steel, and it is a material that can be readily recycled again if the building is demolished. (B) Recycled Plastic: All of the plastic baseboards, and many of the plastic shelving, are manufactured from recycled material. SHEPPARD MULLIN RIGHTER & HAMPTON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 13 This store, and all new Wal-Mart stores, will be designed and equipped to recycle the following materials: Oil - over 20 million gallons per year Tires - 23 million tires per year Auto Batteries - 19 million per year Cardboard - 6.4 billion pounds in 2005 Vegetable Oil - each new store has an indoor tank used to collect oil from cooking processes for recycling ➢ Single -use Cameras - 47 million per year collected at our photo processing centers Plastic Waste- on 2/1/06 we rolled out a chain -wide program for "sandwich bale" recycling of plastics, e.g., bags. garment bags, shrink wrap, bubble pack, etc. Silver- our photo labs capture silver from the photo processing :- Interior Lighting Program - All new stores use efficient T-8 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts. Water -Conserving Fixtures: Restroom sinks include sensor -activated low flow faucets. The low flow faucets reduce usage by 77%. The sensors save approximately 20% over similar manually operated systems. By incorporating these and the other measures listed in the October 6, 2008, letter. into the proposed Lodi store, Wal-Mart is reducing the energy demand of the store and reducing its energy demand footprint. Wal-Mart and Brownian both recognize the importance of considering the potential effects of a project on climate change and, for that reason, commissioned the attached analysis in a good faith effort to provide additional information to the City as requested by the Planning Commission. The issue of climate change within the context of the procedural history and litigation surrounding this project, however, renders the issue outside the scope of the Revised EIR. Under res judicata the City was not required to consider climate change under CEQA. Including the attached inforniation, therefore, does not undermine the previous legal conclusion made by City staff and the City Attorney that the City was not required to include climate change as part of the Revised EIR. Nevertheless, substantial evidence shows that the potential effects of the Project on climate change will be less than significant. The Revised EIR being considered by the City Council on December 10, 2008, represents several years of independent study and analysis by the City and its consultants. The Revised EIR is a thorough, detailed and exhaustive document that fully analyzes every issue SHEPI ARD MULLIN RICHTER & IL UIPTON LLP Joanne Mounce November 24, 2008 Page 14 required under CEQA as set forth by the Court of Appeal ruling and the expanded scope resulting from the Lodi lI stipulation for dismissal and order. We ask that the City Council carefully consider all of the information before it and reach a conclusion that the Revised EIR is legally adequate under CEQA and certify the document. Very truly yours, J ly . Davidoff for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON W02-WEST:5AMP1 \401 163621.2 Attachments cc: Lodi City Council Andrea K. Leis y�� for REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE & MANLEY LLP Attachment 1 22 33 44 5 di 77 ffi IT to III 112 1[3 144 155 16 1'7 113 Is 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 DONALD B. MOONEY (SBN153721) JOHN L. MARSHALL (SBN 145570)) LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY 129 C Street, Suite 2 Davis, California 95616 Celephone: (530) 758-2377 yacsi nile: (530) 758-7169 Womeys for Petitioner .idzens for Open Government I'll 3 31 CLERK 501WA rARWWGtiiitl DY DEPUTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 1TIZENS FOR OPEN } OVERNMENT; ) :dtioner, ) } V. ) TY OF LCDI ; CITY COUNCIL j 'THE CITY OF IICDI ; ) 1D DOES 1-10, ) ) Respondents. ) i RROVE DEVELOP CO. a; aliforma COrporation; fT ) OUTHWEST ASSOCIATE?,LP. , a ) alifomia Limited Partnership; ) OES 11-100 ) Real Parties in Interest ) Case No.: CV026002 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL AND ORDER THEREON STIPULATION The Petitioner Citizars for Open Government ("Citizens':), the Respondents City of Lodi, et ("Lodi") and Real Parties in Interest Browman Development Co., et al. ('Browman") hereby palate ID the dismissal of this action as follows: 27 1. Petitioner filed this action on March 18,2005 challenging under the California 28 Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA"), Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq., the approval I by Lodi of the Lodi Shopping Center (the "Project") as proposed by Browman and the 2 certification of the adequacy of the associated EnviroranenW Impact Report ("EIg" ). 3 2. In a different action in the same Court, another group, Lodi Fist, filed a Petition for 4 'Writ of Mandate challenging Lodi's approval of the same Project (Lodi First v. City cf Lodi, et aL 5 Super. Ct. San Joaquin County, 2046, No. CV025999). 6 3. On October 4,2005, the 03zt granted Lodi's Motion to Dismiss this action 7 i;"Cktober 4 Order"). The Court held that the Citizens had failed to exhaust their administrative 8 comedies, 9 4, Ch December 2,2005, the Citizens appealed the 0aurt'sOctober4 Order. 10 5. On December 19,2005, the Court issued on Order Granting Petition for Writ of I l Mandate in Lodi First v. City of Lodi, et al. ("December 19 Order"). In that order, the Cbxt 12 directed Lodi to vacate its approval of the Pmject,CEQA Notice of Determination and certification 13 of the CEQA Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). No party in that case appealed the Cm is 14 December 19 Order or the subsequentjudgment in the Lodi First case. 15 6. On May 3, 2006, Lodi vacated its approval of the Project, its CEQA Notice of 16 Deterrrm nation and certification ofthe EIR. 17 7. Ch October 11,2006, the Third District 0mrt: of Appeals reversed the CblrCs 18 October 4 Order in this case and found that the Citizens had sufficiently exhausted their 19 administrative mmadies, In addition, the Court of Appeals found &lr matter was rot moot in fight c 20 die C2rCsDecember 19 Order in the Lodi First case. The Court of Appeals then remanded the 21 act im to this Cbu t. 22 8. On November 24, 2006, Lodi issued a CEQA Notice of Preparation ("November 24 23 riOP") ofits intent to prepare a revised EIR for the Project following entry of judgment in the Lod 24 First case. As set forth in mare detail therein, the November 24 NOP presents Lodi's intent to 25 awise the following sections of the EIR; Pmject Cbj9±bjw, Land Lbe, Agricultural Aesotmnes, 26 Energy, Cumulative Impacts and Alternatives, 27 28 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL AND ORDER THEREON 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1-1 9. In light of Lodi's action rescinding the Project approvals and EIR certification and issuing the November 24 NOP that includes the issues described above, the parties agree that dismissal of this action is appropriate under the following conditions. a Prior 1D re -approval of the Project, Lodi shall prepare and certify a revised E consistent with the provisions of the November 24 NOP. b. Citizens shall have the right to comment fully on the revised draft and final i3IRs prepared under the November 24 NOP including issues raised therein or in this action. C. Subject to applicable exhaustion of administrative namdies nagrinm si s, Citizens shall have the right b assert any claim, including any claim asserbed in this action, in any ;subsequent litigation over Lodi's reconsideration of the Project and the adequacy of the revised UK d, Lodi and/or Browman shall have the right to assert any applicable defense the i s not inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulation and Order, ID claims raised by the Citizens in - ny subsequent litigation or proceedings over Lodi's reconsideration of the Project and the revisec I9R. e. The Court shall retainjurisdiction to consider a request by the Comms for attorneys' fees and costs, other than /hose costs on appeal already claimed. SO STIPULATED. I fated: July,,,,, 2007. LAW OF'FICEOF DONALD B. MOONEY By.. STIPULATION FOR DISIUSSAL AND ORDERTHEREON Attorneys for Peri Citizens for Open 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I( [1 12 13 14 15 )6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: July�% , 2007. Dated: July—, 2007. KRONICK, MOSKOVIn, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD By . Janat�ha'n�P�.2obbs G� Attorneys for Respondent City of Lodi, er at. REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE & MANLEY By: James G. Moose Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Browman Development Co., Inc., et al. ORDER Based upon the above Stipulation between the parties and premised upon the conditions contained therein. this action is hereby DISNJIS.S1~D. Dated: July _,__, 2007. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FOR DISMISSALAND ORDERTHEREON 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 K I1 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II Dated: July—, 2007. Dated:! 2007. dime Z2 , KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GERARD By: Jonathan P. Hobbs Attorneys forRespondent City of Lodi, et al. REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE 8c MANLEY By; for Peal Pbrbes in Interest Development Co., Inc., et al. ORDER Based upon the above Stipulation between the parties and premised upon the conditions c :)ntained therein, this action is hereby DISMISSED. I rated: July 2007. JUL 16 2007 ELIZABETH HUMPHREYS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE STffgA AnON FOR DISMISSAL AND ORDER THEREON 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I am employed in the County of Yolo; my business address is 129 C Street, Suite 2, Davis, California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action. On July 20, '2007, I served a true and correct copy of NOTICE OF ENTRY OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL AND ORDER THEREON ,^2�_ (by mail) on all parties in said action listed below, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedur § 1013a(3), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a United Sys mailbox fin the City of Davis, California. ____ (by overnight delivery service) via Federal Express to the person at the address set forth below: (by personal delivery) by personally delivering a true copy thereof to the person and at the ziddress set forth below: (by facsimile transmission) to the person at the address and phone number set forth below: Jonathan P. Hobbs Representing Oily ofLodi Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard 400 Capitol Mall, 27'h Fid -or Sacramento, CA 95814-4416 D. Stephen Schwabauer Office of the City Attorney City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 James G. Nbose Remy, Thanas,& Manley 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento,CA 95814 Representing City of Lodi Representing Real Parties in Interest I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 20, 2007, at Davis, California. X25., 263 j J Donald B. Mooney Attachment MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Develonknent Denartmen To: Blair King, City Manager From: Community Development Department Date: 11-9-2007 Subject: Economic effects of the proposed Lodi Shopping Center Project CEO ANALYSIS A major focus of the Draft Revisions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lodi Shopping Center Project is economic effects. The beginning text in the "Land Use and Planning" section of chapter II explains the CEQA Standard for addressing economic or social effects of a project. "Economic and social effects of a project shall notbe treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effectfrom a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in tum by the economic or social changes. ...The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes." (page 33) Appendix B prepared by Bay Area Economics presents an extensive analysis of the economic effects and potential resulting physical changes. Pages 68-71 of the appendix document that there is expected economic effects of the proposed Lodi Shopping Center Project. These effects include the possible closure of an existing supermarket and Kmart. The analysis also shows that drug stores in Lodi will see declines in sales of approximately 13% in the first year of the Lodi Shopping Center's opening though no closures are forecast. Eating and drinking places and "other' retail will likely also see effects. The Downtown will also be subject to effects. A s noted on page 70 of Appendix B "overall, the estimated decline in Downtown retail sales in 2008, assuming a fully tenanted proposed project, would be approximately $4.0 million, or about 7% of Downtown's retail sales." "The introduction of the additional retail square footage at the Lodi Shopping Center could delay further downtown growth and the reuse of currently vacant properties until retail demand increases through income and population growth to the point where more retail space can be supported." The analysis also, as required by CEQA, looked at the cumulative effects of the Lodi Shopping Center and the currently planned and developer desired expansion of Reynolds Ranch. "The cumulative impacts of Reynolds Ranch in addition to the proposed Lodi Shopping Center may lend to substantial cannibalization of retail sales from existing outlets in Lodi, putting existing businesses at increased risk of closure." (page 71) Though economic effects of the Lodi Shopping Center are documented at both the project and cumulative levels, a physical impact requiring a CEQA mitigation was riot found. On page 74 of Appendix B it is noted "...it cannot be stated that there is a likelihood that the possible closures of these stores would result in a "downward spiral" Leading to significant urban decay impacts due to the Proposed Project". This J:\Community Development\PfanningWEM0120onCity Manager w Lodi Shopping Center.doc determination of no physical impacts and therefore no CEQA mitigation was also found in the cumulative case. DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ANALYSIS In July 2007 GRC Consultants released its Preliminary Findings on Economic conditions in Downtown Lodi (see attached). As noted in the Finding Report (page 1) "Downtown Lodi is faced with a number of economic challenges that affect its long- term potential as an active and self-sustaining center for the Lodi region." The report reviews the sub -areas of Downtown, its retail and non -retail trends, physical conditions, and investment trends. The Report's conclusion note "...the economic future of the area is not well established, and could be revered by the loss of local shoppers using community -serving commercial establishments." (pages 6-7) The proposed Lodi Shopping Center is such a community -sewing commercial establishment that is likely to draw shoppers away from the Downtown. CASE FOR ECONOMIC EFFECTS MITIGATION The Draft Revisions to the EIR for the Lodi Shopping Center document economic effects of the proposal in both the project and cumulative levels (not CEQA physical impacts, but economic effects). The GRC Report documents the fragile nature of Downtown and how a loss of local shoppers via a new competing retail establishment could negatively affect Downtown. These two studies verify that the Lodi Shopping Center would result in negative economic effects. Under the police powers, a Planning Commission/City Council has the ability to require conditions and measures as part of a discretionary approval to address negative economic effects. The Use Permit and Tentative Map sought by the Lodi Shopping Center are such discretionary actions. The police power of a City allow a Chi based upon a documented analysis which shows a negative effect reasonably related to a project to impose conditions and measures on that project to address that effect. Those conditions and measures further are to be roughly proportional to the negative effect caused by the project. Staff believes that based upon the reports noted above the negative economic effects of the Lodi Shopping Center should be addressed via a downtown mitigation measure. Such a mitigation measure is recommended as a condition of approval on both the Use Permit and Tentative Map required by the Lodi Shopping Center. JACommunity DevelopmentrPlanning\MEMOl2007TCity Manager ie Lodi Shopping Center.doc CRC - MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 2007 TO: Blair King, City Manager FROM: Ernie Glover RE: Preliminary Findings on Economic Conditions in Downtown Lodi Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to review the status of Downtown Lodi regarding its ability to maintain itself economically and to continue to attract viable activities and sup- porting uses. Summary of Findings Downtown Lodi is faced with a number of economic challenges that affect its long-term po- tential as an active and self-sustaining center for the Lodi region. The downtown area is transitioning from a community center serving residents and businesses in Lodi's market area to a specialty commercial area with a narrower range of activities than before, but a much wider, regional market area. This is especially evident along School Street. Other areas, however, have been left behind or remain stagnant. Many of the original activities have left, leaving behind a depressed and abandoned urban landscape, as is evidenced by largely abandoned or marginal land uses east of the Union Pacific railroad tracks to Wash- ington Street and the Sacramento Street frontage. Downtown Study Area This analysis is based upon the area used to define Downtown Lodi for the Downtown Business Survey. As shown on the following map, the Downtown Lodi area is generally be- tween the Union Pacific Railroad tracks on the east and Pleasant Avenue on the west, and between Lockeford Street on the north and Lodi Avenue on the south. The study area ex- tends east of the tracks to Washington Street between Elm Street on the north and Oak Street on the south. This area appears to include the original business and civic core of Lodi. 701 S. Parker Street, Suite 7400 • Orange, CA 92868 • (714)234-1122 - FAX: (714)234-1126 taM K MEN i City of Lodi Q Downtown Business Area 410 4 { Page — 2 Parameters Reviewed This is a preliminary study based on a relatively limited set of data readily available at the time this memorandum was being prepared. GRC collected data from the City of Lodi in- cluding land use information, a survey of building conditions in the Downtown Business Survey Area prepared by City staff, sales tax data through HdL, Inc., San Joaquin County Tax Assessor's data through CD Data, Inc., and demographic information through ESRI. A day long field visit was conducted by GRC on July 13, 2007, with the assistance of City staff. The focus of this study is on activity patterns in the Downtown area, sales tax performance and trends, building conditions as they affect future usability of buildings, and apparent trends. Demographic data were also collected for the purpose of providing background comparisons with the remainder of the city and San Joaquin County as a whole. Use and Activity Patterns Uses are defined as discrete land uses, generally as defined in a zoning ordinance. They are not generally tied to surrounding uses, except as being part of a district such as a commer- cial -retail district or a light industrial district. Activity areas define areas where various land uses support an underlying set of activities. For instance, the area around the Lodi Cinema 12 is evolving into an entertainment area with fast food and restaurants, shops aimed at a younger teen age crowd, and the like. These uses support and enhance each other. On the other hand, public uses along Elm and Pine Street west of Church Street form a civic district, but do not seem to have retained supporting office and professional uses in the near vicinity. There are four major sub -areas in the Downtown Survey Area. The largest is the School Street corridor between Church Street and the railroad tracks from Lockeford Street to Lodi Avenue. This is the business and social core of Downtown Lodi. School Street shows significant commercial resurgence on its ground floor, but this resurgence does not carry through to the upper stories (largely vacant or under-utilized) and to Sacramento Street with its high business vacancy rate. 2. The civic district is a well established concentration of City and County offices west of Church Street. These include the City Hall, County courts, the police station, the fire station and other municipal offices. The library is also located in close prox- imity. There are few, if any private uses such as professional offices, attorneys, ac- countants, engineers or planners located in closed proximity to the civic area. Page — 3 3. The Lodi. Avenue district is an activity corridor devoted to strip commercial or auto- tnotive uses. This area is organized for convenient automobile access, and is the home of the original A&W Root beer fast food restaurant. While some of the stores along this corridor are the major sales tax generators for the I)owntown Lodi Area, the overall impression is one of an aging strip commercial corridor with a high con- centration of obsolete, underutilized and vacant buildings. 4. The Stockton Street corridor east of the railroad tracks can be characterized as an urban slum. This area has a concentration of bars, cheap hotels and vacant build- ings along Main Street. fine Street is dominated by a rrdx of low-end commercial outlets, a converted motel, and other uses. This area is largely isolated from the re- mainder of the Downtown area by the railroad tracks and closed packing house uses. Retail Sales Trends Retail sales tax trends are a good indicator of the health of the local retail commercial community, not only in absolute trends but also in comparative terms. The Downtown's share of City-wide sales tax receipts has declined by over 8%in the past ten years. In con- stant, inflation-adjusted dollars, Downtown's retail sales have increased by 14.2% over the past ten years, while retails sales outside the Downtown area increased 70% faster at 25,1% over the same ten year period. At present, retail sales per outlet in the Downtown area are less than half that of stores located outside Downtown. Downtown sales in FY2006/07 have averaged $2,115per outlet, while sales elsewhere in the City averaged $4,865per outlet. city -Wide Inside Downtown Area Outside 0.1,101010n Area ctty•Wlde Inside Downtown Alga Outside Downtown Area Downtown Area and C9yWide 9a s Tu Comparison (0009 52007) FYOSW I FY06MDd FY03104 I FY020 I FYOi1C12 I FY00 I I FY9W00 I FY95M I FY971M Saba Tax Receipts (30001 Aausted to 2007 Vrauesl 5ource: GRC Consultants, Jury 2007 based an Sales tax ds9a prmAtlW by Mdt, Inc July 2007. Along School Street, the strongest retail sales performance appears to be in furniture and appliances, followed by dining and entertainment. Non Retail Trends Data regarding non -retail activities, such as offices and professional services, is not avail- able at this time. However, there did not appear to be much in the way of office use in the Downtown area. In older downtown corridors such as along School Street and Church Street, offices tend to concentrate on the second story. From the street, however, most of Page — 4 the second stories were used either as schools (e.g., ballet or martial arts) or as low-end ho- tels. Many second story accesses appeared to be blocked, and City staff indicated that many of the buildings appear not to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) require- ments. This makes rehabilitation very expensive, and probably forces potential office uses to locate elsewhere. There also are a number of vacant lots or under-utilized railroad -oriented buildings along the east side of the railroad tracks. This blocks the eastern portion of Downtown from the west. There is no evidence of significant "base employment" in the Downtown area, The major non -retail employers appear to be public uses and banks. There is little else to sup- ply customers on a daily basis. Other uses rely mainly on evening and weekend traffic; with the exception of the Lodi Cinema 12 area, Downtown was not heavily trafficked through mid afternoon. Physical Conditions The physical conditions analysis is based on observations during the July 13, 2007, field visit by GRC , and through an analysis of a physical conditions survey conducted by City staff in early July. The July 13, 2007, survey was qualitative in nature, while the earlier staff survey was quantitative in nature. In summary, the staff survey found that of the 385 addresses surveyed, 20% were either dilapidated or showed extensive physical or structural deficiencies. Another 25% had some deficiencies present, but the building condition was generally good with some site issues. Finally, 55% had either very few or no building deficiencies. Note that the deficiency rate in the Downtown Survey Area was somewhat higher than experienced in other downtown areas. A high vacancy rate can contribute to an impression that an area is economically stagnant or declining. Overall, the Downtown area has an overall ground floor vacancy rate of ap- proximately 16%, which is significantly higher than the maximum 10%considered the norm for commercial areas. Second and third story vacancies are not available. Ground floor vacancies west of the railroad appear to be concentrated along Sacramento Street, while the ground floor vacancy rate along School Street is just under 10%. The qualitative survey yielded the following major observations: 1. School Street has been significantly rehabilitated in the public right-of-way, and provides a very pleasant pedestrian experience. Likewise, a number of older build- ings have had significant fagade upgrades in the recent past. These improvements, however, do not extend around to the back of the buildings and the area's alleyways have not been improved. In a number of cases the backs of the buildings appear abandoned. Page — 5 2. Like many other late 191h to early 201h Century small town business streets, School Street has second and third stories that at one time was devoted mostly to offices and residences. This is gone now, and most of the second story appears vacant or under-utilized. 3. Once one leaves School Street to the east, the Downtown area begins to show signifi- cant decay and abandonment typical of struggling or dying downtowns. For in- stance, there are many vacant storefronts along Sacramento Street along its entire length in the Downtown area. The environment along Sacramento Street is not in- viting to the visitor, and there appears to be little spill-over demand from. School Street. The vacant store fronts in the new parking structure at the northeast corner of Pine Street and Sacramento Street are an example of this lack of effective demand for commercial space in the Downtown area. 4. Alleyway and back of building access is poor, and is probably only usable for loading. This gives the alleyways an abandoned feel, with no foot traffic and very little ve- hicular traffic. Investment Trends While building investment data are not available at this time for the Downtown area, field observations and staff interviews yield the following conclusions: 1. A large portion of investment in Downtown has been in the public right-of-way, es- pecially along School Street. 2. Much recent building construction has been through direct public investment. This is especially the case with the multi -modal station and the new parking struc- turelcommercial center along Sacramento Street. 3, The City of Lodi has also contributed to private fagade improvements, and has sup- ported new businesses, including the Cellar Door wine tasting room and the new Smart and Final store on Lodi Avenue. 4. With the exception of School Street and the Civic Center area, the general trend has been towards disinvestment, with almost no evidence of private commercial invest- ment being present. Rather, most buildings east of School Street obviously receive little by way of on-going maintenance or significant rehabilitation. Conclusions 1. While the School Street area shows significant signs of resurgence as a regional wine -oriented commercial node, the economic future of the area is not well estab- lished, and could be reversed by the loss of local shoppers using community -serving Page — 6 commercial establishments. These establishments include a concentration of furni- ture and appliance outlets on School Street and Pine Street, the entertainment ac- tivity area at School Street and Elm Street. At the same time, lack of interest in the Sncramcnto Street corridor indicates that there is not now sufficient commercial space demand to migrate off of School Street. 2. At present there is an over abundance of commercial and industrial land in central Lodi, both in the Downtown area and along Lodi Avenue. This excess supply of land means that non-competitive parcels and buildings remain vacant for long periods. 3. There does not seem to be much local demand for shopping or other uses in the Downtown Area. Besides the civic uses west of Church, there doesn't appear to be much employment in the area with disposable income — there is no significant lunch trade apparent. This was evidenced by the lack of foot traffic in Downtown during the lunch hour and virtually empty restaurants throughout the area. 4. The City may wish to develop strategies to increase demand in the Downtown area. These strategies could include increasing the housing supply through a combination of new construction, conversion of vacant or underutilized buildings, and re -use of the upper stories. Employment strategies could be aimed at attracting large office employment or other public agencies into the Downtown area. S. Attracting mass or large-scale retailers into the Downtown area also could support and enhance economic activity. These kinds of retailers could attract foot traffic into the Downtown area if located appropriately. Public support would likely be neces- sary in assembling adequate sites for such uses or in reducing development costs. Page — 7 Attachment c Climate Change Analysis Report Lodi Shopping Center City of Lodi, California Prepared for: Doucet & Associates, Inc 3009 Douglas Blvd., Suite 175 Roseville, CA 95661 Contact: Ron Clundt Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 909.884.2255 Contact: Cori Wilson, Air Quality Specialist November 24,2008 City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 - Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 - Project Description............................................................................................. 2 Section2: Climate Change................................................................................................. 5 2.1 - Greenhouse Gases............................................................................................ 5 2.2 - Regulatory Environment.................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 - International and Federal.................................................................... 9 2.2.2 - California........................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 - Local and Regional........................................................................... 15 2.3 - Emissions Trading and Carbon Offset Programs ............................................. 16 2.3.1 - Emissions Trading Programs............................................................ 16 2.3.2 - Carbon Offset Programs................................................................... 18 Section 3: Thresholds of Significance............................................................................. 21 Section4: Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 23 4.1 - Project -Level Analysis..................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 - Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................ 23 4.1.2 - Inventory of Greenhouse Gases - Construction ................................. 23 4.1.3 - Inventory of Greenhouse Gases - Operation ..................................... 25 4.1.4 - Inventory of Possible Demolition of Existing Wal-Mart ....................... 28 4.1.5 - Mitigation Measures in Other Impact Areas ....................................... 29 4.1.6 - Project Design Features that Reduce Operational Emissions ............ 30 4.1.7 - Existing Conditions of Approval that Reduce Emissions .................... 33 4.1.8 - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Options ................................................. 34 4.1.9 - Inventoryafter Reductions................................................................ 43 4.2 - Cumulative -Level Analysis............................................................................... 44 Section5: References....................................................................................................... 47 Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emission Spreadsheets and URBEMIS 2007 Model Output Appendix B: Existing Wal-Mart Demolition URBEMIS Output Appendix C: Additional Project Design Features Appendix D: Resume Michael Brandman Associates H: Client 3555'3;;;0001 Climate Chunec Report -I 1-24.doe City of Lodi _ Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report LIST OF TABLES Table of Contents Table 1: Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................. 7 Table 2: Construction Exhaust Carbon Dioxide Emissions .................................................. 24 Table 3: Construction Exhaust Black Carbon Emissions..................................................... 24 Table 4: Total Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................... 25 Table 5: Trip Generation and Pass -by Trips........................................................................ 26 Table 6: Trip Length Estimation........................................................................................... 26 Table 7: Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................... 28 Table 8: Existing Wal-Mart Demolition Emissions................................................................ 29 Table 9: Office of Planning and Research Example Mitigation Measures ............................ 34 Table 10: Consistency with Proposed Scoping Plan Reduction Measures .......................... 38 Table 11: Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (After Reductions) .................... 44 Michael Brandman Associates ill Ii: Client 3555 3555NOI Climate Change Keport-11-24.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Chanae Analvsis Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill ARB California Air Resources Control Board CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CAT Climate Action Team (Report) CCX Chicago Climate Exchange CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbons CHa Methane CO, Carbon Dioxide EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency EU ETS European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbons HFC Hydrofluorocarbons IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MTCO,e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MMTCO,e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NO, Nitrogen Oxides N -,O Nitrous Oxide OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research PFC perfluorocarbons ppm parts per million ppt parts per trillion RGCI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative SB Senate Bill SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District U.S. United States VOC Volatile Organic Compound Wm -2 Watts per square meter Acronvms and Abbreviations Michael Brandman Associates iv H_' Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Report-] 1-24 doe City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Chanae Analvsis Report Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 - Executive Summary This document assesses the impact of the Lodi Shopping Center (project) on climate change. The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 338,235 square feet of commercial retail uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 12 buildings of varying sizes. The primary user will be Wal-Mart, which will occupy approximately 226,868 square feet of floor area. The environmental impacts from the proposed project were initially assessed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated August 2004. On December 19,2005, the Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County, Stockton Branch, ordered that the EIR for the Lodi Shopping Center project be revised to include discussions of cumulative urban decay and energy impacts. In all other aspects, the Court found the EIR to be legally sufficient under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A document titled, Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (2007 EIR Revisions) was prepared in 2007, which includes the components requested by the court as well as the statement of project objectives, and a discussion of agricultural resources and project alternatives. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggcr signed AB 32, which charged the California Air Resources Board (ARB) with developing regulations on how the State would address climate change (also known as "global warming"). The ARB, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or other appropriate governmental organizations have not developed guidelines on how to prepare a CEQA assessment for climate change. In the absence of adopted CEQA thresholds, this analysis reflects a good faith effort to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project with regard to its contribution to greenhouse gases. Construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 874 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO.,e). After project buildout, operation of the proposed project would result in greenhouse gas emissions equal to 15,017 MTCO,e per year. With reductions included in other impact areas of the EIR and project design features, operational emissions would be 13,616 MTCO,e per year. Possible demolition of the existing Wal-Mart across the street from the proposed project would result in 40 MTCO,e. The greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation of the project would result in a less than significant impact to climate change. The project would not hinder or delay California's implementation of AB 32. Although the mitigation measures contained in other impact areas of the EIR (Air Quality and Traffic/Circulation) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the project, through its objectives and project design features, results in a less than significant impact. Michael Brandman Associates He Client 3i5i 39550001 Climate Change Repan -I I-24.doc City of Lodi, Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Introduction Concerning a cumulative -level analysis, the potential impact from the project on climate change is speculative. There is no cumulative list of projects for climate change, nor is there an approved greenhouse gas reduction plan for the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County. Additionally, no climate change models are available to measure the project's incremental contribution to cumulative climate change. While climate change is a global issue and each contribution of greenhouse gases may have a cumulative effect, there is no established methodology available to determine either the magnitude or the significance of the effect of an individual project on this global issue. As a result, the conclusions reached by any attempt to do so would be speculative. Section 15145 of the CEQA guidelines indicates that if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. Therefore, no impact conclusion can be reached and no further analysis is necessary. This report and analysis was commissioned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Browman Development Corporation to address questions and comments received by the City of Lodi Planning Commission regarding the project's potential impacts on climate change. The analysis prepared concludes that the project would not have a significant direct impact on climate change. It also concludes that any potential cumulative effects are speculative. These conclusions were reached in part because of the energy -efficiency measures incorporated into the proposed Wal-Mart store's design and operations. While this report is consistent with CEQA requirements, it is in no way intended to amend the Revised EIR prepared for the project. It is a stand-alone technical report and analysis. It is intended to provide the City of Lodi with information about the project's potential greenhouse gas emissions. While the report may be used by City Council members to evaluate the project's impact on climate change, it is not intended to amend the Revised EIR. 1.2 - Project Description Project Location The proposed Lodi Shopping Center (project) consists of 40 acres located at the southwest corner of West Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 and Lower Sacramento Road in west Lodi. The site includes approximately 36 acres for shopping center development, plus approximately four acres adjacent and southwest of the shipping center site for construction of a stormwater detention basin. The site was used previously in agricultural cultivation for row crops and is currently fallow. There are no structures on the project site with the exception of two agricultural wells. Project Description The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 338,235 square feet of commercial retail uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 12 buildings of varying sizes. The primary user will be Wal-Mart which will occupy approximately 226,868 square feet of floor area, including approximately 70,000 square feet for grocery sales, 19,889 square feet for a garden center (including outdoor fenced area), and 6,437 square feet for an auto service shop. Michael Brandman Associates I -I: C lient 3555'•35550001 Climate Change Repon-I 124.doc City of Lodi' Lodi Shopping Center Climate Chanae Analvsis Report Introduction The remaining I I buildings (1 11.367 square feet) would range in size and would consist of fast food franchises, sit-down restaurants, and retail uses such as a pharmacy, financial services/bank, profess] onal/bus1ness services. There is an existing Wal-Mart facility across the street from the project site that will relocate to the proposed project if the project is approved. A search for another tenant for the vacant building will be conducted. The 2007 EIR Revisions included a condition of approval for the project regarding the existing Wal-Mart building. Essentially, the existing Wal-Mart building will be demolished if a tenant is not found within 90 days after opening of the new Wal-Mart building. Condition of Approval "R" states as follows: R. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter, the applicant shall ensure one of the following with respect to the existing Wal-Mart building located at 2350 West Kcttleman Lane ("Building"): a) The owner of the Building shall have entered into signed lease(s) with bona -fide tenant(s) for at least 50 percent of the Building square footage (not including the fenced, outdoor garden center). The signed lease(s) required hereunder shall include a lease(s) with a bona -fide retailer(s) or restaurant for a minimum of two thirds of the Building frontage (not including the fenced, outdoor garden center); or b) The owner of the Building shall have entered into a fully executed purchase agreement for the Building with a bona -fide retailer; or c) The Applicant shall present to the City a cash escrow account, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which account shall be for the purpose of securing applicant's obligation to demolish the Building not later than 90 days after the opening to the general public of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter (the "Opening Date"). The amount of the deposit shall be equal to the City estimated reasonable costs to demolish the Building (based on a licensed contractor estimate) plus $100,000. The escrow account shall be paid to City in the event that Option (a), (b) or (c) is not satisfied within 90 days of the Opening Date. If Option (a), (b) or (c) is satisfied within 90 days after the Opening Date, the cash in the escrow account shall be refunded in full to the Applicant. If the Applicant does not satisfy this condition under Option (a), (b) or (c) within 90 days after the Opening Date, the City shall use the funds to demolish the Building with any balance reverting to the City as compensation for its expense and inconvenience incurred to demolish the Building. The owner of the Building shall present evidence that any lender on the Building consents to the demolition in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. This condition shall be recorded against the property as a deed restriction, which runs with the land. Applicant and Wal-Mart agree to enter into any agreements that are necessary in order to implement this Condition. Michael Brandman Associates H- Clicm 3555 3ii50001 Chmate Change Report -I 1-24.doc City of Lodi • Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project, as stated by the applicant, are as follows: Introduction . To expand the existing Wal-Mart to a Wal-Mart Supercenter with more retail space and the addition of grocery sales; . To develop the proposed project site with a regional shopping ccntcr in conformance with the City of Lodi General Plan and zoning regulations; To provide a retail development which meets the current unmet demand of consumers residing within the City of Lodi and demand from planned future residential development in the City; and e To provide a commercial center that serves both the local and regional market area to attract customers and new retailers into the City of Lodi. The objectives of the City of Lodi that would be served by the project include the following: . To prove a commercial development that results in a net fiscal benefit to the City of Lodi by providing new sales tax revenue and increasing property tax revenues; . To help reverse leakage of retail spending from Lodi to outlying retail centers; . To provide a commercial center on a large, undeveloped lot in close proximity to an existing highway, other commercial centers, and existing and planned residential areas to minimize travel lengths and utilize existing infrastructure to the extent possible; . To provide a commercial development that can be adequately served by public services and utilities; o To provide large scale retail activities that will add opportunities for an compliment existing smaller scale retail activities located throughout the City of Lodi; . To provide commercial development that creates new jobs for City residents; and o To provide commercial development, which does not negatively affect Downtown and the past and ongoing investment in Downtown. (LODI 2007) Michael Brandman Associates FI Client 3555355;0001 Clinule Change Report -1 !-24.doc City of Lodi, Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change SECTION 2: CLIMATE CHANGE Briefly stated, climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that may be measured by changes in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records frotn the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of greenhouse gases needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The IPCC predicted that global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2 100, given six scenarios, could range from I. t degrees Centigrade ("C) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC 2007). In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following: A reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the Sierra snow pack; o Increased risk of large wildfires; Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products; o Exacerbation of air quality problems; o A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences; Damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment; o An increase in infections, disease, asthma, and other health-related problems; and . A decrease in the health and productivity of California's forests (CCCC 2006). 2.1 - Greenhouse Gases Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gas. The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. Without the natural heat -trapping effect of greenhouse gas, the earth's surface would be about 34°C cooler (CAT 2006). However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. Climate change is driven by forcings and feedbacks. Radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming energy and outgoing energy in the climate system. Positive forcing tends to warm the Michael Brandman Associates H: ('Iient�.355513555(X)01 Climate Change Report -11-24 doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. Radiative forcing values are typically expressed in watts per square meter (Win '). A feedback is "an internal climate process that amplifies or dampens the climate response to a specific forcing" (NRC 2005). The global warming potential (GWP) is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the "cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas" (EPA 2006a). The GWP of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative forcing of a greenhouse gas as compared with the reference gas, carbon dioxide. The greenhouse gases, health effects, and sources are summarized in Table 1. Individual greenhouse gas compounds have varying GWP and atmospheric lifetimes. The reference gas for the GWP is carbon dioxide; carbon dioxide has a GWP of one. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing greenhouse gas emissions since it normalizes various greenhouse gas emissions to a consistent metric. Methane's warming potential of 21 indicates that methane has a 21 times greater warming affect than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis. A carbon dioxide equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual greenhouse gas multiplied by its GWP. In 2004, total worldwide greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 20,135 MMTCO,e, excluding emissions/removals from land use, land use change, and forestry (UNFCCC 2006). (Note that sinks, or removal processes of greenhouse gas, plays an important role in the greenhouse gas inventory as forest and other land uses absorb carbon.) In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. were 7,074.4 MMTCO,e (EPA 2006a). In 2005, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 7,260.4 MMTCO,e, a 16.3 percent increase from 1990emissions, while U.S. gross domestic product has increased by 55 percent over the same period (EPA 2007a). Emissions rose from 2004 to 2005, increasing by 0.8 percent. The main causes of the increase is believed to be: (1) strong economic growth in 2005, leading to increased demand for electricity, and (2) an increase in the demand for electricity due to warmer summer conditions (EPA 2007a). However, a decrease in demand for fuels due to warmer winter conditions and higher fuel prices moderated the increase in emissions (EPA 2007a). California is the second largest contributor in the U.S. of greenhouse gases and the sixteenth largest in the world (CEC 2006). In 2004, California produced 500 MMTCO,-e (CEC2007), including imported electricity and excluding combustion of international fuels and carbon sinks or storage, which is approximnately 7 percent of U.S. emissions. The major source of greenhouse gases in California is transportation, contributing 41 percent of the State's total greenhouse gas emissions (CEC 2006). Electricity generation is the second largest source, contributing 22 percent of the State's greenhouse gas emissions (CEC 2006). Michael Brandman Associates H: Client 3555 35550001 Climme Change Report -1 1- 4.doe City of Lodi • Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change Aerosols Methane (CH.,) Nitrous oxide (N,O ) Description and Physical Properties Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, it maintains the climate necessary for life. Ozone is a short-lived local greenhouse gas and photochemical pollutant. Tropospheric ozone changes contribute to radiative forcing on a global scale. GWPs for short-lived greenhouse gases, such as ozone and aerosols, are not defined by the IPCC. Aerosols are particulate matter suspended in the air. They are short-lived and remain in the atmosphere for about a week. Aerosols warm the atmosphere by absorbing heat and cool the atmosphere by reflecting light, with radiative forcing (RF) cooling effects of -1.2 W m There is a low scientific understanding of the RF of individual aerosols, such as black carbon. Black carbon can cause warming from deposition on snow (+0.1 W m-`) and from suspensions in air (+0.2 W in- 2). Reddy and Boucher (2007) identified a GWP of761 for black carbon. Global cooling potentials for other aerosols in a metric similar to the GWP are not available. Methane is a flarrunable gas and is the main component of natural gas. GWP =21. Nitrous oxide is also known as laughing gas and is a colorless greenhouse gas. GWP = 310. Michael Brandman Associates W Chem 3555,3555M01 Clinwte Change. Report -1 .4 due Table 1: Greenhouse Gases Health Effects a There are no adverse health effects from water vapor. Some pollutants dissolve in it, which can enter the human body through the water vapor. Respiratory system irritation, reduction of lung capacity, asthina aggravation, inflammation of and damage to lung cells, aggravated cardiovascular disease, and/or permanent lung damage. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems such as forests and agricultural crops. Particulate matter can be inhaled directly into the lungs where it can be absorbed into the bloodstream. It is a respiratory irritant aiid can cause coughing, bronchitis, lung disease, respiratory illnesses, increased airway reactivity, and exacerbation of asthma. Particulate matter may have direct effects on the health, capacity, and productivity of the heart. Recent mortality studies have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality and daily concentrations of particulatz matter in the air. Non -health adverse effects include reduced visibility and soiling of property. There are no ill health effects from methane. Methane is violently reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and some halogen -containing compounds. Methane is an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space. Higher concentrations can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes -mild hallucinations. Sources Sources include evaporation from the ocean and other water bodies, sublimation of ice and snow, and transpiration from plants. Ozone is formed from reactions of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides [NO,] and volatile organic compounds [VOC]) and sunlight in the atmosphere. VOC and NO, are emitted from automobiles, solvents, and fuel combustion. Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel containing sulfur is burned. Black carbon (or soot) is emitted during biomass burning and incomplete combustion of fossil fuels (such as diesel fuel). A natural source of methane is from the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Methane is extracted from geological deposits (natural gas fields). Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle. Microbial processes in soil and water, fuel combustion, and industrial processes. City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change Greenhouse Gas Carbon dioxide (CO2) Chloro- fluorocarbons (CFCs) Table 1: Greenhouse Gases (Cont.) Description and Physical Properties Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless, natural greenhouse gas. GWP = l CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth's surfbce). GWPs range from 3,800 to 8,100. Hydro - The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric fluorocarbons concentrations are HFC -23 and HFC -134a (10 ppt) (HFCs) and HFC -152a(1 ppt). GWPs: HFC -23 = 11,700, HFC -134a = 1,300, HFC- I52a = 140. Per- PFCs have stable molecular structures and only fluorocarbons break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers (PFCs) above Earth's surface. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. GWPs range from 6,500 to 9,200. Sulfur Sulfur hexafluoride is an inorganic, odorless, hexafluoride colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. Concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. It has the highest GWP of any gas evaluated, 23,900. Health Effects i Outdoor lecels of carbon dioxide are not high enough to result in negative health effects. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reference exposure levels of 5,000 ppm (averaged over 10 hours in a 40 -hour workweek) and 30,000 ppm (averaged over 15 minutes), where health problems could include: headache; dizziness; skin tingling; breathing difficulty; increased heart rate, cardiac output, or blood pressure; coma; asphyxia; and/or convulsions. CFCs are no longer being used; therefore, it is not likely that adverse health effects would be experienced. Nonetheless, in confined indoor locations, working with CFCs is thought to result in death by cardiac arrhythmia (heart frequency too high or too low) or asphyxiation. Most HFCs do not have health effects associated with them. However, HFC -I 34a has a chronic inhalation exposure of 80 mg/m3; the critical effect is Leydig cell hyperplasia. High concentrations of CF4 may cause confusion, headache, and effects on the cardiovascular system, resulting in cardiac disorders. Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are 70 ppt, which are too low to cause health effects. High concentrations in confined areas can present a hazard of suffocation because it displaces the oxygen needed for breathing. Sources Carbon dioxide is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter: respiration of bacteria, plants, animals. and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The concentration in 2005 was 379 ppm, which is an increase of about 1.4 ppm per year since 1960. CFCs were first synthesized to 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer stopped their production in 1987. HFCs are synthetic manmade chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs in applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. Two main sources of PFCs arc primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. It is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. ppm — parts per million; ppt = parts per trillion (measure of concentration in the atmosphere);GWP = global warming potential Complied from a variety ofsources, including: GPA 1995,EPA 2003, EPA 20036, EPA 2006b, iPCC 2007„ NIOSH 1989, NIOSH 1997,N10SH 2005, OSHA 2003 Michael Brandman Associates H: Clicttt 3555 31551Jool Climate Change Report -1 4-224.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change 2.2 - Reaulatory Environment 2.2.1 - International and Federal International and federal agreements have been enacted to deal with global climate change issues. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human -induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation" (IPCC 2004). On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the Convention, governments do the following: gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change (UNFCCC 2007). A particularly notable result of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change efforts is a treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect on February 16,2005. When countries sign the treaty, they demonstrate their commitment to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases or engage in emissions trading. More than 170 countries are currently participating in the Protocol. Industrialized countries are required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of five percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. The reduction targets established in the Kyoto Protocol can be met by reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions, or by utilizing three mechanisms allowed under the Kyoto Protocol: Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean Development Mechanism. Joint Implementation is a tnechanism for transfer of emissions permits from one Annex B country to another. The Clean Development Mechanism allows project -based emission reduction activities in developing countries. Certificates are generated through this system from projects that lead to certifiable emissions reductions that would otherwise not occur, In 1998, United States Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the Protocol; however, in order for the Protocol to be formally ratified, the United States Congress must approve it. Congress did not do this during the Clinton Administration. In October 1993, President Clinton announced his Climate Change Action Plan, which had a goal to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This was to be accomplished through 50 initiatives that relied on innovative voluntary partnerships between the private sector and government aimed at producing cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Michael Brandman Associates 11: C licnt',3s5i 3? 50001 Climate Change Report -1 1--24.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Chanae Analvsis Report Climate Chanae The U.S. EPA currently does not regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 3006, in which it was petitioned that EPA regulate four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court held that petitioners have a standing to challenge the EPA and that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles. President Bush attended the Group of Eight (G8) 2008 Summit, which is an annual meeting attended by the leaders of eight countries, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the President of the European Commission. The summit resolved with a broad pledge to work toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050. However, five developing nations at the meeting - China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa - issued their own statement rejecting this pledge. G-8 Leaders agreed that actions by all major economies are essential for tackling climate change while also doing the following (WH 2008): • Looking forward to and endorsing the positive contribution of the Major Economies Leaders Meeting to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process; • Seeking to share with all parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change the vision of moving to a low -carbon society, and together consider and adopt the goal of achieving at least a 50 percent reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing the need for contributions by all major economies; • Recognizing that an effective post -2012 climate change regime will require all major economies, developed and developing, to commit to meaningful mitigation actions bound in a new international agreement; • Wcleoming the establishment of the Clean Technology Fund proposed by President Bush in September 2007, towards which the United States is pledging $2 billion over three years; • Committing to increasing investment in clean energy technology research and development, with G-8 members who have so far pledged over $10 billion annually in direct government - funded research and development; • Calling for enhanced efforts in the WTO Doha Round to eliminate tariff and non -tariff barriers to environmental goods and services with a view to significantly expanding dissemination of clean technology and services; and • Agreeing to maximize implementation in each country of the International Energy Agency 25 recommendations on energy efficiency and supporting the new International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation. Michael Brandman Associates 10 H. C vnt 3i?5 35550001 Climatc. Chance Report -1 1--24.doc City of Lodi, Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change 2.2.2 - California There has been significant legislative and regulatory activity regarding climate change and greenhouse gases in California, as discussed below. Title 24. Although it was not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gases, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. The latest amendments were made in October 2005 and currently require new homes to use half the energy they used only a decade ago. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions. AB 1493. California Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley), enacted on July 22, 2002, required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations adopted by the ARB would apply to 2009 and later model year vehicles, The ARB estimates that the regulation would reduce climate change emissions from the light-duty passenger vehicle fleet by an estimated 18 percent in 2020 and by 27 percent in 2030 (ARB 2004). However, the regulation has been stalled by automaker lawsuits and by the U S . EPA's refusal to grant California an implementation waiver. California is suing the federal government over the unprecedented failure to grant the waiver. Therefore, AB 1493 is not currently in effect. Executive Order S-3-05. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1,2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions: • By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels (CA 2005). To meet these targets, the Governor directed the Secretary of the California EPA to lead a Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of representatives from the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; the Department of Food and Agriculture; the Resources Agency; the Air Resources Board; the Energy Commission; and the Public Utilities Commission. The CAT's Report to the Governor in 2006 contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order S-3-05 are met (CAT 2006). The Governor signed Executive Order S-01-07 on January 18,2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. It also requires that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels be established for California. Michael Brandman Associates 11 H: Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Report-) 1-1_4 doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate SB 1368. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368), which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for greenhouse gas emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Due to the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants, Accordingly, the new law will effectively prevent California's utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State, Thus, SB 1368 will lead to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with California's energy demand, as SB 1368 will effectively prohibit California utilities from purchasing power from out of state producers that cannot satisfy the performance standard for greenhouse gas emissions required by SB 1368. SB 97 was passed in August 2007 and added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states "(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a)." Section 21097 was also added to the Public Resources Code. It indicates that the failure adequately analyzing the effects of greenhouse gases in a document related to the environmental review of a transportation project funded under the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 does not create a cause of action for a violation. However, SB 97 does not safeguard non -transportation funded projects from court challenges for omitting a climate change analysis. AB 32. In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California. Greenhouse gases, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. ARB is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The ARB Board approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO,e) on December 6, 2007. Therefore, in 2020, emissions in California are required to be at or below 427 MMTCO,e. Michael Brandman Associates 12 I -Ic Chem- -35;; 35550001 Climate Change Report -I 1-_14.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change Under the current "business as usual" scenario, statewide emissions are increasing at a rate of approximately I percent per year as noted below. Also shown are the average reductions needed from all statewide sources (including all existing sources) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels. • 1990: 427 MMTCO,c . 2004: 480 MMTCO,c (an average 11% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) 2008: 495 MMTCO,e (an average 14% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2020: 600 MMTCO,e "Business As Usual" (an average 29% reduction needed to achieve I990 base) Under AB 32, the ARB published its Final Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California (ARB 2007). Discrete early action measures are currently underway or are enforceable by January 1, 2010. Early action measures are regulatory or non -regulatory and are currently in progress or to be initiated by the ARB in the 2007 to 2012 timeframe. The ARB has 44 early action measures that apply to the transportation, commercial, forestry, agriculture, cement, oil and gas, fire suppression, fuels, education, energy efficiency, electricity, and waste sectors. Of those early action measures, nine are considered discrete early action measures, as they are regulatory and enforceable by January 1, 2010. The ARB estimates that the 44 recommendations are expected to result in reductions of at least 42 MMTCO,e by 2020, representing approximately 25 percent of the 2020 target. CEQA is only mentioned once in the Early Action Measures report. The California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association suggested that ARB work with local air districts on approaches to review greenhouse gas impacts under the CEQA process, including significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for projects and to develop a process for capturing reductions that result from CEQA mitigations. ARB's response to this recommendation in the report is as follows: "the Governor's Office of Planning and Research is charged with providing statewide guidance on CEQA implementation. With respect to quantifying any reductions that result from project level mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, we would like to see air districts take a lead role in tracking such reductions in their regions" (ARB 2007). The ARB released a Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in October 2008. The Plan "proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health" (ARB 2008). The Plan will be presented to the ARB Board for approval at its meeting in December 2008. The measures in the Scoping Plan approved by the ARB Board will be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012. SB 375 passed the Senate on August 30, 2008 and was signed by the Governor on September 30,2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and contributes over 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Michael Brandman Associates 13 If: Chcnt%3i55'.35i51H)01 Chmatc CImme Report -I I--24.duc City of Lodi, Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change California and automobiles and light trucks alone contribute almost 30 percent. SB 375 indicates that greenhouse gases from automobiles and light trucks can be reduced by new vehicle technology but significant reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation are necessary. SB 375 states, "Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32". SB 375 does the following: l) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and 3) creates specitied incentives for the implementation of the strategies. Concerning CEQA, SB 375, section 21159.28 states the following: (a) If a residential or mixed-use residential project is consistent with the use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board pursuant to subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2)of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code has accepted the metropolitan planning organization's determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. If the project incorporates the mitigation measures required by an applicable prior environmental document, then any findings or other determinations for an exemption, a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, a sustainable communities environmental assessment, an environmental impact report, or addenda prepared or adopted for the project pursuant to this division shall not be required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts; or (2)any project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network. (b) Any environmental impact report prepared for a project described in subdivision (a) shall not be required to reference, describe, or discuss a reduced residential density alternative to address the effects of car and light-duty truck trips generated by the project. (c) "Regional transportation network", for purposes of this section, means all existing and proposed transportation system improvements, including the State transportation system, that were included in the transportation and air quality conformity modeling, including congestion modeling, for the final regional transportation plan adopted by the metropolitan planning organization, but shall not include local streets and roads. Nothing in the foregoing relieves any project from a requirement to comply with any conditions, exactions, or fees for the mitigation of the project's impacts on the structure, safety, or operations of the regional transportation network or local streets and roads. (d) A residential or mixed-use residential project is a project where at least 75 percent of the total building square footage of the project consists of residential use or a project that is a transit priority project as detined in Section 21155. Michael Brandman Associates 14 H- Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Repon-1 1-24.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change 2.2.3 - Local and Regional San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The project is in the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). In August 2008, the SJVACPD's Governing Board adopted the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP 2008a). The CCAP directed the Air Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance documents to assist land—use and other permitting agencies in addressing greenhouse gas emissions as part of the CEQA process. As well as to investigate the development o fa greenhouse gas banking program, enhance the existing emissions inventory process to include greenhouse gas emissions reporting consistent with new State requirements, and administer voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction agreements. These items would then be brought before the SJVAPCD Governing Board for their consideration. The SJVAPCD prepared a staff report dated November 2008 (CCAP 2008b). The intent of the staff report is to provide a starting point for developing the items called for in the CCAP approved in August 2008. The staff report provides a summary of background information on climate change, the current regulatory environment surrounding greenhouse gas emissions, and the various concepts in addressing the potential impacts of climate change. This staff report evaluates methodologies for estimating impacts, and summarizes mitigation measures. The staff report indicates that there are many potentially valid approaches and therefore no specific approach is being recommended at this time. Instead, the staff report presents several alternative methodologies for addressing greenhouse gas impacts that are being developed and vetted by other agencies. The methodologies that it discusses are from the ARB, California Office of Planning and Research, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD). Some of these methodologies are discussed in Section 3 below, Thresholds of Significance. The SJVAPCD does not identify any thresholds at this time. City of Lodi Resolution 2006-205 Resolution 2006-205, A Resolution of the Lodi City Council Endorsing the California Municipal Utilities Association's Principles Addressing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals, was adopted on November 15, 2006 (LODI 2006). The City Council endorses the California Municipal Utilities Association's (CMUA)principles addressing reduction goals for greenhouse gas. Some of the measures include the following: • develop a greenhouse gas reduction plan; • invest in energy efficiency then pursue renewable energy supplies and other non -greenhouse gas emitting energy sources; • support mandatory greenhouse gas reporting; Michael Brandman Associates 15 FL Client 3555 355%(K)l Chntnte Change Report -1 1-214.doc City of Lodi, Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change e provide measurement and verification of programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and . provide education to customers on ways they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide assistance where feasible. The Electric Utility Department staff believes that the adoption of the principals will send a positive message and assist in legislative advocates in future discussions surrounding climate change regulation and legislation. General Plan The current City of Lodi General Plan is dated 1991. The 2004 EIR presents General Plan goals and policies that are relevant to air quality on pages 116 through 1 17. Pages 75 through 77 2007 EIR Revisions also outlines the measures that would promote efficient energy use and energy conservation. Development Code Page 77 of the 2007 EIR Revisions indicates that the City's Draft Development Code specifies the use of efficient irrigation systems and drought -tolerant landscaping, which would reduce energy use in water pumping. 2.3 - Emissions Trading and Carbon Offset Programs Current and future emissions trading programs as well as carbon -offset programs are discussed below. 2.3.1 - Emissions Trading Programs An emissions trading (or cap and trade) program is an approach for controlling emissions by providing economic incentives for reducing emissions. Typically, a limit (or cap) is placed on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that can be emitted per year. The source emitters are then issued permits by the governing authority for a certain allowance of emissions. Source emitters can reduce their own emissions and sell the excess or they can continue to emit high levels and purchase credits from another facility (a trade). There are several uncertainties regarding trading programs. Allowances need to be set at proper levels when a cap and trade program is initialized. Another uncertainty is deciding who is regulated (i.e., power plants, transportation sector, etc.). Existing Carbon Trading Program The European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is one of three mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions in the European Union. The other two mechanisms are called Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. The EU ETS is examined herein to provide background information on how a trading system in California or the United States may work or end up over time. Note that the EU ETS does not apply to or reduce emissions generated in the United States. Michael Brandman Associates 16 H: Ehont 3555 355.10001 Clfmatc Change Report -I I-224.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change The EU ETS commenced operation in 2005 as the largest multi -country, multi -sector greenhouse gas emission -trading program worldwide. The mandatory trading system covers over 11,500 facilities in Europe (EUETS 2007). The EU ETS covers half of the European Union's emissions of carbon dioxide and 40 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions. The National Allocation Plans determine the total quantity of carbon dioxide emissions that Member States grant to their companies, which can then be sold or bought by the companies themselves. This means each Member State must decide how many allowances to allocate in total for a trading period and how those allowances will be distributed. The first trading period runs from 2005-2007, the second one from 2008-2012, and the third one will start in 2013 (EUETS 2007). The first trading period covered only carbon dioxide emissions from large emitters in the power and heat generation industry and in selected energy -intensive industrial sectors: combustion plants, oil refineries, coke ovens, iron and steel plants and factories making cement, glass, lime, bricks, ceramics, pulp, and paper. The second period will also include nitrous oxide emissions. The transportation sector and direct emissions from the commercial and residential sector are not included in the cap (MAC 2007). The EU relies on policies and measures apart from the emissions trading system to reduce emissions from uncovered sectors. For example, taxes in the EU on gasoline can climb to over $6 per gallon, which is considerably higher than those found in California (MAC 2007). The number of second period allowances is less than the first phase period. In the United Kingdom, the reduction in allowances for Phase II is to be borne by Large Electricity Producers, as in Phase I, because the public can carry the cost by increased energy rates (DEFRA 2007). The allowances allotted through the EU ETS can be traded at Carbon Trading Exchanges, including but not limited to the following: European Climate Exchange; European Energy Exchange; Energy Exchange Austria; Nord Pool; and Bluenext. The price per metric ton in the European markets is currently around 20 Euros (± $29). Future Carbon Trading Programs Future trading programs currently being developed include the Western Climate Initiative, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and a cap and trade system for California. Western Climate Initiative The Western Climate Initiative was signed on February 26, 2007. The following states are partners: Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada are also partners. Partners plan to collaborate to identify, evaluate. and implement ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the states collectively and to achieve related co -benefits. The Initiative published its regional greenhouse gas reduction goals on August 22,2007, which include a reduction of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (WCI 2007). Michael Brandman Associates 17 H: Clic at 3555\35550001 Climate. Chaatte Report -1 1-14, doe City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change The WCI has prepared documents on the variety of approaches that can be used within the trading program. The document titled, Design Recommendations for the TVCI Regional Cap -and -Trade Program, was published on September 23, 2008. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is an agreement between nine northeastern states to institute a mandatory carbon dioxide reduction program. The goal of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is to reduce the member states carbon dioxide production from the power sector by 10 percent between 2009 and 2018. The program will cover fossil fuel electricity generation stations larger than 25 megawatts (RGGI 2008). Cap and Trade Program in California California is exploring the possibility of a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases. The Market Advisory Committee to the ARB published recommendations for designing a mandatory greenhouse gas cap and trade system for California (MAC 2007), as follows: . The program should eventually include all major greenhouse gas -emitting sectors of the economy in the cap -and -trade program. • To address emissions associated with imported electricity within a State -based cap -and -trade program, the Committee recommends a "first -seller approach". Under this approach, the entity that first sells electricity in the State is responsible to meet the compliance obligation established under the greenhouse gas cap -and -trade program. • The Committee recommends a combined approach in which some share of allowances is allocated free of charge initially, while the remaining allowances are auctioned. The percentage of allowances auctioned should then increase over time. e The Committee recommends that California's cap -and -trade program recognize offsets generated both within and outside the State's borders. • California should encourage linkages with other mandatory greenhouse gas cap -and -trade systems. . The Committee recommends the use of very stringent criteria for determining whether activities qualify as offsets (MAC 2007). The program could include the upstream transportation sector, which would regulate petroleum refiners and importers of refined products. It could also cover the distribution of natural gas. 2.3.2 - Carbon Offset Programs Carbon offset programs allow entities to purchase carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are designed to fund programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as digesters on dairy farms that capture and reuse methane gas. There are different sources for purchasing carbon offsets, as discussed below. Michael Brandman Associates 18 H: Client3555' 3555000t Climate Change Report- 11-24.tim City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change Chicago Climate Exchange The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is currently North America's only marketplace for integrating voluntary legally binding emissions reductions with emissions trading and offsets (CCX 2008). The commodity traded at CCX is the Carbon Financial Instrument contract, each of which represents one MTCO,e. Trading volumes have increased since the CCX was established in 3003. The price of Carbon Financial Instrument has ranged from $1 to $4.50 per MTCO,e. The price on February 13, 2008 was $4.45. The price on November 7,2008 was $1.20 per share. Entities can also become members of the CCX. Members agree to reduce their direct emissions by 2010 by 6 percent. Direct emissions result from the on-site combustion of fossil fliels, such as natural gas to power industrial operations and gasoline to operate vehicle fleets. indirect emissions result from energy purchases, such as electricity, and their corresponding emissions. A third party annually verifies the offsets, available through the CCX. The types of offsets available through the CCX include the following: • Agricultural methane; • Coal mine methane; • Landfill methane; • Agricultural soil carbon; • Rangeland soil carbon management; • Forestry; • Renewable energy; and • Ozone depleting substance destruction. Carbon Finance at the World Bank The World Bank is facilitating the development of a carbon market thorough managing carbon funds to finance sustainable development in developing countries (WB 2006). One of the funds is called the Prototype Carbon Fund, which promotes sustainable development and has 29.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents under contract. Independent Offset Acquisition A company can choose to obtain its own offsets independently, either by developing its own emission reduction projects or by securing long-term rights from another emitter. The benefits of acquiring offsets independently could mean that any economic benefits that arise from the projects could potentially be shared with the purchaser. However, there could be long lead times for the offset projects, which could mean that the benefits may not be available until after 2011 or later. Also, offset developers may not be interested in selling or may request an unreasonably large price for such offsets. The administrative costs of independent offset acquisition may also be higher than obtaining them directly from an offset provider. There is also risk in that the offset project may reduce fewer emissions than anticipated. Michael Brandman Associates 19 H:'.Cicnr3i55t35550001 Climate Change Rpon-11--24.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Climate Change The types of projects that developers can obtain are similar to those offered by the offset providers, and include renewable energy projects (solar or wind), agricultural projects (installation of biodigesters, which trap methane released and convert it to electricity), or landfill gas recovery. Michael Brandman Associates 20 H: Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Repos -1 1-24doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Thresholds of Significance SECTION 3: THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE CEQA requires that Lcad Agencies inform decision makers and the public regarding potential significant environmental effects of proposed projects and feasible ways that environmental damage can be avoided or reduced, through feasible mitigation measures and/or project alternatives. The Lcad Agencies must also disclose the reasons why a project is approved if significant environmental effects are involved (CEQA Guidelines Section 15002). CEQA also requires Lead Agencies to evaluate potential environmental effects based on, to the fullest extent possible, scientific and factual data (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[b]). Significance conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064f [5]). There are currently no adopted thresholds of significance or modelling methodology established by any State or regional regulatory agency for measuring the impact of climate change on or from a project. However, the ARB has published a draft report containing thresholds for greenhouse gases for industrial projects and commercial/residential projects (ARB 2008b). The proposed threshold for commerciaVresidential projects is a four -tiered approach. If the project is exempt under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, the project is less than significant. Tier 2 indicates that the project is less than significant if the project complies with a previously approved plan that addresses greenhouse gas emissions, satisfies (15064(h)(3)), and has all of the following attributes: . Meets a community level greenhouse gas target consistent with the statewide emissions limit in AB 32 and, where the plan will apply beyond 2020, Executive Order S-3-05; Is consistent with a transportation related greenhouse gas reduction target adopted by ARB pursuant to SB 375; • Includes a greenhouse gas inventory and mechanisms to regularly monitor and evaluate emissions; • Includes specific, enforceable greenhouse gas requirements; • Incorporates mechanisms that allow the plan to be revised in order to meet targets; and • Has a certified final CEQA document (see 15152(f)). If the project does not meet the second tier, then the analysis goes to the third tier. The project would be less than significant if the project: a) Meets all of the below minimum performance standards, or includes equivalent mitigation measures. Construction: meets an interim ARB performance standard for construction - related emissions. Operations: meets an energy use performance standard defined as California Energy Commissions (CECs) Tier II Energy Efficiency goal; meets an interim Michael Brandman Associates 21 H. Omit 3555 35550001 Climate Change Report -I 124.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Thresholds of Significance ARB performance standard for water use; meets an interim ARB performance standard for waste; meets an interim ARB performance standard for transportation; and b) The project, with performance standards or equivalent mitigation, will emit no more than X metric tons CO-,e/yr (criteriato be developed). Note that the ARB draft threshold has not identified a numerical threshold for commercial/residential projects at this time, as indicated in the third tier "X metric tons CO,e/yr)". On January 8, 2008, CAPCOA released a paper to provide a common platform of information and tools for public agencies. The disclaimer states that it is not a guidance document but a resource to enable local decision makers to make the best decisions they can in the face of incomplete information during a period of change. The paper indicates that it is an interim resource and does not endorse any particular approach. It discusses three groups of potential thresholds, including a no significance threshold, a threshold of zero, and a non -zero threshold (CAPCOA 2008). The non -zero quantitative thresholds as identified in the paper range from 900 to 50,000 metric tons per year. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is planning to publish new CEQA Guidelines pursuant to SB 97 by July 1, 2009, which will provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. In the interim, OPR published a Technical Advisory, which offers informal guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents (OPR 2008). The paper indicates that each public agency needs to develop its own approach for climate change analyses. The steps for the analysis include the following: identify and quantify greenhouse gas emissions; assess the significance of impact; and identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. The advisory does not specify thresholds or approaches for the analysis. While this report is not a CEQA document, this document analyzes the project's impact on climate change using typically accepted methods to provide a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the project's climate change impact. Michael Brandman Associates 22 It Client 5ii 35550001 Chniatc Change Report-11--124.doC City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis SECTION 4: IMPACT ANALYSIS The following impact analysis addresses climate change on a project and cumulative level. Impacts to the project from climate change arc also addressed. 4.1 - Proiect-Level Analvsis 4.1.1 - Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions The project site is currently fallow and was previously used in cultivation for row crops. The energy inputs for the previous row crop operation included direct energy consumption for farm machinery and water pumps, and indirect energy bound in fertilizers and pesticides. The total energy requirements for a typical row crop (e.g., wheat) are about 8.0 million BTU per acre per year, which translates to 320 million BTU per year for the entire project site (2007 EIR Revisions). However, the energy output of the food grown on the project site is approximately seven times that of the energy input (2007 EIR Revisions). It is unknown at this time how much ethanol or alternative energy the project site could produce through agriculture. 4.1.2 - Inventory cf Greenhouse Gases - Construction The project would emit greenhouse gases from upstream emission sources (the manufacture of building materials such as cement) and direct sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles and construction equipment). An upstream emission source (also known as life cycle emissions) refers to emissions that were .generated during the manufacture of products to be used for construction of the project, Upstream emission sources for the project include but are not limited to the following: emissions from the manufacture of cement; emissions from the manufacture of steel; and/or emissions from the transportation of building materials in other countries. The upstream emissions were not estimated because they are not within the control of the project and to do so would be speculative at this time, Additionally, the CAPCOA White Paper on CEQA & Climate Change supports this conclusion by stating, "The full life -cycle of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from construction activities is not accounted for ... and the information needed to characterize [life -cycle emissions] would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level" (CAPCOA 2008). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15144 and 15145, upstream /life cycle, emissions are speculative and no fiirther discussion is necessary. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction were estimated using URBEMIS2007. The emissions of carbon dioxide from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 2 below. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are negligible. The emissions are from all phases of construction. Michael Brandman Associates 23 H: Client 3555 35550W] Chniatc Change Report -1 1-1-4 doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Table 2: Construction Exhaust Carbon Dioxide Emissions Phase Carbon Dioxide Emissions Emissions (tons) (MTCO2e) Grading 45 41 Drainage basin 49 44 Wal-Mart construction 397 360 Remaining center construction 290 263 Total 781 708 MTCO,e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. converted from tons by multiplying by 0.9072 and the global warining potential of 1. Source of carbon dioxide emissions: URBEMIS2007 output in Appendix A. Emissions of black carbon from diesel fueled vehicles and equipment are shown in Table 3. Black carbon is part of the "aerosol" group of short-lived greenhouse gas emissions. The methods to quantify black carbon are still uncertain at this time; therefore, estimates as presented below have a low level of scientific certainty. Table 3: Construction Exhaust Black Carbon Emissions Blade Carbon Ma Pham Ett hat t sj Emisxaions.: i .... ............. ...::. (MTC:` Grading 0.03 16 Drainage basin 0.01 5 Wai-Mart construction 0.14 75 Remaining center construction 0.13 70 Total 0.3I 166 MTCO,e = metnc tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, converted from tons by multiplying by 0 9072 and inultiplying by global warining potential (760) and multiplying by the percent of black carbon in PMS i, 77 7 percent. Source of PM, i emissions: URBEMIS2007 output in Appendix A. A summary of the total greenhouse gas emissions is presented in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, emissions total 874 MTCO,e from all phases. Michael Brandman Associates 24 H: Client35i5 3-5550001 Climate Change Report -I 124.doc City of Lodi , Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Table 4: Total Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.1.3 - Inventory of Greenhouse Gases - Operation Operational emissions are cmissions that would occur over the life of the project. They include emissions from motor vehicles that would access the project, natural gas combustion, indirect emissions from electricity generation used to provide power to the project, indirect emissions from transporting water to the project, aerosols (from the exhaust of diesel vehicles and trucks) and refrigerants (air conditioning and refrigerators). Upstream greenhouse gases are emitted during transportation and manufacturing of the products that would be sold at the project site. Some of the goods sold at Wal-Mart stores are manufactured or they are grown in other countries and/or other parts of the United States. For example, products made in China are transported to the United States via ocean going vessels and distributed to warehouses via train or trucks. However, the greenhouse gases from these upstream sources are speculative because it is impossible to quantify those emission sources from every product that could be sold at the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15144 and 15145, upstream /life cycle, cmissions are speculative and no further discussion is necessary. The emissions from motor vehicles were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model. The trip generation rates and unit sizes used to estimate the emissions are from the Traffic Impact Study (FP 3004). The fleet mix is from the SJVAPCD Recommended Standard Changes to URBEMIS Default Values (SJVAPCD 3007). The pass -by trips were obtained from the Traffic Impact Study. The primary trip and diverted trip are calculated from the remainder of the percentage divided by two. The trip generation rates and pass -by trips for the various uses are shown in Table 5. Michael Brandman Associates 25 K Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Report -I 1-24,doc Emissions (MTCOze) Phase Carbon Dioxide' Black Carbon' Total' Grading 41 16 57 Drainage basin 44 5 49 Wal-Mart construction 360 75 435 Remaining center construction 263 70 333 Total ........................................ ...... .......... ......... 708 ......... ..... 166 ....... ........ ............ 874 .. .... Sources: 1) Table 2) Table 3 3) Carbon dioxide plus black carbon emissions ....... .. ......................................... ......... ....... ......... . ........ ......................................... .. ......... 4.1.3 - Inventory of Greenhouse Gases - Operation Operational emissions are cmissions that would occur over the life of the project. They include emissions from motor vehicles that would access the project, natural gas combustion, indirect emissions from electricity generation used to provide power to the project, indirect emissions from transporting water to the project, aerosols (from the exhaust of diesel vehicles and trucks) and refrigerants (air conditioning and refrigerators). Upstream greenhouse gases are emitted during transportation and manufacturing of the products that would be sold at the project site. Some of the goods sold at Wal-Mart stores are manufactured or they are grown in other countries and/or other parts of the United States. For example, products made in China are transported to the United States via ocean going vessels and distributed to warehouses via train or trucks. However, the greenhouse gases from these upstream sources are speculative because it is impossible to quantify those emission sources from every product that could be sold at the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15144 and 15145, upstream /life cycle, cmissions are speculative and no further discussion is necessary. The emissions from motor vehicles were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model. The trip generation rates and unit sizes used to estimate the emissions are from the Traffic Impact Study (FP 3004). The fleet mix is from the SJVAPCD Recommended Standard Changes to URBEMIS Default Values (SJVAPCD 3007). The pass -by trips were obtained from the Traffic Impact Study. The primary trip and diverted trip are calculated from the remainder of the percentage divided by two. The trip generation rates and pass -by trips for the various uses are shown in Table 5. Michael Brandman Associates 25 K Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Report -I 1-24,doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Table 5: Trip Generation and Pass -by Trips Land Use Size (thousand Trip Generation Pass -by Trip square feet) Rate (trips per day) Percentage Wal-Mart 226.89 56.02 17 Retail 75.96 42.94 34 Fast Food Restaurant 9.69 496.12 49 High Turnover Restaurant 7.5 127.15 43 Pharmacy 14.79 88.16 49 Bank 5.16 156.48 47 Source: Traffic Impact Study (FP 2004) The weighted average trip length of 6 miles was estimated using variables from the Traffic Impact Study and the Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis, which is contained in the 2007 EIR Revisions (BAE 2007). Figure 8 in the Traffic Impact Study, Near -Term plus Project Trip Distribution, provides percentages for the trip distribution to each direction in the trade area. These percentages are shown in Table 6. The Urban Decay Analysis contains a graphic of the proposed project trade area (Figure I in BAE 2007). This graphic defines the trade area, which is the "geographic region that encoinpasses most of a retail outlet's customers" (BAE 2007). This definition is based on the location of other existing and planned Wal-Mart Supercenters, with most shoppers assumed to travel to the nearest Supercenter for their shopping. The distances from the project site to the edge of the trade area are shown in Table 6. Using the distance to the edge of the trade area presents a worst-case scenario, as the trip length would be shorter for closer originations. The weighted average is shown in Table 6 and is 6.0 miles per trip. Table 6: Trip Length Estimation Direction Percentage' Miles Trn 1 Weighted g I R Average (imillea West 18 2.8 0.5 East to Route 88* 25 1.3 1.8 East to edge of trade area* 8 17.3 1.4 North 29 5 1.5 South 20 4 0.8 Total 100 __ 6.0 Sources: I) Traffic Impact Study (FP 2004) 2) Review of Figure I In the Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis (BAE 7007) 3) Multiplication of percentage and miles per trip * Determined based on aerial photography; most development is west of Route 88. Michael Brandman Associates 26 H. Clicm%3i;i 35;:0001 Climate Change Repon-I 1-?4.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Wal-Mart utilizes "super" high efficiency packaged HVAC units. While the industry standard Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) is 9.0, its units are rated at between 12.1 to 14.3. These units range between 4-17% more efficient than required by California Title 24. Wal-Mart has Converted to more ozone - friendly refrigerants as they become available and currently uses R404a for its refrigeration equipment. For air conditioning, it has converted to R41 Oa refrigerant. (Personal communication, Hans Kaufman, Perkowitz + Ruth Architects, November 11, 2008.) Harry Bizios, Vice President & General Manager of Lcnnox Worldwide Commercial Heating & Cooling stated the following regarding Wal-Mart: "Wal-Mart has been the undisputed leader in pioneering the path for conversion of HVAC purchase requirements from R-22 refrigerant to R-41 Oa, a more environmentally responsible choice. Wal-Mart was the first major retailer to convert to R-4IOa, changing 100 percent of both their new construction and replacement projects to R4IOa in January 2004. Wal -Mart's decision to take this strong early leadership position has positively influenced several other retailers to analyze their options and make the conversion to R4IOa as well. The large volume of R4I Oa HVAC products produced for Wal-Mart has given Lennox the experience level and expertise to develop and produce a full range of R4IOa. products across our entire commercial product line. Lennox is proud to have more experience in producing R4IOa commercial product than any other manufacturer and we are grateful to Wal-Mart for leading us in this environmentally responsible endeavor." The project would consume energy for interior and exterior lighting, venting/heating/air conditioning units (HVAC), refrigeration, electronics systems and appliances, security systems, among other things. The 2007 EIR Revisions estimated that the use of electricity for the project would be approximately 4.42 gigawatt -hours per year. When the electricity is generated, greenhouse gas emissions are generated as well. These emissions were generated using statewide average emission factors for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide as shown in the spreadsheet in Appendix A. The 2007 EIR Revisions also estimated natural gas usage to be 12.6 million cubic feet per year. The emissions associated with natural gas are estimated as shown in the spreadsheets contained in Appendix A. The operational emissions are shown in Table 7. As shown, the main source of emissions is from motor vehicles that will access the project site. Note that only the main sources of emissions are shown in the table. Minor emissions (i.e., landscaping equipment) are not shown. Michael Brandman Associates 27 H: Cline 3551 35550001 Climate Change Report -I 124.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Table 7: Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source Motor vehicles Indirect electricity Aerosols Natural gas Water transport Refrigerants Total Emissions (MTCOselyear) 10,800 1.616 386 683 36 ..... ................ 1,506 15,017 MTCO,e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source of emissions: Appendix A. Negligible Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis The project does not contribute substantially to water vapor because water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project -related activities. Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Therefore, it is assumed that project emissions of ozone precursors would not significantly contribute to climate change. As mentioned previously, there is a ban on chlorofluorocarbons; therefore, the project would not generate emissions of these greenhouse gases and they are not considered any further in this analysis. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur liexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit any of these greenhouse gases. 4.1.4 - Inventory of Possible Demolition of Existing Wal-Mart The existing Wal-Mart could be demolished pursuant to a Condition of Approval. The greenhouse gas emissions from this demolition are estimated. The existing Wal-Mart is approximately 120,000 square feet; therefore, assuming that the pile of rubbish would be 3 feet high, which results in 360,000 cubic feet of material would be demolished. It is assumed that 1/6 of the material would be transported in one day. It is assumed that the deposition area would be 40 miles away round trip. It is assumed that the demolition would be hauled away in six days. The emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model. The emissions from this demolition are estimated and presented in Table 8. Michael Brandrnan Associates 28 L Clww3555 35550001 Chinale Change Repon-I I--'_#.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Activity Demolition Off Road Diesel Demolition On Road Diesel Demolition Worker Trips Fine Grading Table 8: Existing Wal-Mart Demolition Emissions Carbon Dioxide 8 12 0 11 Total 31 Sources: See Appendix B for URBEMIS output. Emissions (MTCO2e) Black Carbon Total 3 11 3 15 0 0 3 14 9 40 4.1.5 - Mitigation Measures in Other Impact Areas The following measures from other impact areas in the EIR would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Traffic and Circulation HIS The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share funding to the City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to expand transit service to the project. Hg Modify the project site plan to: I) provide a bus bay and passenger shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a second transit stop in the eastern portion of the project near Lower Sacramento Road. H11 Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve Pads 8, 9, and 12 in order to complete the internal pedestrian circulation system. Benefits Mitigation measures H8, H9, and H 1 I would encourage the customers and employees to take public transit and walk to and within the project site, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Noise 15 Short-term noise impacts shall be reduced through implementation of the following measures: limiting the hours of construction; proper muffling and maintenance of equipment; prohibition of unnecessary idling; noise shielding of stationary equipment and location of such equipment away from sensitive receptors; selection of quiet equipment; notification to neighbors of construction schedule; and designation of a 'noise disturbance coordinator' to respond to noise complaints. Michael Srandman Associates 29 li: Clicn(`--3155 35550001 Climate Change Report -1 l ?a.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Benefits Mitigation measure I5 would require maintenance of construction equipment and the prohibition of idling. Construction equipment in good repair emits fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The prohibition of unnecessary idling will reduce unnecessary missions of greenhouse gases. Air Quality J3 Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air emissions; however, these measures would not reduce the impact to a less than significance level. Benefits This measure would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The 3004 EIR indicates that the upper limit of trip reduction through TDM measures, under ideal conditions, is about 20 percent. For the project, where TDM effectiveness is limited by several factors the effectiveness of the above air quality mitigation measures in reducing daily trips is estimated to be five percent. 4.1.6- Project Design Features that Reduce Operational Emissions Project design features to be implemented during operation that improve energy efficiency, reduce waste, and reduce energy from transportation were discussed in the 2007 EIR Revisions. The current design of the project is more efficient than the store design in 2004. The following voluntary design features are to be implemented into the project. Additional project design features are identified in the letter to the City of Lodi from Wal-Mart dated October 6, 2008, which is attached as Appendix C. Waste Reductions The following feature would reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with mineral extraction and product manufacturing. . Wal-Mart would use a minimum of 10 percent recycled materials during construction of its building. . Wal-Mart would recycle used cardboard and waste oil during operation, Recyclable material would be collected. The project would have sufficient interior and exterior storage for recyclables. . When feasible, food waste and landscaping material would be composted. • A minimum of 50 percent of the waste during construction would be recycled or reused. This includes construction of the project and demolition of the existing Wal-Mart building, if that is to occur. Michael Brandman Associates 30 H: Client 3155 355%001 Climate Change Repon-I 1-24 doe City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Energy Efficiency The following project design features would reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from the generation of electricity and/or natural gas, some of which are obtained from page 8I of the 3007 EIR Revisions. • The project would incorporate California Energy Code Title 24 requirements, including insulation for doors, pipes, walls and ceilings, and appliances, etc. The project would use skylight/dimming systems, which operate to automatically dim lights and ultimately shut them off as daylight increases. This results in an estimated electricity saving of 25 to 35 percent for lighting. During the late night hours, electricity is reduced by dimming lighting. Super high -efficiency packaged HVAC (heating and cooling) units with a minimum Energy Efficiency Ratio value of 10.5 shall be used, which are 4 to 17 percent more efficient than typical units. o The project would reclaim the "heat of rejection" from its refrigeration equipment to generate hot water. This eliminates the need for three 80 -gallon hot water heaters per facility. Building signage would use light emitting diodes (LED) lighting for internal illumination, which is 70 percent more energy-efficient than fluorescent lighting. • Wal -Mart's refrigeration units would use LED lighting, or a more efficient technology if one is developed in the future. Restrooms would use high efficiency urinals and toilets. Buildings greater than 20,000 square feet shall have one skylight per 1,000 square feet of interior building space. • Lodi Electric obtains 22 percent of its power supply from renewable sources such as geothermal. When large hydroelectric facilities are included, the City's percentage of renewable sources increases to 45 percent, although hydroelectric power is excluded from the State's definition of renewable sources. Transpotfation The following project design features would reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehicle miles traveled, some of which are discussed on page 83 of the 2007 EIR Revisions. Produce grown within the State of California would be sold when feasible. . The project would include opportunities for transit use with bus routes running along Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road, with two new bus stops to be constructed within the project site to facilitate convenient access to transit. Community bulletin boards within the Michael Brandman Associates 31 H. Clicm 3515 35551H]Ol Climate Change Report -I 1-21doc. City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis larger stores such as Wal-Mart would facilitate carpooling and vanpooling for employees, as well as transit information and incentives. • The project would install new sidewalks along Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road frontages, with pedestrian linkages and dedicated pathways connecting all of the project stores and restaurants. o The project would include construction of Class It on -street bicycle lanes along the project frontages on Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road, and on both sides of Westgate Drive. Bicycle racks would be installed in front of all of the project's retail buildings in accordance with City zoning requirements. o The presence of restaurants on the project site would provide opportunities for employees and customers to stay onsite for meals instead of traveling to off-site locations. To Satisfy Mitigation Measure Requirements The following were identified in the 2004 EIR as ways to satisfy the requirements of mitigation measures 51 and 53 (pages 120, 122, and 123 of the 2004 EIR and pages 54 and 55 in the Final EIR). The project would implement these as project design features to satisfy the requirements of those mitigation measures. Only the measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions arc noted. For clarification, some of the language of these project design features has been modified to be more specific. The features in response to mitigation measure J 1, pertaining to emissions during construction, are as follows: o Equipment not in use for more than ten minutes should be turned off. o Whenever feasible and cost effective, use electrically driven equipment (provided they are not run via a portable generator set). . All diesel engines shall be shut off when not in use on the premises to reduce emissions from idling. . Prior to the issuance of construction contracts, the City of Lodi shall perform a review of new technology, as it relates to heavy-duty equipment, in consultation with the construction contractor, to determine what if any advances in emission reduction are available for use and feasible (including economic feasibility). Features in response to mitigation measure J3, pertaining to emissions during operation, are as follows: o Use energy efficient design including automated control systems for heating/air conditioning and energy efficiency. Michael Brandman Associates 32 li: Clicnt 3555 3;;50001 Climate Chanes Report -1 1-24 doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate ChanaeAnaivsis Report ImpactAnalvsis o Utilize lighting controls and energy-efficient lighting in buildings. o White membrane roofs with a minimum solar reflectivity of 78 would be used for a minimum of 75 percent of the roof surface. This would lower the cooling load by about 8 percent. . Provide deciduous trees on the south and westerly facing sides of buildings. Provide low nitrogen oxide (NOx.) emitting and/or high efficiency water heaters. Reserve appropriate easements to provide for future improvements such as bus turnouts, loading areas, and shelters. Designation of an on-site TDM coordinator. . Implement a carpool/vanpool program (e.g., provide carpool ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc.). o Maintenance of a bulletin board would be provided for onsite employees o A minimum of one locker for every three employees would be provided in each store. o The project ingress and egress would be designed to allow the most effective traffic flow to minimize vehicle idling. o The project retailers would ensure that the amount of time diesel delivery vehicles idle on site docs not exceed 10 to 15 minutes. o Provide preferential parking spaces for those employees who participate in carpooling or vanpooling. • Sidewalks and bike paths should be installed throughout as much of the project as possible and should be connected to any nearby open space areas, parks, schools, commercial areas, etc. 4.1.7 - Existing Conditions of Approval that Reduce Emissions The following are existing conditions of approval that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are from the document dated October 8, 2008. Only the items that would reduce emissions are shown. D. All applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee consideration shall comply with the following conditions: 2. Submit a construction landscape plan consistent with the submitted conceptual landscape plan. The applicant shall also insure that the overall ratio of trees, including perimeter landscaping is equal to one tree for every four parking spaces. Further, said plan shall demonstrate that the City's requirement for parking lot shading is met. Michael Brandman Associates 33 11: Client 3i?? -35550001 Chinate Change Report- I1-_'4.doc City of Lodi, Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis 3. The applicant shall select and note on all plans common tree species for the parking lot and perimeter areas from the list of large trees as identified in the Local Government Commission's "Tree Guidelines for the San Joaquin Valley". 4. All drive-through eating facilities shall have a "double service window" configuration and pullout lane to minimize auto emissions. F. The following items are conditions of approval for the vesting tentative parcel map, all to be accomplished prior to, or concurrent with, final parcel map filing unless noted otherwise: 4. Provide a private access easement providing a clear path of travel for pedestrian traffic from the public right-of-way to all parcels within the boundaries of the map in conformance with ADA requirements. 4.1.8 - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Options Although not required by statute or regulation, there are many voluntary greenhouse gas reduction strategies available for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some of which are assessed below to determine the applicability and feasibility of such reduction measures for the proposed project. OPR The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is planning on publishing new CEQA Guidelines by July 1, 2009, which will provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. In the interim, OPR published a Technical Advisory, which offers informal guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents. The Advisory contains examples of mitigation measures used by some public agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions provided for illustrative purposes only. As shown in Table 9, the example measures are either not applicable, not feasible, or are consistent with project design features and/or mitigation measures contained in other impact sections of the EIR. Table 9: Office of Planning and Research Example Mitigation Measures Example Measure Land Use and Transportation Implement land use strategies to encourage jobs/housing proximity, promote transit -oriented development, and encourage high-density development along transit corridors. Encourage compact, mixed-use projects, forming urban villages designed to maximize affordable housing and encourage walking, bicycling and the use of public transit systems. Project Applicability or Feasibility Consistent. Project design features encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of public transit systems. Michael Brandman Associates 34 H: Client 3555 355501X11 Climate Chance Report-] 1--24.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Table 9: Office of Planning and Research Example Mitigation Measures (Cont.) Example Measure Project Applicabilitycr Feasibility Encourage infill, redevelopment. and higher density Not feasible; not a project objective. development, whether in incorporated or unincorporated settings. Encourage new developments to Integrate housing, civic Not feasible; the project does not contain the and retail amenities (jobs, schools, parks, and shopping development of residential uses. opportunities) to help reduce VMT resulting from discretionary automobile trips. Apply advanced technology systems and management Not applicable. However, it is likely that the strategies to improve operational efficiency of business uses on the project site would transportation systems and movement of people, goods and attempt to maximize the efficiency of their services. transportation systems to save money. Incorporate features into project design that would Consistent. The project is incorporating accommodate the supply of frequent, reliable and pedestrian and bicycle features. convenient public transit. Implement street improvements that are designed to relieve The traffic impacts were addressed in the pressure on a region's most congested roadways and 2004 EIR. intersections. Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. Urban Forestry Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings and reduce energy requirements for heating/cooling. Preserve or replace onsite trees (that are removed due to development) as a means of providing carbon storage. Green Buildings Michael Brandman Associates H� Chom 3555 Wi000I Climate Change Repon-1 1-24.doc Consistent with California Air Resources Board regulatory measure, which reduces emissions by limiting idling of heavy-duty diesel vehicles (ARB 2005). The driver of any vehicle subject to this section: (1) shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location; and (2) shall not idle a diesel -fueled auxiliary power system (APS) for more than 5 minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment: on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools). The project design incorporates trees. Not applicable. There are minimal existing trees on the project site. 35 City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Table 9: Office of Planning and Research Example Mitigation Measures (Cont.) Example Measure Encourage public and private construction of LEED ( Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified (or equivalent) buildings. Energy Conservation Policies and Actions ProjectApplicabilitycr Feasibility Not feasible. However, the project will be compliant with Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, which are much more stringent than requirements in other states. The 2005 Title 24 standards for nonresidential construction provide an 8.5 percent reduction in electrical demand compared with the 2001 standards. The California Energy Commission is in the process ofadopting 2008 Title 24 standards, which will go into effect in 1009. For nonresidential buildings, the 2008 standards reduce electrical demand an additional 7.2 percent and reduce natural gas demand by 9.5 percent (CEC 2007b). Recognize and promote energy saving measures beyond Consistent with project design features that Title 24 requirements for residential and commercial increase energy efficiency. projects. Where feasible, include in new buildings facilities to The market demand is not such at the current support the use of low/zero carbon -fueled vehicles, such as time to support this type of measure. If/when the charging of electric vehicles from green electricity the market changes, electrical hookups can be sources. easily installed. Educate the public, schools, otherjurisdictions, Not a project objective. professional associations, business and industry about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Replace traffic lights, streetlights, and other electrical uses Not applicable; however, it is likely that any to energy efficient bulbs and appliances. new traffic lights would be energy efficient. Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for public Not applicable. agency use. ...__......... ....... ..... . _. Incorporate on-site renewable energy production, including Not feasible; see text in Table 10, number 9 installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options. ....... _.... .. ....._....... ........".. for more details. ... . Execute an Energy Savings Performance Contract with a Not applicable. private entity to retrofit public buildings. This type of contract allows the private entity to fund all energy improvements in exchange for a share of the energy savings over time. Design, build, and operate schools that meet the Not applicable. Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) best practices. Retrofit municipal water and wastewater systems with Not applicable. energy efficient motors, pumps and other equipment, and recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production. Convert landfill gas into energy sources for use in fueling Not applicable. vehicles, operating equipment, and heating buildings. Michael Brandman Associates 36 H: Cicm 3;55 35550001 Climaic Chang Repon-I 1-124,doe City of Lodi • Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Table 10: Consistency with Proposed Scoping Plan Reduction Measures (Cont.) ARB Proposed Scoping Plan Reduction Project Consistency or Applicability Measure 4. Renewable Portfolio Standard Consistent. Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix Lodi Electric obtains 22 percent of its power supply statewide. Renewable energy sources include from renewable sources such as geothermal. When (but are not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, large hydroelectric facilities are included, the City's small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, percentage of renewable sources increases to 45 and landfill gas. percent. 5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 6. Regional Transportation Transportation - Related Greenhouse Gas Targets Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Not applicable. When this measure is initiated, the standard would be applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would access the project site. Not applicable. 7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures Not applicable. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. When this measure is initiated, the standards would be applicable to the light-duty vehicles that would access b... the project site. ............ 8. Goods Movement Impleinent adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement activities. 9. Million Solar Roofs Program Install 3,000 MW of solar -electric capacity under California's existing solar programs. 10. Medium Medium/Heavy /Heavy -Duty Vehicles Adopt medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures. _.._ _ ...._...._. _ _....... .. 11. Industrial Emissions Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other pollution reduction co -benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries. Not applicable. Not feasible because of the following barriers: - The roof area that can be devoted to solar panels is restricted because of the configuration of the roof, the required clearance values, and set back requirements. - The need to reduce skylight areas to increase solar panel capacity would increase energy demand and would result in a negative energy penalty since the energy reduction value for Wal -Mart's daylight harvesting system exceeds the photovoltaic capacity it replaces. Not applicable. When this measure is initiated, the standards would be applicable to the vehicles that would access the project site. Not applicable. Michael Brandman Associates 39 Il: Lliem 355? 35550001 Climate Change Report -I 1-74doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Table 10: Consistency with Proposed Scoping Plan Reduction Measures (Cont.) ARB Proposed Scoping Plan Reduction Measure 12. High Speed Rail Support implementation of a high-speed rail system. Project Consistency or Applicability Not applicable. 13. Green Building Strategy Consistent with project design features that increase Expand the use of green building practices to energy efficiency. reduce the carbon footprint of California's new and existing inventory of buildings. 14. High Global Warming arming Potential Gases Not applicable. Adopt measures to reduce high global warming When this measure is initiated, it would be applicable potential gases. to the high GWP gases that would be used by the project (such as in air conditioning and refrigerators). 15. Recycling and Waste Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, coniposting, and commercial recycling. Move toward zero -waste. 16. Sustainable Forests Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy generation. 17. Water Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Consistent with project design features that reduce waste. Not applicable. Consistent with project design features. 18. Agriculture Not applicable. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure -digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update -determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020. Source of ARB Proposed Scoping Plan Reduction Measure: ARB 2008. Source of Project Consistency or Applicability: Michael Brandinan Associates ...................................................... .... ......... .............. ........................ .. ...,,.-............ Offsite Greenhouse Gas Reduction Options This report previously discussed an existing cap -and -trade program in the European Union as well as potential future cap -and -trade programs through the Western Climate Initiative, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and a future program in California through the ARB. There is currently no mandatory cap -and -trade program within the project area. The emissions generated by the proposed project would not likely be covered under a cap -and -trade program, even if both the ARB Cap -and -Trade system and the Western Climate Initiative Cap -and -Trade system were initiated. At this time, entities can offset their greenhouse gas emissions by voluntarily purchasing offsets, which consist of programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions offsite. Examples of prograins that reduce greenhouse gas emissions include installation of digesters on dairy farms to capture the methane released or installation of a wind farm to generate "clean" electricity. Michael Brandman Associates 40 if Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Keport-I I-24 doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report impact Analysis Offset Uncertainties and Criticisms There arc a number of uncertainties associated with purchasing offsets, including the permanence, price fluctuations, ownership, verification, and additionality (which means that additional steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond business as usual). The permanence of the offsets refers to how long the offset is valid: Are the offsets only good for a year, or are they good as long as the offset project is running? What if the offset is used to purchase land and plant trees? Would the trees be cut or burned down? Another uncertainty is regarding price fluctuations. The current carbon offset market in the United States varies in price from $4.50 to $1 1 per metric ton. The price in the European market is currently as high as $30 per metric ton. One of the reasons for the variation in pricing could be because there is a mandatory cap -and -trade system in the European Union. Some indicate, "considerable uncertainty exists regarding the long-term outlook for carbon and energy markets, driven by the dynamic and the complex relationships between these markets" (PC 2008). Additionally, it is unknown if the CCX is going to allow for trading beyond the year 2010. Ownership of the offsets is important, so that they are not re -sold. Registration of the offsets is a method used to ensure that the offsets are not sold more than once. Verification is an important step to make sure the offsets are real. However, there is no universally accepted standard for verification, which has led to various verification methodologies. Many third party verification companies use their own internal methods (that are often proprietary) to verify offsets. This can lead to uncertainty regarding the validity of the offsets. As stated, additionality refers to additional steps taken to reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond business as usual. For example, was a solar powered farm going to be constructed anyway, or is the carbon market providing the funding necessary to build it? Determining additionality can be highly speculative and uncertain. There are "additionality tests," which attempt to determine if an offset project is additional: • Regulatory Test: does the project go beyond legal requirements`? • Financial Test: is the project economically viable without offset revenues? • Barriers Test: are there significant non-financial barriers that a project needs to overcome'? • Common Practice Test: does the project go beyond common business practices`? • Timing Test: was the project started after a certain date`? (CC 2006) There is also some uncertainty associated with the benefits realized by carbon offsets, or the quantification of the offsets. Similarly, there is uncertainty associated with the quantification of the emissions that are offset. Michael Brandman Associates 41 H: Client 3555`35550001 Climate Change Report-] 1-24 doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis Many of the offset trading schemes that arc available do not reduce emissions in California. The threshold used in this climate change analysis for the project is to not hinder or delay implementation of AB 32. Offsetting emissions outside of California, while reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, would not provide assurance that the offsets would help California meet AB 32 reduction goals. Another source that documents the concerns about the offset market is AB 185 1, a bill introduced on January 29,2008, by Assembly Member Nava. AB 1851 has not passed and is going through the legislative process. As it was amended on August 22, 2008 by the Senate, "(c) While voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions can contribute to efforts to reduce global warming, consumers and other members of the public have few protections or standardized methods by which to ensure that they arc purchasing or obtaining emission reduction credits that actually reduce greenhouse gases, reduce global warming, and improve the environment. (d) The purposes of this division are to protect the consumer and to ensure that the benefits to the environment through the sale of legitimate greenhouse gas emission reduction credits, offsets, or similar products are realized". Feasibility of Offsetting Project Emissions There are a number of opportunities to offset greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are also serious uncertainties and criticisms associated with the current offset market. The SJVAPCD, in its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP 2008a, b) states, "...The CCAP authorized the Air Pollution Control officer (APCO) to develop guidance documents to assist land use agencies and other permitting agencies in addressing greenhouse gas emissions as part of the CEQA process, investigate the development of a greenhouse gas banking program, enhance the existing emissions inventory process to include greenhouse gas emissions reporting consistent with new state requirements, and administer voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction agreements" (CCAP 2008b). The CCAP authorized the APCO to develop regulations and procedures for a greenhouse gas emission reduction banking system. This voluntary banking system, the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange (SJVCE), would provide a mechanism for the voluntary banking of GHG emission in the San Joaquin Valley. The outcome of stakeholder meetings will be considered when determining if the SJVCE should be developed. At the conclusion of such meetings, the SJVAPCD may determine that a rule to establish a SJVCE should be developed or that a SJVCE is not warranted. At the time that this report was written, the SJVCE has not been developed. It is unknown when the SJVCE would be developed. Additionally, there is no numerical threshold in which to use to determine how many offsets would be required. Therefore, at this time, it is not feasible to purchase offsets for the project. Michael Brandman Associates 42 FI: Client 3555 35550001 Climate Clmnge Report -I 1-14 doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis In the Future, the ARB may instigate a cap -and -trade program for emissions associated with electricity generation and natural gas distribution. If that occurs, the prices for these commodities would likely increase. The cap -and -trade system for these emissions would likely lead to either improvements in the methods for electricity generation and natural gas distribution or the purchase of offsets. 4.1.9 - Inventory after Reductions The project will emit greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. As discussed in Section 4.1.6, project design features will reduce the project's energy consumption, waste, and transportation related emissions during operation. Mitigation measures in other impact areas of the 2004 EIR will reduce emissions from construction and operation. The surrounding uses are important to a climate change analysis because it presents a picture of whether or not the customers are likely to drive to the project site and how far they might drive. The project consists of retail uses; therefore, it would service the retail needs of residential land uses. To the immediate cast and northeast of the project site are commercial uses. To the south and to the west are agricultural uses and rural residential. Review of aerial photography indicates the project site is located on the outskirts of the developed area. There appears to be low density and medium density residential areas within a radius three miles north and east of the project site. Typically, residential uses precede retail uses. The residential near the project site is low and medium density residential, which typically attracts the types of retail uses that are proposed by the project. Higher density urban type development typically does not attract the type of businesses and the design proposed by the project. The retail proposed by the project services the existing and proposed customers in the City of Lodi. If the City had developed denser residential with permanent open space and permanent agriculture, other types of retail could have had a market within the City. However, that is not the case for the City of Lodi. The project is simply servicing the existing customer type base and doing so, will reduce vehicle miles traveled by those customers to other destinations possibly outside of the City. The use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has been suggested by some as a step to quantify greenhouse gas emissions. No accepted, tecknically sound methodology exists that would allow the City to determine how many vehicle trips, or vehicle miles traveled, associated with the project, as determined through the traffic models used in this analysis arc truly "new" trips, as opposed to trips coming to and from the project site instead of traveling to and from some other site or sites, or "new" VMT. There are other similar businesses as the project within close proximity of the project site, such as a Target at the northeast comer of Kettleman and Lower Sacramento Road. However, the 2007 EIR Revisions indicate that the project will not cause significant urban decay in the area. Therefore, the project will provide retail uses to the existing demand, thereby potentially reducing the vehicle miles traveled to locations outside of the City. Michael Brandman Associates 43 I1: CIicni-Mi5.35550001 Chocue Change Repon-I I-_d.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report The Land Use and Planning section of the 2007 EIR Revisions discusses the potential displacement of retail uses in the City of Lodi froin implementation of the project. Specifically, there is an existing Wal-Mart located in Sunwest Plaza that will relocate to the Lodi Shopping Center. The Sunwest Plaza is located across the street from the project site. The 2007 EIR Revisions indicate that if a tenant were not found for the existing Wal-Mart space within a specific amount of time, it would require demolition. This demolition would result in greenhouse gas emissions. It is unknown what would be constructed on the Sunwest site if the existing Wal-Mart building were demolished; therefore, those emissions cannot be subtracted from the project's emissions. The project would not significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32 because it is consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures and the project is providing retail uses for the existing demand generated by the low and medium density residential uses near the project site. The operational emissions after reductions from project design features are shown in Table 11. Table 11 : Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (After Reductions) Indirect electricity 1,616 -485 1,131 30 Aerosols 386 -20 366 5 Natural gas 683 -205 478 30 Water transport 26 0 26 0 Refrigerants 1,506 -151 1,355 10 Total 15,017 -1,401 13,616 -- MTCO,e = metnc tons of carbon dioxide equivalents Sources: See Appendix A. 4.2 - Cumulative -Level Analysis Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states the following: The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: 1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Michael Brandrnan Associates 44 il. Client 3555 35j50001 Clinwlc Change Repon-11-24 doe City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report ImpactAnalysis Even a very large individual project cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions that measurably influence climate change. It is a project's incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases that together cause climate change impacts. However, the theory that an increase of one molecule of an air pollutant constitutes a signilicant increase (one -molecule theory) should not be the basis of a de -facto significance threshold, as discussed in the decision for Community for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agencv (103 Cal. App. 4th 98 (2002): "...this does not mean, however, that any additional effect in a nonattainment area for that effect necessarily creates a significant cumulative impact; the `one [additional] molecule rule' is not the law". While climate change is a global issue and each contribution of greenhouse gases may have a cumulative effect, there is no established methodology available to determine either the magnitude or the significance of the effect of an individual project on this global issue. As a result, the conclusions reached by any attempt to do so would be speculative. According to CEQA Guidelines 15145, "if, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate the discussion of the impact". The assessment of cumulative climate change impacts, which are project impacts plus all the other "cumulative" projects, is speculative for the following reasons. No Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Large-scale assessments and emission reduction strategies must be formulated to evenly address greenhouse gas emissions on a regional level that includes land use patterns, energy generation and consumption, transportation, water transport, waste disposal, and the other major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. A region -specific plan would create the basis of a cumulative threshold and provide a platform for cumulative analysis on the project level. There is no approved plan that covers the jurisdiction of the project that discusses climate change or greenhouse gases; therefore, the plan approach is not viable at this time. State and local agencies are currently developing strategies to reduce greenhouse gases in their jurisdictions; however, these strategies are not complete at this time. No List of Projects The list of cumulative projects for climate change is unknown; it could conceivably include all projects around the globe. Guidelines for establishing the radius for global climate change have not yet been adopted. Without such guidelines, it is impossible to know how big the impact study area is supposed to be. For example, does the list of projects include those only within a one -mile radius of the project, or does it include projects within the entire air basin, or the State of California'? For this reason, the "project list" approach for conducting a CEQA cumulative impacts analysis is not feasible. The greenhouse gas emissions from the project would be small compared to globally generated emissions. California's entire anthropogenic contribution is less than two percent of the global emissions based on 2004 estimates. Therefore, although there are not quantitative thresholds to use, it Michael Brandman Associates 45 H: Clicin 355535550001 Climate Chance Report-0l--'_4.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Impact Analysis is noteworthy that the project's contribution as a percentage of global emissions and/or California emissions would be exceedingly small. Model Availability Available climate change models arc not sensitive enough to be able to predict the effect o fa single project on global temperatures and the resultailt effect on climate; therefore, they cannot be used to evaluate the significance of a project's impact. Thus, insufficient information and predictive tools exist to assess whether a single project would result in a significant impact on global climate. For these reasons, determining the significance of the project's impact on global climate would involve undue speculation. Michael Brandman Associates 46 H: C{icnt3iji 3555(NX)l Climate Change Repon•I 1-24 dnc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report References SECTION 5: REFERENCES The following references were used in the preparation of this analysis and are referenced in the text and/or were used to provide the author with background information necessary for the preparation of thresholds and content. AEP 2007 Association of Environmental Professionals. Principal Authors Michael Hendrix and Cori Wilson. Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. June 29, 2007. ARB 2005 California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. www.arb-ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm, Accessed in May, 2008. ARB 2007 California Air Resources Board. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October 2007. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report.pdf, Accessed April 8, 2008, ARB 2008 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a framework for change. October 2008. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htin ARB 2008b California Air Resources Board. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal Recommended Approaches for Setting interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/cega/mectings/ 102708/prelimdraftproposal I0240 8.pdf BAE 2007 Bay Area Economics, prepared for the City of Lodi. Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi, CA. October 2007. Published as Appendix B in the 2007 EIR Revisions. CA 2004 State of California, Executive Order S-20-04. July 27, 2004. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS-20-04.htm, Accessed April 8, 2008. CA 2005 State of California, Executive Order S-3-05. June 1, 2005. http://www. dot. ca. gov/hq/energy/ExecorderS-3-bfm, Accessed April 8, 2008. CA 2006 State of California. August 31, 2006. Assembly Bill No. 32. www.arb.ca.gov/ec/docs/ab32text.pdf, Accessed April 8, 2008. CAPCOA 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. www.capcoa.org/, Accessed April 8,2008. CAT 2006 State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and Michael Brandman Associates 47 1-1. Chm 3555 35550001 Clinuatc Change Report-] 1-24.doe City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report References tho California Legislature. www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html, Accessed April 8, 2008. CC 2006 Clean Air, Cool Planet. A Consumer's Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers. 3006. www.cleanair- coolplanet.org/ConsumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets.pdf, Accessed April 8, 2008. CCAP 2008a San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Approve the District's Climate Change Action Plan. August 21, 2008. www.valleyair.org/board_meetings/G B/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2008/August/ Item%208/Agenda°/`20Item 8.pdf CCAP 2008b San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Climate Change Action Plan, November 2008. www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2008/l t -18- 08/M icrosoft%20W ord%20- %20CAPP%20Scoping%20Report%,202008Nov I 2.pdf CCCC 2006 California Climate Change Center. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California: A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center. July 2006. CEC-500-2006-077. www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/biennial reports/index.htrnl, Accessed November 6. 2008. CCX 2008 Chicago Climate Exchange. www.chicagoclimatex.com/, Accessed April 8, 2008. CEC 2006 California Energy Commission. December 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Staff Final Report. CEC-600-2006-013-SF. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC- 600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF, Accessed April 8, 2008. CEC 2007 California Energy Commission. January 23,2007. Memorandum Regarding Revisions to the 1990 to 2004 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Published in December 2006. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006- 013/2007-01-23_GHG_INVENTORY_REVISIONS.PDF, Accessed April 8, 2008. CEC 2007b Prepared for the California Energy Commission, Prepared by Architectural Energy Corporation. Impact Analysis, 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. November 7,2007. www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11- 07 IMPACT ANALYSIS.PDF Accessed November 8,2008. CIWMB 2003 California Integrated Waste Management Board. City of Lodi Meets Waste Diversion Goal: Escalon and Tracy seek additional time. January 16, 2003. www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Pressroom/2003/January/5.htm DEFRA 2007 Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom. EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Approved Phase II National Allocation Plan, 2008-2012. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/trading/cu/phase2/pdf/nap- phase2.pdf, Accessed April 8,2008. Michael Brandrnan Associates 48 H: Clicat 3355 335511001 Chmate. Change Report -11-24 doe City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report References EPA 1995 U.S. Environrncntal Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System I,1, I ,2-Tetrafluoroethane (CASRN 811-97-2). http://cfpub.cpa.gov/iris/quickview.cfm?stibstance_nmbr=0656, Acccssed April 8, 2008. EPA 2003 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. June 2003. Ozone: Good up high bad nearby. EPA -451-K-03-001. www.epa.gov/airfozonepollution/pdfs/ozonegb.pdf, Acccssed April 8, 2008 EPA 2006a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. April 2006. The U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. littp:Hepa.gov/cl imatechange/emissions/downloadsO6/06FastFacts.pdf, Accessed April 8, 2008. EPA 2006b U S . Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Science. http://www,epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html, Acccssed April 8,2008. EPA 2007a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. Executive Summary. April 2007. USEPA #430-R-07-002 http://www,epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport. html, Acccssed April 8, 2008. EUETS 2007 European Union Against Climate Change, EU Emissions Trading: an Open System Promoting Global Innovation. 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/bati/eu_action.pdf, Accessed April S,2008. FP 2004 Fehr & Peers. Final Report Lodi Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study. July 2004. Contained within the Draft Environmental Report for the Lodi Shopping Center, August 2004, Volume 1I. IPCC 2000 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. May 2000. Aircraft Emissions. www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/pLiblic/gp/bgp/2_5—Aircraft.pdf IPCC 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Nogucr, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp. www.grida.no/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/WGI/index.htm, Accessed April 8, 2008. IPCC 2004 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2004. 16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the Climate Convention. December 2004. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/lOth-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf Accessed April 8, 2008. IPCC 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, Michael Brandman Associates 49 It Client 3555 35550001 Climate Change Report -11= 4.doc Cify of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report References K.B. Avcryt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univcrsity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, http:i/www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/aril-v#htm, Accessed November 6, 2008. JAC 2002 Jacobson, Mark Z. Atmospheric Pollution, History, Science, and Regulation. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2002. LODI 2004 City of Lodi. Prepared by PMC. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center. August 2004. Volumes I and II. LODI 2006 City of Lodi. Resolution No. 2006-205. A Resolution of the Lodi City Council Endorsing the California Municipal Utilities Association's Principles Addressing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals. http://pub li cdocs. lodi.gov/Docs/RESOLUTIONS/2006/res2006-205.pdf LODI 2007 City of Lodi. Prepared by PMC. Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center. (2007 EIR Revisions) October 2007. MAC 2007 Market Advisory Committee for the California Air Resources Board. Recommendations for Designing a Greenhouse Gas Cap -and -Trade System for California. June 30, 2007. www.cliinatechange.ca.gov/documents/2007-06- 29_MAC_FINAL_REPORT.PDF. Accessed April 8,2008. NIOSH 1989 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Preventing Death from Excessive Exposure to Chlorofluorocarbon 113 (CFC - 113). NIOSH ALERT: May 1989. DHHS (NIOSH)Publication No. 89-109. http://www.edc.gov/niosh/89-109.html, Accessed April 8,2008. NIOSH 1997 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. International Safety Cards. Tetrafluoromethane. www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipesneng/neng0575.htmI, Accessed April 8, 2008. NIOSH 2005 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Carbon Dioxide. September 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html, Accessed April 8, 2008. NRC 2005 National Research Council of the National Academies, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. OPR 2008 Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory. CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. www.opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/index.html OSHA 2003 United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Safety and Health Topics: Methane. www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_250700.htmi, Accessed April 8, 3008. Michael grandman Associates 50 ti: C'Gcrt 3555 335i1NNfI l 1im❑1c Change Repon-11•=4.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report References PC 2008 Point Carbon. 2008. Post -20I2 Carbon and Energy Market Scenarios: A powertul new report by Point Carbon. www.pointcarbon.com/Research%20&%20Advisory/Advisory%20services/Re cent%20Reports/category 1532.htm1, Accessed April 8, 2008. RCGI 2008 Regional Crccnhousc Gas Initiative. 2008. www.rggi.org/, Accessed April 8, 2008. SB 97 California Senate Bill 97. Passed August 21, 2007. http://info.sen.ca,gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051- 0100/sb_97_bill_20070821—enrolled.pdf, Accessed April 8, 2008. SJVAPCD 2006 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. District Recommended URBEMIS Construction Fleet Calculator. May 16, 2006. Version 1.1. littp://www.val leyair.org/ISR/Resources.htm SJVAPCD 2007 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Recommended Standard Changes to URBEMIS Default Values. Updated August 2, 2007. www.val l eyair. org/ISR/Documents/District%20Recommended%20Changes%2 0to%20URBEMIS.pdf UNFCCC 2006 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, Predefined Queries, Annex I Parties - greenhouse gas total without LULUCF (land use, land -use change, and forestry). http:/iunfccc.int/ghg_emissions data/predefined queries/items/384l.php, Accessed April 8, 2008. UNFCCC 2007 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Essential Background. http://unfccc.int/essential—background/convention/items/2627.php, Accessed April 8, 2008. WB 2006 World Bank. 2006. Carbon Finance for Sustainable Development, http://carbonfinance.org/docs/CFU—AR-2006.pdf, Accessed April 8, 2008. WCI 2007 Western Climate Initiative. August 22, 2007. Statement of Regional Goal. http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/ewebeditpro/items/0 104F13006.pdf, Accessed April 8,2008. WH 2008 White House. G8 Summit 2008. www.whitehouse.gov/g8/2008/ WP 2008 Washington Post, David Fahrenthold. January 28, 2008. Value of U.S. House's Carbon Offsets is Murky. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/01/27/AR2008012702400.html, Accessed April 8, 2008. Michael Brandman Associates 51 II: ( [teat3iii 31iiO O1 Climate Change Ropon-I 1--24.doc City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emission Spreadsheets and URBEMIS 2007 Model Output Michael Brandman Associates H:--.Chenr,35i;�,35550001 Climate Change Report-] l--'_d.doc Summary of Operational Greenhouse Gases Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2009 Emissions (tons per year) Emissions (MTCO2e/year) Carbon Nitrous Source Dioxide Oxide Methane Other Motor vehicles 11,138 2.22 3.75 1,616 Indirect electricity 1,778 0.01 0.01 366 Aerosols 30% 478 26 0.72 Natural gas 751 0.00 0.07 15,016 Water transport 29 0.00 0.00 Refrigerants 0.66 Total 13,696 2.23 3.83 1.38 Global warming potential 1 310 21 varies Emissions converted from tons per year to metrictons of carbon dioxide equivalents(MTCO2e) per year by using the formula: (tons of gas) x (global warming potential) x (0.9072 metric tons) Total after Emissions Reduction (%) Reductions 10,800 5% 10,260 1,616 30% 1,131 386 5% 366 683 30% 478 26 26 1,506 10% 1,355 15,016 13,617 Emissions converted from tons per year to metrictons of carbon dioxide equivalents(MTCO2e) per year by using the formula: (tons of gas) x (global warming potential) x (0.9072 metric tons) Mobile Emissions - Methane Unmitigated Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2009 Page 1 6 -Nov -08 Vehicle Miles Traveled 63,385 Starting Emissions 2.67 Ibslday 0.0013 tons/day 0.49 tonslyear Running Emissions 17.89 Ibslday 0.0089 tonslday 3.26 tonslyear Total 20.56 Ibslday 0.0103 tonslday 3.75 tonslyear Vehicle Percentages 0.1448 0.0161 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 Vehicle Type Percent Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel MDV Light Auto 51.6% 1.1% 98.7% 0.2% LHDT1 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 22.2% 2.0% 96.0% 2.0% LHDT2 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.1% 1.2% 98.1% 0.7% MHDT Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.4% 1.4% 95.9% 2.7% HHDT Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.2% 0.0% 81.8% 18.2% LHV Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.1% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% UB Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.7% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% MCY Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.6% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% SBUS Line Haul> 60,000 lbs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% MH Urban Bus 0.1% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Motorcycle 1.3% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% School Bus 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motor Home 0.7% 7.1% 85.7% 7.2% Running Emission Factors (glmile) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.1931 0.1127 0.0161 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Urban Bus UB 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Motorcycle MCY 0.2092 0.2092 0.2092 School Bus SBUS 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Motor Home MH 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Running Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 0.15 8.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 0.14 4.30 0.01 Light Truck 3,751-5,750 0.06 3.19 0.00 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 0.03 1.24 0.00 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.00 0.03 0.00 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.00 0.01 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.00 0.03 0.06 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.00 0.01 0.06 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban Bus 0.00 0.01 0.01 Motorcycle 0.26 0.12 0.00 School Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Home 0.01 0.12 0.01 Total 0.66 17.07 0.16 Mobile Emissions- Methane Page 2 Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2009 Total Trips 23843 Starting Emission Factors (g/start) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.059 0.009 -0.003 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDTI 0.067 0.099 -0.004 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.067 0.099 -0.004 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.067 0.099 -0.004 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs LHV 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Urban Bus UB 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Motorcycle MCY 0,024 0.024 0.033 School Bus SBUS 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Motor Home MH 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 135.3 12143.0 24.6 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDTI 105.9 5081.4 105.9 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 46.1 3765.8 26.9 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 21.4 1463.4 41.2 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0 39.0 8.7 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0 15.9 7.9 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0 33.4 133.5 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0 15.9 127.2 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs LHV 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urban Bus UB 0.0 11.9 11.9 Motorcycle MCY 213.3 96.7 0.0 School Bus SBUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home MH 11.8 143.0 12.0 Total 533.7 22809.5 499.8 Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.0176 0.2404 -0.0002 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDTI 0.0156 1.1067 -0.0009 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.0068 0.8202 -0.0002 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.0031 0.3187 -0.0004 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0000 0.0185 -0.0001 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0000 0.0075 -0.0001 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0000 0.0158 -0.0012 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0000 0.0075 -0.0011 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs LHV 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Urban Bus UB 0.0000 0.0056 -0.0001 Motorcycle MCY 0.0113 0.0051 0.0000 School Bus SBUS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Motor Home MH 0.0038 0.0677 -0.0001 Total 0.0582 2.6138 -0.0043 Source of running emission factors: . . nvironmen ro ec ion gency. ima a ea ers reen ouse as nven ory ro oco . ore odule Guidance. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. October 2004. - Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS default values. -Source of starting emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by ICF Consulting. EPA420-P-04-016. Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for On -Highway Vehicles. November2004. Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Type Unmitigated Catalyst Page 1 Lodi Shopping Center LDA 0.0166 0.0518 6 -Nov -08 Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates LDT1 0.0208 0.0649 Buildout Year 2009 Light Truck 3,751-5,750 Vehicle Miles Traveled 63,385 Starting Emissions 4.17 Ibs/day 0.0021 tonslday 0.76 tons/year Running Emissions 7.99 Ibslday 0.0040 tonslday 1.46tons/year Total 12.16 Ibslday 0.0061 tons/day 2.22 tons/year Vehicle Percentages LHDT2 0,0480 0.1499 0.0483 Vehicle Type Percent Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 51.6% 1.1% 98.7% 0.2% Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 22.2% 2.0% 96.0% 2.0% Light Truck 3,751-5,750 16.1% 1.2% 98.1% 0.7% Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.4% 1.4% 95.9% 2.7% Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.2% 0.0% 81.8% 18.2% Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.1% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.7% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.6% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Urban Bus 0.1% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Motorcycle 1.3% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% School Bus 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motor Home 0.7% 7.1% 85.7% 7.2% Running Emission Factors (gimile) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.0166 0.0518 0.0161 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.0208 0.0649 0.0322 Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT2 0.0208 0.0649 0.0322 Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV 0.0208 0.0649 0.0322 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0,0480 0.1499 0.0483 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Urban Bus UB 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Motorcycle MCY 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 School Bus SBUS 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Motor Home MH 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Running Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 0.01 3.68 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 0.01 1.93 0.02 Light Truck 3,751-5,750 0.01 1.43 0.01 Med Truck 5,751-8,500 0.00 0.56 0.01 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.00 0.03 0.00 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.00 0.01 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.00 0.03 0.04 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.00 0.01 0.04 Line Haul> 60,000 Ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban Bus 0.00 0.01 0.00 Motorcycle 0.01 0.00 0.00 School Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Home 0.00 0.13 0.00 Total 0.05 7.82 0.12 Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Page 2 Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by Michael Brandrnan Associates Buildout Year 2009 Total Trips 23843 Starting Emission Factors (g/start) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.028 0.072 0.000 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.032 0.093 -0.001 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.032 0.093 -0.001 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.032 0.093 -0.001 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDTI 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Urban Bus UB 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Motorcycle MCY 0.012 0.012 0.012 School Bus SBUS 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Motor Home MH 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 135.3 12143.0 24.6 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDTI 105.9 5081.4 105.9 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 46.1 3765.8 26.9 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 21.4 1463.4 41.2 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDTI 0.0 39.0 8.7 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0 15.9 7.9 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0 33.4 133.5 Heavy-Heavy33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0 15.9 127.2 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs LHV 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urban Bus UB 0.0 11.9 11.9 Motorcycle MCY 213.3 96.7 0.0 School Bus SBUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home MH 11.8 143.0 12.0 Total 533.7 22809.5 499.8 Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.0083 1.9235 0.0000 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.0075 1.0397 -0.0002 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.0032 0.7705 -0.0001 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.0015 0.2994 -0.0001 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDTI 0.0000 0.0166 0.0000 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0000 0.0068 0.0000 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0000 0.0142 -0.0006 Heavy -Heavy 33,00 1-60,000 HHDT 0.0000 0.0068 -0.0006 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs LHV 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Urban Bus UB 0.0000 0.0051 -0.0001 Motorcycle MCY 0.0056 0.0026 0.0000 School Bus SBUS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Motor Home MH 0.0018 0.0610 -0.0001 Total 0.0280 4.1462 -0.0017 Source of running emission actors:LJ ti. nvironmenta rotection gency. imate ea ers Greenhouse Gas inventory Protocol, Core Module Guidance. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. October2004. -Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS default values. .Source of starting emissions: U. S Environmental ProtectionAgency. Prepared by ICF Consulting. EPA420-P-04-016. Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for On -Highway Vehicles. November2004. Electricity - Indirect Emissions Project: Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 11/6/2008 Project Electricity Use 4.42 GWh/year 4420 MWh/year Emission Factor Emission factor source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org Project Electricity Use Source: 4.42 gigawatt -hours per year from Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center dated October 2007. The estimation is from the national average of 13 kilowatt hours per square foot per year for commercial uses. (pounds per Emissions Emissions Greenhouse Gas MWh/year) (poundslyear) (tons/year) Carbon dioxide 804.54 3,556,067 1,778 Methane 0.0067 30 0.015 Nitrous oxide 0.0037 16 0.008 Emission factor source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org Project Electricity Use Source: 4.42 gigawatt -hours per year from Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center dated October 2007. The estimation is from the national average of 13 kilowatt hours per square foot per year for commercial uses. Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Project: Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 11/6/2008 kWh/MG Northern California Southern California Water Supply and Conveyance 150 8,900 Water Treatment 100 100 Water Distribution 1,200 1,200 Wastewater Treatment 2,500 2,500 Totals 3,950 12,700 From California's Wafer Energy Relationship, CEC 2005 Water Usage Energy Usage Gallons per day 49397 Indirect Electricity Emission Factor Millions Gallons (MG) per year 18.029905 kWh MWh 71,218 71 Emission factor for electricity source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org CEC 2005: California Energy Commission, California's Energy -Water Relationship. Final Staff Report. November 2005. CEC-700-2005-011-SF Water use from the 2004 El R, page 132. (pounds per Emissions Em ;sions Greenhouse Gas MWhlyear) (poundslyear) (tons/year) Carbon dioxide 804.54 57,298 29 Methane 0.0067 0.48 0.000 Nitrous oxide 0.0037 0.26 0.000 Emission factor for electricity source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org CEC 2005: California Energy Commission, California's Energy -Water Relationship. Final Staff Report. November 2005. CEC-700-2005-011-SF Water use from the 2004 El R, page 132. Natural Gas Combustion Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates 11/6/2008 Natural Gas usage Emission Emission Heating Value Emissions pounds per day 4116 for Project Factor Factor of Natural Gas (tons per Emissions Gas Type of Land Use (SCF/year)* (g CO2/SCF)" (g/MMBTU)*' (BTU/SCF)' year) (pounds per day) Carbon Dioxide Retail/Shopping 12,600,000 54.2 NIA N/A 751 4116 Methane Retail/Shopping 12,600,000 N/A 4.75 1020 0.07 0.37 Nitrous Oxide Retail/Shopping 12,600,000 N/A 0.095 1020 0.001 0.01 Total Units Carbon Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Methane pounds per day 4116 0.01 0.37 tons per year 751 0.001 0.07 Global warming potential 1 310 21 MTCO2e/year 681 0.38 1.28 * Source of natural gas usage from the Draft Revisionsto the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center, October 2007 ** USEPA, 2004: Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources, Climate Leaders Greenhouse Inventory Protocol, Core Model Guidance, October 2004 Emissions of CH4, N 20 = Emission Factorx Heating Value of Natural Gas x Natural Gas Usage x Numberof Units/Square Feet Air Conditioning and Project: Prepared by: Prepared on: Refrigeration Fugitive Emissions Lodi Shopping Center Michael Brandman Associates 11/6/2008 Annual Leak Total 0.663 Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Leaders. May 2008. Direct HFC and PFC Emissionsfrom Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA430-K-03-004. http://www.epa.gov/stateply/documents/resources/mfgrfg.pdf, Accessed in July 2008. Source of number of units: It was assumed that there would be one HVAC unit per 5,000 square feet. Source of global warming potential: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/Refrigerants-Environment-Properties-d_1220. html and http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/refrigerants-properties-d_145. html 1,506 Rate in Global Metric Tons Capacity of percent of Emissions Emissions Warming c 0 2 Type of Unit Refrigerant Units Unit (kg) capacity (kg/year) (tons/year) Potential Equiv./year Commercial Refrigeration r404a 3 250 35.0% 262.5 0.289 3300 864 Commercial A/C r410a 68 50 10% 340.0 0.374 1890 641 Total 0.663 Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Leaders. May 2008. Direct HFC and PFC Emissionsfrom Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA430-K-03-004. http://www.epa.gov/stateply/documents/resources/mfgrfg.pdf, Accessed in July 2008. Source of number of units: It was assumed that there would be one HVAC unit per 5,000 square feet. Source of global warming potential: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/Refrigerants-Environment-Properties-d_1220. html and http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/refrigerants-properties-d_145. html 1,506 Aerosols Project: Lodi Shopping Center Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 1116/2008 From URBEMIS2007: Operation 0.72 tons per year MOBILE6 resu Its Percent Operation (g/mile) of Total (tons per year) Elemental/black carbon 0.0383 77.7% 0.56 Organic carbon 0.0108 21.9% 0.16 Sulfates 0.0002 0.4% 0.00 Total 0.0493 100% 0.72 Global Operation Warming Emissions Potential (MTCO2e/year) Black carbon 760 386 Organic carbon 0 Sulfates 0 Total 386 Sources The global warming potential for black carbon is from the following article: Reddy, M. S., and O. Boucher 2007 Climate impact of black carbon emitted from energy consumption in the world's regions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L11802, doi:10.1029/2006GL028904. Note that the global cooling potentials for organic carbon and sulfates are unknown at this time. The URBEMIS2007 values are from the URBEMIS2007 output. Note that the operational PM2.5 estimates do not contain road dust. The percent carbon is from the MOBILE6 output, which follows. The MOBILE6 values for the LDDV truck type are used for this analysis because the ECARBON percentage is the highest. • MOBILE6 Input file • Purpose: to generate percent of components i n diesel exhaust * Author: CBW, Michael Brandman Associates 8/2008 Reference for DIESEL SULFUR California code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 2281, Sulfur Content of Diesel Fuel (This IS required input but does not impact the air toxic calculations) = Reference for FUEL RVP, GAS AROMATIC, GAS OLEFIN, GAS BENZENE, E200, and E300 The California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250-2273.5 Effective April 9, 2005 http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/040905carfgreg.pdf Linear interpolations were used for conversion of T50 to E200 and T90 to E300 T50 = (125.3846 - E200)/0.3769 T90 = (196.1538 - E300)/0.3538 MOBILE6 INPUT FILE PARTICULATES RUN DATA EXPAND EXHAUST ND REFUELING SCENARIO REC Aerosols PARTICULATE EF PMGZML.CSV PMGDRI.CSV PMGDR2.CSv PMDZML.CSV PMDDRI.CSV PMDDR2.CSV PARTICLE SIZE 2.5 MIN/MAX TEMP 40. 90. CALENDAR YEAR = 2010 DIESEL SULFUR 15 FUEL RVP 7.0 GAS AROMATIC% 35.0 GAS OLEFIN% 10.0 GAS BENZENE% 1.1 €200 42.5 E300 79.4 it � k ie it � :: � � :::: ;`. •.`. •� :c ms's sk ;::c's is �'.t � »'s :`. k's'..•'k ;`. k'k's's ;`. Y :r it :r it it ;: i Yc aY it sY is sY it ic's h �k � ;r it do a s: x`;` sk's � �'t'x i•?: i• MOBILE6.2.03 (24 -Sep -2003) * Input file: PROJECTS/AEROSOL.IN (file 1, run 1). s»..»»....»��-}�t:u.r �s �s �..»..»»�''spa........_..............»__..�k�_»»»»»»..-».. .. .. .. .. .. ..»..�_�_.._.. .. .. .. * Aerosols File 1, Run 1, scenario 1. Calendar Year: 2010 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: No vehicle Type: LDGV LDGf12 LDGf34 LDGf HDGV LDDC/ LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) SAT Distribution: 0.3540 0.3855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.1315 0.0357 0.0003 0.0019 0.0856 0.0054 1.0000 Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------- 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0348 ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0046 ECARBON: ------ ------ 0.0383 0.0235 0.1077 ------ 0.0093 OCAREON: ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0108 0.0339 0.0546 ------ 0.0047 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0042 0.0046 0.0043 0.0363 0.0492 0.0577 0.1633 0.0143 0.0191 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0115 0.0119 0.0116 0.0438 0.0566 0.0650 0.1751 0.0206 0.0268 $02: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0095 0.0167 0.0029 0.0056 0.0132 0.0033 0.0091 NH3: 0.1017 0.1013 0.1005 0.1011 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0923 Page: 1 11/21/20082:31:59 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\MBA\Client\35550001 Lodi Wal-Mart\Mass Site Grading.urb924 Project Name: Lodi Shopping Center - Mass Grading Project Location: San Joaquin County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total r. Q2 2009 0.55 0.03 0.57 45.46 Mass Grading 11/2112009- 0.55 0.03 0.57 45.46 12/31/2009 Mass Grading Dust 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.03 43.61 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 11121/2009 -12/31/2009 - Mass Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 36.18 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 9.04 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 RubberTired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/21/2008 12:32:49 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Tons[Year) File Name: C:\MBA\Ciient\35550001 Lodi Wal-Mart\Drainage Basin.urb924 Project Name: Lodi Shopping Center - Drainage Basin Project Location: San Joaquin County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total gA2 2009 0.04 0.01 0.06 48.81'. Mass Grading 12/01/2009- 0.04 0.01 0.06 48.811 12/31/2009 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 48.81. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 12/1/2009- 12/31/2009- Mass Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 3.65 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.91 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1054.26 Off -Road Equipment: Page: 1 11/21/200812:33:25 PM Urbemis2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report forAnnual Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) File Name: C:1MBA1CIienA35550001 Ladi Wal-MartMal Mart Construction.urb924 Project Name: Lodi Shopping Center - Wal Mart Construction Project Location: S an Joaquin County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES(AnnualTons PerYear, Unmitigated) Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 10/27/2010 - 11/11/2010- Type Your Description Here Acres to be Paved: 9.04 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total zDL2 2010 0.00 0.14 0.14 396.54 Building 0111112010-11/11/2010 0.00 0.13 0.14 380.23 Building Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.12 0.12 177.52 Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.01 0-01 40.09 Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 162.62 Coating 10/11/2010-11/11/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 Asphalt 10/27/2010-11/1112010 0.00 0.01 0.01 13.41 Paving Off -Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 6.79 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 OAO 5.39 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 I.23 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 10/27/2010 - 11/11/2010- Type Your Description Here Acres to be Paved: 9.04 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 2 11/21/200812:33:25 PM 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/11/2010- 11/11/2010 -Type Your Description Here Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 10/11/2010 - 11/11/2010- Type Your Description Here Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005ends 12/31/2040specifiesaVOC of 130 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 130 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/21/2008 12:33:53 PM Urbemis2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) File Name: C:WIBA1Chent\35550001 Lodi Wal-MartlRemaining Center Construction.urb924 Project Name: Lodi Shopping Center - Remaining Shopping Center Construction Project Location: San Joaquin County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) Phase Assumotions Phase: Paving 10/27/2010 - 1 1/1 112010 - Type Your Description Here Acres to be Paved: 2.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total CO2 2010 0.00 0.13 0.14 290.37 Building 01/11/2010-11/1112010 0.00 0.13 0.13 278.57 Building Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.12 0.12 177.52 Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.98 Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.07 Coating 10/11/2010-11111/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 Asphalt 1012712010-11/11/2010 0.00 0.01 0.01 10.35 Paving Off -Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.63 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 Phase Assumotions Phase: Paving 10/27/2010 - 1 1/1 112010 - Type Your Description Here Acres to be Paved: 2.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 2 11/21/2008 12:33:53 PM 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/11/2010 - 11/11/2010- Type Your Description Here Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 10/11/2010 - 11/11/2010- Type Your Description Here Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 130 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 130 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/21/200812:46:26 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Operational Unmitigated Emissions (TonsNear) File Name: C:\MBA\Client\35550001 Lodi Wa1-Mart\Lodi.urb924 Project Name: Lodi Shopping Center Project Location: San Joaquin County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) Source PM25 CO2 High turnover (sit-down) rest. 0.02 367.88 Fastfood rest. w/o drive thru 0-11 1,677.86 Bank (with drive-through) 0.02 290.88 Pharmacy/drugstore with drive 0.03 453.76 through Wal-Mart 0.45 6,913.75 Retail 0.09 1,434.74 TOTALS (tons/year, 0.72 11,138.87 unmitigated) Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2009 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Page: 2 11/21/200812:46:26 PM Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT High turnover (sit-down) rest. 127.15 1000 sq ft 7.50 953.63 2,062.98 Fast food rest. wlo drive thru 496.12 1000 sq ft 9.69 4,807.40 9,335.50 Bank (with drive-through) 156.48 1000 sq ft 5.16 807.44 1,627.55 Pharmacyldrugstore with drive through 88.16 1000 sq ft 14.79 1,303.89 2,532.02 Wal-Mart 56.02 1000 sq ft 226.87 12,709.26 39,687.20 Retail 42.94 1000sq ft 75.96 3,261.72 8,139.30 23,843.34 63.384.55 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 51.6 2.0 97.6 0.4 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 22.2 4.3 88.7 7.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 16.1 1.4 98.1 0.5 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.4 0.9 99.1 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.2 0.0 71.4 28.6 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,OOOlbs 0.1 0.0 42.9 57.1 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.7 9.1 18.2 72.7 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 1.3 73.7 26.3 0.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.7 10.0 80.0 10.0 Page: 3 11/21/200812:46:26 PM Home -Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 6.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) High turnover (sit-down) rest. Fast food rest. wlo drive thru Bank (with drive-through) Pharmacyldrugstore with drive through Wal-Mart Retail Travel Conditions Residential Home -Shop 6.0 7.1 35.0 18.0 Home -Other 6.0 7.9 35.0 49.1 Operational Changes to Defaults Home-based work urban trip length changed from 10.8 miles to 6 miles Home-based shop urban trip length changed from 7.3 miles to 6 miles Home-based other urban trip length changed from 7.5 miles to 6 miles Commercial -based commute urban trip length changed from 9.5 miles to 6 miles Commercial -based non -work urban trip length changed from 7.35 miles to 6 miles Commercial -based customer urban trip length changed from 7.35 miles to 6 miles Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 6.0 6.0 6.0 14.7 6.6 6.6 35.0 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 92.5 5.0 2.5 92.5 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Appendix B: Existing Wal-Mart Demolition URBEMIS output Michael Brandman Associates 1: Client 3555 355;(N1)1 Cimatc Change Report-] 1-24 doe Page: 1 111191200810:35:46 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) File Name: Project Name: Lodi Existing Wal-Mart Demolition Project Location: San Joaquin County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, unmitigated) Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/1/2009 - 6/6/2009 - Default Fine Site Grading Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 359148 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 60066 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1112.33 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/ Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total e_0.2 2009 0.04 0.01 0.06 34.41 Demolition 06/01/2009- 0.02 0.01 0.02 22.66 06/06/2009 Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.69 Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.43 Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 Fine Grading 06/08/2009- 0.03 0.01 0.03 1I.75 0611912009 Fine Grading Dust 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.24 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/1/2009 - 6/6/2009 - Default Fine Site Grading Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 359148 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 60066 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1112.33 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/ Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 2 111191200810:35:46 AM 3 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 RubberTired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 6/8/2009 - 6/19/2009- Default Paving Description Total Acres Disturbed: 5.51 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.38 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 RubberTired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11119/2008 10:35:46 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Annual Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) File Name: Project Name: Lodi Existing Wal-Mart Demolition Project Location: San Joaquin County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated) Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/11/2009 - 6/6/2009 - Default Fine Site Grading Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 359148 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 60066 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1112.33 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total r n 7 2009 0.04 0.01 0.06 34.41 Demoltion 06/01/2009- 0.02 0.01 0.02 22.66 06/06/2009 Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.69 Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.43 Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 Fine Grading 06/08/2009- 0.03 0.01 0.03 11.75 06/19/2009 Fine Grading Dust 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.24 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 6/11/2009 - 6/6/2009 - Default Fine Site Grading Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 359148 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 60066 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1112.33 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 2 11/19/2008 10:35:46 AM 3 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 6/8/2009- 6119/2009 - Default Paving Description Total Acres Disturbed: 5.51 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.38 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day City of Lodi- Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Appendix C: Additional Project Design Features Michael Brandman Associates li: C licnt 355i 3i55(01I Climate Change Report -)1-_4 doc October 6, 2008 Rad Bartlam Community Development City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi. California 95241-1910 Re: Response to the April 30, 2008 Letterfrom Lodi First Regarding the Proposed Walmart in the Lodi Shogoina Center Dear Mr. Bartlam: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of the information included in the April 30, 2008 letter from Lodi First to the City of Lodi Mayor and City Council concerning the proposed Walmart in the Lodi Shopping Center. In that letter, Lodi First discusses Walmart's HE test program and the energy efficiency of its stores, and requests that Walmart develop an "HE.5" building standard for all new Supercenters, including presumably the proposed Lodi Supercenter. Please note that all "HE.5" design initiatives will be incorporated into the "HE.6" test program (the next progression of "HE.5"). Asa result, this letter focuses on the "HE.6" test program, the results of which will be implemented into the Lodi project. First and foremost, our environmental goals are simple and straightforward: To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, create zero waste, and sell products that sustain our environment. We have established ourselves as a leader in the retail industry in implementing sustainable business practices that address global warming and reduce the energy demand footprint of our stores. Walmart is passionately committed to finding ways to build stores that can reduce its impact on the environment. In fact, we are regularly fine-tuning green technologies in order to implementthem into future business plans. Our partnership with the University of California Davis Energy Efficiency Center is an example of our dedication. Charles Zimmerman, a Walmart Vice President, sits on the Center's board and is spearheading the company's efforts to improve the energy efficiency of Walrnart's stores through its HE test program, which isjust that — a test program. It is imperativeto note that an HE model is not a type of store but rathera test program by which Walmart develops new technology to implement in its stores. Walmart uses the results from the HE test results to determine the best experiments to integrate into future business plans. From the HE program, results show that while some experiments are an immediate success, others still need to be refined. The feature that most notably separates the HE test program from a typical Walmart store is the radiant cooling floor slab. In the general merchandise sales floor area of the HE test program, the radiant cooling floor slab allows the engineers to decrease the applied air conditioning tonnage on the sales floor, which drives the efficiency gains of the HE test program. Although the radiant cooling floor slab is currently a part of our HE test program, we are always looking at a variety of different technologies to increase energy efficiencies in this arena. Given that technological advancements with such efficiencies are occurring at a rapid pace, it is extremely complex to commit at this early stage in the development plan to an experiment that is still being refined and improved. Our goal is ensure that the Lodi community has a premier energy-efficient store that will incorporate many features that it has developed through the HE test program. The Lodi Supercenterwill contain the most current green technologies available to Walmart at the time it is built. Such features may include: • Integrated Water Source Format Refrigeration Refrigeration will be water cooled to lower the condensing temperatures for maximum efficiency. Waste heat from this refrigeration process is utilized for heating the outside air (see air handling unit description below) in addition to domestic hot water for the kitchen areas. • Dedicated Outside Air Units With Indirect Evaporative Condenser Precooling Outside air will be conditioned thru dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS) via two air handling units (AHUs). This leaves sensible only cooling for the RTU system since all of the moisture is removed with the ventilation air, eliminating high humidity conditions. Cooling for the AHUs is achieved in two stages. The first stage is entirely through indirect evaporative cooling (IDEC). Each AHU is equipped with a scavengertype indirect evaporative cooler and provides conditioned ventilation air in accordance with Title 24. Most of the time, this is all that is required to meet the space sensible cooling needs. Previously conditioned exhaust air from the sales floor is directed through the scavenger as process air, further increasing the efficiency of the IDEC componentand extending its useful hours. The second stage of cooling utilizes a traditional direct expansion (DX) coil and is further broken down into stages to include some design efficiency improvements. For the first stage of DX cooling, one DX condenser coil is located in the IDEC waste airstream to lower the required condensing temperature. The second stage simply utilizes a traditional air-cooled coil. With the ventilation air pre - cooled by the scavenger IDEC, the toad on the mechanical cooling system is further decreased. Heating for the AHUs is also achieved in stages. During the first stage of heating, the AHU scavenger units recover heat from the sales floor exhaust air, effectively turning it into a heat recovery ventilator. The second stage of heating is met by flowing condenser water from the refrigeration process through a hot water coil in the AHU. The final stage incorporates a modulating gas fired furnace. Staging the cooling and heating ensures that we take advantage of any and all "free" energy available before initiating any mechanical based cooling or fossil fuel based heating. • Daviiahtina (skylights/dimming): Walmart stores include a daylighting system, which automatically and continuously dims all of the lights as the daylight contribution increases. • Night Dimmina: The store will dim lighting to approximately 65% illumination during the late night hours. • Enerav efficient HVAC units: Walmart stores utilize "super" high efficiency packaged HVAC units that are 4-17% more efficientthan required by California Title 24. Walmart • Central Eneruv Management: Walmart stores are equipped with an energy management system that is monitored and controlled from the Home Office in Bentonville, Arkansas. The system enables Walmart to monitor energy usage 24 hours per day, seven days per week. • Water Heatinq: The waste heat from the refrigeration equipment will be captured to heat water for the kitchen preparation areas of the store. This represents energy savings of 165 million BTU's per year. • White Roofs: The store will have a white single -ply surface to optimize reflection and minimize heat gain to the building. The high solar reflectivity of this membrane results in lowering the "cooling" load by about 10% • Interior Lightina Retrofit Proaram: All lighting in the store would utilize T-8 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts, which are the most efficient lighting on the market. Also, the entire store uses only "low -mercury" lamps, which are not considered to be a hazardous material and are considered to be very "green friendly." Although these lamps can be disposed of with no special precautions, out of concern for the environment, Walmart has volunteered to recycle these lamps instead of simply placing them in a landfill. • LED Signage Illumination: All illuminated signage on the building exterior uses LED lighting. This application of LED technology is over 70% more energy-efficient than fluorescent illumination. With longer lamp life, using LEDs significantly reduces the need to manufactureand dispose of fluorescent lamps. • Recvclinq: Walmart stores include huge amounts of recycled material. (A) Steel recvclina:Current construction standards on Walmart buildings include a substantial amount of recycled steel. Stores are built with nearly 100% recycled structural steel. Walmart structural steel suppliers use high efficient electric arc furnaces that use 50% less energy to manufacture recycled steel. Using recycled steel means less mining for new steel, and it is a material that can be readily recycled again if the building is demolished. (B) Recycled Plastic: All of the plastic baseboards, and many of the plastic shelving, are manufactured from recycled material. This store, and all new Walmart stores, will be designed and equipped to recycle the following materials: Oil - over 20 million gallons per year Tires - 23 million tires per year : Auto Batteries -19 million per year Cardboard- 6.4 billion pounds in 2005 w Vegetable Oil - each new store has an indoor tank used to collect oil from cooking processes for recycling Single -use Cameras - 47 million per year collected at our photo processing centers r Plastic Waste- on 2/1/06 we rolled -out a chain wide program for "sandwich bale" recycling of plastics, e.g., bags, garment bags, shrink wrap, bubble pack, etc. Silver- our photo labs capture silver from the photo processing • Fivash in Concrete: The concrete in Walmart stores contains 10% flyash, an industrial byproduct from coal fired power generation processes, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Water -Conserving Fixtures: Restroom sinks include sensor -activated low flow faucets. The low flow faucets reduce usage by 77%. The sensors save approximately 20% over similar manual operated systems. • Ozone -Friendly Refrigerants: Walmart has converted to less ozone-depleting refrigerants as they become available. It uses R404a for the refrigeration equipment. For air conditioning, Walmart has converted to R410a refrigerant. • Non -PVC Roofs: Walmart stores do not include PVC roofs. Recognizing environmental concerns with the manufacture and disposal of PVC (polyvinyl chloride), Walmart has eliminated all PVC roofing from its new stores. • Integrally Colored Concrete Floors: The store will include integrally colored concrete finish. The use of concrete floors is more environmentally friendly than the use of carpet and vinyl tile finishes. This not only addresses environmental concerns with the manufacture and disposal of PVC, it also reduces the need for most chemical cleaners, wax, and wax strippers. By incorporating these measures into the proposed Lodi store, Walmart is reducing the energy demand of the store, thereby reducing its energy demand footprint. Walmart has a company -wide strategy to reduce the energy demand footprint of its stores by incorporating features that result in energy reduction, reclamation/reuse„ and energy efficiency in every store. By implementing this strategy, the proposed Lodi store will exceed California'sTitle 24 requirements and reduce energy consumption. Lodi residents can be assured that Walmart is driving sustainable practices into every facet of its business model — such as store design, packaging and product offerings — leading the charge to creating a sustainable future for all. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this letter. Sincerely„ Kelly Collier Sr. Design Manager City of Lodi - Lodi Shopping Center Climate Change Analysis Report Appendix D: Resume Michael Brandman Associates H: C tient 3555 35590001 Climate Change Report -I 1-24doc Michael Brandman Associates CORPORATE RESUMEV Project Manger, Air Quality Specialist Overview • 4 Years Experience Bachelor's degree, Environmental Science -University of Washington. Bothell Cori Wilson is an Air Quality Specialist with four years of experience in the authorship of air quality analyses, climate change analyses, airport compatibility analyses, and numerous CEQAdocuments. Cori was a primary author on a paper prepared on behalf of the California Association of Environmental Professionals regarding analyzing climate change in the context of CEQA. She lends her expertise in air quality models - including AERMOD, ISCST3, CALINE4, EMFAC, and URBEMIS - to numerous EIR project teams. Cori's analyses are known for their technical accuracy, thoughtful mitigation measures, and innovative approaches, Recent Experience in Climate Change Analyses Gosford Village Shopping Center and the Panama Lane Shopping Center, City of Bakersfield. The Gosford Village and the Panama Lane shopping centers are two projects within a three mile radius of each other both consisting of a Wal-Mart and related commercial shopping centers. These analyses were among the first climate change analyses in the State of California. The analyses included a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and project consistency with strategies prepared by the California Climate Action Team to meet the emission reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. Project specific thresholds were derived and mitigation measures were suggested to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Tentative Tract Map 62757, City of Lancaster. The project consists of the subdivision of approximately 16C acres into 650 residential lots. A Global Climate Change Analysis was prepared that quantified the emissions anticipated from construction and operation of the project. Mitigation measures were tailored to the project and an environmentally superior alternative was selected. Highland Fairview Logistics, City of Moreno Valley. The project consists of the construction of 2.4 million square feet of logistics, 200,000 square feet of commercial, and a retail component. A comprehensive project analysis included an emissions inventory and an onsite and offsite (carbon offsets) mitigation measure feasibility analysis. The cumulative analysis included a description of the potential of the projectto contribute to the emissions associated with international trade. Edgewater Communities, City of Chino. The project involves the construction of residential units on land previously designated for open space and agriculture. A climate change analysis and an air quality analysis were conducted. The climate change analysis included a discussion on smart land use and the conversion of agriculture to sprawling communities. A significance conclusion for project -level impacts was determined and a speculative finding for cumulative -level impacts was identified. Granite Mine Expansion, City of Twentynine Palms. The project involved the expansion of an existing sand and gravel mine with accompanying concrete and asphalt facilities. Emissions associated with the concrete and cement manufacturing industries were explored in the Climate Change Analysis report. Greenhousegas emissions from the proposed expansion were quantified. Compliance with California emission reduction strategies was determined and a level of significance was identified. Wildomar Gateway, City of Wildomar. A Climate Change Analysis was prepared for the project, which involved the construction of a Wal-Mart and additional facilities. Project specific thresholds were derived to determine the level of significance in regard to the project's impact on climate change as well as the impact of climate change to the project. Mitigation measures were developed and project design features were highlighted that reduced impacts. Page 1 Michael Brandman Associates C "'ORPORATE RESUME Martin Ranch EIR, City of San Bernardino. The Climate Change Analysis included a greenhouse gas emissions inventory, development of project specific thresholds, and development of mitigation measures. Rich Haven Specific Plan, City of Ontario. The Climate Change Analysis included a greenhouse gas emission inventory (methane and nitrous oxides) for the existing uses, cattle and hog farming. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed residential and commercial uses were also estimated and the net increase of carbon dioxide equivalents with project implementation was determined. Project specific thresholds were derived to determine the level of significance in regard to the project's impact on climate change as well as the impact of climate change to the project. Mitigation measures were developed and project design features were highlighted that reduced impactsto lessthan significant. Stonefield Tentative Tract Map 18393, Chino Hills. Air Quality Analysis and Climate Change Analysis Reports were prepared for the project, which consists of the development of 28 single family residential units in a location with variable terrain. The Air Quality Analysis contained an assessment of regional and localized impacts. The Climate Change Analysis assessed the impacts of climate change, particularly water consumption, on the project and greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Burris and Lincoln Basins Reconfiguration and Five Coves Pipeline Project, Orange County Water District. An Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis Report was prepared for the project, which involved the reconfiguration of two groundwater recharge basins and the construction of a pipeline system. A detailed construction analysis quantified emissions and recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. The Climate Change Analysis took into account the "adaptation" the project was doing by mitigating the effects of climate change by recharging the groundwater basins. Creekside Marketplace, Fremont. An air quality section of the DEIR was prepared for the project, which consists of 524,000 square feet of commercial uses near an existing landfill. Criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions were estimated from the project and significance findings were determined pursuant to City direction. Rialto Commerce Center, City of Rialto. The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of 3,659,000 square feet of industrial and warehouse uses on 158.9 acres. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated from the project, a significance finding was determined, and mitigation measures were suggested. Silverlakes Recreational Complex, Norco. The proposed project consists of a variety of multi -use recreational facilities including soccerfields, equestrian showgrounds, and/or a community event. Criteria and greenhouse gas emissions were estimated, significance findings were identified, and mitigation measures were suggested. Public Safety Enterprise Communication Project, Riverside County. An Air Quality Analysis Report and a Climate Change Analysis Report were prepared for the proposed project, which involved the expansion of the County's communication system through the construction of 45 radio tower sites. The analyses took into account the fact that the project sites spanned two air districts and three air basins by expanding the background information and utilizing appropriate thresholds where necessary. Page 2 Michael Brandman Associates CURPO ATE RESUMfE Professional Affiliations Urban Land Institute, 2006-2007 Association of Environmental Professionals, Inland Empire Chapter, 2005-2008 Professional Publications and Presentations Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. Cori was a primary author on this paper prepared on behalf of the California Association of Environmental Professionals. The paper outlined various approaches that a Lead Agency could take to address climate change and greenhouse gases in a CEQA document. The paper also contained a summary of climate change legislation, CEQA requirements, and mitigation to reduce impacts. The paper was finalized on June 29. 2007, and incorporated comments from the environmental sector and the building sector. "Clear Skies Ahead: Clearingthe Smog about Air Quality Analysis." In 2006, Steve Smith (SCAQMD), Michael Hendrix, David Mitchell, and Cori Wilson, presented at the Association of Environmental Professionals State Conference, Newport Beach, California. Cori Wilson organized and moderated the presentation as well as presented. The presentation was focused on air quality analysesfor CEQA documents and presented information regarding the'background air quality, the regulatory environment surrounding air quality, and described step by step how to answerthe questions contained in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. "A Planner's Guide to Air Quality Issues in Land Use Planning." In 2006, Theresa Fuentes, Joe O'Bannon, Michael Hendrix, and Cori Wilson presented at the American Plan ningAssociation, California Chapter Conference, Orange County, California. The presentation was organized by Cori Wilson and focused on the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (Handbook). It presented background information regarding the development of the Handbook as well as its findings and recommendations for placement of sensitive receptors next to large air pollutant generators, such as freeways, ports, airports, rail, and warehouses. The presentation also outlined case studies of projects where sensitive receptors were placed near large air pollutant generators and the potential solutions that arose. "Global Climate Change, CEQA, and NEPA." In 2007, by request of the California State Lands Commission, Steven Jenkins and Cori Wilson presented on various topics of climate change, including the background, legislation, and recent litigation. A multi -step approach for assessing global climate change in NEPA documents was also discussed. "Global Climate Change and CEQA." Cori Wilson presented to a panel of builders and engineers working on Highland Fairview projects in 2007. The focus of the presentation was to outline the approach to address the impacts to global climate change. Recent litigation and legislation on global climate change was discussed to support the reasoning behind the inclusion of the analysis in CEQA documents. Mitigation, project design features, and project alternatives to reduce global climate change impacts were suggested. "A Change in the Air." Cori Wilson and Chandra Krout from CTG Energetics presented at the Building Industry Show on November 16,2007 on addressing climate change impacts in CEQA documents, Expert Witness at Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. CoriWilson was an expert witness on air quality and odor topics at a hearing for a project in Canada. October 1- 12, 2007. Page 3 Attachment 0 October 6, 2008 Rad Bartlam Community Development City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi. California 95241-1910 Re: Response to the April 30, 2008 Letter from Lodi First Reaardina the Proposed Walmart in the Lodi Sh000ina Center Dear Mr. Bartlam: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of the information included in the April 30, 2008 letter from Lodi Firstto the City of Lodi Mayor and City Council concerning the proposed Walmart in the Lodi Shopping Center. In that letter, Lodi First discusses Walmart's HE test program and the energy efficiency of its stores, and requests that Walmart develop an "HE.5" building standard for all new Supercenters, including presumablythe proposed Lodi Supercenter. Please note that all "HE.5" design initiatives will be incorporated into the "HE.6" test program (the next progression of "HE.5"). As a result, this letter focuses on the "HE.6" test program, the results of which will be implemented into the Lodi project. First and foremost, our environmental goals are simple and straightforward: To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, create zero waste, and sell products that sustain our environment. We have established ourselves as a leader in the retail industry in implementing sustainable business practices that address global warming and reduce the energy demand footprint of our stores. Walmart is passionately committed to finding ways to build stores that can reduce its impact on the environment. In fact, we are regularly fine-tuning green technologies in order to implement them into future business plans. Our partnership with the University of California Davis Energy Efficiency Center is an example of our dedication. Charles Zimmerman, a Walmart Vice President, sits on the Center's board and is spearheading the company's efforts to improve the energy efficiency of Walmart's stores through its HE test program, which is just that — a test program. It is imperative to note that an HE model is not a type of store but rather a test program by which Walmart develops new technology to implement in its stores. Walmart uses the results from the HE test results to determine the best experiments to integrate into future business plans. From the HE program, results show that while some experiments are an immediate success, others still need to be refined. The feature that most notably separates the HE test program from a typical Walmart store is the radiant cooling floor slab. In the general merchandise sales floor area of the HE test program, the radiant cooling floor slab allows the engineers to decrease the applied air conditioning tonnage on the sales floor, which drives the efficiency gains of the HE test program. Although the radiant cooling floor slab is currently a part of our HE test program, we are always looking at a variety of different technologies to increase energy efficiencies in this arena. Given that technological advancements with such efficiencies are occurring at a rapid pace, it is extremely complex to commit at this early stage in the development plan to an experiment that is still being refined and improved. Valmart Our goal is ensure that the Lodi community has a premier energy-efficient store that will incorporate many features that it has developed through the HE test program. The Lodi Supercenter will contain the most current green technologies available to Walmart at the time it is built. Such features may include: • Integrated Water Source Format Refrigeration Refrigeration will be water cooled to lower the condensing temperatures for maximum efficiency. Waste heat from this refrigeration process is utilized for heating the outside air (see air handling unit description below) in addition to domestic hot water for the kitchen areas. • Dedicated Outside Air Units With Indirect Evaporative Condenser Precoolinq Outside air will be conditioned thru dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS) via two air handling units (AHUs). This leaves sensible only cooling for the RTU system since all of the moisture is removed with the ventilation air, eliminating high humidity conditions. Cooling for the AHUs is achieved in two stages. The first stage is entirely through indirect evaporative cooling (IDEC). Each AHU is equipped with a scavenger type indirect evaporative cooler and provides conditioned ventilation air in accordancewith Title 24. Most of the time, this is all that is required to meet the space sensible cooling needs. Previously conditioned exhaust air from the sales floor is directed through the scavenger as process air, further increasing the efficiencyof the IDEC component and extending its useful hours. The second stage of cooling utilizes a traditional direct expansion (DX) coil and is further broken down into stages to include some design efficiency improvements. For the first stage of DX cooling, one DX condenser coil is located in the IDEC waste air stream to lower the required condensing temperature, The second stage simply utilizes a traditional air-cooled coil. With the ventilation air pre - cooled by the scavenger IDEC, the load on the mechanical cooling system is further decreased. Heating for the AHUs is also achieved in stages. During the first stage of heating, the AHU scavenger units recover heat from the sales floor exhaust air, effectively turning it into a heat recovery ventilator. The second stage of heating is met by flowing condenser water from the refrigeration process through a hot water coil in the AHU. The final stage incorporatesa modulatinggas fired furnace. Staging the cooling and heating ensures that we take advantage of any and all "free" energy available before initiating any mechanical based cooling or fossil fuel based heating. • Davlightin4 (skylights/dimming): Walmart stores include a daylighting system, which automatically and continuously dims all of the lights as the daylight contribution increases. • Night Dimming: The store will dim lighting to approximately 65% illumination during the late night hours. • Enemy efficient HVAC units: Walmart stores utilize "super" high efficiency packaged HVAC units that are 4-17% more efficient than required by California Title 24. • Central Energy Manaqement: Walmart stores are equipped with an energy management system that is monitored and controlled from the Home Office in Bentonville, Arkansas. The system enables Walmart to monitor energy usage 24 hours per day, seven days per week. • Water Heating: The waste heat from the refrigeration equipment will be captured to heat water for the kitchen preparation areas of the store. This represents energy savings of 165 million BTU's per year. • White Roofs: The store will have a white single -ply surface to optimize reflection and minimize heat gain to the building. The high solar reflectivity of this membrane results in lowering the "cooling" load by about 10% • Interior Lightino Retrofit Proaram: All lighting in the store would utilize T-8 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts, which are the most efficient lighting on the market. Also, the entire store uses only "low -mercury" lamps, which are not considered to be a hazardous material and are considered to be very "green friendly." Although these lamps can be disposed of with no special precautions, out of concern for the environment, Walmart has volunteered to recycle these lamps instead of simply placing them in a landfill. • LED Sianaae Illumination: All illuminated signage on the building exterior uses LED lighting. This application of LED technology is over 70% more energy-efficient than fluorescent illumination. With longer lamp life, using LEDs significantly reduces the need to manufacture and dispose of fluorescent lamps. • Recvcling: Walmart stores include huge amounts of recycled material. (A) Steel recycling: Current construction standards on Walmart buildings include a substantial amount of recycled steel. Stores are built with nearly 100% recycled structural steel. Walmart structural steel suppliers use high efficient electric arc furnaces that use 50% less energy to manufacture recycled steel. Using recycled steel means less mining for new steel, and it is a material that can be readily recycled again if the building is demolished. (B) Recycled Plastic: All of the plastic baseboards, and many of the plastic shelving, are manufactured from recycled material. This store, and all new Walmart stores, will be designed and equipped to recycle the following materials: Oil - over 20 million gallons per year Tires - 23 million tires per year Auto Batteries -19 million per year Cardboard - 6.4 billion pounds in 2005 Vegetable Oil - each new store has an indoor tank used to collect oil from cooking processes for recycling Single -use Cameras - 47 million per year collected at our photo processing centers Plastic Waste- on 2/11/06 we roiled -out a chain wide program for "sandwich bale" recycling of plastics, e.g., bags, garment bags, shrink wrap, bubble pack, etc. .- Silver- our photo labs capture silver from the photo processing Vaft 'ar� • Flyash in Concrete: The concrete in Walmart stores contains 10%flyash, an industrial byproductfrom coal fired power generation processes, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Water-Conservinq Fixtures: Restroom sinks include sensor -activated low flow faucets. The low flow faucets reduce usage by 77%. The sensors save approximately 20% over similar manual operated systems. • Ozone -Friendly Refriaerants: Walmart has converted to less ozonedepleting refrigerants as they become available. It uses R404a for the refrigeration equipment. For air conditioning, Walmart has converted to R41 Ca refrigerant. • Non -PVC Roofs: Walmart stores do not include PVC roofs. Recognizing environmental concerns with the manufacture and disposal of PVC (polyvinyl chloride), Walmart has eliminated all PVC roofing from its new stores. • Integrally Colored Concrete Floors: The store will include integrally colored concrete finish. The use of concrete floors is more environmentally friendly than the use of carpet and vinyl tile finishes. This not only addresses environmental concerns with the manufacture and disposal of PVC, it also reduces the need for most chemical cleaners, wax, and wax strippers. By incorporating these measures into the proposed Lodi store, Walmart is reducing the energy demand of the store, thereby reducing its energy demand footprint. Walmart has a company -wide strategy to reduce the energy demand footprint of its stores by incorporating features that result in energy reduction, reclamation/reuse, and energy efficiency in every store. By implementing this strategy, the proposed Lodi store will exceed California's Title 24 requirements and reduce energy consumption. Lodi residents can be assured that Walmart is driving sustainable practices into every facet of its business model — such as store design, packaging and product offerings — leading the charge to creating a sustainable future for all. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this letter. Sincerely, Kelly Collier Sr. Design Manager Planning Commission Minutes 10/08/08 Packet 10/08/08 LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8,2008 1. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2008, was called to order by Chair Kiser at 7:01 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair Kiser Absent: Planning Commissioners — None Also Present: Interim Community Development Director Rad Bartlam, Deputy City Attorney Janice Magdich, Outside Counsel for the City of Lodi Jonathan Hobbs and Administrative Secretary Kari Chadwick 2. MINUTES "September 10, 2008" MOTION / VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Olson second, approved the Minutes of September 10, 2008 as written. (Commissioner Mattheis abstain because he was not present at the subject meeting) Chair Kiser stated the rules of conduct for the Public Hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Kiser called for the public hearing to consider the request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) to allow construction of the Lodi Shopping Center and allow all subsequent development approvals for the center; and Request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to approve Use Permit U-02-12 to allow the construction of a commercial center in a C -S, Commercial Shopping District, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter; and Consider approval of Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 to create 12 parcels for the project. Request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust for site plan and architectural approval of a new retail building to be constructed at 1600 Westgate Drive. Commissioner Mattheis recused himself from the hearing because his spouse is an attorney for the applicant. Commissioner Kirsten disclosed that he met with both the applicant and an attorney for the opponent, Brett Jolley. Commissioner Heinitz disclosed that he met with the Applicant's attorney. Commissioner Olson disclosed that she met with a contingent from Wal-Mart and spoke with many concerned citizens. Commissioner Hennecke disclosed that he met with the applicant, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Pedesto. Vice Chair Cummins disclosed that he spoke with the applicant and others regarding the project. Continued Chair Kiserdisclosed that he spoke with the applicant. Interim Director Bartlam gave a brief PowerPoint Presentation (attached) based on the staff report. Mr. Bartlam stated that the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) per the Court Order focused on five specific areas: Cumulative Urban Decay, Energy Impacts, Agricultural Resource Impacts, Project Objectives, and Project Alternatives. Staff is recommending approval of the project. Mr. Bartlam introduced Jonathan Hobbs who is special outside Counsel for the City of Lodi and has been a part of this project since 2005. Jonathon Hobbs stated that he has been representing and working with the City since the project went into litigation and has been a part of the revision process. The Court found the original EIR to be adequate except in two areas: Cumulative Impacts for Urban Decay and Energy Consumption. Both of those areas have been revised in the revisions to the EIR. The City decided to voluntarily revise three additional areas: Project Objectives, Agricultural Resources, and Project Alternatives. Under Case Law these are the only areas that are subject to review. Commissioner Heinitz stated that he is the only remaining Commissioner that was on the Commission when this project came around in 2004. He then asked what will happen to the vacant building that is the current Wal-Mart; what the likelihood of other stores closing if this project gets approved; and in the case that other store close will the citizens have to pick-up the tab on maintenance so they don't become blighted. Mr. Bartlam stated that in a worst case scenario the Code Enforcement Division may have to step in when the property owner does not maintain the area. The City does have a variety of tools at their disposal to force the property owner to maintain their property to the City Standards. There have been circumstances in the City over the years that the Code Enforcement function has been in place where the tools to force the property owner to maintain the property have been used. Bartlam also stated that the citizens do inadvertently incur the cost because Code Enforcement falls under the City's General Fund. Heinitz stated that based on what he was told about what has happened in other cities when the stores, not just the old Wal- Mart building, close up the citizens have to kick in for the initial out lay of boarding up, repairs, and cleaning although a lien is taken out against the property for when it is ever sold. Bartlam stated that he does not know of what other cities that has happened in, but what has happen here in the past is that Code Enforcement takes the task on and liens the property. Heinitz asked for clairification regarding if it has already happened here. Mr. Bartlam stated that it had and will probably happen again, but staff can not make the connection between the Environmental Document before you and those events. Vice Chair Cummins asked if the five areas in the revision to the EIR should be the main focus for the Commission. Mr. Bartlam stated that the five areas are the only areas that should be focused on along with the Use Permit, Tentative Map, and Site Plan & Architectural review approvals. Hearing Opened to the Public Darrell Browman, Browman Development- Applicant, came forward to speak in favor of the project and answer questions. Mr. Browman addressed the concern of Commissioner Heinitz regarding the re -tenanting of the current building. He stated that this isn't a big merchant builder coming in and trying to build a store, but a long time area developer that has other long lasting developments in the City. The other retail developments owned by Browman Development in the City have a 98 to 100% occupancy. The City initiated the annexation of this property eight years ago and Mr. Browman has been working with the City on this project ever since. When Food -4 -Less came to town all the other stores said it would put them out of business, but it didn't. The positive thing that happens when competition comes to the area is it spurs the other stores to reinvest and remodel which leads to revitalization. The major benefit of this project is that it solidifies this intersection as a dominate retail area. By placing this kind of quantity and quality of retail in one area it draws the kind of retail that the City has been wanting for some time. The architectural look of the building with the columns and cornices give it a pedestrian feel. Browman added that the current Wal-Mart building has been bought by Browman Development to help alleviate the concern expressed in 2004 regarding the re -tenanting of the building. Two years ago Browman Development entered into negotiations with a new tenant for the space, but the possible tenant backed out because they did not know how long the process was going to take. Browman Development is currently in negotiations with another tenant that will occupy 90% of the building. Mr. Browman stated that he is confident that they will be able to 2 Contig ired re -tenant the space with a quality tenant. Mr. Browman requested that he be allowed to come back up at the end of the public hearing and address some of the concerns mentioned. Commissioner Heinitz stated that he is not comfortable with the fact that there isn't a tenant in line for the building. Mr. Browman stated that if he could tell a tenant that in 18 months he would have the space available he would have a tenant's signature today, but like the first time around with Home Depot and no guarantee of when the property would be available, he is not comfortable trying to sign someone when he can't give them a solid time frame. Browman stated that he is very comfortable with the turn -a -round time of 12 months once the project is passed to get a new tenant into that space. He stated that it doesn't do any good to create a project and destroy another, so he would not be going ahead with this if he was not confident that a new tenant would be placed in the space. Commissioner Kirsten asked about the cumulative economic impacts of the project and what the projected numbers are in the increased sales tax because he has not seen anything that shows those numbers. Mr. Browman stated that Aaron Rios, representative from Wal-Mart, is here to address those numbers in more detail, but the number that Browman used is the average sales tax revenue generated by a Super Center which is $790,000, then used $300/sf which is what they got by doing a quick test across the street and then took off $11 million in annual sales which is what they estimated for the difference in sales from whomever they backfill the tenant space with, provided Wal-Mart is a higher sales volume than the new tenant. Kirsten asked if that included the possible closure or lost revenue for other stores. Mr. Browman stated that he did not do a market analysis. If the fear of store closures is based on Wal-Mart coming in, then look around the current shopping center and the draw that Wal-Mart has had for other stores to want to be in the same area. Kirsten asked where the $40million expected property tax increase figure came from. Browman stated that it came from a $100/sf for building (340,000 sf) and $10million for site work and then backed off 10%. Kirsten asked if the same cost would apply for other buildings of this size. Browman stated that he based his numbers on construction cost, so the same numbers would apply for any building of this size. Kirsten asked about the energy efficiency of the project. Mr. Browman stated that he would like to leave the answer for that question to the representative from Wal-Mart, but the understanding is that the building will exceed the current Title 24 Standards. Kirsten asked about the reduced size alternative. Mr. Browman stated that a smaller size project isn't a viable option. The size creates the synergy for that corner. The viability of bringing in the other specialty retailers such as electronic stores and book stores gets easier with the other retail surrounding the area. • Chair Kiser asked about the 900 to 1000 jobs that will be created. Mr. Browman stated that the new Super Wal-Mart will employ about 450 and another 350 + will be employed by the other business that will be drawn to the center. Kiser asked how many are full time employees. Mr. Browman stated he did not know, but could get that number for him. Aaron Rios, Representative for Wal-Mart and Applicant, came forward to speak in favor of the project and answer questions. Mr. Rios stated that the current Wal-Mart building can not meet the customer demand. He stated that in regards to the Revised EIR the Commission isn't reviewing the entire project that was approved in 2004. The Commission is only responsible for looking at the five revised areas. Specific to energy, this project will not have an energy impact. The project will exceed the current Title 24 Energy Standards. Throughout the United States Wal-Mart has constructed proto-type stores to test new technologies that can then be implemented in other stores. The Agricultural mitigation will consist of over 40 acres of prime famland which is a 1 for 1 ratio for this project. In 2005 the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Wal-Mart launched the "Acres for America Program". The goal is to permanently protect one acre of important wildlife habitat for every acre developed by Wal-Mart. To date that is 350,000 acres of land. The Applicant, Browman Company and Wal-Mart, will be investing $700,000+ in the downtown area even though it has been shown there will not be an impact from this project on the Downtown. The average Super Center in California contributes $790,000 to their cities sales tax. The sales tax will increase approximately 23% based on the past examples of Super Stores opening. A lot of the agricultural goods will come from local produce companies. 3 Contin fired Commissioner Heinitz stated his appreciation for the Wal-Mart that the City already has and for their continued work in the community. He then stated his opposition to Mr. Rios, by telling this Commission that they only have to focus on the five issues in the revised EIR. Heinitz stated that he is the only Commissioner left on the Commission that was present at the time of the first hearing and to expect this Commission to accept those findings and just look at the revised issues is wrong. The Commission needs to look at every single element. He asked why not just remodel the current store? Mr. Rios stated that the new store will have wider isles and offer a better place for the customers to shop. He then compared the experience to his family of 4 people living in a studio apartment verses a three bedroom home; could he do it, yes, but is it the best way to take care of his family/customers, no. Commissioner Kirsten stated his appreciation of Wal -Mart's contribution to the World of Wonders Museum. He then asked about the intended energy impacts. Mr. Rios stated that the items outlined in the letter from the real estate division will be included in the new store and if there are any other items that prove to be energy efficient those will be included. What proves to work elsewhere will be included in this building. Kirsten asked if these items should be a part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Rios stated that these items exceed the minimum requirements already. Kirsten asked about the viability of Wal-Mart using the option of acquiring a piece a property in the downtown for $700,000 and then turning around and selling it providing for the mitigation requirement and giving a zero benefit to the downtown area. Mr. Rios stated that there is no immediate intention by the Wal-Mart real estate group to purchase property downtown. What has been explored to date is making some kind of investments in downtown Lodi along with the developer to meet that mitigation requirement. Kirsten would like to tighten up the verbiage for the mitigation requirements on the downtown. Mr. Rios stated that, with respect for Commissioner Kirsten's concerns, staff has put many hours into this project and the mitigation requirements, and using a quote from Mr. Bartlam that was in the paper "this is the most extensive list of Conditions of Approval that he has seen in 28 years". He does know if playing with the language, that staff has dedicated so much time too, is the most beneficial use of the Commissions time, but respects their ability if they so choose. Kirsten then asked about the examples on the increase in sales tax. In the example of a current Wal-Mart Store to a Super Wal-Mart Store what was the increase in sales tax. Mr. Rios stated that in La Quinta, where a regular Wal- Mart store was being replaced by a Super Center, the retail sales tax the year before the store opened was $100 million, the year that the Super Center opened was $127 million, and the year after was $258 million. Kirsten asked for clarification as to those figures being total retail for the entire area including all growth notjust for Wal-Mart. Mr. Rios stated that is correct. Kirsten asked for a math check, would you not subtract the existing Wal-Mart tax revenues from the new Super Center tax revenues to get the total of the increase in tax revenues? Mr. Rios stated that hypothetically if the current tax revenues for the existing Wal-Mart were at $500,000 and then just by moving across the street and opening up the new Super Center that would increase the contributionjust from Wal-Mart to $790,000, now you have to consider the rest of the retail center which increases it that much more. Kirsten stated that you would have to consider the lost sales from your competition also, would you not? Rios stated that looking at the raw numbers based on past experiences the tax revenues increasing 23%. Kirsten asked about the lower prices playing a factor, example: buy a toaster at company X for $30 and buy a toaster at company Y for $20, do you not lose 33% of your sales revenue? Rios stated that no, because by lowering the price you increase the volume, not necessarilywith toasters but overall. Chair Kiser asked for clarification regarding employee benefits and if Wal-Mart covers 92% of the employees with coverage. Mr. Rios stated that 92% of Wal-Mart employees have coverage either with a spouses plan or with Wal-Mart. Out of the 92% over 50% are using the Wal-Mart Plan. Kiser asked if Wal-Mart is in a LEED Program. Mr. Rios stated that they are not in a LEED Program. Kiser then stated that Wal-Mart is only doing what is mandated by the State of California regarding energy. Mr. Rios stated that it will exceed that standard. • Commissioner Hennecke asked about Solar Panels being used in any other stores. Mr. Rios stated that yes they are currently doing a 22 store test. Hennecke asked why the Applicant is agreeing to pay so much money to the Downtown when the project shows no impact and the Reynolds Ranch Project that was just before the Commission which has El Continued retail and shows no impact, doesn't have to pay. Mr. Rios stated that was one of the conditions placed on the project by City Staff, so that the project could move on Chair Kiser called for a 5 minute recess (8:35). Chair Kiser Called the meeting back to order (8:46). • Mary Miller, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Ms. Miller stated that she was not happy when the original store came to town and doesn't feel that the Super Center will send the right message about how Lodi should grow. She stated that she is considering moving back to Carlsbad if this passes. • Dennis Satler, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Satler is concerned with the amount of retail coming to the City. The economic times are tough as the market downturn is proving. If too many big retailers are in a market it will run small retailers out. The internet is also taking up a lot of sales. • Bruce Schweigerdt, Lodi, came forward to support the project. Mr. Schweigerdt stated that the current store is old and needing major revisions. He believes that the Planning Commission should be encouraging this project. • Wanda Van Santen, Lodi, came forward to support the project. Ms. Van Santen stated that since she was in an accident it makes it tough to get around. She would like to have a one stop shopping store. • Mark Anaforian, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Anaforian stated that when the first Wal-Mart came to town he was working for the Lodi Avenue Longs Drug Store and the same promises were made and the downtown Longs Drug Store lost 1/3 of their business and was forced to layoff employees. According to the Stockton Record of Sept. 18, 2008; grocery stores would experience 16% loss in sales the first year, Target & K -Mart together would experience a 46% loss the first year and by the third year sales would still be down by 38% with K -Mart being at a high risk of closing. As of May 2000 Wal-Mart had abandoned 25 million square feet of occupied store. The economy is not growing. Mr. Anaforian believes we should be supporting those businesses that have been here for a long time. • Shawn Piazza, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Piazza stated that the forward thinking of growing is not good timing. The economy is retracting not expanding. He is hearing that the Planning Commission is here tonight just to focus on the Environmental Impact report and he believes this is wrong. The Commission should be looking at the big picture. He commended the Commission for their tough questions and bringing the base numbers to the people that weren't aware. Chris Podesto, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Podesto stated that the Food 4 Less Store has 100% Health coverage. Food 4 Less is vested in the community and has given money to support area activities. The store currently shares the shopping center with the current Wal-Mart which is the anchor store for the shopping center. When that Wal-Mart moves across the street not only does the current shopping center lose it's anchor but it puts a discount grocery competitor right across the street in an area that is already inundated with grocery stores. • Suzie Wilbourn, Lodi, came forward as part of the Lodi First group to protect Lodi's Downtown and oppose the project. Ms. Wilbourn stated that the Environmental Document does not address the additional store closures. She also opposes the extra traffic, security, and environmental issues. Wal-Mart has a past practice of fighting the additional tax revenues assessed with the new stores in court and does not want to see that happen here. • Marlene Borchers, Ione, came forward to support the project. Ms. Borchers is the current store manager at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has given her many opportunities to advance and gives others that may not have the education to do the same. She stated that Wal-Mart donates extensively within the City. She has heard overwhelming support from customers S Continued for the new Super Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart saves people money and that is what is needed in this tough economy. Gene Davenport, Galt„ came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Davenport stated that there are too many unknowns. The Downtown mitigation of $680,000 isn't going to cover it when you consider the effects in down the road, it's a pittance. Mr. Rios doesn't give any figures on the cost of social and city services, which will increase. If Wal-Mart wants to be here let them be here, they don't deserve a Super Center just because they want one. The surrounding stores pay a livable wage in this community, Wal-Mart does not pay a livable wage for this community. • Corey Manos, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project and is a part of Lodi First. Mr. Manos stated that he and his family moved to the area six years ago because of the small town feel. He wanted to point out what was happening in Elk Grove and doesn't want to see that happen in Lodi. • Brenda Manos, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mrs. Manos stated that she is a causality of the Super Wal-Mart in Stockton. She worked for a Pharmacy that had to close its doors and she lost her job. She is a part of the Lodi First group which supports the local businesses first. She pointed out that when the citizens voted for Measure R it was not for a Super Wal-Mart, but for requiring a City wide vote for any retail establishment wanting to exceed 125,000 square feet. • Elsie Greenwood, Lodi, came forward to support the project. She has been a member of this community for over 50 years. Lodi doesn't provide for the elderly in regards to parking. Ms. Greenwood votes yes on the Super Wal-Mart. • Treacy Elliot, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Lakewood Mall has become a ghost town with the loss of retail. When the EIR was done it talked about the cumulative impact it would have along with the Reynolds Ranch Project, but now we've approved even more retail in that project. If we keep building retail out the retail within will die. • Denise Joyner, Lodi, came forward to support the project. There are a lot of handicapped and elderly that could use the wider isles to get around. The employees are very helpful. Ms. Joyner has tried to shop downtown, but it is too hard to get around. • Rose Deak, Lodi, came forward to support the project. The associates are always available to help you out and the management is always helpful with donations to community needs. • Shirley Burns, Lodi, came forward to support the project. She and many of her friends take special trips into Stockton to shop because they can't find the items they need here. She shops at Raley's, Food 4 Less, and S -Mart and will continue to shop at those establishments. • Jennifer Holtz, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project because of the sale of alcohol. She doesn't feel safe with that. • B.J. Simpson„ Lodi, came forward to support the project. She stated that she is 83 years old and will some day have to depend on someone to take her to the store and she would like to have a one -stop -shop store, so she does not have to be overly burdensome. • James Lanchester, Lodi, came forward to support the project. He stated ditto on what has been said for the project. He currently shops at the Super Center in Stockton and would like to be able to keep his tax dollars here in Lodi. • Phyllis Rabusin, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. She sees Lodi as a quaint tourist attraction with its downtown. Ms. Rabusin feels Wal-Mart detracts from that image. • Linda Nelson, Lodi, came forward to support the project. Ms. Nelson stated that she is a 14 year associate at Wal-Mart and has health coverage through them. She makes a good wage and will continue to shop at other stores around town. There are no grocery stores downtown. The Super Center will not impact that area. The current Wal-Mart has not affected that area, so adding groceries to it won't either. Continued • Tim Jacobsen, Lodi, is a district manager for Wal-Mart and came forward to support the project. Mr. Jacobsen stated that with the economy the way it is people will be looking to save money. People are going to Stockton to shop at the Super Center or Winco because of the hard times. He would like to see the tax dollars stay in Lodi. • Andrea Violett, Lodi, came forward to support the project. She would like to see the item placed back on the ballet as a Super Wal-Mart item, because that is what a lot of citizens thought they were voting for with Measure R. • Bill Freitas, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Where is the need for this store? • Karen Helmandollar, Lodi, came forward to support the project. Mrs. Helmandollar is grateful to Wal-Mart for hiring a senior citizen. She has her health coverage through Wal- Mart and is very happy with it. • Michael Tener, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Tener stated that the EIR states that there will be a less than significant impact on Urban Decay and he finds that very hard to believe. • Don Mooney, Attorney for Citizens for Open Government, submitted a document (attached) and came forward to oppose the project and answer questions. Mr. Mooney stated that as a result of the Lawsuit the original EIR decisions were rescinded, therefore the original EIR is not an approved document. The provisions for greenhouse gas emissions do not meet the new requirements that have been signed into law by the Governor (AB32) and should have been taken into consideration when doing the new REIR. The economy has had some drastic changes recently. The Impact of Urban Decay should have been looked at closer in regards to other grocery store closures. • Commissioner Hennecke asked about the focus of Citizens for Open Government on all development or just the Wal-Mart project. Mr. Mooney stated that he represents the group only on this issue. • Vice Chair Cummins asked if Mr. Mooney knew about this meeting well in advance of tonight and if so, why is the Commission just now receiving a 100+ page document. Mr. Mooney stated that he did try to email the document earlier in the day, but it did not go through. • Commissioner Kirsten asked that the audience to be courteous. The waving of the vote papers is not helpful. • Commissioner Olson asked about the AB32 item mentioned earlier, is it in effect right now? Mr. Mooney stated that it is in effect now, but there is some confusion as to how it affects CEQA. Part of the Legislation associated with the budget required the State to adopt regulations under CEQA implementing AB32, which have not been adopted yet. CEQA even without the adoption has an obligation to comply with the Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Governor's office has stated that if a project does not meet the regulations then it does not comply under CEQA. The threshold that has been set is 0% increase in emissions, so if the project increases greenhouse emissions at all then there must be impact mitigations stated. Olson asked if there has been enough study done for this project in Mr. Mooney's opinion. Mr. Mooney stated that there has not. Mr. Mooney also stated that he litigated this issue in court against CalTrans and won. • Vice Chair Cummins asked if the AB32 reductions need to be done by 2020. Mr. Mooney stated that yes, but the thresholds should be considered now. Commissioner Hennecke asked staff to clarify the AB32 regulations. Mr. Hobbs stated that the emissions are to be reduced to the 1990 level by the year 2020 and became effective January 1, 2007. It does not mandate specific requirements at this time. There is a current legal debate going on right now regarding whether or not CEQA requires analysis on greenhouse gases. If you start a project right now it probably does require you to look at that area, but this project was originally approved in 2004. The concept of greenhouse gases was not new in 2005 and should have been raised during the litigation which would have made it possible for them to pursue those claims now. Mr. Mooney's group is entitled to pursue claims that may have been raised and challenged in the original EIR. What the 7 Continued current procedure of this case does allow is for them to raise new issues that were not in place during the original process. The CalTrans case that Mr. Mooney referred to was a new case and the court ruled that they should have looked at the greenhouse gases. • Anita Quroi, Lockeford, came forward to oppose the project. • Commissioner Kirsten asked what Ms. Quroi meant by "suck -up the recourses". Ms. Quroi stated that the more people drawn to the area by this project will be sucking -up the City's resources such as; water, air quality, police services, hospital. • Jag Batth, Lodi, came forward to state that his comments will have to wait for the Council level of this project. • Mark Ruggiero, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. • Jennifer Bond, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Ms. Bond wants to know how all the good things that Wal-Mart does currently for the community are going to change if they move. There are a lot of other businesses other than in the Downtown that will be affected by a Super Wal-Mart. • Brett Jolley, Attorney representing Lodi First, came forward to oppose the project and answer questions. The decision that should be made tonight should not be based on whether this is a good project or if this is a good retailer or not but whether or not he EIR has provided enough information for you to certify. There are two steps for the Commission; first is to determine if the EIR provides enough information, if it does then it should certified, second is to determine whether or not this project is right for the community. Mr. Jolley does not feel that this project should make it to step two. The EIR states that there is insufficient evidence to determine Urban Decay. CEQA states that insufficient evidence is not a viable determination. There have been a lot of comments made by the Wal-Mart Representative about exceeding the Title 24 compliance. This is not a good quantification of what the energy saving features will be. The State Building Commission just adopted changes to Title 24 last month which are designed to in part implement the AB32 guidelines that Mr. Mooney talked about by requiring greener building standards designed to reduce greenhouse emissions. The catch is that the guidelines are voluntary through 2009 and become mandatory in 2010, so if Wal-Mart builds in 2009 and doesn't follow the voluntary guidelines they will be building a below standard project. There are two options missing from the alternative project size from the Project Alternatives Section; one being reducing the entire project proportionately, notjust taking out all the other retail pads and leaving Wal- Mart at the same size. The other alternative missing is the High Efficiency (HE) alternative. If you go to Wal -Mart's website they state that the new HE store that was opened up in Las Vegas is 45% more energy efficient than a regular Super Center, which is what is planned for Lodi. In CEQA when the EIR concludes that the project will have significant and unavoidable effects, which this EIR does for both ag land conversion and air quality impacts, the Commission then has the obligations to make specific findings before approving the project. The Commission must decide whether the benefits of the project out way the significant unavoidable impacts. Commissioner Kirsten asked how a store closure is connected to urban decay/blight. Mr. Jolley stated that the EIR states that the urban decay will be less than significant because the space can be re -tenanted which was based on the economy in October 2007. The staff report states that new a Code Enforcement Officer was hired to handle this kind of blight which is a drain on taxpayers. Kirsten asked if because of the strict code enforcement even if you don't re -tenant the store right away it won't necessarily lead to urban decay. Mr. Jolley stated that is possible. Ann Cerney, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. She stated that she does not feel that the Commission has an EIR before them and that they should have one with all the comments submitted for this project. • Gary Silva, Lodi, came forward to oppose the project. Mr. Silva would like to see the Commission consider other options such as, stores that are not grocery stores for this project area. These types of stores would overlap and work well with the surrounding area Contimeed and not be so combative. He would like to see a development in that area, but would like to see something that would work with the area not against. Pat Patrick, President of the Chamber of Commerce, came forward to support the project. The Chamber supports free enterprise. The Chamber led the campaign for No on Measure R. Even though as stated here tonight the Measure was not technically about Wal-Mart it was emotionally about Wal-Mart. The most knowledgeable person in the City employ has recommended that the Commission accept this proposal tonight. Mr. Patrick does not believe, due to past dealings with Mr. Bartlam, that he would have brought this project before the Commission with the approval recommendation if it was going to be detrimental to rest of the business community within the City, nor would the Chamber feel the same way. For people to stand up here and tell the Commission that they need to make a decision based on the fact that the country is in a down economy then they need to tell you how long we will be in that down turn. • Commissioner Olson asked if the membership of the Chamber of Commerce took a vote to support the project. Mr. Patrick stated that they did not. Public Portion of Hearing Closed Chair Kiser called for a brief recess (10:38). Chair Kiser called the meeting back to order (10:43), Commissioner Heinitz stated his opposition to the project. He does not feel that a move across the street is the best move for Lodi. Heinitz stated that his main concerns are blight and the existing building. He would rather see Wal-Mart expand their current store and just make a smaller version of a Super Center. He stated his respect for staff, but also stated that staff is here to tell us if the project fits the laws, not if it fits Lodi. The Commission needs to take the next step beyond that and listen to what the citizens want also. Commissioner Heinitz stated that he can not support the project. Commissioner Olson asked if this project came about before the Redevelopment Area project. Mr. Bartlam stated that this is correct. Olson asked if for a Redevelopment area to be developed there has to be some blight already in the area. Mr. Bartlam agreed. Ms. Olson asked then how can there be a determination of no blight if there has already been areas found. Mr. Bartlam stated that a blight and an Urban Decay analysis are two different types of analysis. For the first EIR a blight analysis was what was essentially done and then found insufficient through the Court hence the reason for the Urban Decay analysis being done for the Revised EIR. The K -Mart Center on Cherokee Lane was the focus of concern in the Economic Analysis and is in the Redevelopment area. This should give the Commission some level of comfort because of the tools that will now be made available to assist the Center in maintaining a level playing field with any new development. Olson stated that she is a huge proponent of Redevelopment, but it seems odd to be creating a problem just because we now have the tools to fix it. She continued by stating that Mr. Bartlam was correct; just because we have an economically disadvantaged area doesn't mean that urban decay or blight is determined just by a closed store. Olson stated that with the extremely narrow view that she has been given to make any determinations regarding the project has her perplexed. She is having a hard time relating what was done a couple of years ago to what she feels is relevant today. She would like to be able to ask the applicant to go back and look at some of the environmental items such as greenhouse gas emissions and include them in the scope of the project; is that possible? Mr. Bartlam stated that yes you can ask, but Council sets the policy. The Council could have opened it up for more review, but they didn't. Olson stated that she would like to have additional areas to look at and can not support the project with the limited look that has been granted. • Commissioner Kirsten stated that he shares Commissioners Heinitz and Olson's views and would like to focus his comments on the BAE analysis. Kirsten feels that the report is shallow and insufficient. The report acknowledges potential store closures such as; S -Mart, K -Mart, Orchard Supply/Ace, JC Penny, or Mervyns, but the report states that there is 9 Continued insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions. Kirsten believes that the resources and statistical modeling are available to do a more thorough analysis. He can not support the project at this time. Vice Chair Cummins stated that there has been a lot of discussion on whether we need a Super Wal-Mart. The 40 acre parcel that this project is proposed to occupy has been sitting vacant except for the weeds and campaign signs for over a decade. There seems to be a lot of fear regarding the economy right now. Cummins stated that he remembers back when Food -4 -less was trying to open up and there was a lot of fear then about other grocery stores closing, but that didn't happen. When Rancho San Miguel opened up a few years ago there were 350,000 sf of grocery store space already in Lodi, but there wasn't any fear about other stores closing. Cummins stated that he spoke with the K -Mart store manager and learned that the store has been under producing for the last ten years. He added that he got several calls from concerned citizens. Cummins stated that he spoke with the City Manager today regarding the budget and the City is in dire need of more revenue. What other store is capable of developing a 40 acre regional shopping center other than Wal-Mart. There will be 11 other pads that will be a part of this project which will bring in several more jobs. The developer has an excellent track record in Lodi. There are some issues with AB32, but legal counsel has stated that it will not be an issue in this case. Commissioner Cummins stated his support of the project and will vote in favor of certifying the EIR. Commissioner Hennecke stated that while the attorneys would like to tell us that we have only to look at the EIR, we are human beings and we can not help but think of it on a personal level. He believes that one of the Commissions duties is growth, and the future growth of the City should be considered. He does not feel that a Super Wal-Mart is a good fit for Lodi. He would like to see more of the list of what the store is going to do, rather than what they could or could not do. As the project stand, he can not vote in favor of certifying the EIR. Chair Kiser stated that he has issues with decay and is not satisfied with the mitigations offered in this REIR. He would like to see the greenhouse gas emissions considered in regards to the new AB32 bill. He isn't satisfied with the energy standards being met. Kiser does not support this project and can not support this EIR. MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Hennecke, Heinitz second, denied the request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) to allow construction of the Lodi Shopping Center and allow all subsequent development approvals for the center. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Olson, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — Cummins Abstain: Commissioners — Mattheis Chair Kiser asked if the rest of the item needed to have a vote. Mr. Hobbs stated that the project can not be approved because there isn't a Certified EIR, howeverthe Commission can move to deny the rest of the project keeping it all together so that if the denial gets appealed it would keep everything together and put it all at the Council level. Mr. Hobbs recommends denying the entire project, so that it is kept together in one package. MOTION: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Kiser second, to deny the request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to approve Use Permit U-02-12 to allow the construction of a commercial center in a C -S, Commercial Shopping District, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter; and Consider approval of Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 to create 12 parcels for the project; and 10 Continued The request of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust for site plan and architectural approval of a new retail building to be constructed at 1600 Westgate Drive. Commissioner Olson requested clarification on the recommendation. Mr. Bartlam stated that what Mr. Hobbs suggested was that the project could not be approved without a certified EIR, but it could be denied so that it can be kept together in a complete package with the EIR so that the City Council could review the entire project, not just the Revised EIR assuming an appeal of the Commissions action. Commissioner Kirsten withdrew his motion. Commissioner Olson stated that to deny the entire project would expedite the entire project for the applicant. Olson stated that she doesn't necessarily want to deny the project all together, so leaving them separate does not bother her. Commissioner Heinitz does not want to sign off on the project all together. If this EIR goes to the City Council and they choose to override the Commissions decision, Heinitz stated that he would like to still have say in the rest of the project. Commissioner Hennecke stated that he would like to have another look at the project if the EIR gets certified by Council. Chair Kiser stated his agreement with his fellow Commissioners, therefore the balance of the requests were tabled for possible further action. Commissioner Mattheis rejoined the Commission Deputy City Attorney Magdich stated that the Commission will need to take a vote to continue the meeting beyond 11:00pm. MOTION / VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Heinitz second, chose to continue with the rest of the meeting past 11:00pm. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Kirsten, Mattheis, Olson, and Chair Kiser Noes: Commissioners — None 4. PLANNING MATTERSIFOLLOW-UP ITEMS None 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE None 6. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Interim Director Bartlam pointed out the summary memo in the packet and stated that staff was available to answer any questions. 7. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Interim Director Bartlam stated that the Draft Preferred Plan will be coming before the Commission at the first meeting in November. 8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Chair Kiser gave a brief report on the meeting of October 6th , specifically regarding the property over on Cherokee Lane that the Commission denied the service station and Mini Mart plan. Kiser stated that the project came back as a Caf6/Deli and has been approved by SPARC. Commissioner Mattheis stated his appreciation of the Commission for sticking with their ideals and seeking a much better use of this property. 11 Continued ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None 10. COMMENTS BYTHE PUBLIC None 11. COMMENTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS Vice Chair Cummins congratulated Commissioner Mattheis on his recent nuptials. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. ATTEST: I#adt Bartlam Interim Community Development Director 12 Lodi Shopping Center Applicant: Browman Development Company File No.: EIR-03-01-Final Revised EIR U-02-12 — Use Permit 03-P-001— Vesting Tentative Map 08 -SP -08 - SPARC Lodi Shopping Center Final Revised Environmental Impact Report: The Revised EIR includes the five (5) sections which were subject to revision or augmentation as directed b the Court. 9 Y . Cumulative Urban Decay Impacts Energy Impacts . Agricultural Resource Impacts . Project Objectives . Project Alternatives • Use Permit: C -S, Commercial Shopping District plan review of the site as well as the sale of alcoholic beverages within Wal-Mart building. Vesting Tentative Map: Allows the subdivision of the property into 12 parcels. • Site Plan and Architectural Review: Required for all buildings in a C -S zone designation. Focus on architecture and site design. Lodi Shopping Center . Background: • Planning Commission approval: December, 2004 • City Council approval: February, 2005 • EIR found deficient for cumulative urban decay and energy impacts: December, 2005 • City Council rescinds original approvals: May, 2006 • Draft Revised EIR: October, 2007 • Final Revised EIR: March, 2008 Lodi Shopping Center: Zoning & Vicinity Map r,. ri!�f/ter ✓ yyf� iii,/ !i,r� /i/f�rj Y1rf /j/ jyf✓fj�s rf�y/r yi/-✓/✓. ✓i/r�rr i !fir ✓ / � f/ .rf/✓/ � / �1rJ, r/iii/✓; �li�y�/� ry/i//yi,// �/ir//✓iii/� f/ ✓ yy f ii i✓r y f�f/� y /f //✓.riir✓frfr✓1fi✓/r/.i/// rffrf!✓///rf�//f/Jrfrr//✓✓//!r////i//r r�ii✓✓iiiisiiiiiii/i✓iiiiiii�',� flifr.ff/✓i.r.////✓//J/./ri�rfrr/r/! /✓✓✓/ y /f1//r/y� i i 7///1'_ff�/r//1%/I//%✓//r ✓/1fff/ /frit//ff//rrfr/fir///'fi/r✓r//./// ///r�r , .fl///f/.%f/%l%%%%/rte%%l%%%%l%✓f/%f/I�%%%%,i r✓✓///./://rir✓iii>yi�irfiiiii� %%%%��•, tri✓.r,ri✓rr/i//i/////✓/r/frJ/i/// //JL/J/f✓//✓//f//✓> ����;/�l rr f.f rl.i�.>f r/. ! ✓ /,✓ r/-f.i! ,! :iiiiii ✓l / / ✓ r ✓. /✓y � � / J / i / ' _ Rvge#1nl L@FR fFcc�'- :1r ////i/r///✓/ /Z/ City rJ/r//ri/ ✓r / 'rP� f/�✓ri ii✓ /r/ 1/f./✓../- / iiiiiii i / // /./ r . iii✓ � - / ,i ' / City of Lodi Zoning Map y PD, Planned Development ' - C -S, Commercial Shopping i • 0 R -C -P, Res. Comm. Professional R -t, Single Family Res. ✓ i / ® R -MD, Res. Medium Dansity R-2, Single Family Res. /. N PUB, Public i .1" wj Ir �YI7 � ♦ P'�'� ' � i � "moi' � � * �j L '' 5 ; .., 'r 4p wb JA .�4 �' .�_�� � _ 1TiYJM• _ rr "�kti��']Z�`�- # F �r 1�7-L4L .V7'4����1� 1- .. .. _. T� __ - �^r •_ -- } -- duou pit Y } 7 •I�' *L .10 �3 1*f le qL r ` �, Lodi Shopping Center . Summary of Environmental Impacts: • The project would include new retailers who would compete with existing retailers in the City of Lodi; • There is insufficient evidence to suggest that this increased competition would result in any business closures, and consequently would not indirectly result in substantial deterioration of properties or urban decay. • This is considered less than significant Lodi Shopping Center • Summary of Impacts cont.: • The project would increase energy consumption in the construction and operational phases of the project. • Energy conservation measures incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the project would avoid wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. • This is considered less than significant • The increased demand for energy resulting from the project would not be substantial enough to require new or expanded sources of supply or the construction of new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure capacity. • This is considered less than significant Lodi Shopping Center . Summary of Impacts cont.: • The project would convert approximately 40 acres of prime agricultural land to urban areas. • No mitigation is available which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This is considered a significant impact. • As a result, the applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland within San Joaquin County. Lodi Shopping Center Use Permit: • The C -S zoning designation requires all plot plans to be approved by the Planning Commission. • The plan presented is identical to that approved by the Commission in December, 2004. The plan meets or exceeds all requirements of the Lodi Zoning Ordinance including the Standards for Large Retail Establishments. • Allows the sale of alcoholic beverages within the Wal-Mart building. The Planning Commission has previously found that the sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to a grocery store operation and that is what is being requested by the Wal-Mart. Lodi Shopping Center: Site Plan 0 •� SffE NOTES � LJ x Q ne LL wk OW O Opq O O . -� 111111 %� `h' Q .yyq nWpr,+,a w 3 O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O <od O OW O§ O O O O O .0 .0 ON Oy O O O 4 b 175 �a�i ix'��-ra. rCa. prsmttysMwwu M f r f rco o bl b o 0 0 0 PA4 2 I PA 50511 Ss F I 10.0 5P 0 ' �M.se.s lon ,n xlewelwa aw ro. an rx..ve. 7,4 0 SF ' - 1 1 mm IIS. � � •iii I l l � I .,ua.c�'•11 I , 11= I �II� I aroAy I am wiesl vu,rA oms) I III I I III iir i i yil 1 f•. 1 �'• i I, I ` -- L ---Z--'1-----.L-..1-.--.-L.--�.-�.-J L — 1 I 1 J 44 Lodi Shopping Center: Site Plan e ■ O 10 �O O O 4 q oo oW�oo o b 9 O 0-0 O O O ko IJP 0 •� I C ®� a� a� o �O b � LJ x Q ne LL wk OW O Opq O O . -� 111111 %� `h' Q C, 3 O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O <od O OW O§ O O O O O .0 .0 ON Oy O O O 4 b 175 M f r f rco o bl b o 0 0 0 PA4 2 I PA 50511 Ss F I 10.0 5P 0 7,4 0 SF 44 I i Y PAD 6 14,7 $( ; 1i = O O I F ix ' Q O I ll 11 —1r---.•--�.---- SF j � -42b 'I 1 e ■ O 10 �O O O 4 q oo oW�oo o b 9 O 0-0 O O O ko IJP 0 •� I C ®� a� a� o �O b � LJ x Q ne LL OW O Opq O O . -� 111111 %� `h' Q C, 3 O TIDO 4� 0 0 O O <od O OW O§ O O O O O .0 .0 ON Oy O O O 4 b M f r f rco o bl b o 0 0 0 PAD 11 5.D00 Sr I I I IIMM 8.59fi Sf --- Ij I PAD 11 I 35.DOD sr I a a a Lodi Shopping Center . Tentative Map: . The proposed Vesting Tentative Map includes 12 parcels which range in size from the largest lot at 18.3 acres to the smallest at .53 acres. .All 12 buildings are on their own lot with associated parking. Lodi Shopping Center: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Vat,E,W Tentative 91iap Got Layout for Loi - III A'PXs: 058-030-01 OZ 05&030-02 Comity ofSangoagr* Cafifomia AWW 1S, 2008 Shiest 2 of 2 VA. Lodi Shopping Center . Site Plan and Architectural Review: . The proposed project includes the construction of a new Wal-Mart building which is approximately 216,710 square feet. The Wal-Mart building would be located on the southwestern portion of the project site, and the building entrance would face east toward Lower Sacramento Road. • Architectural materials such as concrete masonry block, metal awnings, and exterior plaster finish will be utilized on the exterior of the building. Lodi Shopping Center . SPARC cont.: . There will be three entrances/exits from Lower Sacramento Road, one from Kettleman Lane (Hwy. 12), and two from Westgate Drive. . The main parking lot is located on the east side of the Wal- Mart building. There will be smaller parking areas to serve the free-standing commercial pads. For the Wal-Mart building, a total of 965 parking spaces are proposed . The proposed landscape plan calls for various large shade trees, smaller trees, shru s and ground covers. A total of 478 larger shade trees will be provided within the parking lot interior, along the southern and western edges the property line, and throughout the site. This total number of trees exceeds what the City code requires. Lodi Shopping Center: Landscape Plan WAL:, f MART 4 -ulg i Elul1 �° gfea 1 *; r s. 3i OUIPARML 10 Lodi Shopping Center: Elevations LAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST SOUTH F.LFVATION M � ~ `Oro K. fi Low Prices �" _ i' - rr�+ OIL - Iwl �W WAIL MART Meat Bakery Dell - - S1 MOM Low Prices J ml may. If r•�.ti e � •44 1, VOL X41 .IIP- 9�� Ai ,40 ow i tel.. Iw WAL*MART e Meat Bakery DL41 ,_��- Uw Pric" w . Y. r. yIN*_�w --a- -e-� Ae Lodi Shopping Center • Conclusion: . Based on the information contained within the Final Revised EIR, the plans submitted and the policies and previous actions of the City, staff recommends that the Planning Commission: • Certify Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) Approve Use Permit U-02-12, Approve Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 Approve Site Plan and Architectural Review 08 -SP -08 LAW OFFICES OF DOC44QQISA4 1220 i_ Street, Suite 2 DC?iEA?.,I:7 B, i`vlC)(3NEY Da's, i:nlifornia 951616 It1.1e }tone (530) 778-23-17 F,:ic::sitnlle (530) 758.7.1.69 October 8,2008 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL Planning Commission City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, California 95241-1910 Re: Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center, State Clearinghouse No. 20030421 13 Dear Commissioners: At your October 8, 2008 meeting, you will decide whether to (1) certify the City of Lodi's ("City") the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR') for the Lodi Shopping Center project (or the "Project") and (2) approve the Project. On behalf of Citizens for Open Government ("Citizens"), we urge you to send the deficient FEIR back for further work and deny the Project. The two principle questions before you are whether the environmental documentation fully discloses, and mitigates where feasible, the environmental impacts of the Project and whether Lodi needs the Project given the substantial negative impact on local businesses in these lean economic times. We ask the Planning Commission to examine this latter question particularly carefully given that the City's stated objective is to approve only "commercial development which does not negatively affect Downtown and the past and ongoing investment in Downtown." (DREIR at 32.) A. Background As you are aware, the Lodi Shopping Center is proposed to be constructed on 40 acres of prime agricultural land on the west side of the City on the southwest corner of West Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. The main purpose of the Project is to substitute a new 227,000 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter for the existing Wal-Mart across the street. The Project also contains approximately 110,000 square feet of additional smaller scale commercial space. The City considered an EIR for this Project once before and certified it as in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in early 2005. In litigation commenced by Lodi First, the Superior Court determined that the City made numerous errors in the analysis and remanded the EIR for an overhaul should the City desire to proceed with the Project. Citizens also sued the City over the same EIR, Lodi Planning Commission October 8,2008 Page 2 of 7 asserting a range of additional CEQA errors. The Lodi City Council thereafter decertified the Final EIR and voided the project approvals. After prevailing on appeal to establish its right to sue, Citizens agreed to dismiss its case when the City released a Notice of Preparation for the "Draft Revisions" to the EIR ("DREIR") and agreed to permit Citizens to "comment fully" on the new draft EIR. A year ago, the City produced its DREIR and on December 7,2007, Citizens provided extensive comments. The City produced its "Final Revisions" to the EIR ("FREIR') some six months ago in March 2008. B. Inadequate CEOA Compliance 1. Improperly Restricted Scope of Analysis Instead of producing a coniprehensive analysis of the full environmental effects of building another 330,000 square feet of new coinmercial development, the City insists that it may pick and choose which issues to present to you. For example, in response to comments that the City's CEQA documents failed to adequately analyze certain critical environmental effects, (e.g., global warming, certain air quality impacts such as PM2.5 emissions and SJVAPCD 9510 compliance), the City contends that it may ignore these impacts by restricting the scope of its "Revised" EIR. The City contends that it can avoid properly disclosing the full impact of the Wal-Mart Supercenter to the Planning Commission and the public because they were not allegedly addressed by the court in the Lodi First litigation or were not voluntarily considered in the DREIR. The City presumption of its ability to exclude analysis and consideration of environmental impacts caused by the Project exceeds its legal ability and gives short shrift to the Planning Commission's need for complete disclosure of impacts. Under the Stipulation for Dismissal executed by the Citizens and the City, the City agreed that Citizens "shall have the right to comment fully on the revised draft and final EIRs ...." without limitation. The City then agreed that it would not assert any defense to any subsequent litigation "claims" that is not inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulation . . " In other words, the City cannot agree on the one hand to allow Citizens to comments fully but on the other hand disregard those comments. More importantly, the City is asking the Planning Commission to certify that all the environmental documentation before its meets CEQA's obligation to fully disclose all impacts and fully mitigate were feasible. The Planning Commission may examine the FEIR in order ensure that it discloses and mitigates all impacts regardless of Wal -Mart's desire to shield as much information as possible from public disclosure. 2. Land Use — Urban Decay In 2005, the City asserted that approval of the Lodi Shopping Center with over 330,000 square feet of commercial/retail would not result in urban decay. The Superior Lodi Planning Commission October 8,2008 Page 3 of 7 Court held this conclusion irrational because the City did not consider the cumulative impacts of surrounding commercial development, including new close by Wal-Mart Supercenters. In 2006, the City approved 350,000 square feet of new commercial retail Reynolds Ranch, apparently concluding that this 350,000 square feet would have no adverse affect on downtown retailers. Recently, the City approved more than doubling of commercial area to 750,000 square feet again apparently concluding no adverse consequences from this development.' Central to this determination was that the Reynolds Ranch project did not contain any big box stores like a Wal-Mart Supercenter. (See Planning Commission Minutes wherein Mr. Gillespie "stated that because there isn't any Big Box stores planned for this area the effects on the downtown are not significant."j Now the City asserts that — in addition to the new nearby Wal -Marts and the 750,000 of new commercial of Reynolds Ranch —the Lodi Shopping Center, including a "Big Box" Wal-Mart Supercenter and more than 330,000 square feet will not adversely affect the downtown core notwithstanding a projected 34% loss of sales. We urge the Planning Commission to ask "Is conclusion rational in this economic climate?" We also urge the Planning Commission to review carefully the economic analysis for this report and ask probing questions such as "did the economic analysis include the re -tenanted Wal-Mart space?" and "on what factual basis does the City assume that 100% of sales leakages will be captured by the Project and Reynolds Ranch?" We ask this question because we not only believe this assumption to be unsupported and irrational (particularly 100% of the $29,229,496 in annual service station leakages), but also because this assumption is used by the economic consultant to reduce on a dollar for dollar basis the effect from the Project on local retailers. In other words, the actual adverse sales impact to existing local businesses will be substantially greater than reported because "using a lower assumed capture rate would raise the percent capture from existing" local retailers. (See DREIR Table 22, at 64, note e.> We also ask whether another fundamental assumption central to the consultant's "no effects" conclusion is rationale: that growth in trade area will expand the economic pie so that the addition of over 1 million square feet of new commercial will keep existing business viable (see e.g., FREIR at 39). Is continued growth sufficient to cover the admitted over supply of retail space objectively reasonable given the economic downturn? We note that while the City seems institutionally unable to conclude that any new amount of retail will adversely affect downtown, it rests its CEQA conclusion on the absence of urban decay on implementation of the new prioritized code enforcement I In light of the expansion of the Reynolds Project beyond what was disclosed to the public in the DREIR, the City is obligated to recirculate the DREIR in order to provide a meaningful opportunity to comment on Land Use/Urban Decay cumulative impacts and the City's last minute disclosure of additional consultant analysis. Lodi Planning Commission October 8,2008 Page 4 of 7 policy. We attach a copy of Resolution 2006-39 and ask the Planning Commission to note that contrary to its representations in the EIRs, the City has placed enforcement of "[v]iolations related to proerty maintenance issues" next to the bottom of its "Operational Priorities" (9t out of 10). In addition, while Resolution No. 2006-39 includes abatement of nuisances as a potential topic for one of five "Focused Enforcement Efforts," we ask for proof in these tight budgetary times that such an effort has actually been funded for the long term, for adopted criteria indicating how much urban decay is necessary before a "nuisance" is established, and instances of past nuisance building prosecutions, if any. Finally, we note that the proposed adopting ordinance imposes Condition HH "to address the economic affects of the Lodi Shopping Center on the Downtown." Condition HH requires an investment of not less than $680,000 in downtown buildings owned or rented by the developer (or by others). It is difficult to reconcile the City's previous conclusion that development of the Lodi Shopping Center will not adversely affect downtown with the imposition of a condition "to address" those non-existent impacts. More fundamental, however, is the disconnect between substantial loss of sales for existing retailers and the urban decay conditions likely to result there from and Condition HH — which can be satisfied simply by the developer upgrading buildings it owns (which may or may be related to retailing or contributing to urban decay). Has the City undertaken any analysis that links Project impacts to Condition HH or is it simply a monetary sweetener? 2. Airicultural Resources The City has made significant strides in recognizing that agricultural conservation easements may mitigate loss of prime agricultural lands. We also applaud the City for taking may of our suggestions to improve the easement mitigation requirement imposed on the Project. The City ignored, however, one of our central points —that mitigation should occur at a ratio greater than 1:1 in order to more fully mitigate the loss and that is certainly feasible to do so. In response the City simply points to other jurisdictions that have required minimal mitigation requirements (while other jurisdictions require much more). CEQA, however, does not permit the City to meet some "least common denominator" test to limit its mitigation obligation. If the City desires to override the significant but unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources CEQA requires that it adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. (CEQA Guidelines § 15043(a).) In this instance, it is imminently feasible to require greater mitigation ratios in order to lessen the individual and cumulative loss of prime agricultural lands. 3. Enerffy As we pointed out in our comments on the DREIR, global warming has become one the most critical environmental problems that humans must confront. Despite discussing global warming in its revised Energy chapter, the City failed to undertake any Lodi Planning Commission October 8,2008 Page 5 of 7 analysis of global warming impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the Project. The City responded that, even though it raised the global warming issue in the DREIR, it need not discuss it as (1) global warming lies outside the alleged restricted scope of the DRIER, and (2) no meaningful analysis could be undertaken in any event absent more guidance from state government. The City is wrong. As discussed above, global warming is a legitimate issue raised in timely comments and must be addressed. Moreover, the City cannot raise the issue, inadequately assess its impact, and then claim immunity from comment because global warming lies outside the scope of DREIR. Next, the City self-servingly asserts that CEQA does not require assessment of global warming impacts until the State if California has provided it with step-by-step guidance on measuring impacts and rendering significance determinations. CEQA's mandate to assess all impacts is not limited to those issues for which a local jurisdiction believe it has sufficient guidance. Instead, as the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") has recognized in its June 19,2008, Technical Advisory entitled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) Review requires a global warming analysis and that the Energy section of an EIR is an appropriate place for such an analysis. (A copy of the Technical Advisory is attached as Attachment A.) In the Technical Advisory, OPR provides a recommended approach: Each public agency that is a lead agency for complying with CEQA needs to develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. A consistent approach should be applied for the analysis of all such projects, and the analysis must be based on best available information. For these projects, compliance with CEQA entails three basic steps: identify and quantify the GHG emissions; assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that will reduce the impact below significance. (Technical Advisory at p. 5•) The Technical Advisory also informs lead agencies must assess whether the emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. (Id.) Thus, the City must consider the impact of the Project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. (Id.) As indicated in the Technical Advisory (at p. 6), CEQA requires the lead agency must also determine the threshold of significance for the project. It should be noted that the State Lands Commission recently stated in a draft Environmental Impact Report for the Venoco Ellwood Oil Development and Pipeline Project determined that a project would be considered having a significant impact if its GHG emissions have a net increase Lodi Planning Commission October 8,2008 Page 6 of 7 over the baseline. Because of the severity of the global warming problem as the result of cumulative GHG emissions worldwide, the State Lands Commission's Draft EIR coiicludes that the zero -threshold approach appears to be the most scientifically supportable of the options.2 Additionally, there are available mitigation measures that could be incorporated into the project, before it is approved, that could feasibly and substantially reduce the Project's global warming impacts to a level of insignificance. Submitted as Attachment C with this comment letter is the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association's ("CAPCOA") January 2008 report titled CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfrom Projects Subject to the California Environmental QualityAct. " Appendix B of this report presents 45 pages of potential mitigation measures that could reduce air quality impacts. Many of which could be incorporated to offset air quality impacts, including GHG emissions. In sum, in light of the Governor's Executive Order 5-3-05 (June 1,2005) and the requirement that GHG be significantly reduced by 2020 and even further reduced by 2050, it is incomprehensible that the City, a subdivision of the state, has essentially thumbed its nose at the Governor's Executive Order and refused to even attempt to evaluate the Project's GHG emission and contributions to global warming. 4. Alternatives Has the City presented the Planning Commission with an adequate array of alternatives that meet critical project objectives that offer environmental benefits over the proposed Project; or is the Alternative Analysis simply an exercise is rationalizing the development as proposed by the developer to maximize his fiscal return? We fear the latter as we have consistently pointed out that the City lacked a meaningful set of alternatives. We were encouraged when in the City represented to the public that its consultants would include in the DREIR up to two additional project alternatives. It now appears that one of the alternatives the City expected to include was the Reynolds Ranch site —the same site the City has now approved 750,000 square feet of commercial development. We urge the Planning Commission to require that the City present a meaningful alternative, including redevelopment of the existing Wal-Mart site that not 2 The State Lands Commission's Draft Environmental Impact Report is available on line at: http://slc.ca.f-)ov/Division Pages/DEPM/DEPM Programs and Reports/Venoco Santa Barbara/Venoco Santa Barbara.html A copy of the Lands Commission's Draft EIR's GHG analysis is Attachment B to these comments. Lodi Planning Commission October 8,2008 Page 7 of 7 only will avoid many of the main environmental impacts but also more in line with the objective of avoiding new development harmful to downtown. B. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City proposes to override the significant but unavoidable environmental impacts with a host of unsupported, speculative benefits. Given the projected sales decline of at least 34 percent in the City, and the likely loss of established business, added expense of an alleged stepped up urban decay enforcement, no evidence is presented that actually shows the Project to be a net tax benefit to the City once the true cost of the Project is measured. Without some supporting analysis the City cannot override the adverse environmental consequences. C. Conclusion The proposed Lodi Shopping Center is not good planning for a healthy Lodi in these uncertain and tenuous economic times. The City has already approved nearly one million square feet on new commercial space close to the downtown. Why approve even more to drive more existing business down. On behalf of Citizens for Open Government, we urge the Planning Commission to reject the EIR and fundamentally inadequate and deny the Project as simply unwise to undertake at this time. Sincerely, Donald B. Mooney l John L. Marshall fZ Attorneys for Citizens for Open Government Attachment A al Advilosory CEOA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review This technical advisory is one in a series of advisories provided by the Governots Office of Planning and Research (CCPR) as a service IX) professional planners, land use officials and Cf QA practitioners. OPR issues technical gaidance from time to time on issues that broadly affect the practice of CEQA and land use pianning. The emerging, role of CE,"QA in addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions has been the topic of much discussion and debate in recent months. This d(,,)cui-tent provides OPRs perspective on the issue. 1. PURPOSE General scientific consensus and increasing public awareness rc.ga,rding global warming and climate change have placed new focus on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process as a means to address the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission,, from proposed projects on climate change. Many public agencies—along with academic, business, and community orp ,anizations--are striving to determine the appropriate means by which to evaluate and mitigate the iinpacts of proposed projects on cliniate change. Approaches,and methodologies for caictihating GHG cmissions and addressing the environmental.impactsthrough CEQA, review are rapidly e ' volving and are increasingly available to assist public agencies to prepare their CEQ)A documents and makeh-iformcd decisions. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) will develop, and the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) will certify and adopt ,amendments to the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental, Quality Act C'CI,7!.C),A Guidelines"), on or before January 1, 2010, pursuant to Senate Bill 97 (Dutton, 2007). These new CEQA Guidelines will provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GFIG emissions in CEQA documents, In the interim, OPR offers the following informal guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents. This guidance was developed in cooperation xcith the Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ART3), 11. BACKGROUND Climate change refersio any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate change may result from natural. factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the att-Dospbereand alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in. global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, attributed to accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. (.3reenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, ses, while others are created. and emitted solely through human activities. The emission of GHGs through the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., fuels containing carbon) in conjunction with other human activities, appears to be closely associated with global warming. State law defines GHG to include the following: carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), nitrous oxide (N.0), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (Health and Safety Code, section 38505(g).) The most , common GHG t1iat results from human activity is cat.-L)on dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide, Requirements of Ali 32 and SB 97 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Nunez, 2006), recognizes that California is the source of substantial, amounts of GHG emissions. The statute begins with several legislative find, I ings and declarations of intent, including the following. Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well- being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global I'vartning include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snow pack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences,oluniage to marine, ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other hurnan health-related prob)CUls. (Health and Safery Code, section 38501.) In order to avert these consequences, AB 32 establishes a state goal of reducing GH G emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (a reduction of approximately 25 percent from forecast emission levels) with further reductions to follow The la -w requires the ARB to establish a program to track and report GHG emissions; -,approve a sc(-,)ping plan for achieving the trutxinaun) technologically feasible and cost effective reductions from sources of GHG emissions; adopt early reduction measures to begjn moving forward; and adopt, implement and enforce regulations — including market mechanisms such its and -'trade" programs — to ensure the required reductions occur. 'J'hc A.11,13 recently adopted a statewide GHG emissions limit and an emissions inventory, along with requirements to measure, track, and report GHG emissions by the industries it determined to be significant sources of GFJG emissions, CEQA requires public agencies to identify the potentially significant effects on the environment of projects they intend to carry out or approve, and to mitigate signific- ant effects whenever it is feasible to do so. While .AB 32 did not amend CEQA to require new analytic processes to account for the environmental impacts of GHG emissions from projects subject: to CEQA,.it does acknowledge that such emissions cause significant. adverse impacts to human health and the environment, Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GFIG emissioru are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis, It directs OPR to de:•velop draft CEQA Guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse Irds emissions" by July 1, 2009 and directs the Resources Agency to certify avol adopt the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010. Requireffle t-1 tS of CEQA CEQA is a public disclosure law that requires public agencies to make good -faith, reasoned effort, based upon available information, to identify the potentially significant direct and indirect environmental itlipactq—including cumulative impacts— of a proposed project or activity. The CEQA process is intended to inform the public of the potential environrrfental effects of proposed government decisions and to encourage informed decision-making by public agencies. In addition, CRQA obligates public agencies to consider less environmentally -damaging alternatives and adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid -a project's significant impacts. The lead agency is required to prepare lin 1--'I'Mironmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or equivalent document, when it: determines that the project's impacts on the environment are potentially significant. This determination of significance must be based upon substantial evidence in light: of all the information before the agency. Although the CEQA Guidelines, at Appendix G, provide ,I checklist of suggested issues that should be addressed in an BIR, neither the CEQA statute nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of sig3ificance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. This is left to lead agency judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable. A threshold of significance is essentially a regulatory standard or set of criteria that represent the level at which a lead agency finds a particular environmental effect, of a project to be significant. Compliance with a given threshold tneans the effect normally will be considered less than significant. Public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such ernissi(yris from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines Char the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. We realize that perhaps the most difficult part of the climate changeanalysis will be the determination of significance. Although lead agencies typically rely on local or regional definitions of significance for most enviroarnental issues, the global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold of sigrdficarice for G.HG emissions. To this end, OPR has asked ARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting d-wesholds which will encourage co.risistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GFIG cn-iis,%ions throughout the state. Until such time as state guidance is available on thresholds of significaiicefor GFIG emissions, we recommend the following approach to your CEQA analysis, r_1 models are rapidly changing. OPR will periodically update the examples of modeling tools identified in Attachment 2. There is no standard foemat for including the analysis in a C.RQA document. A GHG/climate change analysis can be included in one or more of the typical sections of an ETR (e.g., air quality, transportation, energy) or may be provided in a separate section on cumulative impacts of climate change. Determine Significance When assessing project's GFIG emissions, lead agencies 11 -lust (Ickscribe the existing emdronmental conditions or setting, without the project, which normally Constitutes 'the baseline physical conditions for determining whether a projmts impacts are significant, • As with any environmental impact, lead agencies must determine What constitutes a significant impact. In the absence of regulatory standard,, fax GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly &fine what constitutes a "significant impact", individual lead agencies may undertake a project - by -project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current. CEQA practice. . I The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable, J.,cad agencies should not dismiss a proposed project's direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful' consideration, supported by substantial evidence, Documentation of available inf vai ormation and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute: nmv GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts). Although climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that. emits GYHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant curnulative impact on the environment. CEQ)A authorizes reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation progj:ulln' that have 'adequatclyanalyzcd and mitigated GF tG emissions to a less than significant level as a means to avoid or substantially reduce the cumulative impact Of7a project. Mitigate Impacts • Mitigation measures will vary with the type of project beinb,, contemplated, but may include alternative project designs or locations that conserve energyand watet, measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VW.r) by fossil -fueled vellicles, measures that contribute to established regional or programmatic tritigation strategies, and measures that sequester carbon to offset the emissions frorn the project. • The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce G4 -JG emissions to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific leg, id, economic, technological, or other reasons. A. lead agency, is not responsible for wholly eliminating all G:H(3 emissions from ,i project-, the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is "less than significant". • If there are not sufficient mitigation measure., that: the lead agency determines are feasible to achieve the less than significant level, the lead agency should adopt those measures that arc: feasible, and adopt. a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explains why further mitigation is not feasible, A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared when the lead agency has determined to approve a project for which certain impacts are unavoidable. These statements, should explain the reasons why the impacts cannot be adequately mitigated in sufficient detail, and must be based on specific facts, so as not. to be conclusory. • Agencies are encouraged to develop standard GHG emission reduction or mitigation measures that can be applied on a project-by-proj ect basis. Attachment 3 contains a preliminary menu of measures that lead agencies may wish to consider. This list is by no means exhaustive or prescriptive. Lead agencies are encouraged to develop their own measures and/or propose project alternatives m reduce GHG emissions, either at a programmatic level or on a case-by-case review. • In some cases GHG emission reduction measures will not be feasible or may riot be effective at a project level. Rather, it may be more appropriate and more effective to develop and adopt program -level plans, policies and measures that will result in, a reduction of GHG, emissions on a regional level. W, ADDITIONAL LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS CEQA can be a more effective tool for GHG emissions analysis and mitigation if it is supported and sul)plemented by sound development policies and practices that will reduce G1JG emissions on a broad planning scak and that can provide the basis fora progrsininaticapproach t(,,) project-specific,CEQA atialysis and mirigation. Local governments with land use authority are begituiing to establish policies that result in land use patterns and practices that will result in .less energy use and reduce G14G emissions, For example, some cities and counties have adopted general plans and policies that encourage the development of compact, irdxed-- use, transit oriented development that reduces VMT; encourage alternative fuel vehicle use; conserve energy and water usage; and promote carbon sequestration. Models of such developments exist throughout the state (see OPR climate change website for examples of city and county plaris and policies, referenced in Attachment 1). For local government lead agencies, adol')tion of general plan policies and certification erti, ication of general plan EJRs that analyze broad jurisdiction -wide impacts of GHG emissions can be part of an effective strategy for addressing cumulative impacts and for streamlining hater project -specific CEQA reviews, International, national, and statewide organizations such as ICLE I (Local Governments for Sustainability), the Cities for Climate Protection, and the Clean Cities Coalition —to name just a few — have I.-mblished. guidebooks to help local governments reduce GHG emissions through land use planning techniques and improved municipal operations. Unks to these resources are provided at the end of this advisory, Regional agencies can also employ a variety of strategies to reduce GHG emission„ through their planning processes. For example, regional transportation planning agencies adopt plans and programs that -address congestion relief, jobs. to -housing, balance, reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VWJ�, and other issues that have; implications for GHG emission reductions. State agencies are also tackling the issue of climate change, Some have adopted or support policies and programs that take climate charige into account, including the Department of Water Resources,' State Water Plan; the Department of Transportation- StaEc'Fransportation Plan; and the Business, Housing and Transportation Agency's Regional Blueprint Planning; Program. These efforts not only raise public awareness of climate change and how the State can. reduce GHGF emissions, but also offer specific information and resources for lead agencies to consider. V. NEXT STEPS OPR has asked ARB technical staff to recornmend a method for.settinga threshold of si0ficance for GHG emissions. OPR has requc9ted that the ARB identify a range of feasible options, including qualitative and quantitative options. OPR is actively seeking input from the public and stakeholder groups, as it evelops draft CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions. OPR is engaged. with the .esources Agency and other expert state agencies, local governments, builders rid developers, environmental. organizations, and others with expertise or an iterest in the development of the Guidelines. OPR will conduct public waricstiops later this year to receive input on the -(--)pe and contcta of the CEQA Guidelines aniendmerits. It is OPR's intent to :lease a prefirnin-aty draft of the C17 Q.A Guidel-iiies amendments r 1) h fo ub c :view and comment in the fall. This will enable OPR to deIRer a proposed ackage of CEQA Guidelines oineadments to the Resources Agency as early as Muary 2009, well before the statutory due date of .July 1, 2009. We encourage public agencies and the public to refer to the OPR. website at w-w,Qj2r.ca4-;j-A for information about the CEQA Guidelines development -ocess and to subscribe to C)PWs notification system for announcements and -idates. For more information about this technical advisory and assistance in Id.ressing the impacts of GH Gr cri-i issions on the environment, please cont -act: Governor',; Office of Planning and. Research State Clearinghouse 1400 'Ferith Street P.U. Boy 3044 Sacra,inento, CA 95812-3044 Telephone: (916) 445-0613 Fox, (91 G} 323-3018 Web Address: MnMtis; ?rte TTACHMENTS L References and Information Sources 2. Technical Resources/ModelingTools to Estimate GHG Emissions 3. Examples of GHG Reduction Measures The following is a list of websites of orp,,anizations that can offer additiorral information regarding methods to characterize, quantify, assess and reduce GJ -IG emissions. In addition, it list (if useful resources,tend.reference materials is provided on the subject of climate change and greenhouse gases. ORGANIZATIONS • Governor's Office of Planning and Research httl)://www.opr.ca,gov • California Climate. Action 'ream htq)://w,.x,w.climateci.lange.ca.goNr/clii-nate—,.ictioii—tean-i/ • California Climate. Change Portal httl)://www.chmitt,c.change.ca.gov • California Air Resources Board Clhivar Change Website httl)://ww�,.arb.ca.gc)v/cc/cc.1-iti-n • California Climate Action Registry htq)- / /wwwclimateref,,Y.'istry.org/ • California Department of Water Resources, Climate Change and California Water Plan Website htti).//tvww-.w-,tterplan.water.ca.gov/cjin-iate/ • California Energy Commission Climate Change Proceedings httI)://www.encrgy.c,,t.Vch, cw/global—clin-late—ange/index.html • California Public Utilities Commission, C.1imate Change Website http://www.cpuc.c,-t.f!ov/sta6c/energy/clectric/climate-i-change,'/` —index.1-itm • Green California Website httl)://www.g,reen.ci.,g(w/default.htm • Western Climate Initiative littt)://ww-,.vwcsteriiclim,,tteinitiadt,c.org • California Air. Pollution Control Officers Associadon htq)://www.capcoa.org • Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLE, 1) http-,//w%x,w,iclei.org/ • ICLL-,,l Cities for Climate Protection ((-,CP) htt:p://www.iclei.org/ji-idex.php?id=800 • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http;//unfcce.int/2860.php • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change htq)://wwxv.ipcc.ch • Unired States Environmental Protection Agency htLp-.//ww-,N,.cp-,i,go-,,/ciiin-,ttech-,inge/ • City of Seattle U.S. Climate Protection Agreement htq)://ww-,v.seatdc.gov/niayor/climat,e/ • Mayors for Climate Protection http,//ww�a.coolmayors,com • U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Web Page http-,//ustnayors.org/cLimateprotecdon • Institute for Local Government California Climate Action Network http://-,vww.ca-ilg.org/climatechange STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS • SB 97 , -�97—bill--,20070824—chaptered.pdf • SB9'7Governor's Signing Message http://opt.c-,i.gov/ceq,,t/pdfs/SB-97-sign.itif,-mess, age.pdf • AB 32 http://www.leginfo,ca,e,ov/pub/05-06/bjli/-,tsm/ab,_0001 -0050./' ab-32—bill-20060927—chaptered.pdf • AB 1493 httl)://www.leginfo,c,L,gov/pub/01-02/bill/�ism/ab_1451-1500/ ab -1 49,3�—bill_20020722—chaptered.pdf 0 Regulations implementing AB 1493 htl.p://www.,arb.c,t.gov/reg,act/grnhsg,is/revfro.pdf and http:// xvNwx,,%arb,ca.gov/ regac- t/grnhsgas/ revtp. pdf * SB 1.368 brt[,)://www.J4nf(ica.,goi,./ptib/05-06/lijll/sen/sb_13.--)1-1400/ sb_1368_bill,90060929—cliaptercd.pdf' • Executive Order S-01-0 7 regarding low carbon saindard for transportation fuels http://g(-fv,c,L,goA,/inclex.pl.ip?/cxecutive-order/5172) • Execurive Order 5-20-06 regarding implcmentation of AB 32 btq'i://gc)v.c,i.gr.)v/inclex.php?/cxecLitive.-order/4484/ • Executive Order S-3-05 regarding greenhouse gas goals hrT://gov.c,a.go-ti/index,php)/c-xccative-ordei--/I 861 / • Executive Order S-20-04 regarding energy con.serration by state. httr:)://govca.gc)v/iridex,php?/cxecutive,�or.-der/3360/ REPORTS • OPR List of Environmental Docum. entS Addressing Climare Change httl)://opr.ca.gov/cc(l<t/pdf%/ Etivitoninent,-tt—Assessment—Climate..-Charigc.pcff • CCPR List of Local Plans Addressing Climate Change httr,).//opr.ca.gov/ceq,,t/pdfs/ City--and—County—Platis-11 ddressitig—Cljtii,tt4z—Chtinge.pdf • C'AmiateAction Teatzr Prqposadl-,ar6,4dion Measures to A+liiz�rrte0ina Chaqe iii California, April 2007 04-20- c r—REPOWEPDF # California Air Resources Board, Eai�# .4c.6on Items to Afifigate C&vate ChaiCge, in Califarnia, October 2007 ht-tp://www.,,Lrb,ca,gov/cci/cce-,i/mectiiig,,,/e,,i—finai—repoi-t.l)df,.., • California Air Resourced Board, Draft Greenbonse Gas Inventory, November 2067 rp(-.l nNcricory—IPCC—,All._2007-11.-19. pd F • CliviatrAction Yaiw Reort to the Governor eitid.1--gj.rlait4t.e, Marcl 1 2006, httl:i-//wwvv.clim,ttcch,,lnge.ca.gov/climate—action—team/i-eports/ index.htnil • California Climate Changc Center, Our Chaqing Planet., Arsessiiige the Risks to California - Suffima�y Repori littp,//www.energy,c:i.gov/2006ptiblic,ttions/CE-C-5()O-2006-077/CL-,(,- 500-2006-077,PDF Detailed reports available at. http;//wmrwcNmatechange.ca.gov/ bieniiial—report-,/2006report/index.liti.nI • California Energy Commission, 2(I07 1 rated E-ner g gy P we Oqq_ Report Update ub�td littl).,//www.e.nerg�,.c,,i.gc)v/2007 'pIicons/CEC-100-2007-OOB/Cf---'C- 100-.2007-008-CNIF.P13F • Ca.1i 6ornia Department of Water Resources, Progress on 1nrorporz fiti I g Clhvial, ChaiTe into Manageview of California:i' fl',tiler Resources httt)://baydelt-,ioffice.wgter.ca.gov/cbii-iateclia,nge/ DWRCtitrjateChang0uly06.pdf - paggem ode= bookmarks&page= I • Climate Action Progremi at Caltrans, December. 2006 litt.1)://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/Climatt!ltcport.pdf • California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CLHPA &'Ckwa/e Change, January 2008 bt.t.,I-,://www.ca.l-)cofL,o,t-,g/cecla/CAPCOA'%a2,OWI-dte*/a201-1,tper%20- "/�)20CEQA`/`20ajid%,20CHmate°/`2OCbange.pdf • West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative, November 2004 http://viv,w.chmatectiange,ca.gov/westcoast/documents/2004- 1 1_fj.nalreport/2004-Il-'48-_S'f'Af,'F—RECOMAffiNDS.PDF • Western Climate Initiative Work Plan, October 2007 htq-)://w,arw.westcj,nclimatcjnjtiative,o;r�r .,/ewebeditpro /items/ 01 04F13792.pdf • California Climate Change Center, University of California at Berjcelty, Managing Givenhouse Gas Ewissionj M California, 2007 http://calclimate.13cri,cley.edu/txiaii,,t8�n.g—GI-I.Gs......in CA.htm] • U.S. Conference of Mayors, .Energy & E-tivironmeni Best Practires httl�://-,.N,ww.usn-iayc)rs.or,g/clim-,ttepi:otectior)/ Ati,qi.).taEESummil:CDROMVersion.pdf • US. Mayors Climate ProtecfionAgreehient ClihwfeAction .1-laildbook, 2006 ht,tp://w,%,w.seatde,gc)v/climate/docs/(,.Iimat.eAcdonHaridl)ook.pdf N atural Capitatisn-i Solutions Cliwak Protection Ma"IwIfor Cities, unc 2007 htt.p://-,xm,xv.climatem-,ti-ival.org * National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices Growing with I' Ars Greenhouse Gases, November 2002 http://-,a�vw.ng-,L.org/cda/files/I 12002gft.pdF * National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices State and die onal Greenhouse Gas Initiatives, October 2006 http-//xvww,nij,,a,org/Ffles/pdF/061OGRE,L,'NFIO'USP�.PDF * United States Climate Change Program The Effects of Climate Chage an Apiculture,, Land R—psourm, Wlater Resourm, and Biodberri.o, in the United States, May 2008 http://,,v,x,w.usd,t.gov/oce/gtabiLsnarige/sap_2007_�F inalReport.hun Description of Modeling Tools 1_'R431"'N"I'll-i The Urban Emissions Model is used extensively during the CEQA process by local air districts and consultants to determine the impacts of projects on criteria pollutants. It was recently updated to calculate CO2 emissions as well. Future updates will include additional greenhouse gases. URBEMIS uses the ITE Trip Generation Rate Manual and the Air Resource,; Board".,, (ARB) motor vehicle emissions model (EMFAC) to calculate transportation -related CO2. emissions and ARBs OFFROAD2007 model for CO2 emissions from off-road equipment, Area source outputs include natural gas use, landscaping equipment, consumer products, architectural coatings, sirjd fireplaces. it also} estimates construction impacts and impacts of mitigation options. Web site.- h.rq)://,%-%,%curl)emis.com. (-Jcan Air and Clim,,ne Protection (CIACT) Soft -'%%arc This tool is available to state and local governments and members of ICLEI, NACAA, NASEO and NARUC to determine greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions from government operations and communities as a whole. The user must input aggregate information about energy (usage), waste (quantity and type generated, disposal method, and methane recovery rate) and transportation (V.M'I) for Community analyses, CACP uses emission factors from EPA, DOE, and DOT to translate the energy, waste and transportation inputs into greenhouse gas (in carbon dioxide equivalents) and criteria air pollutant emissions. If associated energy, waste and transportation reduction are provided,. the model can also calculate emission reductions and money saved from policy alternatives. Web site; lit.tp;//c,,i,(,psoft�vare.org, Sustainable Cointnunitic.q Modc! (SC"NB This model quantifies total CO2c emissions allowing communides the ability to optimize planning decisions that result in the greatest environmental benefit for the least cost, Total CO2e emissions are based on emissions from energy usage, water consumption and transportation. The model provides ,in interactive comparison of various scenarios to provide environmental performance, economic performance, and cost benefit analysis, Web site: Nxrw-,v.ctg-net.co.m/eLi.ergetics/docun,ienttz/doc�-,%CM-070'731.pd.f This model is an internet-accessed land use and transportation model designed specifically for regional and local governments to help undcsr'stand how their growth and development decisions can contribute. `to improved sust-ainability. It estimates CO?, criteria pollutant and energy impacts on a neighborhood or regional level for existing, long-term. baseline and alternative. land use plans, The data input requirements are extensive and require R fiscal commitment from the Metropolitan Planning Organization and its inember local governments. Once the data is available, the PLACES tool can be developed for that region relatively quickly, in approximately one week. The beriefits include a multifunctional tool that provides immediate outputs to compare alternatives duri rig public meetings, =dtilevel password protected on -fine access, as well as providing access for local development: project CEQAanalyses. This tool. also supports regional travel models and integrated land use and transportation assessments. Web site: http:// www.s.-icrcgionblueptint.or,g/sacregionl)lueprii)t/*the-i-iroject/t.Cclillo[Ogy.cfm and htcp-://www.place,%:,ener6,y,ca.p,,ov/places (-ARM. YY The California ClinanteAcdon Registry offers the Climate Action Registry Reporting On -Linc Tool (CARROT) for Registry members to calculate and report: arinual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CARROT calculates direct and indirect GFIG emissions for the following emission categories 1)y source: stationary combustion, process emissions, mobile source combustion, fugitive emissions and electricity use I. -,y source. It calculates emissions using entity collected data such as fuel purchase records, VMT and utility bills. While reporting and certification through CARROT is only available to, members, the public may access entity reports online. Reporting protocols are also available to the public, including the General Reporting Pi,(-,)tr)col (www.cbffi,,ii:eregimy.org/ docs/PROTOCOI,S/G,RP`/*2OV2-Mfirch2OO/-tveb.pdo,incl cement, forestry and power/utility sector protocols. Additional, sector protocols are under development. Website: wu,w.chm.at.cregistry.org/CAR-IIOT/ E'.NTFA(': The Air Resources Board's F -Mission FACtors (EMFAC) model is used to calculate emission rates from all motor vehicles in California. The emission factors are combined with data on vehicle activity (miles traveled and average speeds) to assess emission impacts. The LJRBFMIS model described above -uses EAMFAC to calculate the transportation emission impacts of local projects. Web site; http://Nvwu:arh,ca.gc)v/msei/onroad/,r)riroad.htm Examples of GHG Reduction Measures The following are examples of measure- that have been employed by some public agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, either as general development policies or on a project -by -project, basis. These are 1:)rovicled for illustrative purposes only, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION • Implement land use strateges to encourage jobs/housing proximity, promote transit -oriented development, and encourage higli density development along transit corridors. Encourage compact, mixed-use projects, forming urban villages designed to maxitnize affordable housing and encourage walking, bicycling and the use of public transit systems. • Encourage infill, redevelopment, and higher density development, whether in incorporated or unincorporated settings • Encourage new developments to integrate housing, civic and retail arnenities; (jobs, schools, parks, shopping opportunities) to help reduce VM'J"' resulting ftom discretionary -a-urornobile trips. • Apply advanced teclinalogy systems and management strategies to improve operational efficiency of transportation systems and movement of people, goods and services. 0 Incorporate features into project design that would accommodate the supply of frequent, reliable and convenient public transit, 0 Imp)cment street improvements that are designed to relieve pressure on a region's most congested roadways and intersections, # Limit idling drne for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles, URBAN FORESTRY • Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade building,,; and .reduce encrg,y requirements for beating/cooling. • Preserve or, replace onsite trees (that are removed due to development) as a means of Providing carbon storage. GREEN BUILDINGS • Encourage public and private construction of LEER (fcadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified (or equivalent.) buildings. ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICIES AND ACTIONS • Recogrvze and promote energy saving measures beyond Tide 24 requirenlents, for residentialandcomrnerclal projects • Where feasible, include in new buildings facilities to support the use of low/rcro carbon fueled vehicles, such as the charging of electric vehicles from green electricity sources. • Educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing G1 IG emissions. • Replace traffic lights, street lights, and other electrical uses to energy efficient bulbs and appliances. • Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for. Public agency use. • Incorl?orate on-site renewable energy production, including installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options. • Execute an Energy Savings Performance Contract with a private entity to retrofit public buildings. This type of contract allows the private entity to fund all energy improvement -q in exchange for a share of the energy savings over a period of time. • Design, build, and operate schools that meet the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) best practices. • Retrofit municipal water and wastewater systems with energy efficient motors, pumps and other equipment, and recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production. • Convert landfill gas into energy, sources for use in fueling vehicles, operating equipment, and heating buildings, • Purchase government vehicles and buses that use alternatives fuels or technology, such as electric hybrids, biodiescl, and ethanol, Where feasible, require flect vehicles to be loxv emission vehicles. Promote tile use of these vehicles in the general conirnunity. • Offer government incentive,, to private businesses for developing buildings with energy and water efficient features and recycled materials, The incentives can include expedited plan checks and reduced permit fees, • Offer rebates and low-interest loans to residents that make energy-saving improvements on tbeir homes, PROGRAMS TO REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED • Offer government emj,.�toyees financial incentives to carpool, use public transportation, or use other modes of travel for daily commutes. • R ncourage large businesses to develop commute trip reduction plans that encourage employees who commute alone to consider alternative transpomstion modes. • Develop shuttle systerns, -,around business disaict parking garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes. • Create an online ridesharing program that matches potential carpoolers immediately through email. • Develop a Safe Routes to School program that allows and promotes bicycling and walking to school, PROGRAMS TO REDUCE SOLID WASTE • Create incentives to increase recycling and reduce generation of solid waste by residential users. • Implement a Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Ordinance to reduce the solid waste created by new development. • Add residential/commercial food waste collection to existing greenwaste collection programs. u M-1 Aill"A n=0'. May Lead Agency: California State Lands Commission Prepared by: California State Lands Commission Marine Research Specialists Science Applications International Corporation 4.3 Air Qualify I GHG Emission Thresholds 2 CAPCOA published a discussion paper (CAPCOA 2008) on CEQA and climate change 3 which laid out three different approaches to establishing significance criteria for CEQA 4 documents. These are; 5 * No significance thresholds; 6 Significance thresholds set at zero-, and 7 Significance thresholds set at non -zero values, which are variations of ways to 8 achieve the 2020 goals of AB 32, 9 The CAPCOA paper does not designate a preferred approach; it only lays out the 10 different approaches that an agency might take. 11 In this EIR, the second approach has been utilized, such that; 12 • A project would be considered having a significant impact If its GHG emissions 13 have a net increase over the baseline. 14 Because of the severity of the global warming problem as the result of cumulative GHG 15 emissions worldwide, the zero -threshold approach appears to be the most scientifically 16 supportable of the options. 17 4.3.4 Impact Analysis And Mitigation 18 Air quality impacts result from increased emissions associated with drilling of new wells, 19 and continuing operation of the Project facilities at levials above current operations due 20 to increased oil and gas throughput. Decreases in operational emissions are expected 21 due to removal of the EMT and the use of pipeline transportation for crude oil instead of 22 the barge loading operations and associated vessel emissions, 23 Impact AQ -1: Emissions from Construction 24 Proposed Project construction activities would result in emissions at the EOF, 25 EMT, and along the new pipeline corridor (Potentially Significant, Class 11). 26 Impact Discussion 27 Emissions would be produced due to construction machinery, commuter and 28 construction support vehicles, and fugitive dust. These emissions were estimated and June 2008 4.3-33 Venoco Ellwood Full Field Development Project EIR I 4.3 Air Quality 1 are summarized in Table 4.3-11. Construction emissions that exceed 25 tons in any 2 consecutive 12 months would be required to be offset under Rule 202. Demolition 3 emissions (i.e., EMT and barge mooring removal) are subject to SBCAPCD permit 4, requirements, but offsets are not required as per California H&S Code. Table 4.3-11 Proposed Project Construction Emissions Notes: Demolition Emissions would be exempt from the SBCAPCD rule requiring offsets. Construction phases would not affect the same peak day. However some phases would occur during the same 12 -month period. 5 Section 42301.13 of California Health and Safety Code states that a district shall not 6 require any form of emission offset or emission credit to be provided to offset emissions 7 resulting from any activity related to the demolition or removal of a stationary source. 8 Therefore, no emission offsets would be required for demolition/rem oval of the EMT and 9 mooring. 10 Project construction ROG emissions would be below the Rule 202 trigger of 11 25 tons/year. Project construction NO, emissions that would be emitted in the 12 -month 12 construction period for the changes at the ECF, pipeline construction, 60 offshore 13 changes (Platform Holly retrofits, power cable installation and repairs to the two-inch 14 (0.05 m) utility line would exceed 25 tons. And therefore, as per the Rules 202 and 804, 15 the SBCAPCD would consider this impact significant and require emission offsets for 16 the total emissions from the construction equipment not exempt under the Rule 202. 17 The emissions from EMT removal are above the SBCAPCD thresholds for construction 18 and would normally require offsets as a construction project. However, Rule 202 19 provides an exemption for emissions from facility removal activities. As such, emissions Venoco Ellwood Full Field 4.3-34 June 2008 Development Project EIR Peak Day Emissions (lbs/day) Annual Emissions (tonslyr) Construction Phase CO ROC NOr SO2 PM10 CO ROC NO, S02 PM10 EOF Construction 311 30 117 3 36 22.60 2.15 4.32 0.12 0.90 Pipeline Construction 996 71 393 8 52 76,86 5,53 24.42 0.51 3,98 Offshore Power Cable Installation 230 56 I 695 14 65 2.33 0.42 2.49 I 0.05 0.22 Platform Holly Modifications 164 33 314 6 29 6.46 0.90 7.36 i 0.15 0.68 EMT Demolition 548 53 317 7 78 16.28 2.24 11.46 0.23 1.02 EMT Soil Remediation 41 10 73 1 18 0.62 0.15 1.44 0.03 0,12 Total Emissions 125 11.3 50 1.1 6.8 Total Emissionsw/o EMT 108 8.9 37 0.8 5.7 Significance Criteria na 25 25 na na Notes: Demolition Emissions would be exempt from the SBCAPCD rule requiring offsets. Construction phases would not affect the same peak day. However some phases would occur during the same 12 -month period. 5 Section 42301.13 of California Health and Safety Code states that a district shall not 6 require any form of emission offset or emission credit to be provided to offset emissions 7 resulting from any activity related to the demolition or removal of a stationary source. 8 Therefore, no emission offsets would be required for demolition/rem oval of the EMT and 9 mooring. 10 Project construction ROG emissions would be below the Rule 202 trigger of 11 25 tons/year. Project construction NO, emissions that would be emitted in the 12 -month 12 construction period for the changes at the ECF, pipeline construction, 60 offshore 13 changes (Platform Holly retrofits, power cable installation and repairs to the two-inch 14 (0.05 m) utility line would exceed 25 tons. And therefore, as per the Rules 202 and 804, 15 the SBCAPCD would consider this impact significant and require emission offsets for 16 the total emissions from the construction equipment not exempt under the Rule 202. 17 The emissions from EMT removal are above the SBCAPCD thresholds for construction 18 and would normally require offsets as a construction project. However, Rule 202 19 provides an exemption for emissions from facility removal activities. As such, emissions Venoco Ellwood Full Field 4.3-34 June 2008 Development Project EIR 4. 3 Air Quality 1 from the removal of the EMT and barge mooring, and EMT soil remediation would be 2 exempt under Rule 202. Without counting emissions from these exempt activities, the 3 NOx emissions would be equal to 37 tons/year. 4 PM,o emissions associated with construction would require the implementation of dust 5 control measures detailed in the Air Quality Attainment Plan (SBCAPCD 2005) and the 6 County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (County 2006). Dust control 7 measures are required under the County of Santa Barbara's Grading Ordinance for 8 most projects. 9 Mitigation Measures 10 Because the county is a non -attainment area for PM10, standard fugitive dust reduction 11 measures are required for all earth -moving projects. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I FV AQ -1a Measures to Reduce Dust Emissions From Construction. Best Available Control Measures (Br CMs) shall be implemented to control PM10 generation during construction of the Project, including the following: June 2008 During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems should be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible; Minimize the amount of disturbed area and reduce onsite vehicle speeds to 15 mph or less; Gravel pads shall be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud on to public roads If importation, exportation, and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from the Project site shall be covered with a tarp from the point of origin;. 4.3-35 Venoco Ellwood Full Field Development Project EIR 4. 3 Air I After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation is completed, the 2 disturbed area shall be treated by watering, re -vegetating, or spreading 3 of soil binders, until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that 4 dust generation will not occur; 5 The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to 6 monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as 7 necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall 8 include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in 9 progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be 10 provided to the SBCAPCD prior to land use clearance for any grading 11 activities for the Project and 12 Prior to any land clearance, the Applicant shall include, as a note on a 13 separate informational sheet to be recorded using a map, these dust 14 control requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and 15 building plans. 16 AQ -1b Measures to Reduce NO,, Emissions From Construction. The 17 following measures shall be implemented to reduce diesel emissions: 18 * All diesel -powered equipment shall use ultra low sulfur diesel fuel; 19 & Diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation catalysts, and diesel 20 particulate filters, as certified and/or verified by the EPA or the State of 21 California, shall be installed at the guidance of the SBCAPCD, if 22 available; 23 0 Diesel -powered equipment shall be replaced by natural gas or electric 24 equipment whenever feasible; 25 Idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks during loading and u nioading. shall be 26 limited to five minutes; auxiliary power units shall be used whenever 27 possible, Construction worker's trips shall be minimized by 28 requirements for carpooling and by providing lunch on site; 29 • Heavy-duty diesel -powered construction equipment manufactured after 30 1996 (with federally mandated "clean" diesel engines) shall be utilized 31 wherever feasible, Venoco Ellwood Full Field 4.3-36 June 2008 Development Project EIR J 4,3 Air QuatltK I a The engine size of construction equipment operating simultaneously, 2 shall be the minimum practical size; 3 * The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall 4 be minimized through efficient construction management practices to 5 ensure that the smallest practical number is operating at any one time; 6 * Construction equipment shall be maintained per the manufacturers' 7 specifications; 8 Engines meeting the Tier 2 or 3 Federal emissions standards for non - 9 road applications shall be used; 10 o Construction equipment operating on site, shall be equipped with two 11 or four degree engine timing retard or pre -combustion chamber 12 engines; and 13 & Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline -powered equipment, 14 if feasible. 15 AQ -1c. Measures to Further Reduce NO, Emissions From Construction, 16 Engines meeting the Tier 3 Federal emissions standards for non -road 17 applications shall be used, so that the emissions for all Project 18 construction activities would be under the 25 tons in any 12 -month period. 19 Rationale for Mitigation 20 Various filters, catalysts and pre -combustion devices reduce NO.,, ROC, CO and PM 21 emissions from diesel engines. Also, use of newer diesel engines or replacervient with 22 cleaner natural gas engines or electric motors would reduce emissions from 23 construction equipment. When emissions factors for Tier 3 non -road diesel engines are 24 used to estimate all the pipeline construction equipment, NOx emissions would be below 25 the trigger for Rule 202, as shown in Table 4.3-12. 26 Emission reductions achieved through the implementation of Mitigation Measures (MM) 27 AQ -1a -c would reduce emissions below the threshold and result in potentially significant 28 impacts (Class 11). June 2008 4.3-37 Venoco Ellwood Full Field Development Project Elf; 4.3 Air Quality Table 4.3-12 Total Mitigated Construction Emissions Note: ** Demolition Emissions (EMT and mooring removal) would be exempt from the SBCAPCD rule requiring offsets. Mitigation includes the use of Tier 3 engines. 1 Impact AQ -2: Increase in Emissions from Operations 2 The Proposed Project could potentially result in increased operational emissions 3 at the EOF and Platform Holly (Loss Than Significant, Class 111). 4 Impact Discussion 5 increases in emissions from the proposed Project operation would occur from the new 6 equipment and increased use of the existing equipment, due to the increased oil and 7 gas throughput. Emissions would increase due to the following: 8 o Increase in drilling equipment use, 9 v Storage and handling of dry bulk materials used for drill muds preparation; 10 Off- gassing of drill muds as they come up to the surface and are recycled; 11 Additional trips of supply and crew boats between Ellwood Pier and Platform Holly to 12 assist drilling; 13 Installation at the EOF of four Jenbacher 620 power generation units fueled by the 14 process gas and natural gas; Venoco Ellwood Full Field 4.3-38 June 2008 Development Project EIR Peak Day Emissions (lbsiday) Annual Emissions (tonslyr) Construction Phase CO ROC N01 S02 PM10 Co ROC NO,, SO2 PM10 EOF Construction 261 22 50 26 32 18.64 1.81 2.57 0.11 0.75 Pipeline Construction 510 37 188 9,0 42 36.44. 2.80 10,17 0.40 2.91 Offshore Power Cable Installation 565 140 1423 -- 30.7 - --- - -- ------- 136 3.33 0.67 4,65 0,10 0.43 Plaffon-n Holly Modifications 164 31 299 6.2 28 6.41 0.78 6.42 0.15 0.59 EMT Demolition 271 23 124 6.3 65 10.46 1.62 7.39 0,22 0.75 EMT Soil Remediation 42 7 35 1.3 17 0.63 0.09 0.64 0.03 0.08 Total Emissions -- ----------- ------ 75 7.7 31 1.0 5.A Total Emissions w10 EMT 23 0.7 4.6 Significance Criteria na 25 25 na na Note: ** Demolition Emissions (EMT and mooring removal) would be exempt from the SBCAPCD rule requiring offsets. Mitigation includes the use of Tier 3 engines. 1 Impact AQ -2: Increase in Emissions from Operations 2 The Proposed Project could potentially result in increased operational emissions 3 at the EOF and Platform Holly (Loss Than Significant, Class 111). 4 Impact Discussion 5 increases in emissions from the proposed Project operation would occur from the new 6 equipment and increased use of the existing equipment, due to the increased oil and 7 gas throughput. Emissions would increase due to the following: 8 o Increase in drilling equipment use, 9 v Storage and handling of dry bulk materials used for drill muds preparation; 10 Off- gassing of drill muds as they come up to the surface and are recycled; 11 Additional trips of supply and crew boats between Ellwood Pier and Platform Holly to 12 assist drilling; 13 Installation at the EOF of four Jenbacher 620 power generation units fueled by the 14 process gas and natural gas; Venoco Ellwood Full Field 4.3-38 June 2008 Development Project EIR 4.3 Air Quality I * Higher use of LPG loading racks due to higher production; 2 * Increased throughput at EOF crude storage tanks; 3 * Installation of a new pig launcher for the oil pipeline to LFC; and 4 ® Addition of piping and a new PSA unit that would handle CO2 removal at the EOF. 5 Some emissions would be eliminated due to removal of combustion equipment and 6 piping, change in use of some equipment, and replacement of some combustion 7 equipment with electric equipment. The following emissions -reducing changes would 8 occur at the Project facilities due to the proposed Project: 9 Removal of combustion devices on heater treaters HT -201, FIT -203 and process 10 heater FI -204 at the EOF; 11 Decreased use of H-205, H-206 and H-207; 12 Installation of the new low-NOx burners on the H-205 thermal oxidizer at the EOF; 13 o Elimination of TK -101 emulsion breaker tank; 14 * Elimination of the NGL loading rack; 15 & Removal of all equipment from EMT and barge mooring; 16 a Abandonment of the Line 96 pipeline between the EOF and EMT; 17 9 Elimination of oil transportation by barge; 18 Removal of three natural gas fueled power generators that support drilling 19 equipment on Platform Holly; and 20 & Installation of a new ESP powerhouse at Platform Holly, June 2008 4.3-39 Venoco Ellwood Full Field Development Project EIR 4. 3 Air Quality Table 4.3-13 Assumptions for the Proposed Project Emission Sources EOF Project fugitive emissions from the existing components and valves would not change (in fact, they may decrease due to improvements to Lo -Cat valving and drain connections, or replacements to the flash drum V-1206 and repairs to the T-1902 and T-1903 tanks leaking walls and roofs proposed for the Project). Fugitive emissions would Increase due to the new pipeline pigging stations and components on the three additional PSA vessels at the EOF. Fugitive emissions would be the same -fr-0mii*en --,, e-w--p—oweeg-e-nerators and associated natural gas components/valving as the components/valving of the existing three heater treaters (HT -201, HT -202, and HT -203) and a process heater (H-204), which would be removed HT -202 has been used as a slop oil tank since 1999. The new power generatorsfueledwith process ces-s —gas would operate 100 percent of the time; peak day would include all four generator's operating 'The EOF oil storage tank's fugitive emissions would increase to maximum throughput. Daily number of gas liquids trucks and thus peak day LPG loading emissions would not change; annual amount of gas liquids loading would increase with a proportionate increase in fugitive LPG loading emissions. NGL loading emissions would be eliminated i Daily number of sulfur trucks would not change (daffy number of trucks is equivalent to the removal of the full sulfur storage volume); annual number of trucks would increase by 302. Emergency fire pump and emergency generator emissions stay the same. Flare (thermal oxidizers) emissions would decrease to an estimated 30 days at maximum throughout per year due to the available use of generators. Only pilot and unplanned flaring would occur from H-206 or H- 207. All planned flaring would be directed to H-205. Solvent/cleaning emissions would stay the same. One pigging event per month for the new pipeline from the EOF to LFC. No increase of commuter trips, because there will be no increase in employment at the EOF PLATFORM HOLLY No increases in fugitive emissions due to the proposed wells, because the proposed wells would use the same well slots and connections as are currently in operation on Platform Holly. No increase In the boom boat operations. No change in the number of pigging events_ Noincrease in the crew or supply boat operations during normal (no drilling) operations. During the proposed drilling, the supply boat will have an increase of three roundtrips per day, Power generators (support electric drilling equipment) emissions would cease (power will be provided from the EOF). DRILLING Drilling would be conducted for a maximum of five wells per year, 25 days per well Coiled Tubing Unit is part of the baseline (it is used for well workovers). Peak day emissions due to drilling will not include 'colled tubing unit. Annual drilling emissions would increase for an equivalent of drilling up to five new wells per year. All electrical drilling equipment would be powered through EOF-produced electricity, tile electric; generators would be removed, and thus no emissions from those units would occur. Additional emissions from drill mud-autgassJing when they arc recycled to be reused.fordrilling -Additional emissions from handling of dry bulk materials for drill mud preparation. Assumes that the drilling would be conducted in a manner that would keep the drilling equipment itthe exempt category (according to SBCAPCD Rule 202.F.6), i e , annual emissions of any criteria pollutant would be 25 tons per 12 calendar months or lower Venoco Ellwood Full Field' 4.3-40 June 2008 Development Project EIR 4,3 Air Quality I Assumptions that were used for estimating the Project's emissions are listed in Table, 2 4.3-13 above. 3 Although emissions would increase at the EOF due to the installation of the natural gas 4 powered generators, the peak day emissions of ROC and PM10 for the whole Project 5 would be reduced (see Table 4.3-14). This is due to the emission reductions associated 6 with the removal of the EMT and cessation of barge operations. As the EMT might be 7 removed in 2013 or 2016, depending on lease arrangements, the emissions reductions 8 associated With the removal of the EMT operations would occur earlier than 2016 under 9 the proposed project. 10 Peak day NO,,, carbon monoxide and SO2 emissions would increase for the Project, but 11 would be below the thresholds of significance. 12 Annual emissions would increase for all pollutants. The increase in emissions is 13 primarily due to increased use of drilling equipment and the increased use of supply 14 boats. 15 Increases in vehicle emissions would be associated with the drilling phase only. 6 Increases would be less than the threshold of 25 lbs/day for NOx and ROC. Refer to 17 the Appendix E, Air Quality, of this EIR for more information. 18 Under the SBCAPCD rules, any new or modified source would be required to review its 19 emissions, and provide emission offsets according to SBCAPCD Rules 801 (New 20 Source Review), 802 (Non -attainment Review), and 804 (Emission Offsets), The new 21 or modified source SBCAPCD rules do not apply to increases in emissions from mobile 22 sources such as support trucks, commuter vehicles, or increases of emissions from the 23 existing permitted sources within the permitted levels when no modification to those 24 sources occurs. However, according to Rule 802, if the new emission sources are 25 above the trigger of 25 lbs/day for NOx or ROC, the entire Project (the new and existing 25 components) is subject to Best Available Control Technology {SACT). I . 27 Mitigation Measures 28 None required. June 2008 4.3-41 Venoco Ellwood Full Field Development Project EIR m0 • I Om &aluating and Addressing Greenhouse -rom Projects Subject to iironmental QualityAct January 2008 Disclaimer The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared this white paper consideration of evaluating and addressing greenhouse gas emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide a common platform of information and tools to support local governments. This paper is intended as a resource, not a guidance document. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which an air district or lead agency chooses to address greenhouse gas emissions in the context of its review of projects under CEQA. This paper has been prepared at a time when California law has been recently amended by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), and the full programmatic implications of this new law are not yet fully understood. There is also pending litigation in various state and federal courts pertaining to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, there is active federal legislation on the subject of climate change, and international agreements are being negotiated. Many legal and policy questions remain unsettled, including the requirements of CEQA in the context of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper is provided as a resource for local policy and decision makers to enable them to make the best decisions they can in the face of incomplete information during a period of change. Finally, this white paper reviews requirements and discusses policy options, but it is not intended to provide legal advice and should not be construed as such. Questions of legal interpretation, particularly in the context of CEQA and other laws, or requests for advice should be directed to the agency's legal counsel. Acknowledgements This wlzitepaper benefitedfrom the hard work and creative insiglzts aE manypeople. CAPCOA appreciates the efforts aE all wlzo contributed their time and energy to the project. In particular, the Association thanks dzefollowing individuals: Greg Tholen, BAAQMD Dave Vintze, BAAQMD Jean Getchell, MBUAPCD Principal Authors Matt Jones, YSAQMD Larry Robinson, SMAQMD Ron Tan, SBCAPCD Editor Barbara Lee, NSAPCD Reviewers CAPCOA Climate Protection Committee CAPCOA Planning Managers: Barbara Lee (NSCAPCD), Chair CEQA & Climate Change Subcommittee Larry Allen, SLOCPCD Dave Vintze (BAAQMD), Chair Bobbie Bratz, SBAPCD Greg Tholen (BAAQMD), Project Manager Karen Brooks, SLOCAPCD Charles Anderson, SMAQMD Chris Brown, MCAQMD Aeron Arlin Genet, SLOCAPCD Toni Christofk, PCAPCD Jean Getchell, MBUAPCD Jorge DeGuzman, SMAQMD Melissa Guise, SLOCAPCD Mat Ehrhardt, YSAQMD Matt Jones, YSAQMD Jean Getchell, MBUAPCD Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD Larry Greene, SMAQMD Ryan Murano, NSAQMD Henry Hilken, BAAQMD Tom Murphy, SBCAPCD Alan Hobbs, PCAPCD Susan Nakamura, SCAQMD Jim Jester, SMAQMD Larry Robinson, SMAQMD Dave Jones, KCAPCD Jean Roggenkamp, BAAQMD Tom Jordan, SJVUAPCD Ana Sandoval, BAAQMD Tom Murphy, SBAPCD Ron Tan, SBCAPCD Don Price, VCAPCD Brigette Toll.strup, SMAQMD Jean Roggenkamp, BAAQMD Jill Whynot, SCAQMD Ana Sandoval, BAAQMD Amy Taketomo, MBUAPCD Tim Taylor, SMAQMD Mike Villegas, VCAPCD David Vintze, BAAQMD Dave Warner, SJVUAPCD Jill Whynot, SCAQMD John Yu, CAPCOA Mel Zeldin, CAPCOA External Reviewers James Goldstene, CARB Annmarie Mora, CARB Terri Roberts, OPR Proofing & Layout Jake Toolson, CAPCOA John Yu, CAPCOA ContractSupport Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA (analysis cf non -zero threshold approaches) EDAW, Inc., Sacramento, CA (review cf analytical methods and mitigation strategies). Table of Contents Approach 1: Statute and Executive Order Approach .............................. 32 Approach 2: Tiered Approach................................................................ 36 8. Analytical Methodologies for GHG........................................................ 59 9. Mitigation Strategies for GHG................................................................ 79 10. Examples of Other Approaches.............................................................. 85 Appendix A -Relevant Citations Appendix B Mitigation Measure Summary Appendix C -Rule and Regulation Summary ii ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1. Introduction............................................................................................... 5 2. Air Districts and CEQA Thresholds....................................................... 11 3. Consideration of Fundamental Issues ..................................................... 13 4. Consideration of a Statewide Threshold ................................................. 21 5. CEQA with No GHG Thresholds........................................................... 23 6. CEQA With GHG Threshold of Zero ..................................................... 27 7. CEQA With Non -Zero Thresholds......................................................... 31 Approach 1: Statute and Executive Order Approach .............................. 32 Approach 2: Tiered Approach................................................................ 36 8. Analytical Methodologies for GHG........................................................ 59 9. Mitigation Strategies for GHG................................................................ 79 10. Examples of Other Approaches.............................................................. 85 Appendix A -Relevant Citations Appendix B Mitigation Measure Summary Appendix C -Rule and Regulation Summary ii List of Figures Figure 1 -Climate Change Significance Criteria Flow Chart ......................................38 List of Tables Table 1 -Analysis of GHG Emissions from Stationary Combustion Equipment Permits......................................................................................................18 Table 2 Approach 2 Tiering Options..........................................................................41 Table 3 -Comparison of Approach 2 Tiered Threshold Options.................................49 Table 4 -Ton-Zero Threshold Evaluation Matrix Approach 1 ................................. 56 Table 5 -Ton-Zero Threshold Evaluation Matrix Approach 2 ................................. 57 Table 6 -Residential Project Example GHG Emissions Estimates .............................. 62 Table 7 -Commercial Project Example GHG Emissions Estimates ............................ 63 Table 8 -Specific Plan Example GHG Emissions Estimates ....................................... 64 Table 9 -General Plan Example GHG Emissions Estimates........................................68 Table 10 -Summary of Modeling Tools for GHG Emissions ...................................... 75 Table 11 -Residential Project Example GHG Emissions Estimates with Mitigation ..81 Table 12 -Residential Projects Example Methodology and Mitigation ....................... 82 Table 13 -Commercial Projects Example Methodology and Mitigation .....................82 Table 14 -Specific Plans Example Methodology and Mitigation ................................ 83 Table 15 -General Plans Example Methodology and Mitigation ................................. 83 Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary.....................................................................B. 1 Table 17 -General Plamling Level Mitigation Strategies Summary............................B.35 Table 18 -Rule and Regulation Summary....................................................................0-1 iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym/ Abbreviation Meaning AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AG Attorney General ARB Air Resources Board ASTM American Society of Testing and Material BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAU Business as Usual BEES Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability Calfire California Fire Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Criteria Air Pollutants CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resource Board CAT Climate Action Team CCAP Center for Clean Air Policy CCAR California Climate Action Registry CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CF Connectivity Factor CH4 Methane CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CNG Compressed Natural Gas CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CUFR California Urban Forestry DGS Department of General Services DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOF Department of Finance DPF Diesel Particulate Filter DWR Department of Water Resources E85 85% Ethanol EEA Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environniental Affairs EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EIR Environmental Impact Report EOE Encyclopedia of Earth EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ETC Edmonton Trolley Coalition EV Electric Vehicles FAR Floor Area Ratio iv GHG Greenhouse Gas GGEP Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy GGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan GP General Plan GWP Global Warming Potential IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IOU Investor Owned Utility IPCC International Panel on Climate Change IT Information Technology ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers J&S Jones & Stokes km Kilometer LandGem Landfill Gas Emissions Model LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MBUAPCD Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MMT CO2e Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MW Megawatts N2O Nitrous Oxide NACAA National Association Clean Air Agencies ND Negative Declaration NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory NSCAPCD Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District NSR New Source Review OPR State Office of Planning and Research PFC Perfluorocarbon PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric POU Publicly Owned Utility PM Particulate Mater RoadMod Road Construction Emissions Model ROG Reactive Organic Gas RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards RTP Regional Transportation Plan S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 SB Senate Bill SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCM Sustainable Communities Model SIP State Implementation Plan SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District SLOCAPCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District LTA vi SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utilities District SOX Sulfur Oxides SP Service Population SRI Solar Reflectance Index SWP State Water Project TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TBD To Be Determined TDM Transportation Demand Management TMA Transportation Management Association THC Total Hydrocarbon UC University of California ULEV Ultra Low Emission Vehicle UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model USGBC U.S. Green Building Council VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VTPI Victoria Transit Policy YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District vi Executive Summary Introduction 40 CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change Air districts have traditionally provided guidance to local lead agencies on evaluating and addressing air pollution impacts from projects subject to CEQA. Recognizing the need for a common platform of information and tools to support decision makers as they establish policies and programs for GHG and CEQA, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has prepared a white paper reviewing policy choices, analytical tools, and mitigation strategies. This paper is intended to serve as a resource for public agencies as they establish agency procedures for reviewing GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. It considers the application of thresholds and offers three alternative programmatic approaches toward Throughout this paper GHG, CO2, CO2e, are used interchangeably and refer generally to greenhouse gases but do not necessarily include all greenhouse gases unless otherwise specified. CEQA and Climate Change determining whether GHG emissions are significant. The paper also evaluates tools and methodologies for estimating impacts, and summarizes mitigation measures. It has been prepared with the understanding that the programs, regulations, policies, and procedures established by the California Air Resources Board (CARE) and other agencies to reduce GHG emissions may ultimately result in a different approach under CEQA than the strategies considered here. The paper is intended to provide a common platform for public agencies to ensure that GHG emissions are appropriately considered and addressed under CEQA while those programs are being developed. Examples of Other Approaches Many states, counties, and cities have developed policies and regulations concerning greenhouse gas emissions that seek to require or promote reductions in GHG emissions through standards for vehicle emissions, fuels, electricity production/renewables, building efficiency, and other means. A few have developed guidance and are currently considering formally requiring or recommending the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for development projects during their associated environmental processes. Key work in this area includes: • Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy; • Mendocino AQMD updated guidelines for use during preparation of air quality impacts in Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) or mitigated negative declarations. The following paper evaluates options for lead agencies to ensure that GHG emissions are appropriately addressed as part of analyses under CEQA. It considers the use of significance thresholds, tools and methodologies for analyzing GHG emissions, and measures and strategies to avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts. Greenhouse Gas Significance Criteria This white paper discusses three basic options air districts and lead agencies can pursue when contemplating the issues of CEQA thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions. This paper explores each path and discusses the benefits and disbenefits of each. The three basic paths are: • No significance threshold for GHG emissions; 2 • GHG emissions threshold set at zero; or • GHG threshold set at a non -zero level. CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change Executive Summary Each has inherent advantages and disadvantages. Air districts and lead agencies may believe the state or national government should take the lead in identifying significance thresholds to address this global impact. Alternatively, the agency may believe it is premature or speculative to determine a clear level at which a threshold should be set. On the other hand, air districts or lead agencies may believe that every GHG emission should be scrutinized and mitigated or offset due to the cumulative nature of this impact. Setting the threshold at zero will place all discretionary projects under the CEQA microscope. Finally, an air district or lead agency may believe that some projects will not benefit from a full environmental impact report (EIR), and may believe a threshold at some level above zero is needed. This paper explores the basis and implications of setting no threshold, setting a threshold at zero and two primary approaches for those who may choose to consider a non -zero threshold. The first approach is grounded in statute (AB 32) and executive order (EO S- 3-05) and explores four possible options under this scenario. The options under this approach are variations of ways to achieve the 2020 goals of AB 32 from new development, which is estimated to be about a 30 percent reduction from business as usual. The second approach explores a tiered threshold option. Within this option, seven variations are discussed. The concepts explored here offer both quantitative and qualitative approaches to setting a threshold as well as different metrics by which tier cut- points can be set. Variations range from setting the first tier cut -point at zero to second- tier cut -points set at defined emission levels or based on the size of a project. It should be noted that some applications of the tiered threshold approach may require inclusion in a General Plan or adoption of enabling regulations or ordinances to render them fully effective and enforceable. Greenhouse Gas Analytical Methodologies The white paper evaluates various analytical methods and modeling tools that can be applied to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from different project types subject to CEQA. In addition, the suitability of the methods and tools to characterize accurately a project's emissions is discussed and the paper provides recommendations for the most appropriate methodologies and tools currently available. The suggested methodologies are applied to residential, commercial, specific plan and general plan scenarios where GHG emissions are estimated for each example. This chapter also discusses estimating emissions from solid waste facilities, a wastewater treatment plant, construction, and air district rules and plans. 3 CEQA and Climate Charge Another methodology, a service population metric, that would measure a project's overall GHG efficiency to determine if a project is more efficient than the existing statewide average for per capita GHG emissions is explored. This methodology may be more directly correlated to a project's ability to help achieve objectives outlined in AB 32, although it relies on establishment of an efficiency -based significance threshold. The subcommittee believes this methodology may eventually be appropriate to evaluate the long-term GHG emissions from a project in the context of meeting AB 32 goals. However, this methodology will need further work and is not considered viable for the interim guidance presented in this white paper. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Common practice in environmental protection is first to avoid, then to minimize, and finally to compensate for impacts. When an impact cannot be mitigated on-site, off-site mitigation can be effectively implemented in several resource areas, either in the form of offsetting the same impact or preserving the resource elsewhere in the region. This white >ej SO ;s and evaluates currertUly available mitigation measures Lased - i tl : r economic, technological and logistical feasibility z i niE si a r I J n. effectiveness The potential for I y t t air quality are also identified for each measure. A summary of current rules and regulations affecting greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is also provided. Reductions from transportation related measures (e.g., bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and parking) are explored as a single comprehensive approach to land use. Design measures that focus on enhancing alternative transportation are discussed. Mitigation measures are identified for transportation, land use/building design, mixed-use development, energy efficiency, education/social awareness and construction. E Chapter 1: Introduction Purpose CEQA ,!C Q—A and Climate Change Chapter I Introduction CEQA requires the avoidance or mitigation of significant adverse environmental impacts where there are feasible alternatives available. The contribution of GHG to climate change has been documented in the scientific community. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) mandates significant reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG); passage of that law has highlighted the need to consider the impacts of GHG emissions from projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because we have only recently come to fully recognize the potential for significant environmental impacts from GHG, most public agencies have not yet established policies and procedures to consider them under CEQA. As a result, there is great need for information and other resources to assist public agencies as they develop their programs. Air districts have historically provided guidance to local governments on the evaluation of air pollutants under CEQA. As local concern about climate change and GHG has increased, local governments have requested guidance on incorporating analysis of these impacts into local CEQA review. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), in coordination with the CARB, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and two environmental consulting firms, has harnessed the collective expertise to evaluate approaches to analyzing GHG in CEQA. The purpose of this white paper is to provide a common platform of information and tools to address climate change in CEQA analyses, including the ., evaluation and mitigation of GHG emissions from e,"" + proposed projects and identifying significance^ threshold options. CEQA requires public agencies to ensure that potentially significant adverse environmental ' °{ effects of discretionary projects are fully characterized, and avoided or mitigated where there are feasible alternatives to do so. Lead agencies have struggled with how best to identify and characterize the magnitude of the adverse effects that individual projects have on the global -scale phenomenon of climate change, even more so since Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order 5-3-05 and the state Legislature enacted The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). There is now a resounding call to establish procedures to analyze and mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The lack of established thresholds does not relieve lead agencies of their responsibility to analyze and mitigate significant impacts, so many of these agencies are seeking guidance from state and local air quality agencies. This white paper addresses issues inherent in establishing CEQA thresholds, evaluates tools, catalogues mitigation measures and provides air districts and lead agencies with options for incorporating climate change into their programs. $1 CEQA and Climate Change Background National and International Efforts International and Federal legislation have been enacted to deal with climate change issues, The Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the IPCC to assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human -induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The most recent reports of the IPCC have emphasized the scientific consensus around the evidence that real and measurable changes to the climate are occurring, that they are caused by human activity, and that significant adverse impacts on the environment, the economy, and human health and welfare SEEM,IrWI-771ohm are unavoidable. These efforts have been largely policy oriented. In addition to the national and international efforts described above, many local jurisdictions have adopted climate change policies and programs. However, thus far little has been done to assess the significance of the affects new development projects may have on climate change. r Executive Order S-3-05 On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 (S-3-05). It included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate with the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of the Resources Agency, Chairperson of the CARB, Chairperson of the Energy Commission and President of the Public Utilities Commission on development of a Climate Action Plan. CAPCOA Chapter 1 Introduction The Secretary of CalEPA leads a Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of representatives from the agencies listed above to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and report on the progress made toward meeting the statewide greenhouse gas targets that were established in the Executive Order. Other, swami -,..:---�----- -.• .. natLaw UseAmproved Trarvsportation, 27 le Acbw Team ReP SOURCE: ARB 2007 Forestry, 33.2 In accord with the requirements of the Executive Order, the first report to the Governor and the Legislature was released in March 2006 and will be issued bi-annually thereafter. The CAT Report to the Governor contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order S-3-05 are met. 7 CEQA and Climate Change California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 establishes a cap on statewide greenhouse gas emissions and sets forth the regulatory framework to achieve the corresponding reduction in statewide emissions levels. AB 32 charges the California Air Resources Board (CARE), the state agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, with implementation of the act. Under AB 32, greenhouse gases are defined as: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The regulatory steps laid out in AB 32 require CARB to: adopt early action measures to reduce GHGs; to establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emissions; to adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant source of greenhouse gases; and to adopt a scoping plan indicating how emission reductions will be achieved via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions; and to adopt the regulations needed to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gases. AB 32 requires that by January I, 2008, the State Board shall determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions iventory was in 1990, and approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. While the level of 1990 GHG emissions has not yet been approved, CARB's most recent emission inventory indicates that California had annual emissions of 436 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e) in I990 and 497 MMT CO2e in 2004. The regulatory timeline laid out in AB 3requires that b 2 re 2007 CARB ~ AB 32 3`s 662,q Y July 1 r adopt a list of discrete early action s- . «yu . ray► measures, or regulations, to be adopted 31ii Iwo 1w9 xwx In20 and implemented by January 1, 2010. These actions will form part of the State's comprehensive plan for achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions. In June 2007, CARB ` adopted three discrete early action �9 , 7'' measures. These three new proposed souxcE: ARB 2007 regulations meet the definition of "discrete early action greenhouse gas reduction measures," which include the following: a low carbon fuel standard; reduction of HFC-I34a emissions from non-professional servicing of motor vehicle air conditioning systems; and improved landfill methane capture. CARB estimates that by 2020, the reductions from those three discrete early action measures would be approxiniately 13-26 MMT CO2e. CARB evaluated over 100 possible measures identified by the CAT for inclusion in the list of discrete early action measures. On October 25,2007 CARB gave final approval to the list of Early Action Measures, which includes nine discrete measures and 35 CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change additional measures, all of which are to be enforceable by January 1, 2010. AB 32 requires that by January 1, 2009, CARB adopt a scoping plan indicating how emission reductions will be achieved via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions. Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknow that climate change is an important environmental that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill direr OPR to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Res Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency is required to certify or adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. This bill also protects projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, or the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B or IE) from claims of inadequate analysis of GHG as a legitimate cause of action. This latter provision will be repealed on January 1,20 10. Thus, this "protection" is highly limited to a handful of projects and for a short time period. '.hater 1 Introduction The Role of Air Districts in the CEQA Process Air districts assume one of three roles in the CEQA process. They may be lead agencies when they are adopting regulations and air quality plans. In some instances, they can also be a lead agency when approving permits to construct or operate for applicants subject to district rules. However, in many cases where an air district permit is involved, another agency has broader permitting authority over the project and assumes the role of lead agency. In these situations, the air district becomes what is referred to as a responsible agency under CEQA. When CEQA documents are prepared for projects that do not involve discretionary approval of a district regulation, plan or permit, the air district may assume the role of a concerned or commenting agency. In this role, it is typical for air districts to comment on CEQA documents where there may be air quality - related adverse impacts, such as projects that may create significant contributions to existing violations of ambient standards, cause a violation of an ambient standard or create an exposure to toxic air contaminants or odors. In some cases, the air district may also act in an "advisory" capacity to a lead agency early on in its review of an application for a proposed development project. A few air districts in California began developing significance thresholds for use in CEQA analyses in the late 1980's and early 1990's. By the mid -1990's most air districts had developed CEQA thresholds for air quality analyses. Many of the districts have included in their guidance the analysis of rule development and permits that may be subject to CEQA. 6 u r CEQA and Climate Change What is Not Addressed in this Paper Impacts of Climate Change to a Proiect Impacts from Construction Activity Although construction activity has been addressed in the analytical methodologies and mitigation chapters, this paper does not discuss whether any of the threshold approaches adequately addresses impacts from construction activity. More study is needed to make this assessment or to develop separate thresholds for construction activity. The focus of this paper is the long-term adverse operational impacts of land use development. 10 Chapter 2: Air Districts & CEQA Thresholds Introduction C CAPCOA and Climate Change Air Districts & CEQA Any analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA includes an assessment of the Thresholds nature and extent of each impact expected to result from the project to determine whether the impact will be treated as significant or less than significant. CEQA gives lead agencies discretion whether to classify a particular environmental impact as significant. "The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved," ref: CEQA Guidelines §15064(b) ("Guidelines"). Ultimately, formulation of a standard of significance requires the lead agency to make a policy judgment about where the line should be drawn distinguishing adverse impacts it considers significant from those that are not deemed significant. This judgment must, however, be based on scientific information and other factual data to the extent possible (Guidelines § 15064(b)). CEQA does not require that agencies establish thresholds of significance. Guidelines §15064.7(a) encourages each public agency "...to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which normally means the effect will be determined to be less than significant." Once such thresholds are established, an impact that complies with the applicable threshold will "normally" be found insignificant and an impact that does not comply with the applicable threshold will "normally" be found significant. Additionally, Guidelines § 15064.7(b) requires that if thresholds of significance are adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process they must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. While many public agencies adopt regulatory standards as thresholds, the standards do not substitute for a public agency's use of careful judgment in determining significance. They also do not replace the legal standard for significance (i.e., if there is a fair argument, based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect, the effect should be considered significant) (Guidelines §15064(f)(1). Also see Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resource Agency 103 Cal. App. 41" 98 (2002)). In other words, the adoption of a regulatory standard does not create an irrebuttable presumption that impacts below the regulatory standard are less than significant. 11 (r" CEQA and Climate Change Summary of CEQA Thresholds at Air Districts This section briefly summarizes the evolution of air districtCOUNTY CEQA significance thresholds. Ventura County APCD, in T 1980, was the first air district in California that formally GUIDELINES adopted CEQA significance thresholds. Their first CEQA assessment document contained impact thresholds based on pf Q§uIISy SntIWM '° '"°""°`" r'" project type: residential, nonresidential, and government. l M rni-41 PceumMti .. .. n.Y Then, as now, the District's primary CEQA thresholds applied only to ROG and NO,. The 1980 Guidelines did not address other air pollutants. '`r— Snn1A Air PouatMaOsP"T Santa Barbara County APCD and the Bay Area 1 AQMD adopted thresholds in 1985. The South Coast AQMD recommended regional air quality thresholds = " in 1987 for CO, SO2, NO2, particulates, ROG, and lead. Most of the other California air districts adopted CEQA guidance and thresholds during the 1990's. Air hu��rpir n4 districts have updated their thresholds and guidelinesM°`�nr,,-. w, rrnl laFuin several times since they were first published. Originally, most districts that established CEQA , thresholds focused on criteria pollutants for which the. district was nonattainment and the thresholds only -{ addressed project level impacts. Updates during the,v 1990's began to add additional air quality impacts such as odors, toxic air contaminants and construction. Several air districts also developed thresholds for General Plans that relied on an assessment of the plan consistency with the district's air quality plans. A consistency analysis involves comparing the project's land use to that of the general plan and the population and employment increase to the forecasts underlying the assumptions used to develop the air quality plan. Most air district thresholds for CEQA are based on the threshold for review under the New Source Review (NSR). The NSR threshold level is set by district rule and is different depending on the nonattainment classification of the air district. Areas with a less severe classification have a higher NSR trigger level while the most polluted areas have the lowest NSR trigger level. Some districts, such as Ventura County APCD, have significantly lower CEQA thresholds that are not tied to the NSR requirements. In Ventura, one set of CEQA thresholds is 25 pounds per day for all regions of Ventura County, except the Ojai Valley. The second set of CEQA thresholds was set at 5 pounds per day for the Ojai Valley. The Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD bases its thresholds for ozone precursors on the projected land use share of emission reductions needed for attainment. The emission reductions needed to reach attainment are based on commitments made in the state implementation plan (SIP) prepared for the federal clean air act. 12 Chapter 3: Consideration of Fundamental Issues CEQA Considerations in Setting Thresholds CEtA .PCUA M alld Climate Change Chapter 3 Consideration of Rjndarnenfir.- d Public agencies use significance thresholds to disclose to their constituents how they Issues plan on evaluating and characterizing the severity of various environmental impacts that could be associated with discretionary projects that they review. Significant thresholds are also used to help identify the level of mitigation needed to reduce a potentially significant impact to a less than significant level and to determine what type of an environmental document should be i prepared for a project; primarily a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact Mii i:��i�����������l���i�l�'���i�����l����l�Iiiiiii�illillillilill�-�� report. While public agencies are not required to develop significance thresholds, if a they decide to develop them, they are required to adopt them by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation through a public process. A lead agency is not restrained from adopting any significance threshold it sees as appropriate, as long as it is based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7 encourages public agencies to develop and publish significance thresholds that are identifiable, quantitative, qualitative or performance level that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. The courts have ruled that a "threshold of significance" for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant. Before an agency determines its course with regard to climate change and CEQA, it must be made clear that a threshold, or the absence of one, will not relieve a lead agency from having to prepare an EIR or legal challenges to the adequacy of an analysis leading to a conclusion, or lack of a conclusion, of significance under CEQA. CEQA has generally favored the preparation of an EIR where there is any substantial evidence to support a fair argument that a significant adverse environmental impact may occur due to a proposed project. This paper explores three alternative approaches to thresholds, including a no threshold option, a zero threshold option and a non -zero threshold option. Fair Argument Considerations Under the CEQA fair argument standard, an EIR must be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, that a project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. "Substantial evidence" comprises "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (Guidelines §15384) This means that if factual information is presented to the public agency that there is a reasonable possibility the project could have 13 CEQA and Climate Change project." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376) By itself, establishment of a GHG threshold will not insulate individual CEQA analyses from challenge. Defensibility depends upon the adequacy of the analysis prepared by the lead agency and the process followed. However, the threshold can help to define the boundaries of what is a reasonable analysis by establishing when an analysis will be required and the basic scope of that analysis. The threshold would attempt to define the point at which an analysis will be required and when a level of impact becomes significant, requiring preparation of an EIR. If the threshold includes recommendations for the method or methods of analysis, it can establish the minimum level of analysis to address this issue. Considerations in Setting Thresholds for Stationary Source Projects Implementing CEQA Without a Threshold A lead agency is not required to establish significance thresholds for GHG emissions from stationary sources. The lead ageiicy may find that it needs more information or experience evaluating GHG from these types of projects to determine an appropriate significance threshold. As with other project types, the lead agency could conduct a project specific analysis to determine whether an environmental impact report is needed and to determine the level of mitigation that is appropriate. The agency might also rely on thresholds established for criteria pollutants as a screening method, and analyze GHG emissions (and require mitigation) from projects with emissions above the criteria pollutant thresholds. Over time, the agency could amass information and experience with specific project categories that would support establishing explicit thresholds. The lead agency may also choose to base local CEQA thresholds on state guidelines or on the category -specific reduction targets established by ARB in its scoping plan for implementing AB32. Resource constraints and other considerations associated with implementing CEQA without GHG thresholds for stationary sources would be similar to those outlined for other types of projects (see Chapter 5 —No Threshold Option). M �.... CEQA and Climate Change Implementing CEOA with Threshold of Zero A lead agency may find that any increase in GHG emissions is potentially significant under CEQA. The resources and other considerations for implementing a threshold of zero for stationary sources are the same as those outlined for other types of projects (see Chapter 6 —Zero Threshold Option). Implementing CEOA with a Non -Zero Threshold Chapter Consideration of 'undarnental Issues A lead agency may identify one or more non -zero thresholds for significance of emissions of GHG from stationary sources. The agency could elect to rely on existing thresholds for reviewing new or modified stationary sources of GHG, if the state or local air district has established any. The agency could also apply the threshold(s) established for non -stationary sources to GHG emissions from stationary sources. Significance thresholds could also be established by ordinance, rule, or policy for a given category of stationary sources; this approach is especially conducive to a tiered threshold approach. For example, the agency could establish significance and mitigation tiers for stationary compression -ignition diesel -fueled generators. Under such an approach, the project proponent could be first required to use a lower GHG-emitting power source if feasible, and if not, to apply mitigation based on the size of the generator and other defined considerations, such as hours of operation. Certain classes of generators could be found to be insignificant under CEQA (e.g., those used for emergency stand-by power only, with a limit on the annual hours of use). As with non -stationary projects, the goal of establishing non -zero thresholds is to maximize environmental protection, while minimizing resources used. Resource and other considerations outlined for non - stationary projects are applicable here (see Chapter 7 —Non -Zero Threshold Options). Implementing CEOA with Different Thresholds for Stationary and Non -stationary Pro, ects Although a lead agency may apply the same thresholds to stationary and non -stationary projects, it is not required to do so. There are, in fact, some important distinctions between the two types of projects that could support applying different thresholds. The lead agency should consider the methods used to estimate emissions. Are the estimates a "bestlworst reasonable scenario" or are they based on theoretical maximum operation? How accurate are the estimates (are they based on models, simulations, emission factors, source test data, manufacturer specifications, etc.)? To what extent could emissions be reduced through regulations after the project is constructed if they were found to be greater than originally expected (i.e., is it possible to retrofit emissions control technology onto the source(s) of GHG at a later date, how long is the expected project life, etc.)? Are there emission limits or emissions control regulations (such as New Source Review) that provide certainty that emissions will be mitigated? Generally, stationary source emissions are based on maximum emissions (theoretical or allowed under law or regulation), are more accurate, and are more amenable to retrofit at a later time than non -stationary source emissions. It is also more likely that category specific 17 CIA and Climate Change rules or some form of NSR will apply to stationary sources than non -stationary projects. Notwithstanding, it is almost always more effective and cost-efficient to apply emission reduction technology at the design phase of a project. There are, therefore, a number of considerations that need to be evaluated and weighed before establishing thresholds — and which may support different thresholds for stationary and non -stationary projects. Furthermore, the considerations may change over time as new regulations are established and as emissions estimation techniques and control technology evolves. Direct GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources The main focus of this paper has been the consideration of projects that do not, in the main, involve stationary sources of air pollution, because stationary source projects are generally a smaller percentage of the projects seen by most local land use agencies. That said, some discussion of stationary sources is warranted. As the broader program for regulating GHG from these sources is developed, the strategies for addressing them under CEQA will likely become more refined. The primary focus of analysis of stationary source emissions has traditionally been those pollutants that are directly emitted by the source, whether through a stack or as fugitive releases (such as leaks). CAPCOA conducted a simplified analysis of permitting activity to estimate the number of stationary source projects with potentially significant emissions of greenhouse gases that might be seen over the course of a year. This analysis looked only at stationary combustion sources (such as boilers and generators), and only considered direct emissions. A lead agency under CEQA may see a different profile of projects than the data provided here suggest, depending on what other resources are affected by projects. In addition, air districts review like -kind replacements of equipment to ensure the new equipment meets current standards, but such actions might not constitute a project for many land use agencies or other media regulators. The data does provide a useful benchmark, however, for lead agencies to assess the order of magnitude of potential stationary source projects. A similar analysis is included for non -stationary projects in Chapter 7. s District data varies based on specific local regulations and methodologies. 19 BAAQMD SMAQMD SJVUAPCD SCAQMD Total Applications for Year 1499 I 778 I 1535 I 1179 Affected at threshold of: 900 metric tons/year 26 43 63 108 10,000 metric tons/year 7 5 26 8 25,000 metric tons/year 3 1 11 4 s District data varies based on specific local regulations and methodologies. 19 CEQA cAPCOA and Climate Change. Emissions from Energy Use In addition to the direct emissions of GHG from stationary projects, CEQA will likely need to consider the project's projected energy use. This could include an analysis of opportunities for energy efficiency, onsite clean power generation (e.g., heat/energy recovery, co -generation, geothermal, solar, or wind), and the use of dedicated power contracts as compared to the portfolio of generally available power. In some industries, water use and conservation may provide substantial GHG emissions reductions, so the CEQA analysis should consider alternatives that reduce water consumption and wastewater discharge. The stationary project may also have the opportunity to use raw of ' feedstock materials that have a smaller GHG • footprint; material substitution should be evaluated where information is available to do so. Emissions from Associated Mobile Sources The stationary project will also include emissions from associated mobile sources. These will include three basic components: emissions from employee trips, emissions from delivery of raw or feedstock materials, and emissions from product transport. Employee trips can be evaluated using trip estimation as is done for non -stationary projects, and mitigations would include such measures as providing access to and incentives for use of public transportation, accessibility for bicycle and pedestrian modes of transport, employer supported car or vanpools (including policies such as guaranteed rides home, etc). Upstream and downstream emissions related to goods movement can also be estimated with available models. The evaluation will need to determine the extent of the transport chain that should be included (to ensure that all emissions in the chain have been evaluated and mitigated, but to avoid double counting). Mitigations could include direct actions by operators who own their own fleet, or could be implemented through contractual arrangements with independent carriers; again, the evaluation will need to consider how far up and down the chain mitigation is feasible and can be reasonably required. Comparing Emissions Changes Across Pollutant Categories The potential exists for certain GHG reduction measures to increase emissions of criteria and toxic pollutants known to cause or aggravate respiratory, cardiovascular, and other health problems. For instance, GHG reduction efforts such as alternative fuels and methane digesters may create significant levels of increased pollutants that are detrimental to the health of the nearby population (e.g.; particulate matter, ozone precursors, toxic air contaminants). Such considerations should be included in any CEQA analysis of a project's environmental impacts. While there are many win-win 19 C.;onsideration of undamenta! Issues CEQA and Climate Change strategies that can reduce both GHG and criteria/toxic pollutant emissions, when faced with situations that involve tradeoffs between the two, the more immediate public health concerns that may arise from an increase in criteria or toxic pollutant emissions should take precedence. GHG emission reductions could be achieved offsite through other mitigation programs. 20 Chapter 4: Considerations of a Statewide Threshold Introduction CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change Consideration of a Statewide Under state law, it is the purview of each lead agency to determine what, if any, Tt,reshoid significance thresholds will be established to guide its review of projects under CEQA. While the state does provide guidelines for implementing CEQA, th guidelines have left the decision of whether to establish thresholds (and if so, at what level) to individual lead agencies. Frequently, lead agencies consult with resource - specific agencies (such as air districts) for assistance in determining what constitutes a significant impact on that specific resource. With the passage of AB 32, the ARB has broad authority to regulate GHG emissions as necessary to meet the emission reduction goals of the statute. This may include authority to establish emission reduction requirements for new land use projects, and may also enable them to recommend statewide thresholds for GHG under CEQA. In developing this white paper, CAPCOA recognizes that, as the GHG reduction program evolves over time, GHG thresholds and other policies and procedures for CEQA niay undergo significant revision, and that uniform statewide thresholds and procedures may be established. This paper is intended to serve as a resource for public agencies until such time that statewide guidance is established, recognizing that decisions will need to be made about GHG emissions from projects before such guidance is available. This paper is not, however, uniform statewide guidance. As stated before, it outlines several possible approaches without endorsing any one over the others. Some air districts may choose to use this paper to support their establishment of guidance for GHG under CEQA, including thresholds. This paper does not, nor should it be construed to require a district to implement any of the approaches evaluated here. Decisions about whether to provide fornial local guidance on CEQA for projects with GHG emissions, including the question of thresholds, will be made by individual district boards. Each of the 35 air districts operates independently and has its own set of regulations and programs to address the emissions from stationary, area and mobile sources, consistent with state and federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. The independence of the districts allows specific air quality problems to be addressed on a local level. In addition, districts have also established local CEQA thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants — also to address the specific air quality problems relative to that particular district. The overall goal of air district thresholds is to achieve and maintain health based air quality standards within their respective air basins and to reduce transport of emissions to other air basins. In establishing recommended thresholds, air districts consider the existing emission inventory of criteria pollutants and the amount of emission reductions needed to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. 21 CEQA and Climate Charge However, unlike criteria pollutants where individual districts are characterized by varying levels of pollutant concentrations and source types, greenhouse gases (GHG) and their attendant climate change ramifications are a global problem and, therefore, may suggest a uniform approach to solutions that ensure both progress and equity. Under S1397, the Office of Planning and Research is directed to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions through CEQA by July 1, 2009. Those guidelines may recommend thresholds. As stated, this paper is intended to provide a common platform of information and tools to support local decision makers until such time that statewide guidance or requirements are promulgated. Local Ability to Promulgate District -Specific GHG Thresholds One of the primary reasons behind the creation of air districts in California is the recognition that some regions within the state face more critical air pollution problems than others and, as has often been pointed out — one size does not fit all. For example, a "Serious" federal nonattainment district would need greater emission reductions than a district already in attainment — and, therefore, the more "serious" district would set its criteria pollutant CEQA thresholds of significance much lower than the air district already in attainment. The action of GHGs is global in nature, rather than local or regional (or even statewide or national). Ultimately there may be a program that is global, or at least national in scope. That said, actions taken by a state, region, or local government can contribute to the solution of the global problem. Local governments are not barred from developing and implementing programs to address GHGs. In the context of California and CEQA, lead agencies have the primary responsibility and authority to determine the significance of a project's impacts. Further, air districts have primary authority under state law for "control of air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from motor vehicles." (H&SC §40000) The term air contaminant or "air pollutant" is defined extremely broadly, to mean "any discharge, release, or other propagation into the atmosphere" and includes, but is not limited to, soot, carbon, fumes, gases, particulate matter, etc. Greenhouse gases and other global warming pollutants such as black carbon would certainly be included in this definition, just as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases were air pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. Therefore, air districts have the primary authority to regulate global warming pollutants from nonvehicular sources. AB 32 does not change this result. Although it gives wide responsibility to CARB to regulate greenhouse gases from all sources, including nonvehicular sources, it does not preempt the districts. AB 32 specifically states That "nothing in this division shall limit or expand the existing authority of any district.."(H&SC § 38594). Thus, districts and CARB retain concurrent authority over nonvehicular source greenhouse gas emissions. 22 CEQA CAPCOA anc! " Chapter 5: CEQA with No GHG Thresholds Climate Change mn Introduction Chapter 4 CEQA with The CEQA statutes do not require an air district or any lead agency to establish No GFIG significance thresholds under CEQA for any pollutant. While there are Thresholds considerations that support the establishment of thresholds (which are discussed i other sections of this document), there is no obligation to do so. An air district or other lead agency may elect not to establish significance thresholds for a number of reasons. The agency may believe that the global nature of the climate change problem necessitates a statewide or national framework for consideration of environmental impacts. SB 97 directs OPR to develop "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by July 1, 2009," and directs the California Resources Agency to certify and adopt the guidelines by June 30, 2010. An agency may also believe there is insufficient information to support selecting one specific threshold over another. As described earlier, air districts have historically set CEQA thresholds for air pollutants in the context of the local clean air plan, or (in the case of toxic air pollutants) within the framework of a rule or policy that manages risks and exposures due to toxic pollutants. There is no current framework that would similarly manage impacts of greenhouse gas pollutants, although the CARB is directed to establish one by June 30, 2009, pursuant to AB 32. A local agency may decide to defer any consideration of thresholds until this framework is in place. Finally, an agency may believe that the significance of a given project should be assessed on a case-by-case basis in the context of the project at the time it comes forward. Implementing CEQA Without Significance Thresholds for GHG The absence of a threshold does not in any way relieve agencies of their obligations to address GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. The implications of not having a threshold are different depending on the role the agency has under CEQA — whether it is acting in an advisory capacity, as a responsible agency, or as a lead agency. Implications of No Thresholds for an Agency Acting in an Advisory Capacity Air districts typically act in an advisory capacity to local governments in establishing the framework for environmental review of air pollution impacts under CEQA. This may include recommendations regarding significance thresholds, analytical tools to assess emissions and impacts, and mitigations for potentially significant impacts. Although districts will also address some of these issues on a project -specific basis as responsible agencies, they may provide general guidance to local governments on these issues that 23 CEQA and Climate Change are program wide, and these are advisory (unless they have been established by regulation). An air district that has not established significance thresholds for GHG will not provide guidance to local governments on this issue. This does not prevent the local government from establishing thresholds under its own authority. One possible result of this would be the establishment of different thresholds by cities and counties within the air district. Alternatively, the air district could advise local governments not to set thresholds and those jurisdictions may follow the air district's guidance. It is important to note here (as has been clearly stated by the Attorney General in comments and filings) that lack of a threshold does not mean lack of significance. An agency may argue lack of significance for any project, but that argument would have to be carried forth on a case-by-case, project specific basis. By extension then, a decision not to establish thresholds for GHG is likely to result in a greater workload for responsible and lead agencies as they consider individual projects under CEQA. Implications of No Thresholds for a Responsible Agency If there are no established thresholds of significance, the significance of each project will have to be determined during the course of review. The responsible agency (e.g., the air district) will review each project referred by the lead agency. The review may be qualitative or quantitative in nature. A qualitative review would discuss the nature of GHG emissions expected and their potential effect on climate change as the district understands it. It could also include a discussion of the relative merits of alternative scenarios. A quantitative analysis would evaluate, to the extent possible, the expected GHG emissions; it would also need to evaluate their potential effect on climate change and might include corresponding analysis of alternatives. The air district, as a responsible agency, may also identify mitigation measures for the project. The lack of established thresholds will make the determination of significance more resource intensive for each project. The district may defer to the lead agency to make this determination, however the district niay be obligated, as a responsible agency, to evaluate the analysis and determination. Implications of No Thresholds for a Lead Agency The main impact of not having significance thresholds will be on the primary evaluation of projects by the lead agency. Without significance thresholds, the agency will have to conduct some level of analysis of every project to determine whether an environmental impact report is needed. There are three fundamental approaches to the case-by-case analysis of significance, including presumptions of significance or insignificance, or no presumption: 24 CAPCOA 7!ltl�""":.i.r Climate Change .. 1. The agency can begin with a presumption of significance and the analysis would be used to support a case -specific finding of no significance. This is similar to establishing a threshold of zero, except that here, the "threshold" is rebuttable. This approach may result in a large number of projects proceeding to preparation of an environmental impact report. Because of the attendant costs, project proponents may challenge the determination of significance although formal challenge is less likely than attempts to influence the determination. 2. 3 'hapter GEQR with No GHG Thresholds 25 CEQA and Climate Change Relevant Citations The full text of relevant citations is in Appendix A. Public Resources Code — 92 1082.2, 'Significant Effect on Environment; Determination; Environmental Impact Report Preparation. State CEQA Guidelines — § 15064, Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project. 26 CEQA i CAPCOA anc Chapter 6: CEQA with a GHG Threshold of Zero Climate Chane-'° Introduction Chapter 6 CEQA with a GHG If an air district or lead agency determines that any degree of proj ect-related increase Threshold of in GHG emissions would contribute considerably to climate change and therefore zero would be a significant impact, it could adopt a zero -emission threshold to identify projects that would need to reduce their emissions. A lead agency may determine that a zero -emission threshold is justified even if other experts may disagree. A lead agency is not prevented from adopting any significance threshold it sees as appropriate, as long as it is based on substantial evidence. If the zero threshold option is chosen, all projects subject to CEQA would be required to quantify and mitigate their GHG emissions, regardless of the size of the project or the availability of GHG reduction measures available to reduce the project's emissions. Projects that could not meet the zero -emission threshold would be required to prepare environmental impact reports to disclose the unmitigable significant impact, and develop the justification for a statement of overriding consideration to be adopted by the lead agency. Implementing CEQA With a Zero Threshold for GHG The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that the earth's climate is becoming warmer, and that human activity is playing a role in climate change. Unlike other environmental impacts, climate change is a global phenomenon in that all GHG emissions generated throughout the earth contribute to it. Consequently, both large and small GHG generators cause the impact. While it may be true that many GHG sources are individually too small to make any noticeable difference to climate change, it is also true that the countless small sources around the globe combine to produce a very substantial portion of total GHG emissions. A zero threshold approach is based on a belief that, 1) all GHG emissions contribute to global climate change and could be considered significant, and 2) not controlling emissions from smaller sources would be neglecting a major portion of the GHG inventory. CEQA explicitly gives lead agencies the authority to choose thresholds of significance. CEQA defers to lead agency discretion when choosing thresholds. Consequently, a zero - emission threshold has merits. 27 CEQA and Climate Change The CEQA review process for evaluating a project's impact on global climate change under the zero threshold option would involve several components. Air quality sections would be written by lead agencies to include discussions on climate change in CEQA documents, GHG emissions would be calculated, and a determination of significance would be made. The local air districts would review and comment on the climate change discussions in environmental documents. Lead agencies may then revise final EIRs to accommodate air district comments. More than likely, mitigation measures will be specified for the project, and a mitigation monitoring program will need to be put in place to ensure that these measures are being implemented. Since CEQA requires mitigation to a less than significant level, it is conceivable that many projects subjected to a zero threshold could only be deemed less than significant with offsite reductions or the opportunity to purchase greenhouse gas emission reduction credits. GHG emission reduction credits are becoming more readily available however the quality of the credits varies considerably. High quality credits are generated by actions or projects that have clearly demonstrated emission reductions that are real, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and not otherwise required by law or regulation. When the pre- or post -project emissions are not well quantified or cannot be independently confirmed, they are considered to be of lesser quality. Similarly, if the reductions are temporary in nature, they are also considered to be poor quality. Adoption of a zero threshold should consider the near-term availability and the quality of potential offsets. There are also environmental justice concerns about the effects of using offsite mitigations or emission reduction credits to offset, or mitigate, the impacts of a new project. Although GHGs are global pollutants, some of them are emitted with co -pollutants that have significant near -source or regional impacts. Any time The Climate that increases in emissions at a specific site will be mitigated at a Re 1St remote location or using emission reduction credits, the agency evaluating the project should ensure that it does not create disproportionate impacts. CRii3Dk/E3A Administrative Considerations If electing to pursue a zero threshold, an air district or lead agency should consider the administrative costs and the environmental review system capacity. Some projects that previously would have qualified for an exemption could require further substantial analysis, including preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an EIR. Moreover, the trade-offs between the volume of projects requiring review and the quality of consideration given to reviews should be considered. It may also be useful to consider whether meaningful mitigation can be achieved from smaller projects. 28 QA and Timate Change Consideration of Exemptions from CEQA A practical concern about identifying GHG emissions as a broad cumulative impact is whether the zero threshold option will preclude a lead agency from approving a large set of otherwise qualified projects utilizing a Categorical Exemption, ND, or MND. The results could be a substantial increase in the number of EIR's. This is a valid and challenging concern, particularly for any threshold approach that is based on a zero threshold for net GHG emission increases. CEQA has specified exceptions to the use of a categorical exception. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 includes the following exceptions: "(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. " (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. " These CEQA Guidelines sections could be argued to mean that any net increase in GHG emissions would preclude the use of a categorical exemption. However, as described below, if the following can be shown, then the exceptions above could be argued not to apply: (1) Cumulative local, regional and/or state GHG emissions are being reduced or will be reduced by adopted, funded, and feasible measures in order to meet broader state targets. (2) Mandatory state or local GHG reduction measures would apply to the project's emissions such that broader GHG reduction goals would still be met and the project contributions would not be cumulatively considerable. (3) Project GHG emissions are below an adopted significance threshold designed to take into account the cumulative nature of GHG emissions. A similar argument could be made relative to the use of a ND (provided no additional mitigation (beyond existing mandates) is required to control GHG emissions) and to the use of a MND instead of an EIR. However, due to the "fair argument" standard, which is discussed in Chapter 3, caution is recommended in use of a ND or MND unless all three elements above can be fully supported through substantial evidence and there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Establishing a significance threshold of zero is likely to preclude the use of a categorical exemption. 29 :ha ter CEQA with a GHG Threshold of Zero CEQA t and Climate Change Relevant Citations The full text of relevant citations is in Appendix A. Public Resources Code — $21004, Mitigating or Avoiding a Significant Effect; Powers of Public Agency. State CEQA Guidelines — § 15064, Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project. State CEQA Guidelines — § 15130, Discussion of Cumulative Impacts. State CEQA Guidelines — § 15064.7, Thresholds of Significance. 30 CEQA C and Chapter 7: CEQA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds Climate Change Introduction Chapter 7 CEQA with Non -Zero GHG A non -zero threshold could minimize the resources spent reviewing environmental Thresholds analyses that do not result in real GHG reductions or to prevent the environmental review system from being overwhelmed. The practical advantages of consideringl non -zero thresholds for GHG significance determinations can fit into the concept regarding whether the project's GHG emissions represent a "considerable contribution to the cumulative impact" and therefore warrant analysis. Specifying a 11011 zcro threshold could be construed as setting a de minimis value for a cumulative impact. In effect, this would be indicating that there are certain GHG emission sources that are so small that they would not contribute substantially to the global GHG budget. This could be interpreted as allowing public agencies to approve certain projects without requiring any mitigation of their GHG. Any threshold framework should include a proper context to address the de minimis issue. I-Iowever, the CEQA Guidelines recognize that there may be a point where a project's contribution, although above zero, would not be a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact and, therefore, not trigger the need for a significance determination. GHG emissions from all sources are under the purview of CARB and as such may eventually be "regulated" no matter how small. Virtually all projects will result in some direct or indirect release of GHG. However, a decision by CARB to regulate a class of sources does not necessarily mean that an individual source in that class would constitute a project with significant GHG impacts under CEQA. For example, CARB has established criteria pollutant emission standards for automobiles, but the purchase and use of a single new car is not considered a project with significant impacts under CEQA. At the same time, it is important to note that it is likely that all meaningful sources of emissions, no matter how small are likely to be considered for regulation under AB 32. It is expected that projects will have to achieve some level of GHG reduction to comply with CARB's regulations meant to implement AB 32. As such all projects will have to play apart in reducing our GHG emissions budget and no project, however small, is truly being considered de minimis under CARB's regulations. This chapter evaluates a range of conceptual approaches toward developing GHG significance criteria. The air districts retained the services of J&S an environmental consulting, firm to assist with the development of a Statute and Executive Order -based threshold (Approach 1) and a tiered threshold (Approach 2) based on a prescribed list of tasks and deliverables. Time and financial constraints limited the scope and depth of this analysis, however, the work presented here may be useful in developing interim guidance while AB 32 is being implemented. J&S recognized that approaches other than those described here could be used. As directed, J&S explored some overarching issues, such as: • what constitutes "new" emissions? 31 CEQA and Climate Change F] • how should "baseline emissions" be established? • what is cumulatively "considerable" under CEQA? • what is "business as usual" ? and • should an analysis include "life -cycle" emissions? The answers to these issues were key to evaluating each of the threshold concepts. Approach 1— Statute and Executive Order Approach Thresholds could be grounded in existing mandates and their associated GHG emission reduction targets. A project would be required to meet the targets, or reduce GHG emissions to the targets, to be considered less than significant. AB 32 and 5-3-05 target the reduction of statewide emissions. It should be made clear that AB 32 and 5-3-05 do not specify that the emissions reductions should be achieved through uniform reduction by geographic location or by emission source characteristics. For example, it is conceivable, although unlikely, that AB 32 goals could be achieved by new regulations that only apply to urban areas or that only apply to the transportation and/or energy sector. However, this approach to evaluating GHG under CEQA is based on the presumption that a new project must at least be consistent with AB 32 GHG emission reduction mandates. The goal of AB 32 and 5-3-05 is the significant reduction of future GHG emissions in a state that is expected to rapidly grow in both population and economic output. As such, there will have to be a significant reduction in the per capita GHG output for these goals to be met. CEQA is generally used to slow or zero the impact of new emissions, leaving the reduction of existing emission sources to be addressed by other regulatory means. With these concepts in mind, four options were identified for statute/executive order - based GHG significance thresholds and are described below. Threshold 1.1: AB 32/5-3-05 Derived Uniform Percentage -Based Reduction. AB 32 requires the state to reduce California -wide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Reducing greenhouse gas emission levels from 2020 to 1990 levels could require a 28 to 33 percent reduction of business -as -usual GHG emissions depending on the methodology used to determine the future emission inventories. The exact percent reduction may change slightly once CARB finalizes its 1990 and 2020 inventory estimates. In this context, business -as -usual means the emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the mandated reductions. The details of the business -as -usual scenario are established by CARB in the assumptions it uses to project what the state's GHG emissions would have been in 2020, and the difference between that level and the level that existed in 1990 constitutes the reductions that must be achieved if the mandated goals are to be met. 32 CE CAPC0A d91d Climate Change _..,.µ This threshold approach would require a project to meet a percent reduction target hapter CEQAbased on the average reductions needed from the business -as -usual emission from all with Non -Zero g Non -Zero Gl-iG GHG sources. Using the 2020 target, this approach would require all discretionary Thresholds Approach 1: Statute projects to achieve a 33 percent reduction from projected business -as -usual emissions and Executive order in order to be considered less than significant. A more restrictive approach would D ecl Uniform tis Derivec:i tJniform use the 2050 targets. S-3-05 seeks to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below Percentage -Based 1990 levels by 2050. To reach the 2050 milestone would require an estimated 90 Reduction percent reduction (effective immediately) of business -as -usual emissions. Using this goal as the basis for a significance threshold may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. Note that AB 32 and S-3-05 set emission inventory goals at milestone years; it is unclear how California will progress to these goals in non -milestone years. Waste Mutarrauent Land use mid Livestock Cor un/' es Energy Use LtcUAg Eneriy & Process Land Tiaaport Aviation 0i11. Gas;Tlefule Electricity M° ■ Low Crolc4h Moderate Ch-otvth 109,6 20% 304.6 40% 5046 60% 7096 809/6 4006 10095 JUUKUE: AKY ZUU/ Threshold 1.2: Uniform Percentage -Based (e.g.500/o) Reduction for New Development. This threshold is based on a presumption that new development should contribute a greater percent reduction from business -as -usual because greater reductions can be achieved at lower cost from new projects than can be achieved from existing sources. This approach would establish that new development emit 50 percent less GHG emissions than business -as -usual development. This reduction rate is greater than the recommended reduction rate for meeting the Threshold 1.12020 target (33 percent) but is significantly less restrictive than the Threshold 1.1 2050 target reduction rate (90 percent). If a 50 percent GHG reduction were achieved from new development, existing emissions would have to be reduced by 25 to 30 percent in order to meet the 2020 emissions goal depending on the year used to determine the baseline inventory. Although this reduction goal is reasonable for achieving the 2020 goal, it would not be possible to 33 CEQA and Climate Change reach the 2050 emissions target with this approach even if existing emissions were 100 percent controlled. Threshold 1.3: Uniform Percentage -Based Reduction by Economic Sector. This threshold would use a discrete GHG reduction goal specific to the economic sector associated with the project. There would be specific reduction goals for each economic sector, such as residential, commercial, and industrial development. Specifying different reduction thresholds for each market sector allows selection of the best regulatory goal for each sector taking into account available control technology and costs. This approach would avoid over -regulating projects (i.e. requiring emissions to be controlled in excess of existing technology) or under -regulating projects (i.e. discouraging the use of available technology to control emissions in excess of regulations). This approach requires extensive information on the emission inventories and best available control technology for each economic sector. This data will be compiled as CARB develops its scoping plan under AB 32 and its implementing regulations; as a result, this approach will be more viable in the long term. Threshold 1.4: Uniform Percentame-Based Reduction by California Air Basins and Counties Regi. AB 32 and 5-3-05 are written such that they apply to a AirBasasare Deiare�ted?Y cowshaftg, Bold Black, Text 1abet6, aad Yettaw Bouhdary Lines, geographic region (i.e. the entire ;cognteaar# bp8inai10T®xtLaFaeis state of California) rather than on az , a project or sector level. One H could specify regions of the state wE such as the South Coast Air° Basin, Sacramento Valley, or Bay Area which are required to plan (plans could be developed by regional governments, such as councils of governments) and demonstrate compliance with AB 32 and 5-3-05 reduction goals at a regional level. To x demonstrate that a project has 9T less than significant emissions, one would have to show °?t compliance with the appropriate regional GHG plan. Effectively o s� this approach allows for analysis"°'° �Gaiifarnta F�rvirunmer,#a3 Protection Agcnoy of GHG emissions at a landscape VW" Air Ressowces Board scale smaller than the state as a whole. Specifying regions in rough correlation to existing air basins or jurisdictional control allows for regional control of emissions and integration with regional emission reduction strategies for criteria and toxic air pollutants. Although differing GHG reduction controls for each region are possible, it is likely that all regions would be 34 z c CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change. required to achieve 1990 emission inventories by the year 2020 and 80 percent less emissions by 2050. Threshold 1.4 is considered viable long-term significance criteria that is unlikely to be used in the short term. Implementing CEQA Thresholds Based on Emission Reduction Targets Characterizing Baseline and Project Emissions :hapten 7 C EQA with Non -Zero GF#G Thresholds r Approach 1: Statute and Executive Carder 1.4: Uniform `%, Based Reduction by Region While the population and economy of California is expanding, all new projects can be considered to contribute new emissions. Furthermore, GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non -cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. "Business -as -usual" is the projection of GHG emissions at a future date based on current technologies and regulatory requirements in absence of other reductions. For example to determine the future emissions from a power plant for "business -as -usual" one would multiply the projected energy throughput by the current emission factor for that throughput. If adopted regulations such as those that may be promulgated by CARB for AB 32) dictate that power plant emissions must be reduced at some time in the future, it is appropriate to consider these regulation standards as the new business -as -usual for a future date. In effect, business -as -usual will continue to evolve as regulations manifest. Note that "business -as - usual" defines the CEQA No Project conditions, but does not necessarily form the baseline under CEQA. For instance, it is common to subtract the future traffic with and without a project to determine the future cumulative contribution of a project on traffic conditions. However, existing conditions at the time of issuance of the notice of preparation is normally the baseline. Establishing Emission Reduction Targets One of the obvious drawbacks to using a uniform percent reduction approach to GHG control is that it is difficult to allow for changes in the 1990 and future emission inventories estimates. To determine what emission reductions are required for new projects one would have to know accurately the 1990 budget and efficacy of other GHG promulgated regulations as a function of time. Since CARB will not outline its 35 CEQA wid Climate Change regulation strategy for several more years, it is difficult to determine accurately what the new project reductions should be in the short term. Future updates to the 1990 inventory could necessitate changes in thresholds that are based on that inventory. It is important to note that it is difficult to create near term guidance for a uniform reduction threshold strategy since it would require considerable speculation regarding the implementation and effectiveness of forthcoming CARB regulations. Of greater importance are the assumptions used to make the projected 2020 emission inventories. Projecting future inventories over the next 15-50 years involves substantial uncertainty. Furthermore, there are likely to be federal climate change regulations and possibly additional international GHG emission treaties in the near future. To avoid such speculation, this paper defines all future emission inventories as hypothetical business -as - usual projections. This white paper is intended to support local decisions about CEQA and GHG in the near term. During this period, it is unlikely that a threshold based on emission reduction targets would need to be changed. However, it is possible that future inventory updates will show that targets developed on the current inventory were not stringent enough, or were more stringent than was actually needed. Approach 2 — Tiered Approach The goal of a tiered threshold is to maximize reduction predictability while minimizing administrative burden and costs. This would be accomplished by prescribing feasible mitigation measures based on project size and type, and reserving the detailed review of an EIR for those projects of greater size and complexity. This approach may require inclusion in a General Plan, or adoption of specific rules or ordinances in order to fully and effectively implement it. A tiered CEQA significance threshold could establish different levels at which to determine if a project would have a significant impact. The tiers could be established based on the gross GHG emission estimates for a project or could be based on the physical size and characteristics of the project. This approach would then prescribe a set of GHG mitigation strategies that would have to be incorporated into the project in order for the project to be considered less than significant. The framework for a tiered threshold would include the following: 0 disclosure of GHG emissions for all projects; • support for city/county/regional GHG emissions reduction planning; creation and use of a "green list" to promote the construction of projects that have desirable GHG emission characteristics; • a list of mitigation measures; 36 CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change hapter 7 CEQA with Non-Zero GHG • a decision tree approach to tiering; and Thresholds Approach 2 Tierec • quantitative or qualitative thresholds. Decision -Tree Approach to Tiering CEQA guidance that allows multiple methodologies to demonstrate GHG significance will facilitate the determination of significance for a broad range of projects/plans that would otherwise be difficult to address with a single non -compound methodology. Even though there could be multiple ways that a project can determine GHG significance using a decision -tree approach, only one methodology need be included in any single CEQA document prepared by the applicant. The presence of multiple methodologies to determine significance is designed to promote flexibility rather than create additional analysis overhead. Figure 1 shows a conceptual approach to significance determination using a tiered approach that shows the multiple routes to significance determination. Figure 1 Detail Description Figure 1 pictorially represents how an agency can determine a project's or plan's significance for CEQA analysis using the non -zero threshold methodology. The emissions associated with a project/plan are assumed to have a significant impact unless one can arrive at a less -than -significant finding by at least one of the methodologies below. 1. Demonstrate that a General Plan (GP) or Regional Plan is in Compliance with AB32 • For most GPs or RPs this will require demonstration that projected 2020 emissions will be equal to or less than 1990 emissions. • GPs or RPs are expected to fully document 1990 and 2020 GHG emission inventories. • Projection of 2020 emissions is complicated by the fact that CARB is expected to promulgate emission reductions in the short term. Until explicit CARB regulations are in place, unmitigated GP 2020 emission inventories represent business -as -usual scenarios. • EIRs for GPs or RPs which demonstrate 2020 mitigated emissions are less than or equal to 1990 emissions are considered less than significant. 2. Demonstrate the Proiect is Exempt Based on SB 97 • As specified in SB 97, projects that are funded under November 2006 Proposition 1B (Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act) and 1C (Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act) may be exempt from analysis until January 1, 2010. 37 This chart pictmially represerft how an agency can datermine a prcoces or plan's significance fbr CEGA anatysis. a& -,r MW74 7 * - r �, � F , . '. - �-Ajiw� , " , 1,; , ;66F t SIGNIFICANT IMPACT -044 Jones & Stokes LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT REO., I SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Figure 1 Climate Change Significance Criteria Flow Chart CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change _. hapter 7 • An exemption can be used in an ND, MND, or EIR to support a less than CEQA with Non -zero GHG significant finding for GHG impacts. Thresholds Approach 2: Tiered 3. Demonstrate that the Proiect is on the `Green List' • This list would include projects that are deemed a positive contribution to California efforts to reduce GHG emissions. If the project is of the type described on the Green List it is considered less than significant. • If the Green List entry description requires mitigation for impacts other than GHG, this methodology can be used in MNDs or EIRs; if the Green List entry does not require mitigation this methodology can be used in NDs, MNDs, or EIRs. 4. Demonstrate a Project's Compliance with a General Plan • If a project is consistent with an appropriate General Plan's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP), a project can be declared less than significant. • Note that at this time there are no known jurisdictions that have a GGRP that has been fully subject to CEQA review. While Marin County has adopted a forward - thinking GGRP and it is described in the most recent GP update, the associated EIR does not analyze the secondary environmental impacts of some of the GGRP measures such as tidal energy. While one can reference GGRPs that have not been reviewed fully in CEQA, to attempt to show a project's compliance with such a plan as evidence that the project's GI -IG emission contributions are less than significant may not be supported by substantial evidence that cumulative emissions are being fully addressed in the particular jurisdiction. • Compliance with a CEQA-vetted GGRP can be cited as evidence for all CEQA documents (Categorical Exemption, ND, MND, and EIR). 5. Analyze GHG Emissions and Mitigate using the Tiered Methodology • Guidance and mitigation methodology for various development projects (residential, commercial, industrial) are listed in the form of tiered thresholds. If a project incorporates the mitigation measures specified in the tiered threshold tables the project is considered less than significant. • All project emissions are considered less than significant if they are less than the threshold(s). • If the tiered approach requires mitigation, this methodology can be used in MNDs or EIRs; if the tiered approach does not require mitigation this methodology can be used in NDs, MNDs, or EIRs. 09 r CEQA. and Climate Change The Green List • The Green List would be a list of projects and project types that are deemed a positive contribution to California's efforts to reduce GHG emissions. • If this approach is followed, it is suggested that CARB and the Attorney General (AG) are consulted prior to listing a project on the Green List to ensure consistency with CARB AB 32 efforts and to ensure that the Green List entries are consistent with how the AG office interprets AB 32 and GHG CEQA compliance. • The Green List should be updated every 6 months or as major regulatory or legal developments unfold. • Projects that are on the Green List are to be considered less than significant for GHG emissions purposes. • A tentative list of potential Green List entries is presented below. Actual Green List entries should be far more specific and cover a broad range of project types and mitigation approaches. The list below is merely a proof -of -concept for the actual Green List. 1. Wind farm for the generation of wind -powered electricity 2. Extension of transit lines to currently developed but underserved communities 3. Development of high-density infill projects with easily accessible mass transit 4. Small hydroelectric power plants at existing facilities that generate 5 mw or less (as defined in Class 28 Categorical Exemption) 5. Cogeneration plants with a capacity of 50 mw or less at existing facilities (as defined in Class 29 Cat Exemption) 6. Increase in bus service or conversion to bus rapid transit service along an existing bus line 7. Projects with LEED "Platinum" rating 8. Expansion of recycling facilities within existing urban areas 9. Recycled water projects that reduce energy consumption related to water supplies that services existing development 10. Development of bicycle, pedestrian, or zero emission transportation infrastructure to serve existing regions There are also several options for tiering and thresholds, as shown in Table 2 below. One could establish strictly numeric emissions thresholds and require mitigation to below the specific threshold to make a finding of less than significant. One could establish narrative emissions threshold that are based on a broader context of multiple approaches to GHG reductions and a presumption that projects of sufficiently low GHG intensity are less than significant. In Concept 2A, a zero threshold would be applied to projects and thus only projects that result in a reduction of GHG emissions compared to baseline emissions would be less than significant absent mitigation. All projects would require quantified inventories. All projects that result in a net increase of GHG emissions would be required to mitigate their emissions to zero through direct mitigation or through fees or offsets or the impacts M CEQA C�A and Climate Change M�u. Table', Approach 2 Tiering Optiot CEGA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds Approach 2: Tiereci would be identified as significant and unavoidable. This could be highly problematic and could eliminate the ability to use categorical exemptions and negative declarations for a wide range of projects. In Concepts 2B and 2C, the first tier of a tiered threshold includes projects that are within a jurisdiction with an adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan (GGRP) and General Plan/Regional Plan that is consistent with AB 32 (and in line with S-3-05), or are on the Green List, or are below the Tier 2 threshold. All Tier 1 projects would be required to implement mandatory reductions required due to other legal authority (Level 1 reductions) such as AB 32, Title 24, or local policies and ordinances. With Level 1 W1 Concept 2A Concept 2B Concept 2C Zero Quantitative Qualitative Tier 1 Project results in a net Project in compliance with an Project in compliance with an reduction of GHG emissions AB 32 -compliant AB 32 -compliant General/Regional Plan, on the General/Regional Plan, on the Green List, or below Tier 2 Green List, or below Tier 2 threshold. threshold. Level 1 Reductions Level 1 Reductions (Could include such measures (See measures under 213) as: bike parking, transit stops for planned route, Energy Star Less than Significant roofs, Energy Star appliances, Less than Significant Title 24, water use efficiency, etc.) Less than Significant Tier 2 Project results in net increase Above Tier 2 threshold Above Tier 2 threshold of GHG emissions Level 2 Mitigation (Could include such measures Level 2 Mitigation Mitigation to zero as: Parking reduction beyond (See measures under 213) (including offsets) code, solar roofs, LEED Silver or Gold Certification, exceed Title 24 by 20%, TDM Mitigated to Less than measures, etc.) Mitigated to Less than Significant Significant Mitigated to Less than Significant Tier 3 Mitigation infeasible to reduce Above Tier 2 threshold With Above Tier 3 thresholds missions to zero Level 1, 2 Mitigation 'e.g., cost of offsets infeasible For project or offsets not Level 3 Mitigation: available) (Could include such measures quantify Emissions, Level 3 as: On-site renewable energy Mitigation (see measures under systems, LEED Platinum M), and Offsets for 90% of certification, Exceed Title 24 •emainder by 40%, required recycled water use for irrigation, zero wasteihigh recycling requirements, mandatory transit )asses, offsets/carbon impact Fees) iignificance and Unavoidable >ignificant and Unavoidable 1'titigated to Less than Significant CEGA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds Approach 2: Tiereci would be identified as significant and unavoidable. This could be highly problematic and could eliminate the ability to use categorical exemptions and negative declarations for a wide range of projects. In Concepts 2B and 2C, the first tier of a tiered threshold includes projects that are within a jurisdiction with an adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan (GGRP) and General Plan/Regional Plan that is consistent with AB 32 (and in line with S-3-05), or are on the Green List, or are below the Tier 2 threshold. All Tier 1 projects would be required to implement mandatory reductions required due to other legal authority (Level 1 reductions) such as AB 32, Title 24, or local policies and ordinances. With Level 1 W1 CEQA and Climate Change reduction measures, qualifying Tier 1 projects would be considered less than significant without being required to demonstrate mitigation to zero. In Concept 213, the Tier 2 threshold would be quantitative, and quantified inventories would be required. Several quantitative threshold options are discussed below. A more comprehensive set of Level 2 mitigation would be required. If the project's einissions still exceed the Tier 2 threshold, an even more aggressive set of Level 3 mitigation measures would be required including offsets (when feasible) to reduce emissions below the Tier 2 threshold. In Concept 2C, there would be two thresholds, a lower Tier 2 threshold (the "low bar") and a higher Tier 3 threshold (the "high bar"). The Tier 2 threshold would be the significance threshold for the purposes of CEQA and would be qualitative in terms of units (number of dwelling units, square feet of coinmercial space, etc.) or a per capita ratio. Projects above the Tier 2 threshold would be required to implement the comprehensive set of Level 2 mitigation. Projects below the Tier 2 threshold would not be required to quantify emissions or reductions. The Tier 3 threshold would be a threshold to distinguish the larger set of projects for which quantification of emissions would be required. Level 3 mitigation would be required and the project would be required to purchase offsets (when feasible) in the amount of 90 percent of the net emissions after application of Level 1 reductions and Level 2 and 3 mitigation. A variant on Concept 2C would be to require mandatory Level 3 mitigation without quantification and offsets. Approach 2 Threshold Options Seven threshold options were developed for this approach. The set of options are framed to capture different levels of new development in the CEQA process and thus allow different levels of mitigation. Options range from a zero first-tier threshold (Threshold 2.1) up to a threshold for GHG that would be equivalent to the capture level (i.e., number of units) of the current criteria pollutant thresholds used by some air districts (Threshold 2.4). The decision -based implementation approach discussed above could be used for any of these options. Table 3 below compares the results of each of the approaches discussed here. Threshold 2.1: Zero First Tier Tiered Threshold. This option would employ the decision tree concept and set the first tier cut -point at zero. The second tier cut -point could be one of the qualitative or quantitative thresholds discussed below. First-tier projects would be required to implement a list of very feasible and readily available mitigation measures. Threshold 2.2: Quantitative Threshold Based on Market Capture A single quantitative threshold was developed in order to ensure capture of 90 percent or more of likely future discretionary developments. The objective was to set the emission 42 CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Change threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future residential and non- residential development that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and job growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. The quantitative threshold was created by using the following steps: Chapter 7 CEQA with Non -Zero GhiG Thresholds Approach 2: Tiered 22 Quantitative Threshold Based or Market Capture • Reviewing data from four diverse cities (Los Angeles in southern California and Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore in northern California) on pending applications for development. • Determining the unit (dwelling unit or square feet) threshold that would capture approximately 90 percent of the residential units or office space in the pending application lists. • Based on the data from the four cities, the thresholds selected were 50 residential units and 30,000 square feet of commercial space. • The GHG emissions associated with 50 single-family residential units and 30,000 square feet of office were estimated and were found to be 900 metric tons and 800 metric tons, respectively. Given the variance on individual projects, a single threshold of 900 metric tons was selected for residential and office projects. • A 900 metric ton threshold was also selected for non -office commercial projects and industrial projects to provide equivalency for different projects in other economic sectors. • If this threshold is preferred, it is suggested that a more robust data set be examined to increase the representativeness of the selected thresholds. At a minimum, a diverse set of at least 20 cities and/or counties from throughout the state should be examined in order to support the market capture goals of this threshold. Further, an investigation of market capture may need to be conducted for different commercial project types and for industrial projects in order to examine whether multiple quantitative emissions thresholds or different thresholds should be developed. The 900 -ton threshold corresponds to 50 residential units, which corresponds to the 84th percentile of projects in the City of Los Angeles, the 79th percentile in the City of Pleasanton, the 50th percentile in the City of Livermore and the 41h percentile in the City of Dublin. This is suggestive that the GHG reduction burden will fall on larger projects that will be a relatively small portion of overall projects within more developed central cities (Los Angeles) and suburban areas of slow growth (Pleasanton) but would be the higher portion of projects within moderately (Livermore) or more rapidly developing areas (Dublin). These conclusions are suggestive but not conclusive due to the small sample size. The proposed threshold would exclude the smallest proposed developments 43 CEQA and Climate Change from potentially burdensome requirements to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions under CEQA. While this would exclude perhaps 10 percent of new residential development, the capture of 90 percent of new residential development would establish a strong basis for demonstrating that cumulative reductions are being achieved across the state. It can certainly serve as an interim measure and could be revised if subsequent regulatory action by CARB shows that a different level or different approach altogether is called for. The 900 -ton threshold would correspond to office projects of approximately 35,000 square feet, retail projects of approximately 11,000 square feet, or supermarket space of approximately 6,300 square feet. 35,000 square feet would correspond to the 46"' percentile of commercial projects in the City of Los Angeles, the 54`x' percentile in the City of Livermore, and the 35"' percentile in the City of Dublin. However, the commercial data was not separated into office, retail, supermarket or other types, and thus the amount of capture for different commercial project types is not known. The proposed threshold would exclude smaller offices, small retail (like auto -parts stores), and small supermarkets (like convenience stores) from potentially burdensome requirements to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions under CEQA but would include many medium - scale retail and supermarket projects. The industrial sector is less amenable to a unit -based approach given the diversity of projects within this sector. One option would be to adopt a quantitative GHG emissions threshold (900 tons) for industrial projects equivalent to that for the residential/commercial thresholds described above. Industrial emissions can result from both stationary and mobile sources. CARB estimates that their suggested reporting threshold for stationary sources of 25,000 metric tons accounts for more than 90 percent of the industrial sector GHG emissions (see Threshold 2.3 for 25,000 metric ton discussion). If the CARE3 rationale holds, then a 900 metric ton threshold would likely capture at least 90 percent (and likely more) of new industrial and manufacturing sources. If this approach is advanced, we suggest further examination of industrial project data to determine market capture. This threshold would require the vast majority of new development emission sources to quantify their GHG emissions, apportion the forecast emissions to relevant source categories, and develop GHG mitigation measures to reduce their emissions. Threshold 2.3: CARB Reporting Threshold CARB has recently proposed to require mandatory reporting from cement plants, oil refineries, hydrogen plants, electric generating facilities and electric retail providers, cogeneration facilities, and stationary combustion sources emitting > 25,000 MT CO2e/yr. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a regulation to require the mandatory reporting and verification of emissions. CARB issued a preliminary draft version of its proposed reporting requirements in August 2007 and estimates that it would capture 94 percent of the GHG emissions associated with stationary sources. CEQA and Climate Change This threshold would use 25,000 metric tons per year of GHG as the CEQA significance level. CARB proposed to use the 25,000 metric tons/year value as a reporting threshold, not as a CEQA significance threshold that would be used to define mitigation requirements. CARB is proposing the reporting threshold to begin to compile a statewide emission inventory, applicable only for a limited category of� sources (large industrial facilities using fossil fuel combustion). tCAPCOA Chapter 7 CEQA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds Approach 2: Tiered .`• 2.3: CARE Mandatory Reporting r 2A: Regulated Emissions lnuentory Capture A 25,000 metric ton significance threshold would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 1,400 residential units, 1 million square feet of office space, 300,000 square feet of retail, and 175,000 square feet of supermarket space. This threshold would capture far less than half of new residential or commercial development. As noted above, CARB estimates the industrial -based criteria would account for greater than 90 percent of GHG emissions emanating from stationary sources. However, industrial and manufacturing projects can also include substantial GHG emissions from mobile sources that are associated with the transportation of materials and delivery of products. When all transportation -related emissions are included, it is unknown what portion of new industrial or manufacturing projects a 25,000 -ton threshold would actually capture. An alternative would be to use a potential threshold of 10,000 metric tons considered by the Market Advisory Committee for inclusion in a Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade System in California. A 10,000 metric ton significance threshold would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 550 residential units, 400,000 square feet of office space, 120,000 square feet of retail, and 70,000 square feet of supermarket space. This threshold would capture roughly half of new residential or commercial development. Threshold 2.4: Regulated Emissions Inventory Capture Most California air districts have developed CEQA significance thresholds for NOx and ROG emissions to try to reduce emissions of ozone precursors from proposed sources that are not subject to NSR pre -construction air quality permitting. The historical management of ozone nonattainment issues in urbanized air districts is somewhat analogous to today's concerns with greenhouse gas emissions in that regional ozone concentrations are a cumulative air quality problem caused by relatively small amounts of NOx and ROG emissions from thousands of individual sources, none of which emits enough by themselves to cause elevated ozone concentrations. Those same conditions apply to global climate change where the environmental problem is caused by emissions from a countless number of individual sources, none of which is large enough by itself to cause the problem. Because establishment of NOx/ROG emissions CEQA significance thresholds has been a well -tested mechanism to ensure that individual projects address cumulative impacts and to force individual projects to reduce emissions under CEQA, this threshold presumes the analogy of NOx/ROG emission thresholds could be used to develop similar GHG thresholds. 45 CEQA and Climate Change The steps to develop a GHG emission threshold based on the NOx/ROG analogy were as follows: • For each agency, define its NOx/ROG CEQA thresholds. • For each agency, define the regional NOx/ROG emission inventory the agency is trying to regulate with its NOx/ROG thresholds. • For each agency, calculate the percentage of the total emission inventory for NOx represented by that agency's CEQA emission threshold. That value represents the "minimum percentage of regulated inventory" for NOx. • The current (2004) California -wide GHG emission inventory is 499 million metric tons per year of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e). Apply the typical "minimum percentage of regulated inventory" value to the statewide GHG inventory, to develop a range of analogous GHG CEQA thresholds. The preceding methodology was applied to two different air quality districts: the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), a mostly -urbanized agency within which most emissions are generated from urban areas; and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which oversees emissions emanating in part from rural areas that are generated at dispersed agricultural sources and area sources. For example, in the Bay Area the NOx threshold is 15 tons/year. The total NOx inventory for 2006 was 192,000 tons/year (525 tons/day). The threshold represents 0.008 percent of the total NOx inventory. Applying that ratio to the total statewide GHG emissions inventory of 499 MMT CO2e (2004) yields an equivalent GHG threshold of 39,000 MMT CO2e. The range of analogous CEQA GHG thresholds derived from those two agencies is tightly clustered, ranging from 39,000 to 46,000 tons/year. A 39,000 to 46,000 metric ton threshold would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 2,200 to 2,600 residential units, 1.5 to 1.8 million square feet of office space, 470,000 to 560,000 square feet of retail, and 275,000 to 320,000 square feet of supermarket space. This threshold would capture far less than half of new residential or commercial development. Similarly, this threshold would capture less of new industrial/manufacturing GHG emissions inventory than Thresholds 2.2 or 2.3. Threshold 2.5: Unit -Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture Unit thresholds were developed for residential and commercial developments in order to capture approximately 90 percent of future development. The objective was to set the unit thresholds low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future housing and commercial developments that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and j ob growth, while setting the unit thresholds high enough to exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. Sector -based thresholds were created by using the same steps Ell CEQACAPCOA and Climate Change and data used to create Threshold 2.2- Quantitative Threshold Based on Market Capture above. Chapter 7 CEQA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds Approach 2: Tiered The distribution of pending application data suggests that the GHG reduction burden Ie 2.5: unit -Based will fall on larger projects that will be a relatively small portion of overall projects Thresholds Based within more developed central cities and suburban areas of slow growth but would be on Market Cat3t«re the higher portion of projects within moderately or rapidly developing areas. The proposed threshold would exclude the smallest proposed developments from potentially burdensome requirements to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions under CEQA. While this would exclude perhaps 10 percent of new residential development, the capture of 90 percent of new residential development would establish a strong basis for demonstrating that cumulative reductions are being achieved across the state. It can certainly serve as an interim measure and could be revised if subsequent regulatory action by C A M shows that a different level or different approach altogether is called for. A similar rationale can be applied to the development of a commercial threshold. Threshold 2.5 would exclude many smaller businesses from potentially burdensome requirements to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions under CEQA. It should be noted that the GHG emissions of commercial projects vary substantially. For example, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with different commercial types were estimated as follows: 30,000 square -foot (SF) office = 800 metric tons/year CO2 30,000 SF retail = 2,500 metric tons/year CO2 30,000 SF supermarket = 4,300 metric tons/year CO2 Thus, in order to assure appropriate market capture on an emissions inventory basis, it will be important to examine commercial project size by type, instead of in the aggregate (which has been done in this paper). The industrial sector is less amenable to a unit -based approach given the diversity of projects within this sector. One option would be to use a quantitative threshold of 900 tons for industrial projects in order to provide for rough equivalency between different sectors. Industrial emissions can result from both stationary and mobile sources. However, if the CARB rationale for > 90 percent stationary source capture with a threshold of 25,000 metric tons holds, then a 900 metric ton threshold would likely capture at least 90 percent (and likely more) of new industrial sources. Further examination of unit -based industrial thresholds, such as the number of employees or manufacturing floor space or facility size, may provide support for a unit -based threshold based on market capture. This threshold would require the vast majority of new development emission sources to quantify their GHG emissions, apportion the forecast emissions to relevant source categories, and develop GHG mitigation measures to reduce their emissions. 47 CEQA and Climate Change Threshold 2.6. Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance For this threshold, a set of qualitative, tiered CEQA thresholds would be adopted based on the definitions of "projects with statewide, regional or areawide significance" under the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, CCR Title 14, Division 6, Section 15206(b). Project sizes defined under this guideline include the following: • Proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. • Proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. • Proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. • Proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. • Proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, or encompassing more than 600,000 square feet of floor space. These thresholds would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 9,000 metric tons for residential projects, 13,000 metric tons for office projects, and 41,000 metric tons for retail projects. These thresholds would capture approximately half of new residential development and substantially less than half of new commercial development. It is unknown what portion of the new industrial or manufacturing GHG inventory would be captured by this approach. Threshold 2.7 Efficiency -Based Thresholds For this approach, thresholds would be based on measurements of efficiency. For planning efforts, the metric could be GHG emissions per capita or per job or some combination thereof. For projects, the metric could be GHG emission per housing unit or per square foot of commercial space. In theory, one could also develop metrics for GHG emissions per dollar of gross product to measure the efficiency of the economy. This approach is attractive because it seeks to benchmark project GHG intensity against target levels of efficiency. The thresholds would need to be set such that there is reasonably foreseeable and sufficient reductions compared to business as usual to support meeting AB 32 and S-3-05 goals in time (in combination with command and control regulations). Because this approach would require substantial data and modeling to fully develop, this is a concept considered as a potential future threshold and not appropriate CEQA and Climate Change for interim guidance in the short term. Thus, it is not evaluated in the screening evaluation in the next section. Table 3 compares the results for each of the approaches. Table 3: Comparison of Approach 2 Tiered Threshold Options Threshold GHG Emission Future Development Captured Threshold by GHG Threshold metric tans/year) 2.1: Zero Threshold 0 tons/year All 2.2: Quantitative Threshold —900 tonslyear Residential development > 50 Based on Market Capture dwelling units Office space> 36,000 ft2 Retail space>1 1,000 ft2 Supermarkets >6.300 ft2 small, medium, large industrial 2.3: CARB GHG Mandatory 25,000 metric tonslyear Residential development >l ,400 Reporting Threshold OR OR dwelling units OR 550 dwelling units Potential Cap and Trade Entry 10,000 metric tonslyear Office space > 1 million fie OR Level 400,000 ft z Retail space >300,000 ft2 OR 120,000 ft2 Supermarkets > 175,000 ft2 OR 70,000 ft2 medium/larger industrial 2.4: Regulated Inventory 40,000 — 50,000 metric Residential development >2,200 to Capture tonslyear 2,600 dwelling units Office space>1.5 to 1.8 million W Retail space >470,000 to 560,000 112 Supermarkets >270,000 to 320,000 rte medium/larger industrial 2.5: Unit -Based Threshold Not applicable. Residential development >50 dwelling Based on Market Capture units Commercial space >50,000 ft2 > small, medium, large industrial (with GHG emissions > 900 tonsCO2e) 2.6: Projects of Statewide, Not applicable. Residential development >500 dwelling Regional, or Areawide units Significance Office space >250,000 ft2 Retail space >500,000 ft2 Hotels >500 units Industrial project > 1,000 employees Industrial project >40 acre or 650,000 ft2 2.7: Efficiency -Based TBD tons/year/person Depends on the efficiency measure Thresholds TBD tons/year/unit selected. M CEQA with Mon -Zero GI -IG Thresholds ➢ Approach 2: Tiered i 2.7: Efficiency - Based Threshold: CEQA . and Climate Change Implementing CEQA With Tiered Thresholds Several issues related to Approach 2 are addressed below: 1. Some applications of this approach may need to be embodied in a duly approved General Plan, or in some other formal regulation or ordinance to be fully enforceable. Because CEQA does not expressly provide that projects may be deemed insignificant based on implementation of a set of mitigations, this approach may need to be supported with specific and enforceable mechanisms adopted with due public process. 2. How would this concept affect adoption of air district rules and regulations? Proposed air district rules and regulations may be subject to CEQA like other projects and plans. Thus, if significance thresholds were adopted by an APCD or AQMD, then they could also apply to air district discretionary actions. If GHG emissions would be increased by a rule or regulation for another regulated pollutant, that would be a potential issue for review under CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures may not be all-inclusive; better measures now or new future technology would make these measures obsolete. The mandatory mitigation measures could be periodically updated to reflect current technology, feasibility, and efficiency. 4. Total reduction may not be quantified or difficult to quantify. CEQA only requires the adoption of feasible mitigation and thus the reduction effectiveness of required mitigation should not be in question. However, the precise reduction effectiveness may indeed be difficult to identify. As described above, if a quantitative threshold is selected as the measure of how much mitigation is mandated, then best available evidence will need to be used to estimate resultant GHG emissions with mitigation adoption. If a qualitative threshold is selected, then it may not be necessary to quantify reductions. S. Difficult to measure progress toward legislative program goals. One could require reporting of project inventories to the Climate Action Registry, air district, or regional council of governments, or other suitable body. Collection of such data would allow estimates of the GHG intensity of new development over time, which could be used by CARB to monitor progress toward AB 32 goals. 6. Measures may have adverse impacts on other programs. The identification of mandatory mitigation will need to consider secondary environmental impacts, including those to air quality. 7. Consideration of life -cycle emissions. In many cases, only direct and indirect emissions may be addressed, rather than life -cycle emissions. A project applicant has traditionally been expected to only address emissions that are closely related and within the capacity of the project to control and/or influence. The long chain Vl; CEQA and Climate Change 8. of economic production resulting in materials manufacture, for example, involves numerous parties, each of which in turn is responsible for the GHG emissions associated with their particular activity. However, there are situations where a lead agency could reasonably determine that a larger set of upstream and downstream emissions should be considered because they are, being caused by the project and feasible alternatives and mitigation measures may exist to lessen this impact. Approach 2 Tiered Threshold with Mandatory Mitigation Chapter 7 CEQA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds �- Approach 2: -Tiered As shown in Table 2, due to the cumulative nature of GHG emissions and climate change impacts, there could be a level of mandatory reductions and/or mitigation for all projects integrated into a tiered threshold approach. In order to meet AB 32 mandates by 2020 and 5-3-05 goals, there will need to be adoption of GHG reduction measures across a large portion of the existing economy and new development. As such, in an effort to support a determination under CEQA that a project has a less than considerable contribution to significant cumulative GHG emissions, mitigation could be required on a progressively more comprehensive basis depending on the level of emissions. • Level 1 Reductions — These reduction measures would apply to all projects and would only consist of AB 32 and other local/state mandates. They would be applied to a project from other legal authority (not CEQA). Level 1 reductions could include such measures as bike parking, transit stops for planned routes, Energy Star roofs, Energy Star appliances, Title 24 compliance, water use efficiency, and other measures. All measures would have to be mandated by CARB or local regulations and ordinances. • Level 2 Miti ag tion — Projects that exceed the determined threshold would be required to first implement readily available technologies and methodologies with widespread availability. Level 2 Mitigation could include such measures as: parking reduction below code minimum levels, solar roofs, LEED Silver or Gold Certification, exceed Title 24 building standards by 20 percent, Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures, and other requirements. • Level 3 Miti ag tion - If necessary to reduce emissions to the thresholds, more extensive mitigation measures that represent the top tier of feasible efficiency design would also be required. Level 3 Mitigation could include such measures as: on-site renewable energy systems, LEED Platinum certification, exceed Title 24 building requirements by 40 percent, required recycled water use for irrigation, zero waste/high recycling requirements, mandatory transit pass provision, and other measures. • Offset Mitigation — If, after adoption of all feasible on-site mitigation, the project is still found to exceed a Tier 2 quantitative threshold, or exceed a Tier 3 qualitative threshold, or if a project cannot feasibly implement the mandatory on- site mitigation, then purchases of offsets could be used for mitigation. In the case 51 CEQA and Climate Change of a quantitative threshold, the amount of purchase would be to offset below the Tier 2 significance threshold. In the case of a qualitative threshold, the amount of purchase could be to offset GHG emissions overall to below the lowest equivalent GHG emissions among the Tier 2 qualitative thresholds. With Threshold 2.5, this would be approximately 900 tons of GHG emissions (corresponding to 50 residential units). With Threshold 2.6, this would be approximately 9,000 tons (corresponding to 500 residential units). Alternatively, one could require purchase of offsets in the amount of a set percentage (such as 90% or 50% for example) of the residual GHG emissions (after other mitigation). As discussed earlier, any decision to include or require the use of emission reduction credits (or offsets) must consider issues of availability, quality, and environmental justice. Substantial Evidence Supporting Different Thresholds If a project can be shown by substantial evidence not to increase GHG emissions relative to baseline emissions, then no fair argument will be available that the project contributes considerably to a significant cumulative climate change impact. It is more challenging to show that a project that increases GHG emissions above baseline emissions does not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative climate change impact. It is critical therefore, to establish an appropriate cuniulative context, in which, although an individual project may increase GHG emissions, broader efforts will result in net GHG reductions. Approach 1 -based thresholds that by default will require an equal level of GHG reductions from the existing economy (Thresholds 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4) may be less supportable in the short run (especially before 2012) than Approach 1.2 (which requires new development to be relatively more efficient than a retrofitted existing economy). This is because, prior to 2012, there will only be limited mandatory regulations implementing AB 32 that could address the existing economy in a truly systematic way that can be relied upon to demonstrate that overall GHG reduction goals can be achieved by 2020. Approach 1.2 will still rely on substantial reductions in the existing economy but to a lesser degree. Approach 1 -based thresholds that would spread the mitigation burden across a sector (Threshold 1.3) or across a region (Threshold 1.4) will allow for tradeoffs between projects or even between municipalities. In order to demonstrate that a sector or a region is achieving net reductions overall, there would need to be feasible, funded, and mandatory requirements in place promoting an overall reduction scheme, in order for a project to result in nominal net increased GHG emissions. Approach 2 -based thresholds that capture larger portions of the new development GHG inventory (Thresholds 2.2 and 2.5) would promote growth that results in a smaller increase in GHG emissions; they may therefore be more supportable than thresholds that do not and that have a greater reliance on reductions in the existing economy (Thresholds 52 CEQA CA;COA and Climate Change. 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6), especially in the next three to five years. With an established cumulative context that demonstrates overall net reductions, all threshold approaches could be effective in ensuring growth and development that significantly mitigates GHG emissions growth in a manner that will allow the CARB to achieve the emission reductions necessary to meet AB 32 targets. In that respect, all of these thresholds are supported by substantial evidence. Evaluation of Non -Zero Threshold Options :hapter 7 CEQA With Non -Zero GHG Thresholds Approach 2:Tiered Overarching issues concerning threshold development are reviewed below. Where appropriate, different features or application of the two conceptual approaches and the various options for thresholds under each conceptual approach described above are analyzed. The screening evaluation is summarized in Tables 4 (Approach 1) and 5 (Approach 2). The summary tables rate each threshold for the issues discussed below based on the level of confidence (low, medium or high) ascribed by J&S. The confidence levels relate to whether a threshold could achieve a particular attribute, such as emission reduction effectiveness. For example, a low emission reduction effectiveness rating means the threshold is not expected to capture a relatively large portion of the new development inventory. As described above, Threshold 2.7 is not included in this evaluation because the data to develop an efficiency -based threshold has not been reviewed at this time and because this threshold is not considered feasible as an interim approach until more detailed inventory information is available across the California economy. What is the GHG Emissions Effectiveness of Different Thresholds? Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of whether a threshold would capture a large portion of the GHG emissions iiiventory and thus require mitigation under CEQA to control such emissions within the larger framework of AB 32. In addition, effectiveness was also evaluated in terms of whether a threshold would require relatively more or less GHG emissions reductions from the existing economy verses new development. This is presumptive that gains from the existing economy (through retrofits, etc.) will be more difficult and inefficient relative to requirements for new development. Approach 1 -based thresholds that require equivalent reductions relative to business -as - usual (Thresholds 1. 1, 1.3, and 1.4) for both the existing and new economy will be less effective than thresholds that support lower-GHG intensity new development (Approach 1.2). However, since Approach 1 -based thresholds do not establish a quantitative threshold below which projects do not have to mitigate, the market capture for new development is complete. Approach 2 -based thresholds can be more or less effective at capturing substantial portions of the GHG inventory associated with new development depending on where the quantitative or qualitative thresholds are set. Lower thresholds will capture a broader range of projects and result in greater mitigation. Based on the review of project data for 53 CEQA and Climate Change the select municipalities described in the Approach 2 section above, thresholds based on the CARE Reporting Threshold/Cap and Trade Entry Level (Threshold 2.4) or CEQA definitions of "Statewide, Regional or Areawide" projects (Threshold 2.6) will result in a limited capture of the GHG inventory. Lower quantitative or qualitative thresholds (Thresholds 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5) could result in capture of greater than 90 percent of new development. Are the Different Thresholds Consistent with AB 32 and S-3-05? Thresholds that require reductions compared to business -as -usual for all projects or for a large portion of new development would be consistent with regulatory mandates. In time, the required reductions will need to be adjusted from 2020 (AB 32) to 2050 (S-3- 05) horizons, but conceptually broad identification of significance for projects would be consistent with both of these mandates. Thresholds that exclude a substantial portion of new development would likely not be consistent, unless it could be shown that other more effective means of GHG reductions have already been, or will be adopted, within a defined timeframe. All Approach 1 -based thresholds would be consistent with AB 32 and S-3-05 if it can be demonstrated that other regulations and programs are effective in achieving the necessary GHG reduction from the existing economy to meet the overall state goals. Approach 2 -based thresholds that include substantive parts of the new development GHG inventory (Thresholds 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5) will be more consistent with AB 32 and S-3-05 than those that do not (Thresholds 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6) unless it can be demonstrated that other regulations and programs are effective in achieving the necessary GHG reduction from the existing economy to meet the overall state goals. What are the Uncertainties Associated with Different Thresholds? All thresholds have medium to high uncertainties associated with them due to the uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of AB 32 implementation overall, the new character of GHG reduction strategies on a project basis, the immaturity of GHG reduction technologies or infrastructure (such as widespread biodiesel availability), and the uncertainty of GHG reduction effectiveness of certain technologies (such as scientific debate concerning the relative lifecycle GHG emissions of certain biofuels, for example). In general, Approach 1 -based thresholds have higher uncertainties than Approach 2 thresholds because they rely on a constantly changing definition of business -as -usual. Threshold 1.2, with its relatively smaller reliance on the existing economy for GHG reductions has relatively less uncertainty than other Approach 1 thresholds. Thresholds that spread mitigation more broadly (Thresholds 1.3 and 1.4) have less uncertainty by avoiding the need for every project to mitigate equally. Approach 2 thresholds with lower quantitative (2.1 and 2.2) or qualitative (2.5) thresholds will have uncertainties associated with the ability to achieve GHG reductions 54 CEQA and Timate Change from small to medium projects. Approach 2 thresholds with higher quantitative (2.3, 2.4) or qualitative (2.6) thresholds will have uncertainties associated with the ability to achieve relatively larger GHG reductions from the existing economy. What are Other Advantages/Disadvantages of the Different Thresholds? r7 CEQA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds r Approach 2: Tiered Thresholds with a single project metric (Thresholds 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) will be easier to apply to individual projects and more easily understood by project applicants and lead agencies broadly. Thresholds that spread mitigation across sectors (1.3) or regions (1.4), while simple in concept, will require adoption of more complicated cross -jurisdictional reduction plans or evaluation of broad sector -based trends in GHG intensity reduction over time. Approach 1 options would require all projects to quantify emissions in order to determine needed reductions relative to business -as -usual (which will change over time as described above). Concepts that are unit -based (Threshold 2.5 and 2.6) will not result in thresholds that have equal amount of GHG emissions, and thus equity issues may arise. 01 Table 4: Non -Zero Threshold Evaluation Matrix —Approach 1 kpproach 1 1.1 LA 13 1A 28% - 33% Reduction from BAU by 50% Reduction from BAU by 2020 by ?8% - 33% Reduction by 2020 by !8% - 33% Reduction by 2020 by 2020 by Project Project Sector Region :;HG EmissionsLow - Captures all new projects but Medium - Captures all new projects and Low - Captures all new projects but Low - Captures all new projects but Reduction E, ffectiveners relies on a high level of reductions from has a more realistic level of reductions relies on a high level of reductions from -elies on a high level of reductions from the existing economy. from the existing economy. the existing economy he existing economy. Low - Some projects will not be able to Low - Some projects will not he able to Medium - Sectors as a whole will be Low - Some regions and newly afford this level of reduction without afford this level of reduction without better able to achieve reduction? than leveloped areas may not be able to Economic Feasibility effective market-based mechanisms like effective market-hased mechanisms like individual projects afford this level of reduction without offsets. offsets. Affective market-based mechanisms like )ffsets. Medium - Some projects will not be able Low - Relatively larger set of projects High - Some projects will not be able to Medium - Some regions and newly to achieve this level of reduction without will not be able to achieve this level of achieve this level of reduction without leveloped areas may not be able to TechnicalFeasibility effective market-based mechanisms like reduction without effective market-based effective market-based mechanisms like afford this level of reduction without offsets mechanisms like offsets offsets effective market-based mechanisms like offsets. Low - Absent broader reductions Low -Absent broader reductions Low - Absent broader reductions Low - Absent broader reductions Logistical Feasibility strategies, each project may reinvent the strategies, each project may reinvent the strategies, each project may reinvent the strategies, each project may reinvent the wheel each time to achieve mandated wheel each time to achieve mandated wheel each time to achieve mandated wheel each time to achieve mandated reductions. reductions. reductions. reductions. ConsistencywithAB-32 Medium - Would require heavy reliance High Medium -High - Would rely on Medium -High - Would rely on and 5-03-05 on command and control gains. command and control gains, but would command and control gains, but would allow sectoral flexibility. allow regional flexibility. Low - Will require all types of projects Low - Will require all types of projects Low/Medium - Allows tradeoffs within Low/Medium - Allows tradeoffs within Cost Effectiveness to reduce the same regardless of the to reduce the same regardless of the sector between high and low cost region between high and low cost cost/ton of GHG reductions. cost/ton of GHG reductions. reduction possibilities but not between reduction possibilities, but not between sectors. regions. High - BAU changes over time. Medium/High - BAU changes over High - BAU changes over time. High - BAU changes over time. Ability to reduce GHG emissions from time. Ability to limit GHG emissions Ability to reduce GHG emissions from Ability to reduce GHG emissions from existing economy will take years to from other new development will take existing economy will take years to existing economy will take years to Uncertainties demonstrate. years to demonstrate. demonstrate. demonstrate. Ability to limit GHG emissions from Ability to limit GHG emissions from Ability to limit GHG emissions from other new development will take years to other new development will take years to other new development will take years to demonstrate. demonstrate. demonstrate. OtherAdvanta es Simple/easy to explain. Simple/easy to explain. Spreads mitigation broadly S reads mitigation broadly OtherDisadvantages Requires all projects to quantify Requires all projects to quantify Requires all projects to quantify Requires all projects to quantify emissions. emissions emissions emissions. 56 Table 5: Non -Zero Threshold Evaluation Matrix—Approach2 Approach 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 l.6 Zero Threshold Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative Statewide, Regional or (900 tons) CARB Reporting Regulated Inventory Unit -Based Thresholds #reawide Threshold/Cap and Trade Capture CEQA Guidelines 25,000 tons! 10,000 tons _ 0,000 - 50,000 tons 15206(b)). GHG Emissions High - Captures all High - Market capture at Medium - Moderate Low - Low market High - Market capture at Medium - Moderate Reduction sources. >90%. Captures diverse market capture. capture. —90%. Captures diverse narket capture. Excludes Effectiveness sources. sources; excl. smallest proj. ;mall and med. projects. Low - Early phases will Medium - Early phases High - Large projects High -Large projects Medium -Early phases will High - Large projects Economic he substantial change in will he substantial change have greater ability to have greater ability to be substantial change in lave greater ability to Feasibility BAU, esp. for smaller in BAU, esp. for smaller absorb cost. absorb cost. BAU, esp. for smaller absorb cost. projects; may be projects; may be projects; may be infeasible infeasible to mitigate. infeasible to mitigate. to mitigate. Low - Early phases will Medium -Early phases High - Greater High - Greater Medium - Early phases will High - Greater Technical be substantial change in will be substantial change opportunities for multiple opportunities for multiple he substantial change in spportunities for multiple Feasibility BAU, esp. for smaller in BAU. esp. for smaller reduction approaches. reduction approaches. BAU, particularly for reduction approaches. projects; may be projects; may he smaller projects may be infeasible to mitigate. inefficient to mitigate. inefficient to mitigate. Low - Unless fee or offset hledium - BMPs broadly High -Less mitigation. High - Less mitigation. Medium - BMPs broadly High - Less mitigation. Logistical basis,very difficult to written to allow diversity; written to allow diversity; Feasibility mitigate all projects. new rea. will take time to new req. will take time to integrate into new dev. integrate into new dev. Consistency with High - Market capture. High - Market capture at Low - Would rely on Low - Would rely on Medium -Need to Low - Would rely on AB -32 and 5-03-05 >90%. command and control command and control demonstrate adequate command and control success heavily. success heavily. market capture over time. success heavily. Low - Will result in Medium -Emphasis is on Medium -Relies on Medium - Relies on Medium -Emphasis is on Medium -Relies on inefficient mitigation new dev., req. for command and control command and control new dev.; req. for command and control approaches. Efficiency mitigation will result in reductions for existing reductions for existing mitigation will result in reductions for existing Cost Effectiveness will improve in time. inefficient mitigation economy more heavily. economy more heavily. inefficient mitigation economy more heavily. approaches in early With focus on larger With focus on larger approaches in early phases. With focus on larger phases. Efficiency will projects, eff. of mitigation projects, eff. of mitigation Efficiency will improve in projects, eff. of mitigation improve in time. for new dev. high. for new dev. high. time. for new dev. high. High - Time to adapt for Medium/High - Time to High - Gains from High - Gains from Medium/High - Time to High - Gains from res. and comm.. sectors. adapt for res. and comm.. command and control command and control adapt for res. and comm.. command and control Uncertainties Ability to mitigate sectors. Ability to likely longer to be likely longer to be sectors. Ability to mitigate likely longer to he without market-based mitigate without market- realized. realized. without market-based realized. mechanism for smaller based mechanism for mechanism for smaller projects unlikel . smaller projects uncertain. projects uncertain. Single threshold. Single threshold. Single threshold. Does not Single threshold. BMPs can he updated. Existing guideline. BMPs can be updated. change CEQA processing Does not change CEQA Greenlist can be updated. Does not change CEQA Other Advantages Greenlist can be updated. for most projects. CAR$ processing for most Unit -Based thresholds can processing for most inventory = project inv.. projects. Follows be updated. projects. Endorsed by Cal. All projects treated same. established SIP practice. Chapter of the APA. Requires all projects to Requires nearly all Sectoral projects have Sectoral projects have Other quantify emissions. projects to quantify different GHG emis. Only different GMG emissions. Disadvantages emissions. largest projects to quantify 57 CEQA and Climate Change 58 CAPCO CEQA t� and Chapter 8: Analytical Methodologies for GHG Climate Change" Chapter 8 Introduction Analytical Methodologies This chapter evaluates the availability of various analytical methods and modeling For GHG tools that can be applied to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from different project types subject to CEQA. This chapter will also provide comments on the suitability of the methods and tools to accurately characterize a projects emissions and offer recommendations for the most favorable methodologies and tools available. Some sample projects will be run through the methodologies and modeling tools to demonstrate what a typical GHG analysis might look like for a lead agency to meet its CEQA obligations. The air districts retained the services of EDAW environmental consultants to assist with this effort. Methodologies/Modeling Tools There are wide varieties of discretionary projects that fall under the purview of CEQA. Projects can range from simple residential developments to complex expansions of petroleum refineries to land use or transportation planning documents. It is more probably than not, that a number of different methodologies would be required by any one project to estimate its direct and indirect GHG emissions. Table 10 contains a summary of numerous modeling tools that can be used to estimate GHG emissions associated with various emission sources for numerous types of project's subject to CEQA. The table also contains information about the models availability for public use, applicability, scope, data requirements and its advantages and disadvantages for estimating GHG emissions. In general, there is currently not one model that is capable of estimating all of a project's direct and indirect GHG emissions. However, one of the models identified in Table 9 would probably be the most consistently used model to estimate a projects direct GI -IG emissions based on the majority of projects reviewed in the CEQA process. The Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) is designed to model emissions associated with development of urban land uses. URBEMIS attempts to summarize criteria air pollutants and CO2 emissions that would occur during construction and operation of new development. URBEMIS is publicly available and already widely used by CEQA practitioners and air districts to evaluate criteria air pollutants emissions against air district -adopted significance thresholds. URBEMIS is developed and approved for statewide use by GARB. The administrative reasons for using URBEMIS are less important than the fact that this model would ensure consistency statewide in how CO2 emissions are modeled and reported from various project types. One of the shortfalls of URBEMIS is that the model does not contain emission factors for GHGs other than CO2, except for methane (CH4) from mobile -sources, which is converted to CO2e. This may not be a inajor problem since CO2 is the most important GHG from land development projects. Although the other GHGs have a higher global warming potential, a metric used to normalize other GHGs to CO2e, they are emitted in far fewer quantities. URBEMIS does not calculate other GHG emissions associated with W CEQA and Climate Change off-site waste disposal, wastewater treatment, emissions associated with goods and services consumed by the residents and workers supported by a project. Nor does URBEMIS calculate GHGs associated with consumption of energy produced off-site. (For that matter, URBEMIS does not report criteria air pollutant emissions from these sources either). Importantly, URBEMIS does not fully account for interaction between land uses in its estimation of mobile source operational emissions. Vehicle trip rates are defaults derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manuals. The trip rates are widely used and are generally considered worst-case or conservative. URBEMIS does not reflect "internalization" of trips between land uses, or in other words, the concept that a residential trip and a commercial trip are quite possibly the same trip, and, thus, URBEMIS counts the trips separately. There are some internal correction settings that the modeler can select in URBEMIS to correct for "double counting"; however, a project - specific "double -counting correction" is often not available. URBEMIS does allow the user to overwrite the default trip rates and characteristics with more project -specific data from a traffic study prepared for a project. Residential, Commercial, Mixed -Use Type Projects/ Specific Plans Direct Emissions URBEMIS can be used to conduct a project -specific model run and obtain CO2e emissions for area and mobile sources from the project, and convert to metric tons CO2e. When a project -specific traffic study is not available, the user should consult with their local air district for guidance. Many air district staff are experienced practitioners of URBEMIS and can advise the lead agency or the modeler on how to best tailor URBEMIS default input parameters to conduct a project -specific model run. When a traffic study has been prepared for the project, the user must overwrite default trip length and trip rates in URBEMIS to match the total number of trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) contained in the traffic study to successfully conduct a project -specific model run. URBEMIS is recommended as a calculation tool to combine the transportation study (if available) and EMFAC emission factors for mobile -sources. Use of a project -specific traffic study gets around the main shortfall of URBEMIS: the lack of trip internalization. URBEMIS also provides the added feature of quantifying direct area -source GHG emissions. Important steps for running URBEMIS 1. Without a traffic study prepared for the project, the user should consult with the local air district for direction on which default options should be used in the modeling exercise. Some air districts have recommendations in the CEQA guidelines. 2. If a traffic study was prepared specifically for the project, the following information must be provided: 011 Ir CEQA CAPCOA and WIM Climate Change a. Total number of average daily vehicle trips or trip -generation rates by Chapter 8 land use type per number of units; and, analytical Methodologies b. Average VMT per residential and nonresidential trip. For GHG c. The user overwrites the "Trip Rate (per day)" fields for each land use in URBEMIS such that the resultant "Total Trips" and the "Total VMT" match the number of total trips and total VMT contained in the traffic study. d. Overwrite "Trip Length" fields for residential and nonresidential trips in UBEMIS with the project -specific lengths obtained form the traffic study. 3. Calculate results and obtain the CO2 emissions from the URBEMIS output file (units of tons per year [TPY]). Indirect Emissions URBEMIS does estimate indirect emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, hot water heaters, etc. URBEMIS does not however, provide modeled emissions from indirect sources of emissions, such as those emissions that would occur off-site at utility providers associated with the project's energy demands. The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Protocol v.2.2 includes methodology, which could be used to quantify and disclose a project's increase in indirect GHG emissions from energy use. Some assumptions must be made for electrical demand per household or per square foot of commercial space, and would vary based on size, orientation, and various attributes of a given structure. An average rate of electrical consumption for residential uses is 7,000 kilowatt hours per year per household and 16,750 kilowatt hours per thousand square feet of commercial floor space. Commercial floor space includes offices, retail uses, warehouses, and schools. These values have been increasing steadily over the last 20 years. Energy consumption from residential uses has increased due to factors such as construction and occupation of larger homes, prices of electricity and natural gas, and increased personal income allowing residents to purchase more electronic appliances. Commercial energy consumption is linked to factors such as vacancy rates, population, and sales. The modeler will look up the estimated energy consumption for the project's proposed land uses under year of project buildout, or use the values given in the previous paragraph for a general estimate. The CCAR Protocol contains emission factors for CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide. The "CALI" region grid serves most of the State of California. If a user has information about a specific utility provider's contribution from renewable sources, the protocol contains methodology to reflect that, rather than relying on the statewide average grid. The incremental increase in energy production associated with project operation should be accounted for in the project's total GHG emissions for inclusion in the environmental document. 61 EQA and Climate Change The incremental increase in energy production associated with project operation should be accounted for in the project's total GHG emissions, but it should be noted that these emissions would be closely controlled by stationary -source control -based regulations and additional regulations are expected under AB 32. However, in the interest of disclosing project -generated GHG emissions and mitigating to the extent feasible, the indirect emissions from off-site electricity generation can be easily calculated for inclusion in the environmental document. Example Project Estimates for GHG Emissions Residential Proiect Project Attributes: • 68 detached dwelling units • 15.9 acres 179 residents • Ojobs • Located in unincorporated Placer County (PCAPCD jurisdiction) • Analysis year 2009 As shown in Table 6, the project's direct GHG emissions per service population (SP) would be approximately 8 metric tons CO2e/SP/year. ii ame b: Keslnenual rrojecy Exam le unu Emissions Estimates URBEMIS Output (Project Specific) Metric Tons/Year Demographic Data COZe Area -source emissions 251 Residents 179 Mobile -source emissions 1,044 Jobs 0 Indirect emissions (from CCAR 174 Protocol) Total operational emissions 1,469 Service population 179 Operational emissions/SP 8.2 Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; CCAR = California Climate Action Registry; SP = service population(see definition of service population below in discussion of Normalization/Service Population Metric). Sources: EDAW 2007, ARB 2007b, CCAR 2007, CEC 2000 Commercial Proiect Project Attributes: • Free Standing Discount Superstore: 241 thousand square feet (ksf) • Oresidents 62 �. CEQA and Climate Change • 400 jobs Chapter 8 • Located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's (SJVAPCD) Analytical jurisdiction Methodologies • Analysis year 2009 For Gl-lG i auie /: uommerciat rro ect Exam ie urnu Emissions r:stimates URBEMIS Output (Project Specific) Metric Tons/Year Demographic Data CO2e Area -source emissions 464 Residents 0 Mobile -source emissions 13,889 Jobs 400 Indirect emissions (from CCAR Protocol) 1,477 Total operational emissions 15,830 Service population 400 Operational emissions/SP 39.6 Notes: COZe = carbon dioxide equivalent; CCAR = California Climate Action Registry; SP = service population (see definition of service population below in discussion of Normalization/Service Population Metric). Sources: EDAW 2007, ARB 2007b, CCAR 2007, CEC 2000 Specific Plan If used traditionally with default trip rates and lengths, rather than project -specific (Traffic Analysis Zone -specific) trip rates and lengths, URBEMIS does not work well for specific plan or general plan -sized projects with multiple land use types proposed. However, in all instances, projects of these sizes (several hundred or thousand acres) would be accompanied by a traffic study. Thus, for large planning -level projects, URBEMIS can be used as a calculation tool to easily obtain project -specific mobile - source emissions. The user should follow the steps discussed above; wherein he/she overwrites the default ITE trip rates for each land use type with that needed to make total VMT match that contained in the traffic study. The URBEMIS interface is a simple calculator to combine the traffic study and EMFAC emissions factors for mobile -source CO2. Project Attributes: • 985 acres • Total dwelling units: 5,634 • Commercial/Mixed Use: 429 ksf • Educational: 2,565 ksf • 14,648 residents • 3,743 jobs • Located in Sacramento County (SMAQMD jurisdiction) • Analysis year 2009 63 C E `w+ A and Climate Change URBEMIS Output (Project Specific) Metric Tons/Year Demographic Data CO2e Area -source emissions 23,273 Residents 14,648 Mobile -source emissions 73,691 Jobs 3,743 Indirect emissions (from CCAR 32,744 Protocol) Service Total operational emissions 129,708 population 18,391 Operational emissions/SP 7.1 Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; CCAR = California Climate Action Registry; SP = service population (see definition of service population below in discussion of Normalization/Service Population Metric). Sources: EDAW 2007, ARB 2007b, CCAR 2007, CEC 2000 The specific plan example, when compared to the residential or commercial examples, illustrates the benefit of a mixed-use development when you look at CO2e emissions per resident or j ob (service population) metric (see definition of service population below in discussion of Normalization/Service Population Metric). Though this particular specific plan is not an example of a true jobs/housing balance, the trend is clear: accommodating residents and jobs in a project is more efficient than residents orjobs alone. Stationary- and Area -Source Project Types GHG emissions from stationary or area sources that require a permit to operate from the air district also contain both direct and indirect sources of emissions. Examples of these types of sources would be fossil fuel power plants, cement plants, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, gas stations, dry cleaners and industrial boilers. All air districts have established procedures and methodologies for projects subject to air district permits to calculate their regulated pollutants. It is anticipated that these same procedures and methodologies could be extended to estimate a permitted facility's GHG calculations. For stationary and area sources that do not require air district permits, the same methodologies used for permitted sources could be used in addition to URBEMIS and CCAR GRP to calculate GHG emissions from these facilities. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Direct GHG emissions associated with a proposed waste water treatment plant can be calculated using AP -42 emission factors from Chapter 4.3.5 Evaporative Loss Sources: Waste Water -Greenhouse Gases and the CCAR methodology. In general, most wastewater operations recover CH4 for energy, or use a flare to convert the CH4 to CO2. There are many types of wastewater treatment processes and the potential for GHG emissions from different types of plants varies substantially. There is not one standard set of emission factors that could be used to quantify GHG emissions for a state M. eCAPCOA nd Climate Change ."m. "average" treatment plant. Thus, research will need to be conducted on a case-by-case Chapter ,g basis to determine the "Fraction Anaerobically Digested" which is a function of the Analytical type of treatment process. Indirect emissions from these facilities can be calculated Methodologies using the CCAR energy use protocols and URBEMIS model for transportation For GHG emissions. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Air districts will have emission estimate methodologies established for methane emissions at permitted landfills. In addition, EPA's Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGem) and the CCAR methodology could also be used to quantify GHG emissions froin landfill off gassing; however, this model requires substantial detail be input. The model uses a decomposition rate equation, where the rate of decay is dependent on the quantity of waste in place and the rate of change over time. This modeling tool is free to the public, but substantial project detail about the operation of the landfill is needed to run the model. Indirect emissions from these facilities can be calculated using the CCAR energy use protocols and URBEMIS model for transportation emissions. Construction Emissions GHG emissions would occur during project construction, over a finite time. In addition, a project could result in the loss of GHG sequestration opportunity due priinarily to the vegetation removed for construction. URBEMIS should be used to quantify the mass of CO2 that would occur during the construction of a project for land development projects. Some construction projects would occur over an extended period (up to 20-30 years on a planning horizon for general plan buildout, or 5-10 years to construct a dam, for example). OFFROAD emission factors are contained in URBEMIS for CO2 emissions from construction equipment. For other types of construction projects, such as roadway construction projects or levee improvement projects, SMAQMD's spreadsheet modeling tool, the Road Construction Emissions Model (RoadMod), should be used. This tool is currently being updated to include CO2 emissions factors from OFFROAD. The full life -cycle of GHG emissions from construction activities is not accounted for in the modeling tools available, and the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end -of -life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level. The emissions disclosed will be froin construction equipment and worker commutes during the duration of construction activities. Thus, the mass emissions in units of metric tons CO2e/year should be reported in the environmental document as new emissions. General Plans In the short-term, URBEMIS can be used as a calculation tool to model GHG emissions from proposed general plans, but only if data from the traffic study is incorporated into model input. The same methodology applied above in the specific plan example applies to general plans. The CCAR GRP can be used to approximate indirect emissions froin 65 CEQA and Climate Change increased energy consumption associated with the proposed plan area. The same models and methodologies discussed previously for wastewater, water supply and solid waste would be used to estimate indirect emissions resulting from buildout of the general plan. In the longer-term, more complex modeling tools are needed, which would integrate GHG emission sources from land use interaction, such as I -PLACE'S or CTG Energetics' Sustainable Communities Custom Model attempt to do. These models are not currently available to the public and only have applicability in certain areas of the state. It is important that a tool with statewide applicability be used to allow for consistency in project treatment, consideration, and approval under CEQA. . Scenarios At the general plan level, the baseline used for analyzing most environmental impacts of a general plan update is typically no different from the baseline for other projects. The baseline for most impacts represents the existing conditions, normally on the date the Notice of Preparation is released. Several coniparative scenarios could be relevant, depending on the exact methodological approach and significance criteria used for GHG assessment: • Existing Conditions. The GHG emissions associated with the existing, on -the - ground conditions within the planning area. • 1990 conditions. The GHG emissions associated with the general plan area in 1990. This is relevant due to the state's AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals' benchmark year of 1990. The GHG-efficiency of 1990 development patterns could be compared to that of the general plan buildout. • Buildout of the Existing General Plan. The GHG emissions associated with buildout of the existing general plan (without the subject update). This is the no project alternative for the purposes of general plan CEQA analysis. • Buildout of the Updated General Plan. The GHG emissions associated with buildout of the general plan, as proposed as a part of the subject update. This would include analysis of any changes included as a part of the geiieral plan update for the existing developed portions of the planning area. Many communities include redevelopment and revitalization strategies as a part of the general plan update. The general plan EIR can include assumptions regarding what level and type of land use change could be facilitated by infill and redevelopment. Many jurisdictions wish to provide future projects consistent with these land use change assumptions with some environmental review streamlining. In addition, many coininunities include transit expansions, pedestrian/bicycle pathway improvements, multi -modal facility construction, travel demand policies, energy efficiency policies, or other measures that could apply to the existing developed area, just as they may apply to any new growth Z: CEQA CAPCUA and Climate Change.,.. areas. Such policies could affect the overall GHG emissions of the built out Chapter g general plan area. Analytical Methodologies • Increment between Buildout of Updated General Plan and Existing General For GHG Plan Area. There are many important considerations associated with the characterization of the impact of the General Plan update. The actual GHG emissions impact could be described as the difference between buildout under the existing and proposed land use plan (No -Build Alternative). However, the courts have held that an EIR should also analyze the difference between the proposed General Plan and the existing environment (Environmentul Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorudo (EPIC) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350). At the General Plan level, over the course of buildout, some new land uses are introduced, which could potentially add operational GHG emissions and potentially remove existing sequestration potential. Some properties become vacant and are not redeveloped. Other properties become vacant and then are redeveloped. Communities cannot pretend to understand fully in advance each component of land use change. The programmatic document is the preferred method of environmental analysis. Through this programmatic framework, communities develop buildout assumptions as a part of the General Plan that are normally used as a basis of environmental analysis. For certain aspects of the impact analysis, it becomes important not just to understand how much "new stuff' could be accommodated under the updated General Plan, but also the altered interactions between both "new" and "existing" land uses within the planning area. As addressed elsewhere, there are tools available for use in understanding land use/transportation interactions at the General Plan level. Without the GHG targets established by AB 32, a simple mass comparison of existing conditions to General Plan buildout might be appropriate. However, within the current legal context, the GHG efficiency of the updated General Plan becomes the focus of analysis. Some options in this regard include: Estimate the GHG emissions associated with all the land uses included within the planning area upon buildout of the General Plan using no project specific information (regional, countywide, or statewide defaults). Estimate GHG emissions using project specific information from the transportation engineer, transportation demand policies, community design elements, energy efficiency requirements, wastewater treatment and other public infrastructure design changes, and other components. Compare these two calculations. Is the second calculation reduced by the percent needed to meet AB 32 goals compared to the first calculation? Estimate the GHG emissions associated with the 1990 planning area and the per - capita or per -service population GHG associated with the 1990 planning area. (Many communities are establishing GHG inventories using different tools). Estimate the GHG emissions associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan update and the resulting per -capita or per -service population GHG 67 CEQA and Climate Change emissions. Compare the two calculations. Is the General Plan buildout per -capita or per -service population level greater than the 1990 estimate? Example General Plan Update: Proposed new growth area Project Attributes: • 10,050 single family dwelling units • 652 multi -family dwelling units • 136 acres parks • 2,047 ksf cominercial (regional shopping center) • 2,113 ksf office • 383 acres industrial park • 31,293 new residents • 4,945 newjobs • Located in Stanislaus County (SJVAPCD jurisdiction) • Analysis year 2025 Table 9: General Plan Example GHG Emissions Estimates URBEMIS Output (Project Specific) Metric Tons/Year CO2e Demographic Data Construction emissions 12,083* Residents 31,293 Area -source emissions 45,708 Mobile -source emissions 263,954 Jobs 4,945 Indirect emissions (from CCAR Protocol) 78,385 Total operational emissions 388,046 36 238 Service population ' Operational emissions/SP 10.7 * Approximately 241,656 metric tons CO2e total at general plan buildout (assumes 20 -year buildout period). Construction emissions were not included in total operational emissions. Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; CCAR = California Climate Action Registry; SP = service population (see definition of service population below in discussion of Normalization/Service Population Metric). Sources: EDAW 2007, ARB 2007b, CCAR 2007, CEC 2000 Due to the programmatic level of analysis that often occurs at the general plan level, and potential for many relevant GHG emission quantities, it could be preferable to use a qualitative approach. Such an analysis could address the presence of GHG-reducing policy language in the general plan. Three possible tiers of approaches to addressing GHG mitigation strategies, either as general plan policy, general plan EIR mitigation measures, or both, include: • Forward planning • Project toolbox • Defer to GHG reductions plan C {. CEt CAPCOA and Climate Change W The three basic approaches are described below. JChater 8 cal 1. Bring reduction strategies into the plan itself. The most effective way for local Metho Analytical oiogie. jurisdictions to achieve GHG emissions reductions in the medium- and long-term is For GHG through land use and transportation policies that are built directly into the community planning document. This involves creating land use diagrams and circulation diagrams, along with corresponding descriptive standards, that enable and encourage alternatives to travel and goods movement via cars and trucks. The land use and circulation diagrams provide a general framework for a Community where people can conduct their everyday business without necessarily using their cars. The overall community layout expressed as a part of the land use and circulation diagrams is accompanied by a policy and regulatory scheme designed to achieve this community layout. Impact fees, public agency spending, regulations, administrative procedures, incentives, and other techniques are designed to facilitate land use change consistent with the communities' overall vision, as expressed in policy and in the land use diagram. There are many widely used design principles that can be depicted in land use and circulation diagrams and implemented according to narrative objectives, standards, and policies: • Connectivity. A finely -connected transportation network shortens trip lengths and creates the framework for a community where homes and destinations can be placed close in proximity and along direct routes. A hierarchical or circuitous transportation network can increase trip lengths and create obstacles for walking, bicycling, and transit access. This policy language would likely be found in the Circulation Element. • Compactness. Compact development, by its nature, can increase the efficiency of infrastructure provision and enable travel modes other than the car. If communities can place the same level of activity in a smaller space, GHG emissions would be reduced concurrently with VMT and avoid unnecessary conversion of open space. This policy language would likely be found in the Land Use Element. • Diversi . Multiple land use types mixed in proximity around central "nodes" of higher -activity land uses can accommodate travel through means other than a car. The character and overall design of this land use mix is, of course, different from community to community. This policy language would likely be found in the Land Use Element. • Facilities. Pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation improvements, planning, and programming are sometimes an afterthought. To get a more GHG-efficient mode share, safe and convenient bike lanes, pedestrian pathways, transit shelters, and other facilities are required to be planned along with the vehicular travel network. This policy language would likely be found in the Circulation Element. z CEQA and Climate Change Redevelopment. One way to avoid GHG emissions is to facilitate more efficient and economic use of the lands in already -developed portions of a community. Reinvestment in existing neighborhoods and retrofit of existing buildings is appreciably more GHG efficient than greenfield development, and can even result in a net reduction in GHG emissions. This policy language would likely be found in the Conservation or Land Use Element. • Housing and Employment. Most communities assess current and future economic prospects along with long-range land use planning. Part of the objective for many communities is to encourage the coalescence of a labor force with locally available and appropriate j ob opportunities. This concept is best known as "jobs -housing balance." This policy language would likely be found in the Housing Element. o Planning Level Versus Project Level. For transportation -related GHG emissions that local governments can mitigate through land use entitlement authority, the overall community land use strategy and the overall transportation network are the most fruitful areas of focus. The reduction capacity of project -specific mitigation measures is greatly limited if supportive land use and transportation policies are lacking at the community planning level. The regional economic context, of course, provides an important backdrop for land use and transportation policy to address GHG emissions. Within this context, the general plan is the readily available tool for local governments to establish such land use and transportation strategies. This policy language would likely be found in the Land Use and Circulation Elements. o Shipping Mode Shift. Locate shipping -intensive land uses in areas with rail access. Some modes of shipping are more GHG-intensive than others. Rail, for example, requires only about 15 to 25 percent of the energy used by trucks to ship freight equivalent distances and involves reduced transportation -related GHG emissions. Cities and counties have little direct control over the method of shipment that any business may choose. Nevertheless, as a part of the general planning process, cities and counties can address constraints on the use of rail for transporting goods. This policy language would likely be found in the Land Use and Circulation Elements. 2. Provide a "toolbox" of strategies after the project site has been selected. In addition to the examples of design principles that are built into the community planning process, communities can offer project applicants a range of tools to reduce GHG emissions. Mitigation strategies are elaborated in detail in Chapter 9. 3. Defer to General Plan implementation measure. Develop and implement a GHG Emissions Reduction Plan. Another option for local governments would be development of an implementation measure as a part of the general plan that outlines an enforceable GHG reduction program. Perhaps the most well known example of this approach is the result of California's Attorney General settlement of the lawsuit brought against San 70 1101 — CEQA CAPCOA and Climate Chap e Bernardino County. The County has agreed to create a 1990 GHG inventory and Chapter develop measures to reduce such emissions according to the state's overall goals. Analytical Other communities have pursued similar programs (i.e., the City of San Diego, Marin Methodologies County). Along with the inventories, targets, and example reduction measures, these For GHG programs would include quantitative standards for new development; targets for reductions from retrofitting existing development; targets for government operations; fee and spending program for GHG reduction programs; monitoring and reporting; and other elements. The local government itself should serve as a model for GHG reduction plan implementation, by inventorying emissions from government operations and achieving emission reductions in accordance with the plan's standards. An optional climate change element could be added to contain goals, policies, and this implementation strategy, or this could belong in an optional air quality element. Other Project Types Air District Rules, Regulations and Air Quality Plans Air district air quality plans, rules and regulations could have the potential to increase or decrease GHG emissions within their respective jurisdiction. In general, air district air quality plans, rules and regulations act to reduce ozone precursors, criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions, which would almost always act to reduce GHG emissions simultaneously. However, this may not always be the case. Air Qualily Plans Air districts will have to include GHG emissions analysis as part of their criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant air pollutant analysis when considering the adoption of air quality plans and their subsequent rules and regulations needed to implement the plans. Multiple models and methodologies will be needed to accomplish this analysis. Regional Transportation Plans Regional transportation plans would also need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if a net increase or decrease in GHG emissions would occur. Complex interactions between the roadway network, operating conditions, alternative transportation availability (such as public transit, bicycle pathways, and pedestrian infrastructure), and many other independent parameters specific to a region should be considered. Regional transportation models exist to estimate vehicular emissions associated with regional transportation plans, which includes the ability to estimate GHG emissions. Normalization/Service Population Metric The above methodology would provide an estimate of the mass GHG emissions generated by a proposed project, which could be compared to a mass emission threshold. EDAW developed a methodology that would measure a project's overall GHG efficiency 71 CEQA and Climate Change in order to determine if a project is more efficient than the existing statewide average for per capita GHG emissions. The following steps could be employed to estimate the GHG- "efficiency," which may be more directly correlated to the project's ability to help obtain objectives outlined in AB 32, although it relies on establishment of an efficiency -based significance threshold. The subcommittee believes this methodology may eventually be appropriate to evaluate the long-term GHG emissions from a project in the context of meeting AB 32 goals. However, this methodology will need substantially more work and is not considered viable for the interim guidance presented in this white paper. • Divide the total operational GHG emissions by the Service Population (SP) supported by the project (where SP is defined as the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project). This value should be compared to that of the projected statewide GHG emissions inventory from the applicable end-use sectors (electricity generation, residential, commercial/institutional, and mobile -source) in 1990 divided by the projected statewide SP for the year 2020 (i.e., AB 32 requirements), to determine if the project would conflict with legislative goals. o If the project's operational GHG/SP falls below AB 32 requirements, then the project's GHG emissions are less than cumulatively considerable. o If the project's operational GHG/SP exceed AB 32 requirements (a substantial contribution), then the project's GHG emissions would conflict with legislative requirements, and the impact would be cumulatively considerable and mitigation would be required where feasible. • New stationary and area sources/facilities: calculate GHG emissions using the CCAR GRP. All GHG emissions associated with new stationary or area sources should be treated as a net increase in emissions, and if deemed significant, should be mitigated where feasible. • Road or levee construction projects or other construction -only projects: calculate GHG emissions using the RoadMod, which will be updated to contain GHG emission factors from EMFAC and OFFROAD. All construction -generated GHG emissions should be treated as a net increase, and if deemed significant, should be mitigated to the extent feasible. • Air District rulemaking or air quality management plan -type projects should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for secondary impacts of increased GHG emissions generation. In most cases, the types of projects that act to reduce regional air pollution simultaneously act to reduce GHG emissions, and would be beneficial, but should be evaluated for secondary effects from GHG emissions. • Regional transportation plans should also be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential to either reduce or increase GHG emissions from the transportation sector. EMFAC can be utilized to determine the net change in GHG emissions 72 associated with projected vehicle VMT and from operating speed changes JChaptr associated with additional or alleviated congestion. To achieve the goals of AB 32, which are tied to GHG emission rates of specific benchmark years (i.e., 1990), California would have to achieve a lower rate of emissions per unit of population and per unit of economic activity than it has now. Further, in order to accommodate future population and economic growth, the state would have to achieve an even lower rate of emissions per unit than was generated in 1990. (The goal to achieve 1990 quantities of GHG emissions by 2020 means that this will need to be accomplished in light of 30 years of population and economic growth in place beyond 1990.) Thus, future planning efforts that would not encourage new development to achieve its fair share of reductions in GHG emissions would conflict with the spirit of the policy decisions contained in AB 32, thus impeding California's ability to comply with the mandate. Thus, if a statewide context for GHG emissions were pursued, any net increase in GHG emissions within state boundaries would be considered "new" emissions. For example, a land development project, such as a specific plan, does not necessarily create "new" emitters of GHG, but would theoretically accommodate a greater number of residents in the state. Some of the residents that move to the project could already be California residents, while some may be from out of state (or would `take the place' of in-state residents who `vacate' their current residences to move to the new project). Some may also be associated with new births over deaths (net population growth) in the state. The out-of-state residents would be contributing new emissions in a statcwidc context, but would not necessarily be generating new emissions in a global context. Given the California context established by AB 32, the project would need to accommodate an increase in population in a manner that would not inhibit the state's ability to achieve the goals of lower total mass of emissions. The average net influx of new residents to California is approximately 1.4 percent per year (this value represents the net increase in population, including the net contribution from births and deaths). With population growth, California also anticipates economic growth. Average statewide employment has grown by approximately 1.1 percent over the last 15 years. The average percentage of population employed over the last 15 years is 46 percent. Population is expected to continue growing at a projected rate of approximately 1.5 percent per year through 2050. Long-range employment projection data is not available from the California Department of Finance (DOF) and can be extrapolated in different ways (e.g., linear extrapolation by percentage rate of change, percentage of population employed, mathematical series expansion, more complex extrapolation based on further research of demographic projections such as age distribution). Further study would be needed to refine accurate employment projections from the present to 2050. For developing this framework, employment is assumed to have a constant proportionate relationship with the state's population. The projected number ofjobs is assumed to be roughly 46 percent of the projected population. 73 Analytical Methodologies For GHG Method/Tool Availability Applicability Scope Ease of Data Input (Requirements Data Output. Recommendation Advantages/ Descrintion Use and Guidance) Comments Disadvantages -Not freely available to -Recommended for public -Not applicable statewide Access fee through land use -Actually provides insight [-PLACE'S local COG Only available for Land use change Regional, Fairly Parcel information development CO2 (lblday or projects and land into land use interaction eight California scalable Easy tons/year) use changes -Can include very specific counties -Especially good for project attributes general plans -Trip rates are from behavioral survey data, instead d ITE -Not recommended for most projects -Can compare emissions (URBEMIS based on speed- EMFAC 2007 Public domain On -road mobile- Statewide, Fairly Vehicle fleet CO2 preferred) distribution sources regional Easy information (grams/mile) -Could be used for -Emission factors certain Air District contained in URBEMIS Rulemaking -Not a stand-alone model applications -Not recommended (URBEMIS Off-road mobile preferred) OFFROAD Public domain sources Statewide, Fairly Construction fleet CO2 (Ib/day) -could be used for certain Air District -Emission factor2 2007 (construction regional Easy information Rulemaking contained in URBEMIS equipment) applications (re: construction equipment) Off-road and on- RoadMod road mobile -Recommended for be updated sources CO2 (Ib/day construction -only or -To be updated to suppor o include public domain (construction Statewide Easy information tons/pConstruction roject) projects (linear in emissions factors fron CO-))C equipment and nature; i.e., levees, OFFROAD 2007 material haul roads, pipelines) trucks) 76 Method/Tool Availability Applicability Scope Ease of Use Data Input (Requirements Data Output Recommendation Comments Advantages/ Disadvantages Description and Guidance) Difficult (consists cf a series Y -EMFAC files -Not updated to suppor three -Traffic model EMFAC 2007 emissiot programs output files (e.g., factors On -road mobile- Statewide, and link, interzonal, and -Input files include outpu 3TIM Public domain sources regional requires trip end data) CO2 (tons/year) -Not recommended files from regiona input files -User optionsfile transportation model. from traffic -Optional files which more accuratel; and reflect VMT emissions modeling) Southeast UK Local -Not recommended for in Climate Public domain government/ Local, Energy usage, use California, but could -Applicabilityfor UK, bu Change Partnership http://www.climate agencies/ county, organizations Fairly easy waste CO, be a valuable source could be updated with CA Spreadsheet southeast.org.uk/ regional usedfor emissions generation/dis osal transportatr�n (tonnes/year) for building an specific emissionfactors applicable Model (UK) inventories soreadsheet model ... -Substantial researc. EPA AP -42; GHG emissions EasyBiochemical equation; oxygen demand (BOD) -Recommended for needed to determine th "fraction anaerametei Evaporation Public reference from waste water Facility substantial loading, Fraction CHI (Ib/year) Publiclv oU��pd digested" parameter Loss Sources document treatment level NOLO N�h anaerobically treatment works' which is dependent on th Chapter 4.3.5 facilities needed to digested (POTW)projects type of treatmet use plant/process -Emission rates chang Public domain GHG emissionsendent..on Solid waste years c composition, waste t LandGem v. http://www.epa.go from anaerobic decomposition Facility processing, year cf CO2, CHa (Mega -Recommended for place rates of change. 3.02 v/ttn/catc/dirl/lan dgem-v302.xls Level associated with Moderate analysis, lifetime of grams/year) landfill emissions _Complex decompositio landfills waste inplace rare equation, out gut, first approximation 77 Data Input Ease of Recommendation Advantaged Method/Tool Availability Applicability Scope Use (Requirements Data Output Comments Disadvantages Description and Guidance) -Recommended for Stationary source reporting facilities emissions, vehicle Facility Facility -specific under AB 32 andfor -Estimates all GHGs and CARROT Registry members fleet mobile level Moderate information All GHGs indirect emissions normalizes to CO2e sources from energy-Notpublicly available consumption (CCAR Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; AB = assembly bill; COze = carbon dioxide equivalent; CHa = methane; NzO = nitrous oxide; COG = council of governments ; ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers; CCAR = California Climate Action Registry Source: Data compiled by EDAW and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in 2007 in Chapter 9: Mitigation Strategies for GHG Introduction CEQA and Timate Change This chapter (and Appendix B) identifies existing and potential mitigation measures that could be applied to projects during the CEQA process to reduce a project's GHG emissions that would be identified using the analytical methodologies included in this white paper. The Subcommittee retained the services of EDAW to assist with this effort. EDAW performed a global search of mitigation measures currently in practice and under study that would reduce GHG emissions. Table 16 (Appendix B) provides a brief description of each measure along with an assessment of their feasibility (from a standpoint of economical, technological, and logistical feasibility, and emission reduction effectiveness), and identifies their potential for secondary impacts to air quality. During the global search performed, EDAW also took note of GHG reduction strategies being implemented as rules and regulation (e.g., early action items under AB 32), which are summarized in Table 18 (Appendix Q. It is important to note that though compliance with such would be required by regulation for some sources, such strategies may be applicable to other project and source types. The recurring theme that echoes throughout a majority of these measures is the shift toward New Urbanism, and research has consistently shown that implementation of Neotraditional Development techniques reduces VMT and associated emissions. The material reviewed assessed reductions from transportation -related measures (e.g., bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and parking) as a single comprehensive approach to land use. This comprehensive approach focuses on development design criteria conducive to enhancing alternate modes of transportation, including transit, walking, and bicycling. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are viewed as a mechanism to implement specific measures. TDM responsibilities may include offering incentives to potential users of alternative modes of transportation and monitoring and reporting mode split changes. The comprehensive approach makes it more difficult to assess reductions attributable to each measure. Nevertheless, there is a strong interrelationship between many of the measures, which justifies a combined approach. Consider the relationship between bike parking nonresidential, bike parking residential, endtrip facilities, and proximity to bike path/bike lane measures. In reality, these measures combined act as incentives for one individual to bike to work, while implementation of a single measure without the others reduces effectiveness. The global nature of GHG emissions is an important feature that enables unique mitigation: abatement. When designing a project subject to CEQA, the preferred practice is first to avoid, then to minimize, and finally to compensate for impacts. Where the impact cannot be mitigated on-site, off-site mitigation is often and effectively implemented in several resource areas, either in the form of offsetting the same impact or preserving the resource elsewhere in the region. Frequently, mitigation fee programs or funds are established, where the proponent pays into the program and fees collected VA :ha ter 9 Mitigation Strategies for GHG CEQA and Climate Charge throughout the region or state are used to implement projects that, in turn, proportionately offset the impacts of the projects to the given resource. It may be more cost-effective to reduce as much GHG on-site as feasible (economically and technologically). Then the proponent would pay into a "GHG retrofit fund" to reduce equivalent GHG emissions off-site. In contrast to regional air pollutant offset programs such as the Carl Moyer Program, it matters greatly where reductions of ozone precursors occur, as ozone affects regional air quality. The GHG retrofit fund could be used to provide incentives to upgrade older buildings and make them more energy efficient. This would reduce demand on the energy sector and reduce stationary source emissions associated with utilities. This program has been successfully implemented in the United Kingdom where developments advertise "carbon neutrality." Of course, some GHG emissions occur associated with operation of the development, but the development would offset the remainder of emissions through off-site retrofit. Avoiding emissions that would otherwise continue to occur at existing development would be a unique opportunity for mitigation of GHG emissions. Reduction of GHG emissions also may have important side benefits including reduction of other forms of pollution. Depending on the significance threshold concept adopted, projects subject to the CEQA process would either qualitatively or quantitatively identify the amount of GHG emissions associated with their project using the analytical methodologies identified in the previous chapter. The analysis would then apply the appropriate number of mitigation measures listed in Appendix B to their project to reduce their GHG emissions below the significance level. Calculating the amount of GHG emission reductions attributable to a given mitigation measure would require additional research. The examples below illustrate how a project would be mitigated using this approach. Residential Project Example Project Attributes: • 68 detached dwelling units • 15.9 acres • Located in unincorporated Placer County PCAPCD jurisdiction) • Assume URBEMIS defaults for a rural project in Placer County, in absence of a traffic study (This is contrary to the recommendations contained under Task 1; a traffic study is necessary to asses project -specific GHG emissions). • Analysis year 2009 FIX( CEQA and Climate Change I able 11: Residential Vi of a ct Examnle GHG Emissions Estimates With Mitiontinn URBEMIS Output Metric URBEMIS Output Metric (Unmitigated) Tons/Year COZe (Mitigated) Tons/Year COze Percent Reduction Area -source emissions 252 Area -source emissions 215 14.6 Mobile -source 1,047 Mobile -source emissions 916 12.5 emissions Total direct operational 1,299 Total operational 1,131 12.9 emissions (area + emissions (area + mobile) mobile) Notes: COZe = carbon dioxide equivalent Sources: Data compiled by EDAW in 2007 Using URBEMIS 2007 and assuming the project would implement the mitigation measures listed below, yearly project -generated emissions of CO2e would be reduced by approximately 13 percent. Implementation of the following mitigation measures is assumed: • 100 housing units within one -half -mile radius of project's center, including this project's 68 residential units; • provision of 80jobs in the study area; • retail uses present with one -half -mile radius of project's center; • 10 intersections per square mile; • 100% of streets with sidewalks on one side; • 50% of streets with sidewalks on both sides; • 30% of collectors and arterials with bike lanes, or where suitable, direct parallel routes exist; • 15% of housing units deed restricted below market rate; • 20% energy efficiency increase beyond Title 24; and • 100% of landscape maintenance equipment electrically powered and electrical outlets in front and rear of units. ;hapter Mitigation Strategies for GHG l CEQA acid Climate Change Example Project Methodology and Mitigation Table 12 —Residential Proiects ExamAle Methodologv and Mitigation Source Methodology Mitigation Direct Emissions Construction URBEMIS (OFFROAD MM C-1+MM C-4 emission factors) Mobile Sources URBEMIS (EMFAC MM T-3—MM T-8, MM T-10—> emission factors) MM T-14, MM T-16, MM T-19—> MM T-1—>MM T-2, MM T-4—> MM T-21 MM T-15, MM T-17—>MM T-21 MM D-2—>MM D-8, MM D-10—, MM D-1—>MM D-3, MM D -S—> MM D-15, MM D-17 MM D-6, MM D-10, MM D-12, MM 5 -1 -->MM S-2 MM D-14—>MM D-17 MM M -1 -->MM M-2 Area Sources URBEMIS MM D-13—MM D-15, MM D-17 MM E-12—OMNI E-23 Indirect Emissions Energy Consumption CCAR GRP & CEC MM M-1—+MM M-2 4rea Sources MM 5-1—>MM S-2 MM D-14—>MM D-17 MM E-16—>MM E-24 ndirect Emissions MM M-1—>MM M-2 Table 13 —Commercial Proiects Example Methodology and Mitigation Source Methodology Mitigation Direct Emissions -onstruction URBEMIS (OFFROAC MM C-1—MM C-4 emission factors) Mobile Sources URBEMIS (EMFAC MM T-1—>MM T-2, MM T-4—> emission factors) MM T-15, MM T-17—>MM T-21 MM D-1—>MM D-3, MM D -S—> MM D-6, MM D-10, MM D-12, MM D-14—>MM D-17 MM E-24 MM S-1+MM S-2 MM M-1—+MM M-2 4rea Sources URBEMIS MM D-14—>MM D-17 MM E-16—>MM E-24 ndirect Emissions anergy Consumption CCAR GRP & CEC MM S-1—>MM S-2 MM M-I—MM M-2 Table 14 —Specific Plans Example Methodology and Mitigation Source I Methodology Mitigation Direct Emissions MS G-1 Construction URBEMIS (OFFROAC MM C-I—MM C-4 Short-term: URBEMIS emission factors) Mobile Sources Short-term: URBEMIS MM T-1—MM T -2I Long-term: (EMFAC emission factors). I-PLACE3S/CTG SCM Long-term: I- MM D-1—>MM D-12, MM D-18— Short-term: URBEMIS PLACE'S/CTG SCM MM D-19 (EMFAC emission factors). MS G-8—MS C -I 1, MS G-134 MM E-24 Long-term: MS G-12, MS -15, MS -17, MS -22 MM S-1—MM S-2 I-PLACE3S/CTG SCM MM M-I+MM M-2 Area Sources Short-term: URBEMIS MM D-13—MM D-19 CEC. Long-term: I- ,EMFAC emission factors). PLACE3S/CTG SCM Long-term: I- MM E- I +MM E-24 PLACE'S/CTG SCM Indirect Emissions MM S-1—>MM S-2 Energy Consumption Short-term: CCAR GRP & CEC. Long-term: I- MM M -1 -->MM M-2 PLACE3S/CTG SCM Chapter Mitigation Strategies for GHG Construction URBEMIS (OFFROAD MS G-1 emission factors). MM G-15 Mobile Sources Short-term: URBEMIS MS G-1 (EMFAC emission factors). MS G-2—►MS C-7, MS 0-9, MS G-12 Long-term: MS-13—►MS-14, MS-16—>MS-23 I-PLACE3S/CTG SCM Area Sources Short-term: URBEMIS MS G-1 (EMFAC emission factors). MS G-8—MS C -I 1, MS G-134 Long-term: MS G-12, MS -15, MS -17, MS -22 I-PLACE3S/CTG SCM Indirect Emissions Energy Consumption Short-term: CCAR GRP & CEC. Long-term: I- PLACE3S/CTG SCM Chapter Mitigation Strategies for GHG CEQA and Climate Change Other Project Types Air District Rules and Regulations Air district rules and regulations could have the potential to increase or decrease GHG emissions within the respective jurisdiction. In general, air district rules and regulations act to decrease criteria air pollutant or toxic air contaminant emissions, which would usually act to reduce GHG emissions simultaneously. However, this may not always be the case and air district rules and regulations could address emissions from a large variety of different source types. Reductions of GHG emissions associated with implementation of applicable mitigation, which could also vary greatly, would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, once applicable mitigation measures are identified, percent reductions based on the best available research to date, such as those specified in Table 15, could be applied to determine mitigated emissions. Air Quality Plans Similarly to air district rules and regulations, air quality plans could have the potential to increase or decrease GHG emissions because of criteria air pollutant reduction strategies. In general, strategies implemented by air districts to reduce criteria air pollutants also act to reduce GHG emissions. However, this may not always be the case. Reductions of GHG emissions associated with implementation of applicable mitigation would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The methodology identified above for determining whether the strategies contained within the GHG reduction plan would adhere to the level specified in general plan policy could also be used to determine the reductions associated with CAP strategies. Regional Transportation Plans Regional transportation plans and reductions of GHG emissions associated with implementation of applicable mitigation would also need to be evaluated on a case-by- case basis to determine if a net increase or decrease in GHG emissions would occur. Complex interactions between the roadway network, operating conditions, alternative transportation availability (such as public transit, bicycle pathways, and pedestrian infrastructure), and many other independent parameters specific to a region should be considered. EMFAC 2007 can be used with VMT froin the RTP to create an inventory of GHG emissions. Reductions associated with implementation of applicable measures contained in Table 16 could be accomplished by accounting for VMT reductions in the traffic model. Chapter 10: Examples of Other Approaches CEQA and Climate Change CAPCOA Many states, counties, and cities have developed policies and regulations concerning Examples of greenhouse gas emissions that seek to require or promote reductions in GHG other emissions through standards for vehicle emissions, fuels, electricity Approache, , production/renewables, building efficiency, and other means. However, we could only identify three public agencies in the United States that are considering formally requiring the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change for development projects during their associated environmental processes. There may be others, but they were not identified during research conducted during preparation of this paper. The following is a summary of those three efforts. Commonwealth of Massachusetts - MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) has determined that the phrase "damage to the environment" as used in the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) includes the emission of greenhouse gases caused by projects subjects to MEPA Review. EEA has published a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy (GGEP) to fulfill the statutory obligation to take all feasible measurers to avoid, minimize or mitigate damage to the environment. The GGEP concerns the following projects only: • The Commonwealth or a state agency is the proponent; • The Commonwealth or a state agency is providing financial assistance; • The project is privately funded, but requires an Air Quality Permit from the department of Environmental Protection; • The project is privately funded, but will generate: 0 3,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for office projects; 0 6,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for mixed use projects that are 25% or more office space; or 0 10,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for other projects. As a comparison, the trip generation amounts correspond as follows: • 3,000 vehicle trips per day = approximately 250,000 square foot office development; • 6,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for mixed use projects that are 25% or more office space = if 25% office space, then equivalent to approximately 130,000 square feet of office and either 100,000 square feet of retail or 450 single-family residential units or some combination thereof. • 10,000 or more new vehicle trips per day = approximately 1,000 single family residential units or 250,000 square feet retail. CEQA and Climate Change The draft policy states it is not intended to create a numerical GHG emission limit or a numerical GHG emissions reduction target, but rather to ensure that project proponents and reviewers have considered the GHG emissions impacts of their projects and taken all feasible means and measure to reduce those impacts. The draft policy notes that some projects within these categories will have little or no greenhouse gas emission and the policy will not apply to such projects. EEA intends to identify in the scoping certificate whether a project falls within this de minimis exception. The GGEP requires qualifying projects to do the following: • to quantify their GHG emissions; • identify measures to minimize or mitigate such emissions; • quantify the reduction in emissions and energy savings from mitigation. Emissions inventories are intended to focus on carbon dioxide, but analysis of other GHGs may be required for certain projects. EEA will require analysis of direct GGH emissions and indirect (electricity and transportation) emissions. The GGEP references the protocols prepared by the World Resource Institute as guidance for inventory preparation. The policy is still in draft form, but the comment period closed on August 10, 2007. King County, Washington - Executive Order on the Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) On June 27, 2007, the King County Executive Ron Sims directed all King County Departments, as follows: "...effective September 1, 2007 to require that climate impacts, including, but not limited to thosepertaining to greenhouse gases, be appropriately identified and evaluated when such Departments are acting as the lead agency in reviewing the environmental impacts cf private or public proposals pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act". The Executive Order does not define what a "climate impact" is. Based on statements of the County Deputy Chief of Staff • County agencies will ask project proponents to supply information on transportation, energy usage and other impacts of proposed projects using the County's existing SEPA checklist. ' Marten Law Group: Environmental News, August 1,2007, "King County (WA) First in Nation to Require Climate Change Impacts to be Considered During Environmental Review of New Projects". :i ClEqtrod Climate Change • There is no current plan to require project proponents to take action to mitigate Chapter 10 the impacts identifies. Examples of • Development of emissions thresholds and mitigation requirements will be Other undertaken in connection with the County's upcoming 2008 update of its Approaches Comprehensive Plan. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District released an interim guidance on addressing climate change in CEQA documents on September 6, 2007. While very general in nature, the District recommends that CEQA environmental documents include a discussion of anticipated GHG emissions during both the construction and operation phases of the project. This includes assessing the GHG emissions from projects (using readily available models) to determine whether a project may have a significant impact. If so, then the District recommends addressing all of the District's GHG mitigation measures (drawn from comments made by the California Attorney General) — with explanations on how the mitigation will be implemented or providing rationale for why a measure would be considered infeasible. The District provides assistance to agencies in their analysis of GHG emissions and the applicability of specific mitigation measures. The District's guidance can be found at: littp://64.143.64.21/climatechange/ClimateChangeCEQAguidance.pdf Mendocino Air Quality Management District — CEQA Guidelines The Mendocino AQMD updated its "Guidelines for Use During Preparation of Air Quality Impacts in EIRs or Mitigated Negative Declarations" in May 2007. The guidelines call for preparing estimates of the increased emissions of air contaminations (including GHG) for projects. The guidelines state that GHG emissions should be presumed to have a significant impact if CO emissions from District -approved modeling exceed either of the following: • 80% of the level defined as significant for stationary sources in Regulationl, Rule 130 (s2) of the District (which is 550 lbs/day for CO, meaning a threshold of 440 lbs/day for CO for stationary sources); or • levels established in District Regulation 1 Rule 130 (i2) for indirect sources (which is 690 lbs/day for CO for indirect sources). If an average passenger vehicle emits 22 grains of CO/mile and 0.8 lb/mile of CO2, then the 690- lb/day threshold for CO corresponds to approximately 11,400 lb/day CO2 threshold for passenger vehicle -related emissions. If one assumes that the average passenger vehicle goes 12,500 miles/year (about 35 miles/day), then this is a threshold equivalent to about 420 vehicles. Using an average in California of about 1.77 vehicles/household, this would correspond to about 250 households/dwelling units. E:YA Appendix A Relevant Citations CEGtA CAPCOA and Appendix A: Relevant Citations ClimateChange Citations from the Public Resources Code (Division 13, 621000 et seq.) as amended Appendix through January 1.2005. Public Resources Code — Section 21004, MITIGATING OR AVOIDING A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT; POWERS OF PUBLIC AGENCY: "In mitigating or avoiding a significant effect of a project on the environment, a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than this division. However, a public agency may use discretionary powers provided by such other law for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding a significant effect on the environment subject to the express or implied constraints or limitations that may be provided by law." Public Resources Code — Section 21082.2, SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT; DETERMINATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION: (a) The lead agency shall determine whether aproject may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (b) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (c) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. (d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared. (e) Statements in an environmental impact report and coinments with respect to an environmental impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Citations from the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, CCR, Title 142 Division 6 (§ 15000 et seq.) as amended through July 27,2007. AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CCAP--Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U.S. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; FERE=Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S, Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton Trolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas;FAR=Floor Area Ratio; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km --Kilometer; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA -Not Available; NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrogen; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; TMA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. A-1 CEQAC. and Climate Change State CEQA Guidelines — Section 15064, DETERMINING THE Appendix A SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A I PROJECT: (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. (1) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft EIR. (2) When a final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each Responsible Agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before the lead agency. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial. (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. (1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant. (2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. (3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable. (e) Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant effect on the environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a 2 ` CEQA iCAPCOA and mn Climate Change D project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same Appendix P manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. Alternatively, economic and social effects of a physical change may be used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the environment. If the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant. For example, if a project would cause overcrowding of a public facility and the overcrowding causes an adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect. (f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. (1) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988). Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68). (2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. (3) If the lead agency determines there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988). (4) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (5) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts. (6) Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical changes in the environment is not substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (7) The provisions of sections 15162, 15163, and 15164 apply when the project being analyzed is a change to, or further approval for, a project for which an EIR or negative declaration was previously certified or adopted (e.g. a tentative subdivision, conditional use permit). Under case law, the fair argument standard does not apply to determinations of significance pursuant to sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. (g) After application of the principles set forth above in Section 15064(f)(g), and in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts A-3 ON Climate Change CAPCOA L 11r_ over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the I Appendix A effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. (h)(1) When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the 40 cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (2) A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. When a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable. (3) A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not Cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding that the project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program addressing the cumulative problem, an EIR must be prepared for the project. (4) The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. State CEQA Guidelines — Section 15130, DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: (a)(3). "An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant Cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than Cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than Cumulatively considerable. State CEQA Guidelines — Section 15064.7, THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE: "Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level C! CEQA and Climate Change of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect Appendix A will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant." A -S Appendix B: Mitigation Measure Summary CEQA �, rar �, and Climate Change �.,.'� Appendix B Mitigation Measure Summary -bilod;!suuil Euolo!A=Id.I.A Pus 'pounoo au!ppng uaalro'S f1=OgrJSfl'a(a!gaA uo!ss!w3 MO -I ui;In=A3'Ifl `.uogieooiPAH Is;ol=OHZ'uo!le!aossd;uowa2uuejnl uo!lEuodsueil=Vy% 'luawaaeuvW puewiG uo!leuodsuPtj=VgGl `.s;ueu!ws;uo0 ny a!xol=sDVl `.xopul sous;oogo-d Ielos=RIS `•sap!x0 irglnS=`pS `.;�!i;s!Q sa!;![!lfl led!a!unj� oluawEioES=Qf1Y�IS `.laI1;SIQ;UawaaEUEjnj tjl(En(' its UE;1[odOI;ajnj O;tta[ttelaeS QI IjV�Injs `.;aIIjSIQ jO1;U0� UOtjnj(od Itd ,(QIIu \ umbeof UES=Q�ddA(S .IauPW a;ejno!vud=Wd '3u93313 P- -9 ag!aed=IWDd 'RinoS/qj1°N=S/N :fao;eioge3 nRIaug ajgeAxaualj [uuol;EN='I3gN 'ua2outly Jo sMxO=xON °X�?ojougaal puu spiepus;S 3o a;n;gsuj (euoquN=1SIN `aja!yaA a!13319 Poogiog4O!aN=A3N 'ajgvj!EAV ION=VN'uo!jj!jnj=jN 'ua!saQ jsluawuonnug puu aioug u! d!gsiopsa7=Qgg-j 'punod=qj 'ialawoj!X=wij 'iajow aiunbs iad wuaoj!,I=Zw/aX 'staau!aug uo!;euodsueil to aln;!lsuj=glj `,sero asnoquaaico=roHto 'o!;e21 eiiV ioold==dVa °suo luin;sjl possaidtuoolsala!yaA Ou;aalg=roj jo/sAg 'uo!;!IEoo sCajjoiy,uoluowpg=0lg `.fl0uaay uo!loaloid Isluawuoi!Aug 'S'fl=dd3 'gin3 do s!podojodoug=gog <, Saiaug ajgt!moua-�j puu Caua!at g Caiaug=gggg 'Ioueyl3 %S8=S83 `-ialjld a;e[na.11 jasa!Q=3dQ',Caiaug;o;uowuudaQ 'S`fl=gOQ `.saa!AIaS luiauo J3o luowuedaQ=SDCI `ap!xo!Q uogie,o=IOo'ap!xouojnj uogieo=0o'piEog;uowaaEuejnj alseM PalElaa;uj e!wo3!IsO=EIMIo `•Iolasd fCl!A!;aauuoo=30'SOIlOd ny uEPID io; Ia;uao=dyoo `.s;ue;n[jod nV sua;u0=sdd0 `uo!;Euodsuuiy jo;uaugiedoQ E!wo;gEO=suEAjso'E!wo3!jEo=dO `. i;!j!geu!E;snS olwouoag pue jE;u3wuoi!Au3 io; autpl!ng =S339';ollls'G luawaaeueW ,U!jenb i!d saiy ,tsg=yNayyg `,[eua;sjg pus au! ;sal Io; A4o!ooS usouowy=W.LSV `•Pieog sooinosa2a qV mwo3!IE0=gdd `•lElauoo XowoilV=Dv luou4ndu It' pap!Aoid st Bu!And al3K3tq uual-2uo-I .,. •(soouds \—/Bur .And oa iotdwo stout io 091 gl!nn sloofotd toy .tapuai? gona .to3 sailttlou3 olundas `saauds fugnd oo,Cotduta 08 ,Grana zoo paplAo td iomogs auo puu simpol sotpoto moa ` a) ands futfuugo puu S.zaxooi `s omogs gutpnlout satlttloP-j ,,dlzl jo-pus„ ap!Awd sloafoid tuguap!swuoN •sailunoo/sailto PUL, `SIO!4s!p tozluoo puu luatua�iuuuut fggunb -1172VD `Id LA `(LOOZ QWOVWS) suoilonpaZl uolsslutg asrl pueZ .toj •woods Ouppud aouup!n[) papumiumaX oakoldiva/aloigaA OZ jad aouds QKOVWS `(LOOZ lou.t oj!q auo `•2•a) puuutap •te la s oN1ot(j) Noogaptn[) umuitxuui uosuas 3luad laatu suotsstuig uollultodsumL of satlglouj �?uiljud ojaX iq dVDD `(8661 PUBI110d uual-Suol puu -lzois Irgiluald 3o f4o) uuld Jals m ` -- p!Aold sloof6Id tulluapisataoN ajaXotg puulvod `suualIuD qulogauag suu41ED) SOOZ -OOZ`I$) oN :as.zanpd "saA suuxltuO) saA szajoo-j aaA Id,LA) uipauo[aAaua `2I2I `did `dS-tl[nW.Iu �urxtsd WGI ail u! sa.msuatu `(L1i `2I) Q I -Q)Pa :£-L Ww pouigwoo puu zaaooSjuoipnpaS s[eo[is1601 q[ea[uyoal JONIsaA) isoa suo[ssiw3 aligoW/d `UU `dOV `cU `dS sallillou3 dt. l 13o Pug =Z -Z I^ w opqoW/d 'Na `dad `d.L `dS 2uptied `I `(W `D) Q'I a*g :I -,L Ww (ON/SOA) lW.L sio943 aoanoSIoa[oad aanseaw sivawwooluoi1d13sea Oayipjuol}eziue6jO/AaueBV fdepuooaS (0 SO)L) a[g[sead aA4a}}3 a[geoiiddd uogeB[i[w /tiewwnS wnseaW uojieINjjW 9 6 e1gel siataogs joj suoilonpai % sluasazd MIA '(LOOZ CIWO WS `900Z MVQug(LOOZ `SOOZXVIL)(a.znsuat MLA 'LOOZ (LOOZ lunp!Alpu! gona la)I Q LLA `LOOZ o alunbi%SZit ` SOVI sddD `500Z *IU la s1ax 31(i -auo puu sams-em :tulogauag suu [BD) `SOOZ palulaz-ato Coig oN :;)Sl3Apd saA suu.41LD) saA SOA Iiu •toj uoilonpat •(aftmAu %S•Z `•2•a) samsuaw uo 03Pq/OL$ lunp!Atpu! $u0un? 1000`Z$ sumimpa t pauigtuoo (LOOZ MIA -OL$) s3lou'd saluoollu CUNOVWS 'LOOZ'P (LOOZ `(33ulanu •(LOOZ ';u Ia s.ta1ia!G) Ia staliaatQ Id.LA `LOOZ uo a3llq/OOL$ samsuatu uotlu2'I!wJO SDVI `sdvD `500Z 'Iu Ia saa�ta31a `056`Z$ aguul u .too suollonpw :tulogouag suut}tUD) `SOOZ -OOZ`I$) %pauigtuoo sluosatd oN :astanpd SOA suugluD) SOA s.10130-1 :saA dvDD :gP!H/%S-%I zaaooSjuoipnpaS s[eo[is1601 q[ea[uyoal JONIsaA) isoa suo[ssiw3 aligoW/d `UU `dOV `cU `dS sallillou3 dt. l 13o Pug =Z -Z I^ w opqoW/d 'Na `dad `d.L `dS 2uptied `I `(W `D) Q'I a*g :I -,L Ww (ON/SOA) lW.L sio943 aoanoSIoa[oad aanseaw sivawwooluoi1d13sea Oayipjuol}eziue6jO/AaueBV fdepuooaS (0 SO)L) a[g[sead aA4a}}3 a[geoiiddd uogeB[i[w /tiewwnS wnseaW uojieINjjW 9 6 e1gel IM Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(YeslNo) Secondary AgencylOrganizationlOthers Description/Comments Measure ProjectlSource Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost(Yes/Nor Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez Jnit Residential P/Mobile 2007). JSA bases $2,950, Dierkers et al. 2005, CAPS, TACs complexes or condominiums estimates on CCAP $700/bike on 2007, VTPI Dierkers et without garages (e.g., one long - information (JSA average), 2007) al. 2007, term bicycle parking space for 2004). Racks ($70- VTPI 2007) each unit without a garage). $2,000, Long-term facilities shall $70/bike on consist of one of the following. average). a bicycle locker, a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclists only, or a standard rack in a location that is staffed and/or monitored by video surveillance 24 hours per day. VIM T-4: LD (R, C, M), Yes Yes (Caltrans Yes Adverse: No Entire project is located within 2roximity to 1, SP, TP, 2005, (Caltrans Beneficial: one-half mile of an 3ike Path/Bike AQP, RR, Dierkers et al. 2005, CAPs, TACs existing/planned Class I or .,anes P/Mobile 2007, VTPI Dierkers et Class II bike lane and project 2007) al. 2007, design includes a comparable VTPI 2007) network that connects the project uses to the existing offsite facility. Project design includes a designated bicycle _ route connecting all units. on- site bicycle parking facilities, offsite bicycle facilities, site entrances, and primary building entrances to existing Class I or Class II bike lane(s) within one- half mile. Bicycle route connects to all streets contiguous with project site. Bicycle route has minimum conflicts with automobile parking and circulation IM Table Mitigation Measui`e Summary ,Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes(No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure ProjectlSource Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost(Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Score2 AG=Attomey General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; 13 Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS --Criteria Air Pollutants; CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmontor GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometei NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, SMAQMD=Sacramento Metr Oxides; SRI --Solar Reflcctancc Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. IM facilities. All streets internal to the project wider than 75 feet have Class I1 bicycle lanes on both sides. AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor: CIWMB=Califomia Integrated Waste . Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; FERE=Energy Efficiency Crolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA --Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District: SO,=Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association: THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Other6 Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost(Yes/Nor Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez 4M T-5: LD (R, C, M), 1%-10%/High: CCAP Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes: Adverse: No CCAP Transportation The project provides a 'edestrian I, SP, TP, presents combined % et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook pedestrian access network that letwork AQP, RR, reductions for a range VTPI 2007) al. 2007, CAPS, TACs (Dierkers et al. 2007), internally links all uses and P/Mobile of mitigation measures VT?:! 2007) SMAQMD Recommended connects to all existing/planned (Dierkers et al. 2007). Guidance for Land Use external streets and pedestriad SMAQMD allocates Emission Reductions facilities contiguous with the 1% for each individual (SMAQMD2007), VTPI, project site. Project design measure (TIAX 2005, CA air quality includes a designated pedestrian EDAW 2006, management and control route interconnecting all SMAQMD 2007). districts, and internal uses, site entrances, citieslcounties. Primary building entrances, public facilities, and adjacent uses to existing external pedestrian facilities and streets. Route has minimal conflict with parking and automobile circulation facilities. Streets (with the exception of alleys) within the project have sidewalks on both sides. All sidewalks internal and adjacent to project site are minimum of five feet wide. All sidewalks feature vertical curbs. Pedestrian facilities and improvements such as grade separation, wider sidewalks. and traffic calming are implemented wherever feasible to minimize pedestrian barriers. All site entrances provide pedestrian access. MM T-6: LD (R, C, M), Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes Adverse: No Site design and building 'edestrian I, SP, TP, et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: placement minimize barriers to AG=Attorney General; ARB=Califomia Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; E Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=Califomia Department of Transportation; CAPs--Criteria Air Pollutants; CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmontor GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilomete NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx Oxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Meh Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. AQMD=Say Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy, CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste I. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter: E85=85% Ethanol: EERE=Energy Efficiency Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; lb=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; iolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' ()bs/No) Emissions Cost (YeslNo)3 Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez Barriers AQP, RR, VTPI 2007) al. 2007, CAPs, TACs pedestrian access and Minimized P/Mobile VTPI 2007) interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, berms, landscaping, and slopes between residential and nonresidential uses that impede bicycle or pedestrian circulation are eliminated. MM T-7: Bus LD (R, C, M), 1 %-2%/High: CCAP Yes: $15,000- Yes (Dierkers Yes. Adverse: No CCAP Transportation Bus or streetcar service provides Shelter for I, SP, TP, presents these % $70,000. et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook headways of one hour or less for Existing/Planned AQP, RR, reductions (Dierkers et VTPI 2007) al. 2007, CAPs, TACs (Dierkers et al. 2007), stops within one-quarter mile; Transit Service P/Mobile al., 2007). SMAQMD VTP12007) SMAQMD Recommended project provides safe and assigns from .25%-1% Guidance for Land Use convenientbicyclelpedestrian depending on headway Emission Reductions access to transit stop(s) and frequency (TIAX (SMAQMD 2007), VTPI, provides essential transit stop 2005, EDAW 2006, City of Calgary (City of improvements (i.e., shelters, SMAQMD 2007). Calgary 2004), CA air route information, benches, and quality management and lighting). control districts, and cities/counties. AG=Attorney General; ARB=Califomia Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; E Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=Califomia Department of Transportation; CAPs--Criteria Air Pollutants; CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmontor GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilomete NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx Oxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Meh Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. AQMD=Say Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy, CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste I. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter: E85=85% Ethanol: EERE=Energy Efficiency Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; lb=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; iolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Mitigation Applicable Measure Project/Source Type, nW T-8: Traffic LD (R, C, M), Calming I, SP, TP, AQP, RR, P/Mobile Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Effective Feasible(Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Effects (Yes/No) Emissions Reduction/Scorez Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 1%-10%/High: CCAP Yes Yes (Dierkers presents combined % et al. 2007, reductions for a range VTPI 2007) of mitigation measures Guidance for Land Use (Dierkers et al. 2007). Emission Reductions SMAQMD allocates (SMAQMD 2007), VTPI, .25%-1,0% for each CA air quality individual measure management and control depending on percent districts, and of intersections and citiesicounties. streets with improvements (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Logisticals Yes Adverse: No CCAP Transportation (Dierkers et Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook al. 2007, CAPS, TACs (Dierkers et al. 2007), VTPI 2007) SMAQMD Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions (SMAQMD 2007), VTPI, CA air quality management and control districts, and citiesicounties. Description/Comments Project design includes pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures in excess ofjurisdiction requirements. Roadways are designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips by featuring traffic calming features. All sidewalks internal and adjacent to project site are minimum of five feet wide. All sidewalks feature vertical curbs. Roadways that converge internally within the project are routed in such a way as to avoid "skewed intersections;" which are intersections that meet at acute, rather than right, angles. Intersections internal and adjacentto the project feature one or more of the following pedestrian safetyitraffic calmh . design techniques: marked crosswalks, count -down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswaks, raised intersections, median islands, tight comer radii, and roundabouts or mini -circles. Streets internal and adjacent to the project feature pedestrian safetyitraffic calming measures such as on -street parking, planter strips with street trees, Mitigation Applicable Effective Measure ProjectlSource Type' Table 1 Mitigation Meas Feasible(Y Emissions Cost(Yes/No)3 Technical4 Reduction/Scorez Secondary Effects (Yes/No) Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments MM T-9: Paid LD (C, M), 1, 1%-300/o/High: CCAP Yes: Vary by Yes (Dierkers Yes;: Adverse: No CCAP Transportation Parking (Parking SP, TP, AQP, presents a range of location and et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook Cash Out) RR, P/Mobile 15%-30% reduction project size. VTPI 2007) al. 2*17, CAPS, TACs (Dierkers et al. 2007), for parking programs VTPI :2007) SMAQMD Recommended (Dierkers et al. 2007). Guidance for Land Use SMAQMD presents a Emission Reductions range of 1.0%-7.2%, (SMAQMD 2007), VTPI, depending on cost/day CA air quality and distance to transit management and control (TIAX 2005, EDAW districts, and 2006, SMAQMD cities/counties. 2007). Shoupe presents a 21 % reduction [$5/day for commuters to downtown LA, with elasticity of -0.18 (e.g., if price increases 10%, then solo driving goes down by 1.&°/amore)] (Shoupe 2005). Urban Transit Institute AG=Attomey General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; E Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC; Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmontot GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'`=kilogram per square meter; km—Kilometer NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Mets Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council: and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. IM and chicaneslchokers(variations in road width to discourage high-speed travel). Project provides employee and/or customer paid parking system. Project must have a permanent and enforceable method of maintaining user fees for all parking facilities. The facility may not provide customer or employee validations. Daily charge for parking must be equal to or greater than the cost of a transit daylmonthly pass plus 20%. AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Menter for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=Califomia Integrated Waste Department of Energy; DPF=Dieset particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; FERE=Energy Efficiency Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million: NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SOS Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible Measure Project/Source Type, MM T-10: Minimum Parking LD (R, C, M), I, SP, TP, AQP, RR, P/Mobile Emissions Cost (YeslN0)3 Technicals Reduction/Scorez presents a range of I %- 10% reduction in trips to central city sites, and 2%-4% in suburban sites (VTPI 2007). 1%-300/o/High: CCAP presents a range of 15%-30% reduction for parking programs (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD presents a maximum of 6% (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2005, TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006). Yes Yes (Dierkers et al. 2007, VTPI 2007) Yes (Dierkers et al. 2007, VTPI 2007), Note that in certain areas of the state, the minimum parking required by code is greater than the peak period parking demand for most land uses: Simply meeting minimum code requirements in these areas would not result in an emissions Secondary Effects (Yes/No) Adverse: No Beneficial: CAPS, TACs Agency/Organization/Others CCAP Transportation Emissions Guidebook (Dierkers et al. 2007), SMAQMD Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions (SMAQMD 2007), VTPI, Governor's Office of Smart Growth (Annapolis, Maryland) (Zimbler), CA air quality management and control districts, and citieslcounties. Description/Comments Provide minimum amount of parking required. Once land uses are determined, the trip reduction factor associated with this measure can be determined by utilizing the ITE parking generation publication. The reduction in trips can be computed as shown below by the ratio of the difference of minimum parking required by code and ITE peak parking demand to ITE peak parking demand for the land uses multiplied by 50%. Percent Trip Reduction= 50 [(min parking required by codt — ITE peak parking demand)/ (ITE peak parking demand)] AG=Attorney General; ARB=Califomia Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; C Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE= and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmont GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilome NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitr PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento ME Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demvtd Managemer Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste I. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency Crolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; 1b=pound; LEER=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; iolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure S u m m a ry Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (YeslNo) Emissions Cost(Yes/Nor Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez MM T-11: LD (R, C, M), 1%-30%/High: CCAP Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes : Adverse: No Provide parking reduction less Parking I, SP, TP, presents a range of et al. 2007, (Dieikers et Beneficial: than code. This measure can be Reduction AQP, RR, 15%-30%reduction VTPI 2007) al. 2107, CAPs, TACs readily implemented through a Beyond P/Mobile for parking programs VTI 2007) shared parking strategy, wherein Code/Shared (Dierkers et al. 2007). parking is utilizedjointly amo, Parking SMAQMD presents a different land uses, buildings, maximum of 12% and facilities in an area that (Nelson/Nygaard, experience peak parking needs 2005, TIAX 2005, at different times of day and day EDAW 2006). of the week. MM T-12: LD (R, C, M), 1%4%/Moderate: Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes,', Adverse: No Provide a parking lot design that Pedestrian I, SP, TP, CCAP presents et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: includes clearly marked and Pathway AQP, RR, combined % VTPI 2007) al. 2007, CAPs, TACs shaded pedestrian pathways Through Parking P/Mobile reductions for a range VTI'I 2007) between transit facilities and of mitigation measures building entrances. (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD allocates 0.5% reduction for this measure (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). AG=Attorney General; ARB=Califomia Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; C Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE= and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmont GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilome NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitr PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento ME Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demvtd Managemer Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste I. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency Crolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; 1b=pound; LEER=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; iolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission M11 Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Other6 Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (YeslNo)3 Technical4 Log11stical5 Reduction/Score2 MM T-13: Off - LD (R, C, M), 1%-40/o/Moderate: Yes Yes (Dierkers Yesj Adverse: No Parking facilities are not Street Parking I, SP, TP, CCAP presents et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: adjacentto street frontage. AQP, RR, combined % VTPI 2007) al. 2007, CAPS, TACs P/Mobile reductions for a range VTPI 2007) of mitigation measures (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD allocates a range of 0.1 %-1.5% for this measure (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). MM T-14: LD (R, C, M), Annual net CO2 Yes: $19 per Yes !i -yes Adverse: AG, State of CA Provide parking lot areas with Parking Area I, SP, TP, reduction of 3.1 kglm' new tree for VOCs Department of Justice 50% tree cover within 10years Tree Cover AQP, RR, canopy CA, cost Beneficial: (Goldberg 2007) and of construction, in particular P/Mobile cover/Moderate varies for CAPS, TACs cities/counties (e.g., low emitting, low maintenance, (McPherson 2001). maintenance, parking lot ordinances in native drought resistant trees. removal and Sacramento, Davis, and Reduces urban heat island effect replacement f Los Angeles, CA). and requirement for air (McPherson conditioning, effective when 2001). combined with other measures (e.g., electrical maintenance equipment and reflective paving' material). MM T-15: Valet LD (C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes;: Raley Adverse: No Raley Field (Sacramento, Provide spaces for the operation Bicycle Parking SP, AQP, TP, Fief Beneficial: CA). of valet bicycle parking at RR, P/Mobile (Sacramento, CAPS, TACs cominunity event "centers" such CA,), s as amphitheaters, theaters, and stadiums. MM T-16: LD (R, M), NA/Low Yes: Less Yes Yes Adverse: No City of Fairview, OR Provide storage space in one -car Garage Bicycle SP, AQP, TP, than Beneficial: garages for bicycles and bicycle Storage RR, P/Mobile 5200/multiple CAPS, TACs trailers. bike rack. M11 Mitigation Applicable Measure ProjectlSource Type' MM T-17: LD (C, M), 1, Preferential SP, TP, AQP, Parking for RR, P/Mobile EVs/CNG Vehicleg Effective Emissions Reduction/Scorez NA/Low MM T-18: LD (C, M), I, NA/Low Reduced/No SP, TP, AQP, Parking Fee for RR, P/Mobile EVs/CNG Vehicles Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Feasible(Yes1No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Effects (Yes/No) Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical5 Yes Yes `'es Adverse: No USGBC, CA air quality Beneficial: management and control CAPs, TACs districts and cities/counties (e.g., BAAQMD). Yes Yes '(es Adverse: No Hotels (e.g., Argonaut in Beneficial: San Francisco, CA) CAPS, TACs Description/Comments Provide preferential parking space locations for EVs/CNG vehicles. Provide a reduced/no parking fee for EVs/CNG vehicles. AG=Attorney General; AR]3=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans='alifomia Department of Transportation; CAPS—Criteria Air Pollutants: CCAP=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; COz=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U1S. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E8` =85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton;Trolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Ges;FAR=Floor Area Ratio; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/mZ=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometers Ib --pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitro6n; NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=Nc rth/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metrppolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramer to Municipal Utilities District: SO;�Sulfur Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; !TMA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle; USGBC=U.S, Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-12 Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/Nd) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure ProjectlSource Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/Noy Technical4 Lo iStiCal5 Reduction/Score2 .. . .. .... . R . ..... A MM T-19: TMA LD (R, C, M), 1%-281/o/High: CCAP Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes Adverse: No CA air quality Include permanent TMA Membership 1, SP, TP, presents a range of et al. 2007, (Die rkers et Beneficial: management and control membership and funding AQP, RR, 3%-25% for TDMs VTPI 2007) al. 2P07, CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties requirement. Funding to be P/Mobile with complementary VTP� 2007) (e.g., SMAQMD) provided by Community transit and land use Facilities District or County measures (Dierkers et Service Area or other al. 2007). VTPI nonrevocable funding presents a range of mechanism. TDMs have been 6%-7% in the TDM shown to reduce employee encyclopedia (VTPI vehicle trips up to 28% with the 2007). URBEMIS largest reductions achieved offers a 2%- 10% range through parking pricing and in reductions for a transit passes. The impact TDM that has 5 depends on the travel elements that are alternatives. pedestrian and transit friendly and 1%-5% for 3 elements. SMAQMD presents a reduction of 5% (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). jj nM T-20: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes: Higher Yes Yes ``]Fueling Adverse: No DGS, CA air quality Use of and/or provide ULEV 1JLEV 1, SP, TP, than stations Beneficial: management and control that are 50% cleaner than AQP, RF, corresponding mio): not be CAPs, TACs districts and cities/counties average new model cars (e.g., P/Mobile gasoline readi]Y (e.g., SMAQMD) natural gas, ethanol, electric). models. avaiiable depdiding on location. More than 9001185 fueling g B-12 MM D-1: LD (C, M), 0.05%-21/o/Moderate: Yes Yes (VTPI Yes Office/Mixed SP, TP, AQP, This range is from 2007) 200' Use Density RR, P/Mobile SMAQMD, depending AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; E Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=F.dmontor GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilomete. NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Meti Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-13 Adverse: No CA air quality Project provides high density Beneficial: management and control office or mixed-use proximate CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties to transit. Project must provide AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n: NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organizationl0ther6 Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' j! (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez stations in theU.S., 5 in CA.' Vehicles avaijable in select regions only MM T-21: Flex LD (IZ, C, M), 5466.97 lb Yes: E85 Yes YesiNore Adverse: Yes DGS, CA air quality Use of and/or provide vehicles Fuel Vehicles I, SP, TP, GHG/year/Low (DOE costs less than than1:900 Issues with management and control that utilize gasoline/ethanol AQP, RR, Fuel Economy) gasoline per E8511, eling the energy districts and cities/counties blends (e.g., E85). P/Mobile gallon, but statiens in intensive (e.g., SJVAPCD). results in the U.S., 5 in ethanol lower fuel CA." production economy. Vehicles process (e.g., available in wastewater select treatment regions only requirements). Beneficial: CAPS, TACs MM D-1: LD (C, M), 0.05%-21/o/Moderate: Yes Yes (VTPI Yes Office/Mixed SP, TP, AQP, This range is from 2007) 200' Use Density RR, P/Mobile SMAQMD, depending AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; E Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=F.dmontor GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilomete. NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Meti Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-13 Adverse: No CA air quality Project provides high density Beneficial: management and control office or mixed-use proximate CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties to transit. Project must provide AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n: NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Other6 Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Score2 on FAR and headway (e.g., SMAQMM). safe and convenient pedestrian frequencies and bicycle access to all transit (Nelson/Nygaard stops within one-quarter mile. Consulting Associates 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). SIM D-2: LD (R, C, M), 0.4%-10/,/Moderate: Yes Yes {Dierkers Yesl Adverse: No CA air quality Project is oriented towards )rientation to I, SP, TP, CCAP attributes a et al. 2007) (Dierkers et Beneficial: management and control existing transit, bicycle, or ;xisting/Planned AQP, RR, 0.5% reduction per 1% al. 2p07) CAPS, TACs districts and citieslcounties pedestrian corridor. Setback 'ransit, P/Mobile improvement in transit (e.g., SMAQMD). distance between project and 3ikeway, or frequency (Dierkers et existing or planned adjacent 'edestrian al. 2007). SMAQMD uses is minimized or :omdor presents a range of nonexistent. Setback distance 0.25%-5% (JSA 2005, between different buildings on EDAW 2006 project site is minimized. SMAQMD2007). Setbacksbetween project buildings and planned or existing sidewalks are minimized. Buildings are oriented towards existing or planned street frontage. Primary entrances to buildings are located along planned or existing public street frontage. Project provides bicycle access to any planned bicycle corridor(s). Project provides pedestrian access to any planned pedestrian corridor(s). M M D-3: LD (R, C, M), 0.5%-51/o/Moderate Yes Yes Yes Adverse: No CA air quality Project provides on-site shops Services I, SP, TP, Beneficial: management and control and services for employees. Dperational AQP, RR, CAPS, TACs districts and citieslcounties P/Mobile (e.g., SMAQMD). AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material: BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation: CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; CCAP=Center for Clean Air Policy: CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide: DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U S. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=EdmontonTrolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas: FAR=Floor Area Ratio; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter: km=Kilometeri. Ib --pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NISTNational Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx-Oxides of Nitroon; NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South: PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metrrpofitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SOz Sulfur Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants: TDM=Transportation Demand Management; � MA=Transportation Management Association; THC --Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-15 Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes/Na) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 LogisticaP Reduction/Score PNM D-4: LD (R, M), 1%-40%/High: #7, Yes Yes (VTPI Yesi(VTPI Adverse: No CA air quality Project provides high-density Residential SP, TP, AQP, EPA presents a range E:. 2007, 2007, Beneficial: management and control residential development. Transit Density (Employ RR, P/Mobile of 32%-40% (EPA Holtzclaw Hol&c:law CAPs, TACs districts and cities/counties facilities must be within one - ,sufficient 2006). SMAQMD 2007) 2007) (e.g., SMAQMD). quarter mile of project border. Density for New presents a range of Project provides safe and 1(esidential 1%-12% depending on convenientbicycle/pedestrian Development to density and headway access to all transit stop(s) �iupport the Use frequencies :. within one-quartermile of of Public Transit) (Nelson/Nygaard project border. Consulting Associates 2005, JSA 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Nelson/Nygaard presents a trip reduction formula: Trip Reduction= 0.6*(1- (19749*((4.814+ households per residential acre)/(4.814+7.14))^- 06.39)/25914). MM D-5: Street LD (R, C, M), 1%/Moderate: Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes Adverse: No CA air quality Multiple and direct street Grid 1, SP, TP, SMAQMD presents et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: management and control routing (grid style). This AQP, RR, this % reduction (JSA VTPI 2007) al. 2007, CAPs, TACs districts and cities/counties measure only applies to projects AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material: BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation: CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; CCAP=Center for Clean Air Policy: CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide: DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U S. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=EdmontonTrolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas: FAR=Floor Area Ratio; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter: km=Kilometeri. Ib --pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NISTNational Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx-Oxides of Nitroon; NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South: PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metrrpofitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SOz Sulfur Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants: TDM=Transportation Demand Management; � MA=Transportation Management Association; THC --Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-15 Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Feasible (YeslNo) Secondary Effects (Yes/No) Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical$ i° VTi'I 2007) `i i Agency/Organization(0ther6 Description/Comments (e.g., SMAQMM). with an internal CF >/= 0.80, and average of one-quarter mile or less between external connections along perimeter of project. [CF= # of intersections J y (# of cul-de-sacs+ intersections)]. Cul-de-sacs with bicycle/pedestrian through access may be considered "complete intersections" when calculating the project's internal connectivity factor. External connections are bikelpedestrian pathways and access points, or streets with safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access that connect the project to adjacent streets, sidewalks, and uses. If project site is adjacent to undeveloped land; streets, pathways, access points, and right-of-ways that provide for future access to adjacent uses may count for up to 50% of the external connections. Block perimeter (the sum of the measurement of the length of all block sides) is limited to no more than 1,350 feet. Streets internal to the project should connect to streets external to the project whenever possible. Mitigation Applicable Effective Measure Project/Source Type, Emissions Reduction/Scorez P/Mobile 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Feasible (YeslNo) Secondary Effects (Yes/No) Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical$ i° VTi'I 2007) `i i Agency/Organization(0ther6 Description/Comments (e.g., SMAQMM). with an internal CF >/= 0.80, and average of one-quarter mile or less between external connections along perimeter of project. [CF= # of intersections J y (# of cul-de-sacs+ intersections)]. Cul-de-sacs with bicycle/pedestrian through access may be considered "complete intersections" when calculating the project's internal connectivity factor. External connections are bikelpedestrian pathways and access points, or streets with safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access that connect the project to adjacent streets, sidewalks, and uses. If project site is adjacent to undeveloped land; streets, pathways, access points, and right-of-ways that provide for future access to adjacent uses may count for up to 50% of the external connections. Block perimeter (the sum of the measurement of the length of all block sides) is limited to no more than 1,350 feet. Streets internal to the project should connect to streets external to the project whenever possible. AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Bie,AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=Califorma Department of Transportation; OAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC,. I'=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services: DOE=U S,. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA --U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton4rolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometer; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrogen; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=Nortb/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: SMAQMD=Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SOc Sulfur Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs--Toxic Air Contaminants: TDM=Transportation Demand Management; 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council: and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-17 Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organaation/Other6 Description/Comments Measure ProjectlSource Effects Type' (Yes1No) Emissions Cost(Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logisticals ReductioniScore MM D-6: NEV LD (R, C, M), 0.5%-1.51/o/Low: Yes Yes (Litman Yes (Litman Adverse: No CA air quality Make physical development Access SP, TP, AQP, SMAQMD presents 1999, 1999, Beneficial: management and control consistent with requirements for RR, P/Mobile this % reduction Sperling Sperling CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties neighborhood electric vehicles. (EDAW 2006, 1994) 1994) (e.g., SMAQMD). Current studies show that for SMAQMD 2007). most trips, NEVs do not repla�—� gas -fueled vehicles as the primary vehicle. MM D-7: LD (R, M), 0.4%-6%/Moderate: Yes Yes Yes Adverse: No CA air quality Residential development Affordable SP, TP, AQP, SMAQMD presents Beneficial: management and control projects of five or more Housing RR, P/Mobile this %reduction CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties dwelling units provide a deed - Component (Nelson/Nygaard (e.g., SMAQMD). restricted low-income housing Consulting Associates component on-site (or as 2005, EDAW 2006, defined in the code). Developers SMAQMD 2007). who pay into In -Lieu Fee Programs are not considered eligible to receive credit for this measure. The award of emission reduction credit shall be based only on the proportion of affordable housing developed on-site because in -lieu programs simply induce a net increase iT development. Percentage reduction shall be calculated according to the following formula: AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Bie,AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=Califorma Department of Transportation; OAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC,. I'=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services: DOE=U S,. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA --U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton4rolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometer; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrogen; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=Nortb/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: SMAQMD=Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SOc Sulfur Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs--Toxic Air Contaminants: TDM=Transportation Demand Management; 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council: and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-17 Mitigation Applicable Effective Measure Project/Source Type' Emissions Reduction/Score2 MM D-8: LD (R, M), NA/Low .Recharging Area SP, TP, AQP, RR, P/Mobile Table 16 Yes (EPA Yes (EPA Adverse: No CA air quality Development of projects Mitigation Measure Summary 2006) 2006) Beneficial: management and control Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Other6 Description/Comments properties on which various Effects (e.g., SMAQMD). uses, such as office, (Yes/No) following on site and/or offsite Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical5 i 2007). i` I! CAPS, TACs % reduction = % units deed - single building or on a single P/Mobile restricted below market rate site in an integrated housing * 0.04 Yes Yes Yes Adverse: No Provide residential buildings _ (' Beneficial: with a "utility" room or space a coherent physical design. CAPS, TACs for recharging batteries, whether 2007). for use in a car, electric lawnmower, other electric Space, or Office. MM D-11: Other LD (R, M), landscaping equipment, or even Yes Yes (EPA Yes'(EPA batteries for small items such as j All residential units are within flashlights. MM D-9: Urban LD (M), SP, 3%-9%/Moderate: Yes Yes (EPA Yes (EPA Adverse: No CA air quality Development of projects Mixed -Use TP, AQP, RR, SMAQMD presents 2006) 2006) Beneficial: management and control predominantly characterized by P/Mobile this % reduction CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties properties on which various (TIAX 2005, EDAW (e.g., SMAQMD). uses, such as office, 2006, SMAQMD following on site and/or offsite commercial, institutional, and 2007). i` residential, are combined in a CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties single building or on a single P/Mobile j site in an integrated development project with Residential Development. Retail ftmctional interrelationships w a coherent physical design. MM D-10: LD (R, C, M), 3%/Moderate: Yes Yes (EPA Yesi(EPA Adverse: No CA air quality Have at least three of the Suburban Mixed- I, SP, TP, SMAQMDpresents 2006) 2009) Beneficial: management and control following on site and/or offsite Use AQP, RR, this % reduction CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties within one-quarter mile: P/Mobile (TIAX 2005, EDAW (e.g., SMAQMD). Residential Development. Retail 2006, SMAQMD Development, Park, Open 2007). Space, or Office. MM D-11: Other LD (R, M), 1%/Moderate: Yes Yes (EPA Yes'(EPA Adverse: No CA air quality All residential units are within Mixed -Use SP, TP, AQP, SMAQMD presents 2006) 2006) Beneficial: management and control one-quarter mile of parks, RR, P/Mobile this % reduction j CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties schools or other civic uses. (TIAX 2005, EDAW (e.g., SMAQMD). C :3 Mitigation Applicable Effective Measure Project/Source Type' Table 11 Mitigation Measur Summary Feasible(Y Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Reduction/Scorez Secondary Effects (Yes/No) AgencylOrganization/Other6 Description/Comments AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Sustainability: CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; ( Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide: DGS=Department of General Services: DOE= and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmont GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilome NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx—oxides o fNiti PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: SMAQMD-Sacramento M Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs--Toxic Air Contaminants: TDM=Transportation Demand Managemel Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Menter for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Department of Energy: DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol: EERE=Energy Efficiency °rolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; lb=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n: NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association: THC --Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission 2006, SMAQMD 2007). MM D-12: Infill LD (R, C, M), 3%-300/o/High: Infill Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes : Adverse: No CA air quality Project site is on a vacant infill Development I, SP, TP, development reduces et al. 2007) (Dikerset Beneficial: management and control site, redevelopment area, or AQP, RR, vehicle trips and VMT al. ZK7) CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties brownfield or greyfield lot tha P/Mobile by 3 % and 20%, (e.g., SMAQMD). is highly accessible to regional respectively (Fehr & destinations, where the Peers 2007). CCAP destinations rating of the identifies a site level development site (measured as VMT reduction range the weighted average travel time of 20%-30% (Dierkers to all other regional et al. 2007). destinations) is improved by 100% when compared to an alternate greenfield site. MM D-13: LD (R, M), 1%/Low: SMAQMD Yes Yes Yes Adverse: No CA air quality Provide a complimentary Electric SP, AQP, RR, presents this % Beneficial: management and control electric lawnmowerto each Lawnmower P/Area reduction (EDAW CAPs, TACs districts and cities/counties residential buyer. 2006, SMAQMD (e.g., SMAQMD). 2007). AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Sustainability: CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants; ( Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide: DGS=Department of General Services: DOE= and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmont GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilome NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx—oxides o fNiti PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: SMAQMD-Sacramento M Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs--Toxic Air Contaminants: TDM=Transportation Demand Managemel Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Menter for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Department of Energy: DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol: EERE=Energy Efficiency °rolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; lb=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n: NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association: THC --Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission 10H Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technicals Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez I NM D-14: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes E Adverse: No CIWMB Provide infrastructure/education nhanced I, SP, AQP, Association Beneficial: that promotes the avoidance of Zecyciing/Waste RR, with, -;social CAPS, TACs products with excessive Zeduction, P/Stationary awareness. packaging, recycle, buying of Zeuse, & Area 4 refills, separating of food and _ -omposting yard waste for composting, anu using rechargeable batteries. NIM D-15: LD (R, C, M), NA/Moderate Yes: Receive Yes Yes-,- More Adverse: No USGBC, CA air quality LEED promotes a whole- -EED 1, SP, AQP, tax rebates, than 700 Beneficial: management and control building approach to 2ertification RR, incentives buildings of CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties sustainability by recognizing P/Stationary (e.g., EDAW different (e.g., BAAQMD). performance in five key areas of & Area San Diego certifications human and environmental office interior in CA health: sustainable site remodel cost (USGBC development, water savings, $1,700,000 2000. energy efficiency, materials for 32,500 selection and indoor square feet) k. environmental quality. (USGBC 2007) MM D-16: LD (C, M), I, 8%-10% reduction in Yes: Average Yes Yes_27 Adverse: No DGS, CA air quality The process ensures that all [petro- SP, AQP, RR, energy $0.28/square projects Beneficial: management and control building systems perform Commissioning P/Stationary usage/Moderate: (Mills feet, varies underway in CAPS, IACs districts and cities/counties interactively according to the & Area et al. 2004) with building CA,21 more (e.g., BAAQMD). contract documents, the design size (Haasl to be intent and the owner's and Sharp completed in operational needs to optimize 1999). 2007, mostly energy performance. state buildings owned by DGS (DGS 2007). MM D-17 LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes Adverse: No Alliance for the Project shall use drought Landscaping I, SP, AQP, Beneficial: Chesapeake Bay, EPA resistant native trees, trees with RR, CAPS, TACs Green Landscaping low emissions and high carbon 10H Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source j Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 LogisticaP Reduction/Scorez P/Stationary Resources sequestration potential. & Area j Evergreen trees on the north and !' west sides afford the best �! protection from the setting summer sun and cold winter winds. Additional considerations include the use j of deciduous trees on the south side of the house that will admit summer sun; evergreen plantings on the north side will slow cold winter winds; constructing a natural planted channel to funnel summer cooling breezes into the house. Neighborhood CCR's not requiring that front and side yards of single family homes be planted with turf grass. Vegetable gardens, bunch grass, and low-water landscaping shall also be permitted, or even --1 encouraged. MM D-18: Local LD (M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes:1' Adverse: No Cities/counties (e.g., Project shall dedicate space in a Farmers' Market SP/Mobile, Associated Beneficial: Davis, Sacramento) centralized, accessible location Stationary, & with. social CAPS, TACs for a weekly farmers' market. AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation, CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants. CCAP=Center for Clean An Policy, CF=Connectivity Factor, CIWMB=Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board; CO-- Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=UIS. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmontonlirolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometee lb -pound; LEER --Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million: NA=Not Available; NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrogen; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metrppolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SOS Sulfur Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-21 B-22 �' Table 16 MiticlationMeasure Summary Mitigafion Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Mean" Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes{No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)' Technical' 1,41 isticals Reduction/Scorez 4° Area choice and public t;: aw4erless. MMD-19: LD (M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes:({.: Adverse: No Cities/counties (e.g., Project shall dedicate space for Community SP/Mobile, Ass !`ci ated q Beneficial: Davis) community communi g Gardens Stationary, & with'social CAPS, TACs Area choice and public t.. awareness. MM E-1: High- LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes . Adverse: No CA air quality Project shall use high-efficiency Efficiency SP, AQP, RR, Beneficial: management and control pumps. Pumps P/Stationary CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties & Area 4 (e.g., BAAQMD). MM E-2: Wood LD (R, M), NA/Low: EDAW 2006 Yes Yes lyes Adverse: No CA air quality Project does not feature Burning SP, AQP, RR, Beneficial: management and control fireplaces or wood burning Fireplaces/Stoves P/Stationary OAPs, TACs districts and cities/counties stoves. &Area (e.g., SMAQMD). MM E-3: LD (R, M), NA/Low: EDAW 2006 Yes: Cost of Yes ;Yes Adverse: No CA air quality Project features only natural gas Natural Gas SP, AQP, RR, stove—$350 Beneficial: management and control or electric stoves in residences - Stove P/Stationary (gas) and CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties & Area $360 (e.g., SMAQMD). (electric) same brand, total yearly cost of $42.17 as opposed to I $56.65 for electric (Saving Electricity 2006). B-22 �' AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; B Sustainability: CA=California; Ca1Wms=Calitbmia Department of Transportation; CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants: CC. Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO27—Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; k2/m2=kilogram per square metcr; km=Kilometei NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology: NOy=Oxides of Nitro PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD--Sacramento Metr Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council: and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. is 3 AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District: BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic F'=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste {. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel) particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; FERE=Energy Efficiency Frolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas: FAR=Floor Area Ratio; lb=pound: LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric: )olitan Air Quality Management District: SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SQ, Sulfur "MA=Transportation Management Association: THC --Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measuri Summary F (Mitigation Applicable Effective Feaslble(YeslNo) Secondary Agency/Organization/Other6 Description/Comments Measure ProjectlSource Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost(Yes/Nor Technical4 Uo istical5 Reduction/Scorez 3M E-4: LD (R, C, M), 0.5%-I%/Low: Yes Yes Yes `8166 Adverse: No CA air quality Project installs Energy Star Energy Star Roof I, SP, AQP, SMAQMD presents Energy Star Beneficial: management and control labeled roof materials. RR, this % reduction labeled CAPS, TACs districts and citiesicounties P/Stationary (EDAW 2006, buildings in (e.g., SMAQMM). & Area SMAQMD 2007). Cali fomia (Enggy Star 2007) MM E-5: On- LD (R, C, M), 1%-31/o/Moderate: Yes Yes (USGBC Yes; Adverse: No CA air quality Project provides onsite site Renewable I, SP, AQP, SMAQMD presents 2002 and (USG13C Beneficial: management and control renewable energy system(s). Energy System RR, this Yo reduction 2005) 2002- and CAPS, TACs districts and citiesicounties Nonpolluting and renewable P/Stationary (USGBC 2002 and 2001) (e.g., SMAQMM). energy potential includes solar, & Area 2005, EDAW 2006, wind, geothermal, low -impact SMAQMD 2007). hydro, biomass and bio -gas strategies. When applying these strategies, projects may take advantage of net metering with the local utility. AG=Attorney General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; B Sustainability: CA=California; Ca1Wms=Calitbmia Department of Transportation; CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants: CC. Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO27—Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; k2/m2=kilogram per square metcr; km=Kilometei NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology: NOy=Oxides of Nitro PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD--Sacramento Metr Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council: and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. is 3 AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District: BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic F'=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste {. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel) particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; FERE=Energy Efficiency Frolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas: FAR=Floor Area Ratio; lb=pound: LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric: )olitan Air Quality Management District: SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SQ, Sulfur "MA=Transportation Management Association: THC --Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Other6 Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' �ii (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/Nor Technicals Lo6istical5 ReductioNScorez MM E-6: LD (R, C, M), 1 %/Moderate: Yes Yes (PG&E Yes (PG&E Adverse: No PG&E, SMUD, CA air Project exceeds title 24 Exceed Title 24 I, GSP, AQP, SMAQMDpresents 2002, SMUD 2002, Beneficial: quality management and requirements by 20%. RR, this % reduction 2006) SM>!JD CAPs, TACs control districts and P/Stationary (EDAW 2006, 200 A) cities/counties (e.g., & Area SMAQMD 2007). ?: SMAQMD). MM E-7: Solar LD (R, C, M), 0.50/o/Low: SMAQMD Yes Yes Ives Adverse: No CA air quality Project orients 75% or more of _. Orientation I, SP, AQP, presents this % Beneficial: management and control homes and/or buildings to face RR, reduction (EDAW CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties either north or south (within 30° P/Stationary 2006, SMAQMD (e.g., SMAQMD). ofN/S). Building design & Area 2007). includes roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows. Trees, other landscaping features and other buildings are sited in such a way as to maximize shade in the summer and maximize solar access to walls and windows in the winter. MM E-8: LD (R, C, M), 1.01/o/Low: SMAQMD Yes Yes (USGBC Yes f Adverse: No CA air quality Provide shade (within 5 years) Nonroof 1, GSP, AQP, presents this % 2002 and (USGBC Beneficial: management and control and/or use light-colored/high- Surfaces RR, reduction (EDAW 2005) 2002 and CAPs, TACs districts and cities/counties albedo materials (reflectance of P/Stationary 2006, SMAQMD 200$) (e.g., SMAQMD). at least 0.3) and/or open grid & Area 2007). pavement for at least 30% of the site's nonroof impervious surfaces, including parking lots, walkways, plazas, etc.; OR place a minimum of 50% of parking spaces underground or covered by structured parking; OR use an open -grid pavement system (less than 50% impervious) for a minimum of Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/ 10) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source [ Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Reduction/Scorez AG=Attomey General; ARB=Califomia Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation, CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants, C Management Board. CO= Carbon Monoxide, CO2=Carbon Dioxide, DGS=Department of General Services, DOE and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmont GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilome NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitr PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Me Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Managemer Vehicle, USGBC=U S Green Building Council. and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy B-25 50% of the parking lot area. The mitigation measure reduces heat islands (thermal gradient differences between developed and undeveloped areas to minimize impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitats. This measure requires the use of patented or copyright protected methodologies created by the ASTM. The SRI is a measure of the constructed surface's ability to reflect solarheat, as shown by a small rise in temperature. It is defined so that a standard black (reflectance 0.05, emittance 0.90) is "0" and a standard white (reflectance 0.80, emittance 0.90) is 100. To calculate SRI for a given material, obtain the reflectance value and emittance value for the materiaL SRI is calculated according to ASTM E 1980-01. Reflectance is measured AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy, CF=Connectivity Factor, CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Department of Energy, DPF=Diesel particulate Filter, E85=85% Ethanol, EERE=Energy Efficiency Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SOS Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Sou rce Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logisbcal5 Reduction/Score2 according to ASTM E 903, ASTM E 1918, or ASTM C 1549. Emittance is measured according to ASTM E 408 or ASTM C 1371. Default value? for some materials will be available in the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide. MM E-9: Low- LD (C, M), 1, 1%-101/o/Low: EDAW Yes Yes (USGBC Yes'- Adverse: No CA air quality Project optimizes building's Energy Cooling SP, AQP, RR, presents this percent 2002 and (USGBC Beneficial: management and control thermal distribution by P/Stationary reduction range 2005) 200 t'. and CAPS, TACs districts and cities/counties separating ventilation and & Area EDAW 2006. 2000 (e.g., SMA MD). thermal conditioning systems. MM E40: LD (R, C, M), 1.0%/Moderate: Yes Yes (USGBC Yes ' Adverse: CA air quality Install a vegetated roof that Green Roof 1, SP, AQP, SMAQMD presents 2002 and (USGBC Increased management and control covers at least 50% of roof area. RR, this % reduction 2005) 2004- and Water districts and cities/counties The reduction assumes that a P/Stationary (EDAW 2006, 200 ) Consumption (e.g., SMAQMD). vegetated roof is installed on a & Area SMAQMD 2007). Beneficial: least 50% of the roof area or CAPs, TACs that a Combination high albedo and vegetated roof surface is installed that meets the following standard: (Area of SRI Roof/0.75)+(Area of vegetated roof/0.5) >= Total Roof Area. Water consumption reduction measures shall be considered in the design of the green roof. MM E-11: EV LD (C, M), NA/Low Yes: $500- Yes Yes'381 Adverse: No DOE, EERE, CA air Project installs EV charging Charging SP, AQP, RR, $5000/ facilities in Beneficial: quality management and facilities. Facilities P/Stationary vehicle site CAlean CAPs, TACs control districts and & Area (PG&E 1999) Air taps cities/counties (e.g., 2007). BAAQMD). MM E-12: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low: Increasing Yes: Light Yes Yes Apply Adverse: No Project provides light-colored B-26 AG=Attomey General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; OAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants: C Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE= and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmont( GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilomel NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides ofNitr PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: SMAQMD=Sacramento Me Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Managemer Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-27 AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=Califomia Integrated Waste I. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency 'Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural G3s;FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; in; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District: SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 16 Mitigation Measuri' Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yesl"d) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (YeslNo)3 Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez Light -Colored I, SP, AQP, the albedo of 1,250 kin colored natu61 sand Beneficial: paving (e.g_, increased albedo Paving RR, of pavement by 0.25 aggregates or gravel CAPS, TACs pavement). P/Stationary would save cooling and white colored & Area energy worth $15M cement are single per year. more surface ' expensive treallnents to than gray asphalt cement. (EOE 2007). Certain blended cements are very light in color and may reflect similarly to white cement at an equivalent cost to normal gray cement. ]MM E-13: Cool LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes: 0.75— Yes Yes., -Over Adverse: No CEC Project provides cool roofs. ]Roofs 1, SP, AQP, 1.5/square 90-4 of the Beneficial: Highly reflective, highly RR, feet coating rooin the CAPS, TACs emissive roofing materials that P/Stationary (EPA 2007a) Unified stay 50-60°F cooler than a & Area States, are normal roof under a hot summer dark colored sun. CA's Cool Savings AG=Attomey General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; Sustainability; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; OAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants: C Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE= and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmont( GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilomel NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides ofNitr PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: SMAQMD=Sacramento Me Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Managemer Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-27 AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=Califomia Integrated Waste I. Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency 'Tolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural G3s;FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; in; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District: SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon: ULEV=Ultra Low Emission :j Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (YesINo) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure ProlectlSource ! Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/Nor Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez (EP� Program provided rebates to 2007a). building owners for installing roofing materials with high solar reflectance and thermal emittance. The highest rebate I„ went to roofs on air conditioner.. buildings, while buildings with rooftop ducts and other t nonresidential buildings were eligible for slightly less. The program aimed to reduce peak summer electricity demand and was administered by the CEC. VIM E-14: Solar LD (R, M), 201/o-70% reduction in Yes: Yes Yesix Based Adverse: No Europe Project provides solar water Water Heaters SP, AQP, RR, cooling energy $1675/20 on solar Beneficial: heaters_ P/Stationary needs/Moderate square feet, orientation, CAPS, TACs & Area requires a 50 building gallon tank, codes, annual zoning operating cost ordtiances. of $176 (DOE 2007). VIM E-15: LD (R, M), NA/Low Yes: $75– Yes Yes;-- Adverse: No Project provides electrical -.lectric Yard SP, AQP, RR, $250/outlet Beneficial: outlets at building exterior ?quipment P/Stationary from existing CAPs, TACs areas. 'ompatibility & Area circuit (Cost Helper 2007). VIM E-16: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes: Varies Yes Yes." Major Adverse: No Project uses energy efficient ?nergy Efficient SP, AQP, RR, for each retail stores. Beneficial: appliances (e.g., Energy Star). appliance P/Stationary appliance— CAPs, TACs >tandards & Area higher capital costs, lower operating i costs (Energy :j AG=Attomey General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; B Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=1.1 and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmontor GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometer NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metr Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs--Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle, USGBC=U S Green Building Council, and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. .AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency Frolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; NIS=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; Dolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SQ, Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission EI Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/0) TiEffects Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Type (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical$ Logistical5 ReductionlScore2 Star 2007). MM E-17: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low: 25-30% Yes Yes: BEES Yes Adverse: No Project uses materials which are Green Building SP, AQP, RR, more efficient on software Beneficial: resource efficient, recycled, Materials P/Stationary average. allows users CAPS, TACs with long life cycles and & Area to balance the manufactured in an environmental environmentally friendly way. and economic performance of building products; developed by NIST (NIST 2007). MM E-18: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low: Up to $450 Yes: Higher Yes YesilMajor Adverse: No Install energy -reducing shading Shading I, SP, AQP, annual energy savings capital costs, retai stores. Beneficial: mechanisms for windows, Mechanisms RR, (Energy Star 2007). lower CAPS, TACs porch, patio and walkway P/Stationary, , operating and overhangs. &Area maintenance costs (Energy Star 2007). AG=Attomey General; ARB=California Air Resources Board; ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; B Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; DGS=Department of General Services; DOE=1.1 and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmontor GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m'=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometer NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrol PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metr Oxides; SRI=Solar Reflectance Index; TACs--Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle, USGBC=U S Green Building Council, and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. .AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency Frolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; Ib=pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; NIS=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; Dolitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SQ, Sulfur 'MA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission i B-30 Es Table 1d Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure ProjectlSource N Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Lodistical5 Reduction/Score2 VIM E-19: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low: 50% more Yes: $45- Yes Yes:'Major Adverse: No Install energy -reducing Ceiling/Whole- I, SP, AQP, efficient than $200/fan, retail, stores. Beneficial: ceiling/whole-house fans. House Fans RR, conventional fans installation CAPS, TACs P/Stationary, (Energy Star 2007). extra (Lowe's & Area 2007). MM E-20: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low: $100 annual Yes: Yes Yes:,Major Adverse: Yes, Install energy -reducing Programmable I, SP, AQP, savings in energy costs $60/LCD retail stores. Mercury programmable thermostats that Thermostats RR, (Energy Star 2007)_ display and 4 Beneficial: automatically adjust P1Stationary, settings for CAPS, TACs temperature settings. & Area typical i residential use (Lowe's s. 2007). MM E-21: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes: $800 Yes Yes Adverse: No Install energy -reducing passive Passive Heating 1, SP, AQP, (wall heaters) Beneficial: heating and cooling systems and Cooling RR, to $4,000+ ` CAPs, TACs (e.g., insulation and ventilation). Systems P1Stationary, (central & Area systems) I! MM E-22: Day LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes: $1,300 Yes Yesr" Work Adverse: No Install energy -reducing day Lighting Systems I, SP, AQP, to $1,500 wellFonly for Beneficial: lighting systems (e.g., skylights, RR depending space near CAPS, TACs light shelves and interior P/Stationary, upon the kind the rof of transom windows). & Area of roof the Iuilding, (Barrier little' benefit 1995), in multi - installation flooi, extra. buildings. MM E-23: Low- LD (R, C, M), NA/Low: Avoided Yes: Can Yes Yes Adverse: No Require the installation of low - Water Use I, SP, AQP, water agency cost for return their Beneficial: water use appliances. Appliances RR, using water -efficient cost through CAPS, TACs P/Stationary, kitchen pre -rinse spray reduction in & Area valves of $65.18 per water acre-foot. consumption, i B-30 Es AG=Attorney General, ARB=California Air Resources Board, ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material, B Sustainability; CA --California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC, Management Board, CO= Carbon Monoxide, CO2=Carbon Dioxide, DGS=Department of General Services, DOE U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometer NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides ofNitrog PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metn Oxides; SRI --Solar Reflectance Index, TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle, USGBC=U S Green Building Council, and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy C it �AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic tenter for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste p. Department of Energy, DPF=Diesel particulate Filter, E85=85% Ethanol, FERE=Energy Efficiency rolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; ib --pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; !n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; politan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SQ, Sulfur CMA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Table 1d Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technicals Lodistical5 Reduction/Scorez pumping, and I treatment. MM E-24: LD (C, M), I, NA/Moderate Yes Yes es Adverse: No ARB Goods Movement Provide a spur at nonresidential Goods Transport SP, AQP, RR, Beneficial: Plan (ARB 2007) projects to use nearby rail for by Rail P/Mobile CAPS, TACs goods movement. MENIMENEINEM j MM S-1: GHG LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes: Similar Adverse: No Provide local governments, Emissions 1, SP, TP, programs Beneficial: businesses, and residents with Reductions AQP, RR, currently CAPs, TACs guidancelprotocolslinformation Education P/Mobile, exist in CA. on how to reduce GHG Stationary, & emissions (e.g., energy saving, Mobile' food miles). MM S-2: School LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes Similar Adverse: No Include how to reduce GHG Curriculum I, SP, TP, proams Beneficial: emissions (e.g., energy saving, AQP, RR, currently CAPs, TACs food miles) in the school P/Mobile, exist in CA. curriculum. Stationary, & Mobile MM C-1: ARB- LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes: Yes `Yes Adverse: Yes, AG, EPA, ARB, and CA Use ARB-certifieddiesel ' Certified Diesel I, SP, TP, Oxidation NO,, air quality management construction equipment. Construction AQP, RR, Catalysts, " Beneficial: and pollution control Increases CO2 emissions when Equipment P/Mobile $1,000- CAPS, TACs districts. trapped CO and carbon particles AG=Attorney General, ARB=California Air Resources Board, ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material, B Sustainability; CA --California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAPS=Criteria Air Pollutants; CC, Management Board, CO= Carbon Monoxide, CO2=Carbon Dioxide, DGS=Department of General Services, DOE U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETC=Edmonton GHG=Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers; kg/m2=kilogram per square meter; km=Kilometer NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides ofNitrog PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Metn Oxides; SRI --Solar Reflectance Index, TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management; Vehicle, USGBC=U S Green Building Council, and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy C it �AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic tenter for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=California Integrated Waste p. Department of Energy, DPF=Diesel particulate Filter, E85=85% Ethanol, FERE=Energy Efficiency rolley Coalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas; FAR=Floor Area Ratio; ib --pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; !n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; politan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SQ, Sulfur CMA=Transportation Management Association; THC=Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission B-32 Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (YesRNo) Secondary Agency/Organizationl0ther6 Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Logistical5 Reduction/Scorez $2,000. are oxidized (Catalyst Products DPF, $5000- V 2007, ETC 2007). $10,000; installation extra (EPA " 2007b). VIM C-2: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yeses Adverse: Yes, AG, EPA, ARB, and CA Use alternative fuel types for alternative Fuel I, SP, TP, THC, NO, air quality management construction equipment. At the Sonstruction AQP, RR, Beneficial: and pollution control tailpipe biodiesel emits 10% equipment P/Mobile CO, PM, SO, districts. more CO2 than petroleum [ diesel. Overall lifecycle emissions of CO2 from 100% biodiesel are 78% lower than those of petroleum diesel (NREL 1998, EPA 2007b). VIM C-3: Local LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Yes:11i Adverse: No Use locally made building 3uilding I, SP, TP, Depdnds on Beneficial: materials for construction of the Materials AQP, RR, locaon of CAPS, TACs project and associated P/Mobile building infrastructure. material manufacture sitesIll VIM C4: LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes ,lyes Adverse: No Recycle/Reuse demolished Zecycle I, SP, TP, Beneficial: construction material. Use 3emolished AQP, RR, 'a CAPs, TACs locally made building materials Sonstruction P/Mobile for construction of the project Material and associated infrastructure. B-32 Mitigation Applicable Effective Measure Project/Source Type, Emissions ReductionlScore2 INM M-1: Off- LD (R, C, M), "Moderate -High: Site Mitigation I, SP, TP, Though there is Fee Program AQP, RR, currently no program P/Mobile & in place, the potential Area for real and quantifiable reductions of GHG emissions could be high if a defensible fee program were designed. AMM M-2: Offset LD (R, C, M), NA/Low Yes Yes Purchase I, SP, TP, AQP, RR, P/Mobile, Stationary, & Area � PCD 9510, F No 'ARB No Provide/purchase offsets for has not additional emissions by ad .ted acquiring carbon credits or - offiial proram,but engaging in other market "cap and trade" systems. AG=Attomey General; ARB=California Air Resources Board: ASTM=American Society for Testing and Material; I Sustainability; CA=Califomia; Caltrans=Califomia Department of Transportation; CAPs=Criteria Air Pollutants: CC Management Board; CO= Carbon Monoxide; CO2=Carbon Dioxide: DGS=Department of General Services: DOE=U and Renewable Energy; EOE=Encyclopedia of Earth; EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: ETC=Edmontor GHG—Greenhouse Gas; ITE=Institute of Transportation Engineers: kg/m2=kilogram per square meter: km=Kilomete, NEV=Neighborhood Electric Vehicle; NIST=National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOx=Oxides of Nitrop PM=Particulate Matter; SJVAPCD=San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SMAQMD=Sacramento Mete Oxides; SRI --Solar Reflectance Index; TACs=Toxic Air Contaminants; TDM=Transportation Demand Management: Vehicle; USGBC=U.S. Green Building Council; and VTPI=Victoria Transit Policy. B-33 AQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BEES= Building for Environmental and Economic P=Center for Clean Air Policy; CF=Connectivity Factor; CIWMB=Califomia Integrated Waste Department of Energy; DPF=Diesel particulate Filter; E85=85% Ethanol; EERE=Energy Efficiency rolleyCoalition; EVs/CNG=Electric Vehicles/Compressed Natural Gas: FAR=Floor Area Ratio; lb pound; LEED=Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; M=Million; NA=Not Available; n; NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory; N/S=North/South; PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric; )olitan Air Quality Management District; SMUD=Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; SO Sulfur MA=Transportation Management Association; THC --Total Hydrocarbon; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Note: Where LD (R, C, M) =Land Development (Residential, Commercial, Mixed-Use),1=Industrial, GP=General Dian, SP=Specific Plan, TP=Transportation Plans, AQP=Air Quality Plans, RR=Rules/Regulations, and P=Policy. It is important to note that listed project types may not be directly specific to the mitigation meldre (e.g., TP, AQP, RR, and P) as such could apply to a variety of source types, especially RR and P. *This score system entails ratings of high, moderate, and low that referto the level of the measure to provid la substantive, reasonably certain (e.g., documented emission reductions with proven technologies), and long-term reduction of GHG emissions. k_ a Refers to whether the measure would provide a cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions based on available documentation. `Refers to whether the measure is based on currently, readily available technology based on available docutentation. 5 Refers to whether the measure could be implemented without extraordinary effort based on available docuT ntation. 6 List is not meant to be all inclusive. Source: Data complied by EDAW in 2007 Table 16 Mitiaation Measure :Summary Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible(Yes/No) Secondary Agency/Organization/Others Description/Comments Measure Project/Source Effects Type' (Yes/No) Emissions Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical4 Ioiisticals Reduction/Scorezj currently exist. MM RTP -1: RTP Yes Yeses Adverse: Caltrans, local government Evaluate the trip reduction (apr - , Dedicate High 1 possible local GHG reduction) potential of OccupancyCO adding HOV lanes prior to Vehicle (HOV) Beneficial: adding standard lanes. lanes prior to regional adding capacity CAPs, TACs to existing highways. MMRTP-2: RTP Yes Yes Y'es Adverse: Caltrans Evaluate price elasticity and Implement possible local associated trip reduction (and toll/user fee CO. GHG reduction) potential with programs prior to Beneficial: adding or increasing tolls prior adding capacity regional to adding capacity to existing to existing % CAPs, TACs highways. highways. Note: Where LD (R, C, M) =Land Development (Residential, Commercial, Mixed-Use),1=Industrial, GP=General Dian, SP=Specific Plan, TP=Transportation Plans, AQP=Air Quality Plans, RR=Rules/Regulations, and P=Policy. It is important to note that listed project types may not be directly specific to the mitigation meldre (e.g., TP, AQP, RR, and P) as such could apply to a variety of source types, especially RR and P. *This score system entails ratings of high, moderate, and low that referto the level of the measure to provid la substantive, reasonably certain (e.g., documented emission reductions with proven technologies), and long-term reduction of GHG emissions. k_ a Refers to whether the measure would provide a cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions based on available documentation. `Refers to whether the measure is based on currently, readily available technology based on available docutentation. 5 Refers to whether the measure could be implemented without extraordinary effort based on available docuT ntation. 6 List is not meant to be all inclusive. Source: Data complied by EDAW in 2007 Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Strategy Source Type' Agency/Organization2 Description/Comments - Adopt GHG redaction targets for the planning area, based on the current legislation providing direction for stateEwide targets, and update the plan as necessary. MS G-1: Adopt a GHG GP/ Mobile, City of San reduction plan Stationary, & Area Bernardino -The local goverment agency should serve as a model by inventorying its GHG emissions from agency operations, and implementing those reduction goals. - Create a gridded`street pattern,% ith small block sizes. This promotes walkability through direct routing and ease of navigation. -Maintain a high I vel of connectivity of the roadway network. Minimize cul-de-sacs and incomplete roadway segment . -Plan and maintai i an integrated ,hierarchical andmulti-modal system of roadways, pedestrian walks, and bicycle paths throughout the area. MS G-2: Provide for Cities/Counties convenient and safe local GP/ Mobile (e.g., Aliso Viejo, -Apply creative tr tffilb management approaches to address congestion in areas with unique problems, x. travel Claremont) particularly on ro ways and intersections in the vicinity of schools in the morning and afternoon peak hours, and near cl urches. parks and community centers. -Work with adjacent jurisdictions to address the impacts of regional developmentpatterns (e.g. resimdential deve1 went in surrounding communities,regional universities, employment centers, and comercial deve l pm ents) on the circulation system. -Actively promot walking as a safe mode of local travel, particularly for children attending local schools. -Employ traffic calming methods such as median landscaping and provision of bike or transit lanes to slow traffic, improve roadway capacity, and address safety issues. MS G-3• Enhance the -Encourage the ti'`ansportation authority to reduce fees for short distance trips. regional transportation Cities/Counties (e.g., network and maintain GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, -Ensure that imprl vements to the traffic corridors do not negatively impact the operation of local effectiveness Claremont) roadways and Ian 1 uses. Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigati° n Strategies Summary Strategy Source Type' AgencylOrganization2`' Description/Comments -Cooperate with ajacent jurisdictions to maintain adequate service levels at shared intersections and to 1japacity provide adequate on regional routes for through traffic. -Support initiatives to provide better public transportation. Work actively to ensure that public transportation is p of every regional transportation corridor. - Coordinate the fferent modes of travel to enable users to transfer easily from one mode to another. -Work to provide a strong paratransit system that promotes the mobility of all residents and educate residents about loeal mobility choices. - Promote transit-riented development to facilitate the use of the community's transit services. -Promote increase use of public transportation and support efforts to increase bus service range and MS G-4: Promote and frequency within the area as appropriate. support an efficient public transportation network I, Cities/Counties (e.g., -Enhance and encpurag e provision of attractive and appropriate transit amenities, including shaded bus connecting activity GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, stops, to encoural4e use of public transportation. centers in the area to each Claremont) � other and the region. -Encourage the sc 001 districts, private schools and other operators to coordinate local bussing and to expand ride-sha4,g All bussing be fully before programs. options should considered substantial roadway improvements are made in the vicinity of schools to ease congestion. -Improve area sidewalks and rights-of-way to make them efficient and appealing for walking and bicycling safely. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions and regional agencies to improve pedestrian MS G-5: Establish and and bicycle trails, ,,facilities, signage, and amenities. maintain a comprehensive' system, which is safe and -Provide safe and onvenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to and from town centers, other Cities/Counties (e.g., convenient of pedestrian ' p GP/ Mobile ways and bicycle routes Aliso Viejo, commercial distri -ts, office complexes, neighborhoods, schools, other major activity centers, and surrounding communities. that provide viable options to travel by Claremont) -Work with neighboring jurisdictions to provide well-designed pedestrian and bicycle crossings of automobile. major roadways. -Promote walkin k,' ;throughout the community. Install sidewalks where missing and make improvements B-37 Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Shkw SourceTypel AgencylOrganization2 Description/Comments to existing sidewalks for accessibility purposes. Particular attention should be given to needed sidewalk improvement near-schools and activity centers. -Encourage businesses or residents to sponsor street furniture and landscaped areas. - Strive to provid ;pedestrian pathways that are well shaded and pleasantly landscaped to encourage use. is - Attract bicyclists from neighboring communities to ride their bicycles or to bring their bicycles on the train to enjoy bicycling around the community and to support local businesses. Meet guidelines to become nationally recognized as a Bicycle-Friendly community. - Provide for an education program and stepped up code enforcement to address and minimize vegetation that degrades access along public rights-of-way. -Engage in discussions with transit providers to increase the number of bicycles that can be accommodated o abuses -Support regianalail and work with rail authority to expand services. I MS G-6: Achieve Cities/Counties e. g.- , Achieve better integration of all transit options. optimum use of regional GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, rail transit. Claremont) [ al transportation planning agencies to finance and provide incentives for multimoda' -Work with regioill., transportation syms. - Promote activitycenters and transit-oriented development projects around the transit station. -Encourage convenient public transit service between area and airports. MS G-7: Expand and Cities/Countiese.g'' optimize use of local and GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, -Support the esta ishment of a local shuttle to serve commercial centers. regional bus and transit , Claremont) rmont) r -promote conveni nt, clean, efficient, and accessible public transit that serves transit-dependent riders and attracts discrc tionary riders as an alternative to reliance on single-occupant automobiles. B-37 Table 17,i General Planning Level Mitigatn Strategies Summary Strategy Source Type' Agency/Organizationz Description/Comments M S G-8: Emphasize the onisertiva ion° of water maximizing the use of native, low-water landscaping. GP/Stationary & Area MS G-9: Improve air GPI Mobile, quality within the region. Stationary, & Area Cities/Counties (e.g., Aliso Viei, Claremontg Cities/Counties (e.g., Aliso Viejo, Claremont) - Empower senio4 and those with physical disabilities who desire maximum personal freedom and independence of lifestyle with unimpeded access to public transportation. -Integrate transit service and amenities with surrounding land uses and buildings. -Reduce the amount of water used for landscaping and increase use of native and low water plants. Maximize use of native, low-water plants for landscaping of areas adjacentto sidewalks or other impermeable surfaces. -Encourage the production, distribution and use of recycled and reclaimed water for landscaping projects throughout the community, while maintaining urban runoff water quality objectives. -Promote water conservation measures, reduce urban runoff, and prevent groundwater pollution within development projects, property maintenance, area operations and all activities requiring approval. -Educate the public about the importance of water conservation and avoiding wasteful water habits. -Work with wateirovider in exploring water conservation programs, and encourage the water provider to offer incentivef. for water conservation. -Integrate air qua)tty planning with area land use, economic development and transportation planning efforts. -Support program* that reduce air quality emissions related to vehicular travel. -Support alternatie transportation modes and technologies, and develop bike- and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods to educe emissions associated with automobile use. -Encourage the use of clean fuel vehicles. -Promote the use of fuel-efficient heating and cooling equipment and other appliances, such as water Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigatn Strategies Summary Strategy Source Type' Agency/Organization2 Description/Comments heaters, swimininj pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, and boiler units. z_ - Promote the use f clean air technologies such as fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources. UV coatings, and alternative, non-fossil fuels. : 1 -Require the plan of street trees along streets and inclusion of trees and landscaping for all development prod €,,cts to help improve airshed and minimize urban heat island effects. - Encourage smalbusinesses to utilize clean, innovative technologies to reduce air pollution. - Implement prin "pies of green building. - Support j obs/hoi Ling balance within the community so more people can both live and work within the community. To reduce vehicle trips, encourage people to telecommute or work out of home or in local satellite offices. il -Encourage green. uilding designs for new construction and renovation projects within the area. -Coordinate with regional and local energy suppliers to ensure adequate supplies of energy to meet community needs implement energy conservation and public education programs, and identify alternative energy sources where appropriate. MS G-10: Encourage and -Encourage buil g orientations and landscaping that enhance natural lighting and sun exposure. maximize energy conservation and GP/ Stationary & Cities/Counties (e.g., « identification of Area Aliso Viejo, -Encourage exp icn of neighborhood-level products and services and public transit opportunities alternative energy Claremont) throughout the area to reduce automobile use. sources. - Incorporate the a of energy conservation strategies in area projects. �t - Promote energyff, cient design features, including appropriate site orientation, use of light color roofing and building m aterials, and use of evergreen trees and wind-break trees to reduce fuel consumption for beating and cooling. Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Strategy SourceTypel Agency/Organizationz Description/Comments -Explore and consider the costhenefits of alternative fuel vehicles including hybrid, natural gas, and hydrogen powered vehicles when purchasing new vehicles. -Continue to promote the use of solar power and other energy conservationmeasures. - Encourage residents to consider the cost/benefits of alternative fuel vehicles. - Promote the use of different technologies that reduce use of non-renewable energy resources. -Facilitate the use of green building standards and LEED in both private and public projects -Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and encourage energy-efficient design elements, as appropriate. -Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental quality, economic vitality, and social benefit through the design, construction, and operation of the built environment. - Investigate the feasibility of using solar (photovoltaic) street lights instead of conventional street lights that are powered by electricity in an effort to conserve energy. - Encourage cooperation between neighboring development to facilitate on-site renewable energy supplies or combined heat and power co -generation facilities that can serve the energy demand of contiguous development. Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Shkw Source Type' Agency/Organization2 Description/Comments - Develop a tree planting policy that strives to accomplish specific % shading of constructedpaved and concrete surfaces within five years of construction. -Provide adequate funding to manage and maintain the existing forest, including sufficient funds for tree planting, pest control, scheduled pruning, and removal and replacement of dead trees. MS G-11: Preserve unique community -Coordinate with local and regional plant experts in selecting tree species that respect the natural region forests, and provide for GP/Stationary & CitiesICounties (e.g., in which Claremont is located, to help create a healthier, more sustainable urban forest. sustainable increase and Area Aliso Viejo, maintenance this Claremont) - Continue to plant new trees (in particular native tree species where appropriate), and work to preserve mature native trees. valuable resource. -Increase the awareness of the benefits of street trees and the community forest through a area wide education effort. -Encourage residents to properly care for and preserve large and beautiful trees on their own private -Encourage development of affordable housing opportunities throughout the community, as well as MS G-12: Provide development of housing for elderly and low and moderate income households near public transportation affordability levels to CitiesICounties (e.g., services. meet the needs of GPI Mobile Aliso Viejo, community residents. Claremont) -Ensure a portion of future residential development is affordable to low and very low income households. MS G-13: Promote a -Preserve the current pattern of developmentthat encourages more intense and higher density visually -cohesive urban development at the core of the community and less intense uses radiating from the central core. form and establish GPI Mobile, CitiesICounties(e.g., connections between the Stationary, & Area Aliso Viei , Claremont -Create and enhance landscaped greenway, trail and sidewalk connections between neighborhoods and urban core and outlying to commercial areas, town centers, and parks. portions of the Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Strategy Source Type' Agency/Organizationz Description/Comments community. -Identify ways to visually identify and physically connect all portions of the community, focusing on enhanced gateways and unifying isolated and/or outlying areas with the rest of the area. -Study and create a diverse plant identity with emphasis on drought-resistantnative species. -Attract a broad range of additional retail, medical, and office uses providing employment at all income levels. MS G-14: Provide a -Support efforts to provide beneficial civic, religious, recreational, cultural and educational diverse mix of land uses Cities/Counties (e.g., opportunities and public services to the entire Community. to meet the future needs GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, of all residents and the Claremont) -Coordinate with public and private organizations to maximize the availability and use of parks and business community. recreational facilities in the community. -Support development of hotel and recreational commercial land uses to provide these amenities to local residents and businesses. MS G-15: Collaborate with Providers of solid waste collection, disposal and recycling services to e GP/ Stationary, & Cities/Counties e. ( g'' -Require recycling,composting,source reduction and education efforts throughout the community, q g �'' ensure a level service Area Aliso Viejo, including residential, businesses, industries, and institutions, within the construction industry, and in all that promotes a clean Claremont) sponsored activities. community and environment. MS G-16: Promote -Work to expand and improve community recreation amenities including parks, pedestrian trails and construction, maintenance connections to regional trail facilities. and active use of publicly- and privately -operated GPI Mobile Cities/Counties (e.g., Aliso Viejo, -As a condition upon new development, require payment of park fees and/or dedication and provision parks, recreation Claremont) of parkland, recreation facilities and/or multi -use trails that improve the public and private recreation programs. and a system. community center. -Research ovtions or onnortunities to vrovide necessary or desired communitv facilities. I' " Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Shkw Source Type' Agency/Organizationz Description/Comments - Encourage sustainable developmentthat incorporates green building best practices and involves the reuse of previously developed property and/or vacant sites within a built-up area. - Encourage the conservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. MS G-17: Promote the Cities/Counties( e. g'' -Encourage development that incorporates green building practices to conserve natural resources as part application of sustainable GP/ Mobile, Aliso Viejo, of Sustainable developmentpractices. development practices. Stationary, & Area Claremont) -Avoid development of isolated residential areas in the hillsides or other areas where such development would require significant infrastructure investment, adversely impact biotic resources. - Provide land area zoned for commercial and industrial uses to support a mix of retail, office, professional, service, and manufacturing businesses. MS G-18: Create activity -Provide pedestrian amenities, traffic -calming features, plazas and public areas, attractive streetscapes, nodes as important Cities/Counties (e.g., shade trees, lighting, and retail stores at activity nodes. destination areas, with an GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, emphasis on public life Claremont) -Provide for a mixture of complementary retail uses to be located together to create activity nodes to within the community. serve adjacent neighborhoods and to draw visitors from other neighborhoods and from outside the area. -Provide crosswalks and sidewalks along streets that are accessible for people with disabilities and MS G-19: Make roads Cities/Countiese. ( g'' people who are physically challenged. comfortable, safe, accessible, and attractive GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, Claremont) -provide lighting for walking and nighttime activities, where appropriate. for use day and night. -Provide transit shelters that are comfortable, attractive, and accommodate transit riders. MS G-20: Maintain and - Provide sidewalks where they are missing, and provide wide sidewalks where appropriate with buffers expand where possible the Cities/Countiese. ( g'' and shade so that people can walk comfortably. system of neighborhood connections that attach GPI Mobile Aliso Viejo , Claremont) _Make walking comfortable at intersections through traffic -calming, landscaping, and designated neighborhoods to larger crosswalks. roadways. I' " " Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Strategy Source Type' Agency/Organizationz Description/Comments -Look for opportunities for connections along easements & other areas where vehicles not permitted. -Provide benches, streetlights, public art, and other amenities in public areas to attract pedestrian activities. -Encourage new developments to incorporate drought tolerant and native landscaping that is pedestrian friendly, attractive, and consistent with the landscaped character of area. -Encourage all new development to preserve existing mature trees. MS G-21: Create distinctive places Cities/Counties (e.g., GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, -Encourage streetscape design programs for commercial frontages that create vibrant places which throughout the area. Claremont) support walking, bicycling, transit, and sustainable economic development. -Encourage the design and placement of buildings on lots to provide opportunities for natural systems such as solar heating and passive cooling. - Ensure that all new industrial developmentprojects are positive additions to the community setting, provide amenities for the comfort of the employees such as outdoor seating area for breaks or lunch, and have adequate landscape buffers. MS G-22: Reinvest in - Identify all underused properties in the plan area and focus development in these opportunity sites existing neighborhoods Cities/Counties (e.g., prior to designating new growth areas for development. and promote infill GP/ Mobile, Aliso Viejo, development as a Stationary, & Area Claremont) - Implement programs to retro -fit existing structures to make them more energy-efficient. preference over new, greenfield development -Encourage compact development, by placing the desired activity areas in smaller spaces. " Table 17 General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary Strategy SourceTypel Agency/Organaation2 DescriptionlComments MS G-23: Promote a safe - Foster an environment of trust by ensuring non -biased policing, and by adopting policies and community in which Cities/Counties (e.g., encouraging collaboration that creates transparency. residents can live, work, GP/ Mobile Aliso Viejo, shop, and play. Claremont) - Facilitate traffic safety for motorists and pedestrians through proper street design and traffic monitoring. Note: 'Where GP=General Plan. 2 List is not meant to be all inclusive. Source: Data complied by EDAW in 2007 MI, Appendix C: Rule and Regulation Summary CEQA CAPCOA an(I Climate Change UIT-OrM M Appendix C Rule and Regulation Summary AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAT=California Action Team; CEC=California Energy Commission; CDFA=California Department of Food and Agriculture; CH4=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMT CO2e=Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound; POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. C-1 i Table 18 Rule and Regulation Summary Rule/Regulation Reduction Implementation Agency Description Comments Date Low Carbon Fuel Standard 10-20 MMT January 1, 2010 ARB This ruleiregulation will require fuel ARB Early Action Measure CO2e by 2020 providers (e.g., producers, importers, refiners and blenders) to ensure that the mix of fuels they sell in CA meets the statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of CA's transportation fuels by at least 10% by the 2020 target. Reduction of HFC -134a Emissions from 1-2 MMT CO2e January 1, 2010 ARB This ruleiregulation will restrict the use of ARB Early Action Measure Nonprofessional Servicing of Motor by 2020 high GWP refrigerants for nonprofessional Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems recharging of leaky automotive air conditioning systems. Landfill Gas Recovery 2-4 MMT CO2e January 1,2010 IWMB, This rule/regulation will require landfill gas ARB Early Action Measure by 2020 ARB recovery systems on small to medium landfills that do not have them and upgrade the requirements at landfills with existing systems to represent best capture and destruction efficiencies. Vehicle Climate Change Standards (AB 30 MMT CO2e 2009 ARB This ruleiregulation will require ARB to ARB Early Action Measure 1493 Pavley, Chapter 200, Statutes of by 2020 achieve the maximum feasible and cost 2002) effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Reduction of PFCs from the 0.5 MMT CO2e 2007-2009 ARB This ruleiregulation will reduce GHG Underway or to be initiated by Semiconductor Industry by 2020 emissions by process improvements/source CAT members in 2007-2009 reduction, alternative chemicals capture and period beneficial reuse, and destruction technologies AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAT=California Action Team; CEC=California Energy Commission; CDFA=California Department of Food and Agriculture; CH4=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMT CO2e=Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound; POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. C-1 i G2 Table 18 Rule and Regulation Summary Rule/Regulation Reduction Implementation Agency Description Comments Date Restrictions on High GWP Refrigerants 9 MMT CO2e by2010 ARB This ruleiregulation will expand and enforce ARB Early Action Measure 2020 the national ban on release of high GWP refrigerants during appliance lifetime. Yement Manufacture <1 MMT COZe 2010 Caltrans This ruleiregulation will allow 2.5% CAT Early Action Measure per year (based interground limestone concrete mix in on 2004 cement use. production levels) Hydrogen Fuel Standards (SB 76 of 2005) TBD By 2008 CDFA This ruleiregulation will develop hydrogen CAT Early Action Measure fuel standards for use in combustion systems and fuel cells. Regulation of GHG from Load Serving 15 MMT COZe May 23,2007 CEC, This ruleiregulation will establish a GHG CAT Early Action Measure Entities (SB 1368) by 2020 CPUC emission performance standard for baseload generation of local publicly owned electric utilities that is no higher than the rate of emissions of GHG for combined -cycle natural gas baseload generation. Energy Efficient Building Standards TBD In 2008 CEC This rule/regulation will update of Title 24 CAT Early Action Measure standards. Energy Efficient Appliance Standards TBD January 1,2010 CEC This ruleiregulation will regulate light bulb CAT Early Action Measure efficiency Tire Efficiency (Chapter 8.7 Division 15 <1 MMT CO2e January 1,2010 CEC & This rule/regulation will ensure that CAT Early Action Measure of the Public Resources Code) by 2020 IWMB replacement tires sold in CA are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold in the state as original equipment on these vehicles. New Solar Homes Partnership TBD January 2007 CEC Under this rule/regulation, approved solar CAT Early Action Measure systems will receive incentive funds based on system performance above building standards. G2 AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAT --California Action Team; CEC=Califomia Energy Commission; CDFA=California Department of Food and Agriculture; CH4=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMTCO2e=Million MetricTons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound; POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University;ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. o-3 Table 18 Rule and Regulation Summary Rule/Regulation Reduction Implementation Agency Description Comments Date Water Use Efficiency 1 MMT COZe by 2010 DWR This rule/regulation will adopt standards for CAT Early Action Measure 2020 projects and programs funded through water bonds that would require consideration of water use efficiency in construction and operation. State Water Project TBD 2010 DWR This rule/regulation will include feasible and CAT Early Action Measure cost effective renewable energy in the SWP's portfolio. Cleaner Energy for Water Supply TBD 2010 DWR Under this rule/regulation, energy supply CAT Early Action Measure contracts with conventional coal power plants will not be renewed. IOU Energy Efficiency Programs 4 MMT CO2e by 2010 CPUC This rule/regulation will provide a CAT Early Action Measure 2020 risk/reward incentive mechanism for utilities to encourage additional investment in energy efficiency; evaluate new technologies and new measures like encouraging compact fluorescent lighting in residential and commercial buildings Solar Generation TBD 2007-2009 DGS 3 MW of clean solar power generation Underway or to be initiated by implemented in CA last year, with another 1 CAT members in 2007-2009 MW coming up. The second round is period anticipated to total additional 10 MW and may include UC/CSU campuses and state fairgrounds. AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAT --California Action Team; CEC=Califomia Energy Commission; CDFA=California Department of Food and Agriculture; CH4=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMTCO2e=Million MetricTons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound; POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University;ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. o-3 Table 18 Rule and Regulation Summary RulelRegulation Reduction Implementation Agency Description Comments Date Transportation Efficiency 9 MMT CO2e by 2007-2009 Caltrans This rule/regulation will reduce congestion, Underway or to be initiated by 2020 improve travel time in congested corridors, CAT members in 2007-2009 and promote coordinated, integrated land period use. Smart Land Use and intelligent 10 MMT CO2e 2007-2009 Caltrans This rule/regulation will integrate Underway or to be initiated by Transportation by 2020 consideration of GHG reduction measures CAT members in 2007-2009 and energy efficiency factors into RTPs, period project development etc. Cool Automobile Paints 1.2 to 2.0 MMT 2009 ARB Cool paints would reduce the solar heat gain ARB Early Action Measure CO2e by 2020 in a vehicle and reduce air conditioning needs. Tire Inflation Program TBD 2009 ARB This rule/regulation will require tires to be ARB Early Action Measure checked and inflated at regular intervals to improve fuel economy. Electrification of Stationary Agricultural 0.1 MMT CO2e 2010 ARB This rule/regulation will provide incentive ARB Early Action Measure Engines by 2020 funding opportunities for replacing diesel engines with electric motors. Desktop Power Management Reduce energy 2007-2009 DGS, ARB This rule/regulation will provide software to Currently deployed in DGS use by 50% reduce electricity use by desktop computers by up to 40%. Reducing CH4 Venting/Leaking from Oil 1 MMT CO2e by 2010 ARB This rule/regulation will reduce fugitive CH4 ARB Early Action Measure and Gas Systems (EJAC-3/ARB 2-12) 2020 emissions from production, processing, transmission, and distribution of natural gas and oil. Replacement of High GWP Gases Used 0.1 MMT CO2e 2011 ARB This rule/regulation will require the use of ARB Early Action Measure in Fire Protection Systems with Alternate by 2020 lower GWP substances in fire protection Chemical (ARB 2-10) systems. Contracting for Environmentally NA 2007-2009 DGS New state contracts have been or are being Underway or to be initiated by Preferable Products created for more energy and resource CAT members in 2007-2009 efficient IT goods. copiers, low mercury period fluorescent lamps, the CA Gold Carpet Standard and office furniture. Hydrogen Fuel Cells NA 2007-2009 DGS This rule/regulation will incorporate clean Underway or to be initiated by hydrogen fuel cells in stationary applications CAT members in 2007-2009 AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Departmentof Transportation; CAT=California Action Team; CEC=Califomia Energy Commission; CDFA=California Departmentof Food and Agriculture; CH,=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMTCO2e=Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Pernuorocompound;POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. CS Table 18 Rule and Regulation Summary Rule/Regulation Reduction Implementation Agency Description Comments Date at State facilities and as back-up generation period for emergency radio services. High Performance Schools NA 2007-2009 DGS New guidelines adopted for energy and Underway or to be initiated by resource efficient schools; up to $100 million CAT members in 2007-2009 in bond money for construction of period sustainable, high performance schools. Urban Forestry 1 MMT CO2e by 2007-2009 Calfire, This rule/regulation will provide five million Underway or to be initiated by 2020 CUFR additional trees in urban areas by 2020. CAT members in 2007-2009 period Fuels Management/Biomass 3 MMT CO2e by 2007-2009 Calfire This rule/regulation will provide biomass Underway or to be initiated by 2020 from forest fuel treatments to existing CAT members in 2007-2009 biomass utilization facilities. period Forest Conservation and Forest 10 MMT CO2e 2007-2009 Calfire, This ruleiregulation will provide Underway or to be initiated by Management by 2020 WCB opportunities for carbon sequestration in CAT members in 2007-2009 Proposition 84 forest land conservation period program to conserve an additional 75,000 acres of forest landscape by 2010. Afforestation/Reforestation 2 MMT CO2e by 2007-2009 Calfire This rule/regulation will subsidize tree Underway or to be initiated by 2020 planting. CAT members in 2007-2009 period Dairy Digesters TBD January 1,2010 CDFA This ruleiregulation will develop a dairy ARB Early Action Measure digester protocol to document GHG emission reductions from these facilities. AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Departmentof Transportation; CAT=California Action Team; CEC=Califomia Energy Commission; CDFA=California Departmentof Food and Agriculture; CH,=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMTCO2e=Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Pernuorocompound;POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University; ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. CS C-6 Table 18 Rule and Regulation Summary RulelRegulation Reduction Implementation Agency Description Comments Date Zonservation Tillage and Enteric 1 MMT CO2e by 2007-2009 CDFA This rule/regulation will develop and Underway or to be initiated by Fermentation 2020 implement actions to quantify and reduce CAT members in 2007-2009 enteric fermentation emissions from period livestock and sequester soil carbon using cover crops and conservation tillage. ULEV TBD 2007-2009 DGS A new long term commercial rental contract Underway or to be initiated by was released in March 2007 requiring a CAT members in 2007-2009 minimum ULEV standard for gasoline period vehicles and requires alternative fuel and hybrid -electric vehicles. Flex Fuel Vehicles 370 metric tons 2007-2009 DGS Under this rule/regulation, DGS is replacing Underway or to be initiated by CO2, 0.85 metric 800 vehicles with new, more efficient CAT members in 2007-2009 tons of CH4, and vehicles. period 1.14 metric tons of N20 Climate Registry TBD 2007-2009 DGS Benchmarking and reduction of GHG Underway or to be initiated by emissions for state owned buildings, leased CAT members in 2007-2009 buildings and light duty vehicles. period Municipal Utilities Electricity Sector Included in SB 2007-2009 CEC, Under this rule/regulation, GHG emissions Underway or to be initiated by Carbon Policy 1368 reductions CPUC, cap policy guidelines for CA's electricity CAT members in 2007-2009 ARB sector (IOUs and POUs). period Alternative Fuels: Nonpetroleum Fuels TBD 2007-2009 CEC State plan to increase the use of alternative Underway or to be initiated by fuels for transportation; full fuel cycle CAT members in 2007-2009 assessment. period Zero Waste/High Recycling Strategy 5 MMT CO2e by 2007-2009 IWMB This rule/regulation will identify materials to Underway or to be initiated by 2020 focus on to achieve GHG reduction at the CAT members in 2007-2009 lowest possible cost; Builds on the success of period 50% Statewide Recycling Goal. Organic Materials Management TBD 2007-2009 IWMB This rule/regulation will develop a market Underway or to be initiated by incentive program to increase organics CAT members in 2007-2009 diversion to the agricultural industry. period Landfill Gas Energy TBD 2007-2009 IWMB Landfill Gas to Energy & LNG/biofuels Underway or to be initiated by CAT members in 2007-2009 period C-6 AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAT=California Action Team; CEC=California Energy Commission;, CDFA=California Department of Food and Agriculture; CH4=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied NaturalGas; MMTCO2e=Million MetricTons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound; POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University;ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. C-% Table 18 Ruleand Regulation Summary RulelRegulation Reduction implementation Agency Description Comments Date Target Recycling TBD 2007-2009 IWMB This ruleiregulation will focus on Underway or to be initiated by industry/public sectors with high GHG CAT members in 2007-2009 components to implement targeted period commodity recycling programs. Accelerated Renewable Portfolio Included in SB 2007-2009 CPUC This ruleiregulation will examine RPS long Underway or to be initiated by Standard 1368 reductions term planning and address the use of tradable CAT members in 2007-2009 renewable energy credits for RPS period compliance. CA Solar Initiative 1 MMT CO,e by 2007-2009 CPUC Initiative to deliver 2000 MWs of clean, Underway or to be initiated by 2020 emissions free energy to the CA grid by CAT members in 2007-2009 2016. period Carbon Capture and Sequestration TBD 2007-2009 CPUC Proposals for power plants with IGCC and/or Underway or to be initiated by carbon capture in the next 18 months. CAT members in 2007-2009 Source: Data complied by EDAW in 2007 AB=Assembly Bill; ARB=California Air Resources Board; Calfire=California Fire; CA=California; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; CAT=California Action Team; CEC=California Energy Commission;, CDFA=California Department of Food and Agriculture; CH4=Methane; CO2=Carbon Dioxide; CPUC=California Public Utilities Commission; CUFR=California Urban Forestry; DGS=Department of General Services; DWR=Department of Water Resources; GHG=Greenhouse Gas; GWP=Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; IT=Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board; LNG= Liquefied NaturalGas; MMTCO2e=Million MetricTons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; MW=Megawatts; NA=Not Available; N20=Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound; POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards; RTP=Regional Transportation Plan SB=Senate Bill; SWP=State Water Project; TBD=To Be Determined; UC/CSU=University of California/California State University;ULEV=Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. C-% LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report MEETING DATE: October 8, 2008 APPLICATION NO: Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) Use Permit U-02-12, Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 Site Plan and Architectural Review 08 -SP -08 REQUEST: The request of Browman Development Company to certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) to allow construction of the Lodi Shopping Center and allow all subsequent development approvals for the center. Additionally, to approve Use Permit U-02-12 to allow the construction of a commercial center in a C -S, Commercial Shopping District, and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter and Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 to create 12 parcels for the project. Finally, to approve the SPARC application concerning the Wal- Mart building. LOCATION: 2640 West Kettleman Lane. Approximately 40 acres located at the southwest corner of west Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 and Lower Sacramento Road in west Lodi. APPLICANT: Browman Development Company 100 Swan Way, Suite 206 Oakland, CA 94621 PROPERTY OWNER: Browman Development Company & Wal-Mart Real Estate 100 Swan Way, Suite 206 Business Trust Oakland, CA 94621 Mail Stop 0555 Bentonville, AR 72716-0555 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) for the Lodi Shopping Center project and that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and SPARC requests subject to the conditions listed in the Draft Resolutions as attached. PROJECT/AREA DESCRIPTION General Plan Designation: NCC, Neighborhood / Community Commercial. Zoning Designation: C -S, Commercial Shopping District. Property Size: Approximately 40 acres, 36 acres for the shopping center development and 4 acres adjacent and southwest of the shopping center site for construction of a stormwater detention drain. Adjacent General Plan, Zoning and Land Use: North (across W. Kettleman Ln): General Plan; NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 Zoning; C -S, Commercial Shopping Center Land Use; The Vintner's Square Shopping Center anchored by the Lowe's Home Improvement store South: General Plan; LDR, Low Density Residential Zoning; PD, Planned Development Land Use; Currently Agricultural planted as a vineyard, but planned as the Southwest Gateway planned residential community West: General Plan; PQP, Public/Quasi Public & HDR, High Density Residential Zoning; PUB, Public & PD, Planned Development Land Use; Currently agricultural, but planned for a utility substation and higher density residential as part of the Southwest Gateway planned residential community East (across Lower Sacramento Rd.): General Plan; NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial Zoning; C -S, Commercial Shopping Center Land Use; The Sunwest Plaza Shopping Center currently anchored by the existing Wal-Mart, J.C. Penny and the Food 4 Less Grocery Store. BACKGROUND: The original Final Environmental Impact Report and the associated Lodi Shopping Center project came to the Planning Commission on December 8, 2004. At the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Commission certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved a Use Permit to allow the construction of the Lodi Shopping Center, the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter and a Tentative Map to create 12 parcels. Two appeals were filed concerning the Planning Commission's certification of the FEIR and approval of the project. The first appeal was filed by the law firm of Herum, Crabtree and Brown on behalf of Lodi First, an unincorporated association of Lodi residents, voters, property owners, and taxpayers. This appeal found fault with the FEIR. Lodi First claimed that the project was not consistent with the City's General Plan or Zoning Code and challenged the FEIR as inadequate. The second appeal was filed by the law firm of Steefel Levitt and Weiss on behalf of Wal-Mart. Wal -Mart's appeal was limited to two conditions imposed by the Planning Commission: 1) a condition requiring signed leases for at least 50% of the existing Wal-Mart building before a building permit could be issued for the Supercenter; and 2) a condition requiring the project developer to pay for a linkage study based upon the Housing Element and pay any fees based on the conclusion of the study. The City Council considered the appeals. On February 3, 2005 the City Council certified the FEIR for the Lodi Shopping Center project. On February 16, 2005 the City Council approved the Use Permit for the construction of the Lodi Shopping Center, allowed the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Wal-Mart Supercenter, and approved the Tentative Map to create 12 parcels. The Council added to the Planning Commission's condition regarding the existing Wal-Mart building by allowing various options and expansions. The Council expanded the requirement that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Supercenter at least 50% of the existing Wal-Mart building square footage be leased, with said leases including a minimum two-thirds of the building frontage. Two additional options were added to allow issuance of a building permit for the Supercenter if the existing building had a fully executed purchase agreement with a bona -fide retailer, or if the applicant presented a cash escrow for the purpose of demolishing the existing Wal-Mart building not later than 90 days after the opening of the Supercenter. A Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 new alternate condition was also added to allow Wal-Mart to be issued a building permit for the Supercenter if prior to the issuance of the Use Permit, Wal-Mart sold the existing building to a non Wal- Mart entity. The appealed condition regarding a Housing Element linkage study was retained but the developer is to receive credit for the amount paid against the final fee as adopted by the Council. The City Council approval of the Lodi Shopping Center was challenged in court on environmental grounds. On December 19, 2005, the Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County, Stockton Branch found the EIR to be deficient with respect to cumulative urban impacts and energy impacts. The Court directed the City to void all City approvals for this project pending correction of the differences in the FEIR. On February 10, 2006 the Court ordered the City to vacate approval of the following Planning Commission and City Council resolutions approving the project: a) Planning Commission Resolution PC 04-64 certifying the EIR 03-01 adopted on December 8, 2004; b) Planning Commission Resolution PC 04-65 approving Use Permit U-02-12 and Tentative Parcel Map 03-P-001 adopted on December 8, 2004; c) City Council Resolution 2005-26 certifying the EIR 03-01 adopted on February 3, 2005; and d) City Council Resolution 2005-38 approving Use Permit U-02-12 and Tentative Parcel Map 03-P-001 adopted on February 16, 2005. On May 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 2006-81 rescinding the above listed Planning Commission and City Council Resolutions relating to the Lodi Shopping Center. The City Council also adopted Resolution 2006-82 authorizing agreements with two consulting firms to prepare revisions to the Lodi Shopping Center EIR that was found deficient by the Superior Court. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to the Lodi Shopping Center: In the case of Lodi First v. City of Lodi, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. CV025999 ("Lodi First"), the Court ordered revisions to the discussions of cumulative urban decay impacts and energy impacts. In all other respects, the Court found the EIR to be legally sufficient under CEQA. The City of Lodi decided to make revisions to three additional areas of the EIR. These are: the statement of project objectives, the discussion of agricultural resources, and the discussion of project alternatives. These areas of additional analysis were the subject of a lawsuit entitled Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. CV026002 ("C.O.G."). The C.O.G. case was resolved after the court's decision in Lodi First by a stipulated order of dismissal, preserving to the C.O.G. plaintiffs the right to continue to assert certain previously made claims as to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The Revised EIR document includes only the above five (5) sections which were subject to revision or augmentation. Since the remainder of the original EIR is not subject to further review, it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recertify the original EIR, as amended by the Revisions to the EIR document to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court. The Revisions to the EIR are subject to the full administrative and public review. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared describing the legal context, a project description and a brief overview of the topics to be covered in the Revisions document. The NOP was made available to the State Clearinghouse in the office of Planning and Research for State agencies and was sent to non -state agencies and was posted and made available to the public to solicit input on the five (5) issues of concern that would be addressed in the FREIR. After a period of analysis and formulation, the DREIR was prepared. The City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse and posted, published, and distributed the Notice of Availability of the DREIR. This began the public and agency review period for the Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 document. The length of the public review period was 52 days. During the review period, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 14, 2007, to receive oral and written comments on the DREIR. The City prepared formal written responses to all the comments received as well as an addendum section indicating further revisions made to the document. The revisions, comments received, and responses constitute the FREIR for the Lodi Shopping Center Project and are presented for certification. Summary of Specific Impacts and Their Mitigations: The revisions to the EIR re -analyzed the potential for urban decay due to cumulative economic effects of competing retail projects. The REIR looked at region -wide effects of Wal-Mart Supercenters in other cities and the effects of the Reynolds Ranch commercial area. The analysis found that existing retail centers in Lodi would be subject to a reduction in sales and it is possible that one or more business closures could result and the affected properties could be subject to long-term vacancies under cumulative conditions. However, such closures and vacancies though possible were not reasonably foreseeable and if closures and long-term vacancies were to occur, they would not result in total neglect or abandonment which could lead to urban decay or physical deterioration. No urban decay or physical deterioration is foreseen to occur and that is the test for an EIR impact, therefore no impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are proposed. Nonetheless, the City has committed to aggressive code enforcement measures to ensure the abatement of any nuisance within the City and to prevent the physical deterioration of communities. In this vein, in August of 2008, the City added another member to its Community Improvement Division by hiring a new Supervising Community Improvement Officer. The REIR analyzed the Reynolds Ranch project at approximately 640,000 square feet. As a result of the City Council's most recent approval of the Reynolds Ranch project at 750,000 square feet, the City has had the economic consultant review the potential impacts of the additional area. The memorandum from BAE is included as an attachment to this staff report. In summary, the conclusion is that "This review process has shown that even if BAE had assumed that Reynolds Ranch was to be developed with 750,000 square feet of retail space when preparing the October 2007 analysis, the conclusions and findings would not have been significantly different than they are at present". Thus, the additional space does not change the impact conclusions of the REIR. Additionally, the recent Reynolds Ranch EIR Addendum, which analyzed the impacts of the larger project, did not find any additional economic or urban decay impacts as a result of the increased project size. The revisions to the EIR also addressed energy impacts. The analysis found no significant energy consumption impacts or impacts on energy supplies and infrastructure; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. The original EIR found an impact from the conversions of approximately 40 acres of prime agricultural use to urban uses, a significant and unavoidable impact. The FREIR confirms the significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources but adds a partial mitigation of requiring the project to obtain permanent agricultural conservation easements over 40 acres of prime farmland within 15 miles of the site. The remaining revisions to the EIR modified the project objectives and changed the alternative project location that was analyzed. The original alternative location was the Reynolds Ranch project site. As this site is subject to an active development application, a new site at the northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton Road was evaluated. The above sections were the focus of the revisions to the EIR for the Lodi Shopping Center and modified impacts, mitigations, findings and statements of overriding considerations have been prepared as is included in the proposed resolution of certification. Use Permit and Tentative Map Analysis: Approximately 17 years ago, the City's General Plan designated the southwest corner of West Kettleman Lane/State Route 12 and Sacramento Road for the construction of large-scale retail development. Since Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 that time, the centers on the other three corners have built out as envisioned. Major national retailers such as Wal-Mart, J. C. Penney, Target, and Lowe's have occupied these corners. The Lodi Shopping Center is proposed on the remaining fourth corner to be anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter. This type and scale of development is consistent with the activity that has occurred at the other corners. The City's Zoning Code requires that all plot plans for projects within the C -S, Commercial Shopping District receive Planning Commission approval. Over time, this review has been done through the Use Permit process. The Zoning Code also requires use permit approval for the sale of alcoholic beverages. The applicant is requesting a Use Permit and a Vesting Tentative Map in order to divide the property into 12 lots that will correspond to the number of buildings anticipated for the project. The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 339,966 square feet of commercial retail uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 12 buildings of varying sizes. The primary uses will be a Wal-Mart Supercenter which will occupy approximately 216,710 square feet of floor area, including approximately 70,000 square feet for grocery sales, 19,889 square feet for a garden center (including outdoor fenced area), and 6,437 square feet for an auto service shop. The Wal-Mart Supercenter will not include the use of outdoor metal storage containers, and will not include a seasonal sales area in the parking lot. A moderate sized retailer will occupy approximately 35,000 square feet on pad 12 in the southeast corner of the site. The remaining 11 buildings will range in size from 3,200 square feet to 14,788 square feet. Three of the 11 buildings will be occupied by fast food franchises, with another two buildings consisting of sit-down restaurants, and the remaining buildings occupied by such retail uses such as financial services/bank, professional/business services, and other retail sales and services. As noted previously, additional environmental and related economic analysis has been undertaken. However, the uses and layout and design of the shopping center has remained the same as that presented to and approved by the Planning Commission in December, 2004. The Wal-Mart building is located at the southwestern corner of the site, with 11 freestanding buildings located along Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road to the north and east. In the center of the shopping center is the main parking lot. The proposed vesting tentative map includes the Wal-Mart store and all corresponding parking in the largest lot (lot 12, 18.3 acres), with each of the remaining 11 buildings on their own lot with associated parking. These other lots are generally 1± acre in size, with the smallest (lot 8) being 0.53 AC and the largest (lot 11) being 2.6 AC. Internal travel lanes, parking medians and planters are located through -out the interior. Access to the Center is mainly from Westgate Drive and Lower Sacramento Road, with right turn in and out only from Kettleman Lane. As shown on the site plan, significant public improvements are required in order to build this project, as detailed in the draft conditions in the accompanying resolution of approval. The applicant will be responsible for the construction of Westgate Drive from Kettleman Lane to the southerly project boundary as well as the frontage improvements on Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road. The applicant is also responsible for the approximately 4 acre site across Westgate Drive to be used for storm water detention, all associated project right-of-way dedications, utility easements, engineering reports and studies, and fees. An encroachment permit from CalTrans for Kettleman Lane / State Route 12 will be needed. Additional conditions in the draft Resolution cover fire safety, outdoor storage or display of merchandise, shopping cart storage and security, exterior lighting, and a city information/welcome sign. Consistent with the prior approval by the City Council, conditions relative to re -use of the existing Wal-Mart building are proposed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Supercenter, one of the following with respect to the existing Wal-Mart building shall occur: signed leases with a retailer(s) for at least 50% of the building square footage covering two-thirds of the building frontage; or a fully executed purchase agreement for the building with a retailer; or a cash escrow account in the amount to demolish the Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 building plus $100,000. This escrow account shall be used by the City to demolish the existing building if the first two options have not been satisfied within 90 days after the opening date of the Supercenter. A condition is also proposed that the developer pay for a linkage study required under program 11 of the Housing Element "...a nexus study to determine whether a direct connection exists between non- residential development in Lodi that creates jobs and the need for housing affordable to lower-income workers who will fill some of those jobs." Also as in the prior City Council approval, a condition is included to incorporate all mitigation measures as specified in the FREIR. As documented in the FREIR, a CEQA environmental impact as to urban decay or physical deterioration from the Lodi Shopping Center cannot be made. The Planning Commission can, however, make a policy decision that the economic effects of the Center on the Downtown can be addressed. To this end, staff is proposing a condition to require the Lodi Shopping Center to invest money in Downtown or in the alternative, to pay a fee of $2.00 per square foot of the gross floor area of the Supercenter to the City for Downtown investment. The Use Permit will allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Supercenter. No Use Permit for alcohol for any of the freestanding buildings has been applied for or is under consideration. The tenants of these freestanding buildings are not known to staff and have not been included in this request. Any such request in the future would require a Planning Commission Hearing at that time when the specific details of the requesting business are known. The Planning Commission has previously found that the sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to a grocery store operation and that is what is being requested by the Wal-Mart Supercenter. Staff recommends approval of this Use Permit and has included appropriate conditions in the draft resolution. As previously discussed in the analysis, a vesting tentative map approval is requested to divide the site into 12 lots. Staff recommends approval of this action and has included vesting tentative map conditions in the draft resolution. SPARC Review: Along with the plot plan and tentative map for the Lodi Shopping Center, preliminary elevations and colors for the Wal-Mart Supercenter have been submitted. No elevations or colors, landscaping plan, signage plan, materials, or other final plans for the rest of the Center or buildings have been submitted. This shopping center is subject to the City's Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments. The overall site layout, building footprints, parking areas, and access driveways provide the overall direction of the Center and were used by staff and the Planning Commission in the December 8, 2004 review to determine that this project complies with the Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments. As such, no further designs, layout, or changes have been proposed. The proposed project includes the construction of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter store with a building size of approximately 216,710 square feet. The Wal-Mart building would be located on the southwestern portion of the project site, and the building entrance would face east toward Lower Sacramento Road. The Wal-Mart Supercenter building is a single story structure. The architectural theme of the building is a contemporary style and uses construction materials commonly used in commercial shopping center construction . Architectural materials such as concrete masonry block, metal awnings, and exterior plaster finish will be utilized on the exterior of the building. The major materials used for architectural treatment include fawn (brown) colored stucco, fawn (brown) cultured stone veneer, split face (light brown) block, sea -green colored smooth finish metal panels, charcoal roofing material, hallow (gunmetal gray) metal doors and cornices, and black fencing. The body of the building will be in shades of brown. The ground level will have fawn (brown) colored stucco walls with fawn colored stone veneer accent walls near key entrances and along the lower eight feet of the exterior wall. The architectural treatment features are mostly used on the north and east elevation. Also on the main entrance, a canopy type Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 architectural feature is proposed. The proposed main entry canopy will be clad with a brown cultured stone finish. The west and south elevations do not feature the same detailed architectural treatment. The west (rear) elevation is a continuous wall with little architectural treatment to breakup the elevation of the building. The entire west elevation will have fawn (brown) colored stucco walls with metal doors painted to match the stucco. Cornices and accent trims are provided to break up the wall elevation. The ground level will also have cultured veneer stone elements. The midsection of the western elevation should receive further architectural treatment to add architectural interest to the wall. It is important to note that this elevation will be visible from across Westgate Drive. A condition of approval is included in the SPARC Resolution regarding additional architectural treatment for the west elevation. The southern elevation will feature nearly identical architectural treatment as the west elevation. However, the proposed southern elevation is less of an issue. First, there will be an 8 -foot tall masonry wall on the southern property line to block any view of this elevation from the project to the south. Second, unlike the western elevation, the southern elevation is not a continuous large mass elevation. Because the main axis of the building faces west (the longest elevation), the south elevation is the side of the building and is relatively small in size in comparison. Circulation and Parking The site plan indicates six access points to three public streets. There will be three entrances/exits from Lower Sacramento Road, one from Kettleman Lane (HWY 12), and two from Westgate Drive. All three streets will have a raised center median that will restrict turning movements in some degree. The main entrance to the project parking lot is from Lower Sacramento Road and will be located near the middle of the project site. This entrance will have a traffic signal to control traffic flow and will allow both entering and exiting traffic to turn in both directions. The other access points from Lower Sacramento Road will be restricted to right turn in and right turn out movements. The direct driveway entrance from Kettleman Lane (HWY 12) will only permit a right -turn in and right -turn out traffic movement. Traffic can also access the shopping center from Kettleman Lane by way of Westgate Drive. This intersection is controlled by an existing traffic signal that will allow both right and left turning movements. The main (northern) access point from Westgate Drive will allow both right and left hand tuning movements. The southern access point will only allow right in, right out movements. Circulation to and from the site is very similar to the Vintners Square Center (Lowes) to the north. The main parking lot is located on the east side of the Wal-Mart building. There will be smaller parking areas to serve the free-standing commercial pads. For the Wal-Mart building, a total of 965 parking spaces are proposed (4.45/1000). A total of 434 parking spaces are required, per City code (General Retail 1/500). The proposed number of parking stalls exceeds the minimum parking requirements. There are 12 cart corrals proposed to be distributed throughout the parking lot. These cart corrals will be screened in brown CMU wall with wooden frames to provide additional ornamentation. Landscaping and Signage The proposed landscape plan calls for various large shade trees, smaller trees, shrubs and ground covers. A total of 478 larger shade trees will be provided within the parking lot interior, along the southern and western edges the property line, and throughout the site. This total number of trees exceeds what the City code requires. The approval of project signage is not a part of the current review and would be subject to City of Lodi codes and requirements to ensure they complement the building architecture and landscaping of the building. Signage applications and approvals would be done separately, should the project be approved. Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: Notice for the FREIR was published on September 27, 2008 in the Lodi New Sentinel. The item was posted at City Hall, on the City's website, and at the City of Lodi Library on September 26, 2008. 175 public hearing notices were sent out through the combination of the U.S. Postal Service and electronic mail which included all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property as required by Government Code section 65091(a)3. Everyone who made a comment on the Draft Revisions to the EIR was sent a copy of the response to their comment, revisions to the EIR and notice of the public hearing at least 10 days before the hearing. Legal notice for the use permit and vesting tentative map consideration was given at the same time and manner as the notice for the FREIR. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that unless significant new additional or contrary information is received during the public hearing and, based upon its review and consideration of the Draft REIR and comments received and responded to in the FREIR, and the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission certify Final Revisions to Environmental Impact Report REIR-03-01, and adopt Resolution No P.C. 08-28, containing appropriate findings, mitigation, a mitigation monitoring plan, and statement of overriding considerations. If the Planning Commission first certifies the FREIR, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit U- 02-12, Vesting Tentative Map 03-P-001 and adopt Resolution No P.C. 08-29. Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Wal-Mart building 08 -SP -08, P.C. 08-30. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: • Certify with alternative impacts, mitigation measures and adopt findings or overriding considerations • Deny the certification • Approve with additional/different conditions • Deny the Use Permit/Tentative Map • Continue the requests Respectfully Submitted, Konradt Bartlam Interim Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Vested Tentative Map 4. BAE Memorandum 5. Wal-Mart elevation and Hardscape Plan 6. Comment Letters 7. Draft P.C. Resolutions; PC 08-28, PC 08-29, & PC 08-30 8. FREIR — Hard Copies Previously Distributed (http://www.lodi.gov/com dev/EIRs.html) Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report re Lodi Shopping Center.doc J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS \2008 \ 1-23 900256.1 _ __. tr m A NT T T �m . --N89 49;46 "1$�7F�... _ - � L, 207.2I` =1"I _. .......... E%ESONG PROPERTY UNE-� _ _ EXISi1NG EASEMENT - .._ .,. __.,. _ _..r.. .. _ _... T -. .. ....�-.__ . .._..•.., ._.. __. __ ...-... j l - ECCE OF PAYFAIFNT �{ I SITE MOTES / AREA STRPm K1TiK 4" SYSL AT 45' O 2'-0" O.C, A.=Sme RAMP, SEE DTA; G ON 94ET PEDEGIRIN CROSSWC 5X4 WO -2 AN SH 2p AT PEDESTRIAN AS NOTED ON PLANS. SEE OETNL P ONTiTRCAY. SNEET C-&3. -,nW PAINTED YELLOW *4 PAV9kH;NT TYPICAL SEE DETAX. 5 ON SKEET C-5.1. PAD M PAD 4 ENHANCED PAYLMENi nRfd. SEE ARCRiECTUNAI PLANS FDR OEUAS 8,031 SP A PAD 5 F ,,., , li 10,075 SF (� o n 7,490 SF Z EXT PORCH. SEE ARM1ECTURAL PLANs PCR EXACT SPC. —AVM PO4 4 S1OOP5. 8TNPS ANIC P PS THAT NAY RE REOD'RSO. k.P PAYENEXT fLU5H I a IWRI 11,E 101' AR STOUP _ do °ei PE BOLLARD TWew. uxrSS IN M- OTNDevnsT, sTi GETaa. 2 ON 9Wtr .. - L,tf{€,j PAD 6 it 1 j CARI mom EDIT SEE OEM i ON 91EET C-&7 AND DETA& TO ON SHEET C-&2. s` vX" X 11x LCNO -LW W PA TEO TRUCK AUGNNEMT SYRPES. PAO, R£EER TO ARa1IMPRAL PLAN Po EXACT �fDre ACO1tPAA VO ACCESSOIL PMXNO 9•A1 III SEE OSTAIL SHEET FOR Ae( '% f PARAiNO SPACE EKE, SGN A40 SWAG ("YAM-INCCAITS VAN ACC:551UIE SPAGQ, SEE DETAIL 3 cN S1E" C-&1 8 OCTAL S ON SHEET 08.2. CaHmmTRAt1SORMER PAD. CONTRACTOR TO COORIF.IATE WTI; LOCAL POKA COT OP FCN OCTAtS. PLACE STEP Salk PANT STOP RAR 8 'STC•' PER OErl, & ON SHEET 0-&1 AND DETAIL T Ott SHEET O6.2. PEDEsTRIAi CROSBWAI.X. ETNA: I,N-S PAN7E0 4RA/8" NRi tiSNE sTR7iTM i PANTED SNA/,; AT Y -O' RG PMPERaTMAAR TO [OCE TLYES. SEE OETAL 7 ".1. M SHEET • CART ODRRAL SEE, DEIN. s DN mar 6-&7. • A.D.& SITE ENTRANCE Sal. SEE OVAL 5 ON SHEET C-8.2. . RF„C011IL.T-&(WM'RPF.WM TO vA4KWDACSET 8 ON Uc2. PV . 14' CONCRETE CURD ANS GUTTER. SEE DETAIL D ON SIIEET 08.3. • TRAFFIC FAD* ARROW, SEE DETM T SHEET C -SA • CONCRETE UVI SEE DETAR 7 On SHEET 0-8.1 PN . NDM,MENi Sat (SEP A*M EGTVRA PLANS} , AISLE POICATOR SIGNS (TTP} STE DETAILS 0 & 11 ON STEET C-&2. `CARL OROSSWO %ITN WA SEE MAIL I ON 91EET C-B.T. .-NO -WOKS' SISI. SVC D£TAI. 1 at SHEET 0-82. .-TRUCK ORAS SON. SEE OET&% 3 ON SHEET 0-8.2. IBCHT rWRN ONLY' ECL SEE DUAL I2 ON SIRT 0-8.2, m ,x 11945' PALLET/BALE STORAGE AREA. ol,l tr 1 50, . IwY.lACA1,9 OQEES. SEE DETAIL 4011 SHEET C-8.7. I .SAKDUT EXSSLD EDGE OF PAVEWENIT TO FORK A SNOOK, UHMORN LINE, PKAfE PROPOSED PAVEMENT AIAHSi SAWCOT LINE & MATOI tP.V.M GRADE. .AT GRADE OVERHEAR DOOR LOCAAON SEE ARa1TECTURAL KMS FOR EXACT SIZE ANO LWADOR FOR COIXK NATOV MRI OML MANS. Si(E DATA TDan A,INXN Amaut�v.v { MACE CREASE/OL INJMCEPT SEP ARCHITCCTWTAL P:A4S FOR EXACT SO. fOM1OE 2TRSit S0. Fl. I 831 WAM SiNHOX ' { AEE AN9 LOOA.TNIN. 0AMCES la,L3"iik,E SPNXS 21 VIM t VIM ilF( JI` I I II . T - i I C•'.s•: :..11 -- ". � T, ISI t11L .I s LOM -.i .8 •...1+ORAWRaS .._ `-AJ �k I.W I _!• TODi PITOAO3OFD IP SPAIN ' rwXX16 RAOa i. IW10 i•_.:A Z Ok SNRT Q&1. •MOUNT SEOINUTT CAMERA TO CONT PML, SEC KM &SHEET C-0• N/E T . MR 4D VM EXETPNO S AKO A REPLACE W114 NEW PROFUSED SRCPNC, .3G: OCTAL 0 ON SHUT G-8.1 FP2 iYNCA4 PARKING STA.SLIGPiNO Ott— HEAVY 0, ASPHMS J �. I TRANSFORMER PAD. SEI AAGNITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATON, ' NEAyt qt j! CONdIRC^' CONCRETE I ` ALL PARKING, ME IAANDS RAM ARE ID' & UNLESS'. LESS O11SRW5E PLAN. sTATFn M ET PLAN. , i INSTALL PAWN* LAT NatTS. SEE DETAL & SHEET C b.T. (---- 1 € MR , WSTALI, PARIOND EAI umm sY. Dam & 9NEr 0 &7_ i ......... ........ I I IS I 4:1 %OPE TO OFF-SITE ( O STORM WATER DETENTIONI "i I (3ASiN--A1950) 1 i �.•� 'V IIS I I �i� ii�•�► k•.�li l _..__..�.._.._.._7V I I ,® I 10' n =s ROAD - _.... .. ,,. .-.. .. •. �e_aA_ .. TOPLu.2950 -:/- n t i 14.788 SF <N o o 0 o- 0� o o _ �• ° ----�- 1 Ti'• i �,`��•Y'\•%"-�"�` " LTii'I "Fy,nl AS . •�'� ® t5' $ 9O 0i0� O O O D}S Q14=1 ! tU� ~I !I'• 1 FENCED .� »,x -t tiros asx—.) • i3 �,A� i IY 8,156 ST 3a •.' _ as -..3ar.._.._...io•..... _.sig,SEASONAL„im R T BATTERY 1, M. STORAGE GARDEN CENTER TTP• x 91731 SF ��' - � TOE G' . ____..__• .'.. � . VIS '•—•--22`� • .......: S.ta.na RLr �ta.stWe+ - - - - - d4.5UN6.d 11 it I LLJ ........._....- `-_ o5'�Ri1 l X---. It........... ........... � 'R Ayr V / T � � L1 Jn .:,! p V) O y �OMw . fIl V V M\ Y M. A 11 U lAJ O S ` i Q� Q (-; i' O 1 O O O O ,I , LO O O O i O O O O. O E...� o ,R axr � w• . 0 _ ,n !L a; SOS O O# O O 0 O M. °. -Pr sr_ i1•.._ 'TMTYP. ia 4 ` Ar M. . __... 13.3'.... t1 ., T2' TM. 21 S. Y re i3. fi�4� i ��. �. 23.x' ----- Ta.s•1+�_',r �'-� 105.9 T�.� no PAD 7 5,180 SF PAD 9 0,537 � PAD 10 8,596 SF 1)?— - I 1 1 PAD 11 �t I 35,000 SF , ,,o R d G� Z � co W r Q I:ezVZ � g0N U< -in w a Ej LU (A o.rP,w ez aP/cY -- dam Ay. w/a act.; D.0 13, M64 SHEET CN2.1 OF 34 ProICt NP: 60T -AM 15.5V - So0o5'orw 3 I 1 9 1 ao�ns•33• R-1469' 1-I79.7fi' I ° Iwzl3' Rnar HIGHWAY 12 KETTLEMAN LANE o2 1^19.63' ..—__—__ Na09726'E PARCEL -A (KETILEMAN LANE DEDICATION_.—_.—__ 4_a�t,• yyf 0.41 At (18,026 SF) N6939T63w N087t'Aw Q+L �>N- �•--•��r--_—�:'- 69'S9i3•E -_ N6x3WE -_ ,116 23.x5 1 SB65.f'{2•E-;a;'it... .w16'J5--1 LD.11'J6'OB• jig �••••�."•� ..�.�._.. 1 -+0.0+'_. R -6A66' R-+40.,9' Stn I S6'StYO•W SB6'2t'42'E yDWWOn _ 1-63.15' 1-2B.SD' a PARCEL -6 xooaoocE I a.l �1� xwvo�oo�E I VIS 'y6'o 1.36 AC q mw I (60,256 SF) 1n17a'• I A�•J PARCEL -2 '' PARCEL -3' PARCEL -4 I sxam'soow 1.30 AC (' 1.13 AC I 1.55 AC het+•oqt� R.,RSS.0023 I I (67,543 SF) (56,612 SF) I (49,413 SF) 1 , i I ' I r PARCEL-5ARC 3166' ( IN 1.17 AC��oonnoo''-j I ^pl 1.45 AC 1 , I,ro9a9'oo'v I ,- (50,9s9 SF) x90 Oow- wsear'w 18 pl 1.45 AC la 8-116 z2• ;3.159 SF R.tt1ar 1 __i26.s4' s�6xvzb3'r I ~1'I � «x990•MT PARCEL -7 � I81 AC -�o-zfaYu' ai+s.00µ �i �''a $ 35,373 SF I it SA 1 .e.BY 0-225.4'26 8-166.00' 8-x00.00' 13A16' ( ) R-16100' L-10.41' 1.5546' 1 ga wt453Bf 1.64.63' Rf��1P - t D-24.13'36• R-2+).00' R ii'sr3B'-1 - •' �/' xN]C66.1v�"'I 1-v.as• I L-1-72' I'-o-o9oa+�x• e4.w• Jt l I. iefi's9ar' `41 1 B m li; PARCEL-8Is PARCEL -9 I�g ' i Ig (23,364 SF)� 1.51 AC IS (65,737 SF) I SWWWE fixe• N6939.34w il8 - 1.15..66)64 I I I I�� I Nexsx•ss•W _ _ � yy I soea'7w6c ___ Hass• - I �4 I PARCEL -12 Ii 111 I 18.30 AC s I 11 1 (797.287 SF)�S I I I � I I _ PARCEL -10 S 1.00 AC x69s9.s1•w _ I Zi (43,808 SF) S0o30b0•E_ s9awmw 1123• 315.1x• _ - 5WW26*. Ie I I I �s. lel SII I 1 I it I 9 141 I w I-— l0'1 I�'I BIS I�11 p I I I I I I I I I 1 Inch = 60 ft Vesting Tentative9ilap Lot Layout for Lodi - III ATNs. 058-030-01 caZ 058-030-02 County (f San Joaquin, Cafifornia August 15,2008 Sheet 2 of 2 QpOFESS/p�� COle S y J No. C60698 DA-Doucet & Associates, Inc. Dec. 31, 2008 loss er<d,.wa R;ax 0.1�, s:u In a'4 Cryl aP -k, CA936M936. Pb (916))80.2003fu(916))00.x018 rFor CAl1EOP No.: 001-272 00 O 00 00 O bae Date: October 1, 2008 To: Rad Bartlam, interim Director City of Lodi, Community Development From: Matt Kowta, Principal Re: Review of Lodi Shopping Center Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis The purpose of this memo is to provide you with my findings in regard to the validity of the conclusions from BAE's October 2007 Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis for Proposed Lodi Shopping Center in Lodi, CA, in light of the increase in the proposed Reynolds Ranch project size from 640,676 square feet of building area to approximately 750,000 square feet. The October 2007 Report had analyzed the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Lodi Shopping Center along with the Reynolds Ranch project at 640,676 square feet and the City has requested that BAE review the conclusions from the 2007 report in light of the increase in the project size. Potential Market Impacts of Proposed Project and Reynolds Ranch Project Because the project description for the Lodi Shopping Center project has not changed since the preparation of the October 2007 report, there are no impacts on most parts of the report. The Reynolds Ranch project is first considered on page 62 of the report, where it was noted that the Reynolds Ranch project was anticipated to be competitive with the Lodi Shopping Center project and would potentially contribute to cumulative impacts on other existing shopping centers in the market area. Page 63 of the October 2007 report anticipated that the Reynolds Ranch project retail component would contain 640,676 square feet of retail building area. The analysis then went on to estimate how much of the existing trade area retail sales the combined Lodi Shopping Center project and Keynolds Ranch shopping centers would need to capture in order to perform at their expected sales levels. In the October 2007 report, this sales diversion was estimated at approximately 30 percent, meaning that the new stores would divert approximately 30 percent of existing stores' estimated 2008 sales (see Table 22, page 64). BAE staff have re -calculated Table 22 of the October 2007 report based on the 750,000 square foot project size for Reynolds Ranch, holding all other inputs and assumptions constant, and the resulting sales diversion figure is 34 percent, meaning that the combined Lodi Shopping Center and Reynolds Ranch projects would be expected to divert approximately 34 percent of estimated 2008 Bay Area Economics Sacramento Region Office 530.750.2195 803 Second Street, Suite A Fax 530.750.2194 San Francisco Bay Area Sacramento New York Washington, D.C. Davis, CA 95616 bael@bael.com bayareaeconomics.com sales volumes from existing market area stores. Given the margin for error for this type of analysis, where there is an attempt to predict very complex shopping behaviors in the future while acknowledging the difficulty in controlling for all other variables that may come into play, this change from 30 percent to 34 percent is not significant. Also, it should be noted that the October 2007 report explained that while the 30 percent estimate reflected the loss of existing stores' 2008 sales levels, anticipated trade area population growth during the intervening time that would be necessary for the two shopping centers to be built and fully occupied will increase available trade area demand and therefore, actual sales diversions would likely be significantly lower than these figures at the time the new stores are opened. As noted on page 73 of the October 2007 report, the analysis had factored in the slowing housing market when considering the potential growth in retail demand within the Lodi area. Page 65 of the October 2007 report indicated that the "construction of Reynolds Ranch, in combination with the Lodi Shopping Center or even alone, could lead to an oversupply of retail space in the Lodi area" and then continued with some discussion of the potential impacts on different sectors of the retail marketplace. Page 68 of the October 2007 report assumed that potential tenants for Reynolds Ranch would include a warehouse club, home improvement center, major apparel retailer, and perhaps a major electronics outlet. Based on information published by CB Richard Ellis in its 2008 Central Valley Market Outlook for retail, which can be found on the CBRE web site (http://www.cbi-e.com/USA/US/CA/Stockton/Property/centralvalleymarketoutlook.litni?pa eig d=7), a Costco and Home Depot are the anticipated anchors for the project. The major project anchors play a large role in dictating the trade area that the project will serve, and the types of competitive impacts that the project will have in the marketplace. Page 68 of the October 2007 report continues: "In summary, the cumulative impacts of Reynolds Ranch in addition to theproposed Lodi Shopping Center may lead to substantial cannibalization of retail sales from existing outlets in Lodi and the Trade Area, putting some existing businesses at increased risk of closure. ff1hile the tenant mixfor Reynolds Ranch is unconfirmed, potential tenantsfor such a region - serving center include a warehouse club, a home improvement center, a major apparel retailer, andperhaps a major electronics outlet. Outlets competing in these categories would be at the most additional risk. One center with substantial additional risk is the Cherokee Shopping Center, with Orchard Supply Hardware, already impacted by Lowe's, facing possible additional conipetition, and Kmart, apoor performing store at risk of closure from the Lodi Shopping Center alone. At Vineyard Shopping Center, Mervyn's and Ace Hardware confront thepotentialfo r strong new competition. Sunwest Plaza, where the existing Wal-Mart is slated to close when the Supercenter opens, would have increased risk of closurefor the JC Penney store if a large apparel retailer locates at Reynolds Ranch. Throughout Lodi, vacant spaces wouldface more difficulty in re -tenanting as nearly one million square feet of retail space is added to the area's real estate inventory. Outside the TradeArea, the analysis indicates that the impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center in combination with Reynolds Ranch would not be substantial. " These basic conclusions remain unchanged given the expanded size of the Reynolds Ranch project, given the finding that the capture rate of sales from existing retailers would increase from 30 percent to 34 percent of current market area sales with the assumption about the expanded Reynolds Ranch project, albeit the magnitude of the potential impacts would be slightly larger. Considering the margin for error in this type of complex analysis, BAE would not reach different conclusions based on these two different estimates of sales diversion, as they are of the same order of magnitude. In other words, in preparing the October 2007 report, BAE would have reached the same conclusions about the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and the Reynolds Ranch project, had the finding at the time been that the diversion of sales from existing stores would have been 34 percent of the 2008 sales levels instead of 30 percent. Potential for Urban Decay from Cumulative Impacts Given that the change in the size of the center has apparently not substantially altered the proposed tenant mix of the center, BAE's assessment of which other shopping centers and types of retailers would be most likely to be affected by the cumulative effects of the proposed project and the Reynolds Ranch project would not change significantly. Thus, the portion of the urban decay analysis on page 73 of the October 2007 report, which deals with the potential negative economic impacts of the cumulative impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center and the Reynolds Ranch project, would not change significantly. This portion of the report stated: "There is one reasonablyforeseeableproject, Reynolds Ranch that cumulatively could result in additional impacts in Lodi and the TradeArea. The Proposed Project and Reynolds Ranch combined would add nearly one million squarefeet to Lodi 's retail inventory. Potential store closures under a cumulative scenario include the supermarket (either Safeway or S -Mart) and Kmart as mentioned under Proposed Project -only impacts, as well as one of the two hardware stores (OSHandAce) and JC Penney orMenyns. The particular impacts will depend in largepart on the tenant mix of Reynolds Ranch. With any tenant mix at Reynolds Ranch, the addition ofthis large amount ofretail space will make re - tenanting of any closed spaces more dolcult. The existing Wal-Martspace would be particularly hard to re -tenant, especially if the JC Penney closed, leaving Food 4 Less as the only remaining major tenant of Sunwest Plaza; however, this center is relatively new, and will be in closeproximity to the new Supercenter, and the existing Target, Lowe's and other regional retail draws, and may attract tenantsfrom some of the other centers. Me Cherokee Retail Center couldface the loss of both anchor tenants due to the increased competition, and the Vineyard Shopping Center could lose its largest tenant, Mervyn, along with Ace Hardware. These centers would allface more limitedprospectsfor re -tenanting with the additional competition from newer and higher -quality space available, especially in Reynolds Ranch. " Again, given that the likely anchor tenants of the Reynolds Ranch project have not changed from the assumptions used in the October 2007 report, due to the change in project size, our assessment of potentially affected stores and shopping centers would not change and, furthermore, the approximate magnitude of the impact on other retail facilities is not of a sufficient magnitude to compel BAE to make a different judgment about the potential severity of the impacts. In evaluating the actual risk that cumulative impacts from the proposed Lodi Shopping Center project would lead to urban decay and physical deterioration, BAE considered the City of Lodi's intent to enforce local regulations that are intended to prevent neglected or derelict properties from creating blighting conditions within the community, observing that the City has adopted a number of regulatory policies that signal that the City will take aggressive action to abate conditions on private property that may lead to blighting conditions. Considering this, the October 2007 report stated on page 75: "the cumulative impacts resulting from the Lodi Shopping Center in combination with the Reynolds Ranch retail center, aproject approxiinately twice as large as the Lodi Shopping Center, could result in the closure of additional existing retail outlets in Lodi, and make it more difficult to re -lease vacated space due to the large addition to the invento7y in the relatively slow-growing Lodi area. As a result, some existing shopping centers could be subject to long-term vacancies. In the case of the largestpotential vacant space, the existing Wal-Mart at Sunwest Plaza, theproposed development agreement would require demolition of the space if it is not re -tenanted in a relatively shortperiod of time. However, even with thepotential closure of the JC Penney in this center, Sunwest Plaza is unlikely to be subject to long-term vacancies since it is relatively new, arid will be in closeproximity to the new Supercenter, and the existing Target, Lowe's and other regional retail draws, and thus mc�y attract tenants f rom some of the other centers in Lodi. For other centers, an oversupply of retail space could result in difficulties re -tenanting vacant retail space in a reasonable period of time, and the vacant space could then be at risk of entering a cycle of long-term vacancies, secondary business closures, the inability to re -tenant existing stores, and the eventual possibility ofphysical deterioration or urban decay. The actualpotentialforphysical deterioration to occur at a specificproperty will be largely dependent on the commitment f'om theproperty owner to maintain theproperty, which 4 would be more challenging in the case ofmultiple ownership or control. However, in the event of an owner'sfailure to maintain vacatedproperties in a condition suitable for releasing, it will be incumbent on the City of Lodi toprevent such conditions from occurring through active and aggressive enforcement of its Codeprovisions relating to the abatement of public nuisances due to lack of property maintenance and management. The City of Lodi has demonstrated its commitment to preventing physical deterioration of cornrnercial properties within the City through its successful revitalization efforts in Downtown, which involved a multi faceted long-term program including large expenditures of Cityfunds. Per Resolution No 2006-39, passed in March 2006, as noted above, the City Council was emphatic in its direction to staff to proactively enforce compliance with its building codes If conditions warrant, staff isprepared to apply the receivershipprovisions of the California Health and Safety Code to ensure that the corrective action is taken. As such, it is fully expected that the City will continue to be aggressive in the enforcement of its nuisance ordinances relating to building maintenance. Based on its past performance andpolicy commitments, it is reasonable to expect that the City will not allow any commercial properties which may become vacant under cumulative conditions to deterioratephysically. Therefore, while there is a remote possibility that certainproperties such as the Vineyard Shopping Center and Cherokee Retail Center could be subject to a causal chain ultimately resulting in urban decay under cumulative conditions, such outcomes are considered highly unlikely given that the City can be counted on to take aggressive action toprevent such conditions from occurring. In conclusion, the limited project definition mailablefor the revised Reynolds Ranch project precludes the preparation a� a definitive analysis cfpotential urban decay impacts under cumulative conditions at this time. However, given the City's commitment topreventing the physical deterioration a` commercial properties, even under assumptions of reasonable worst-case conditions, as discussed above, it is expected that the cumulative economic effects of the Lodi Shopping Center, when combined with the economic effects of an expanded Reynolds Ranch project, would result in a less -than -significant cumulative urban decay impact. " The change in the project description does not provide any additional information that would cause BAE to change these conclusions. This presumes that the City of Lodi remains confident in its ability and commitment to effectively use its powers to enforce its regulations to prevent blighting conditions from developing, even if the result of the increased size of the Reynolds Ranch project is a greater need for enforcement and possibly action to abate buildings that may become vacant and in disrepair due to the cumulative impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center as proposed and the Reynolds Ranch retail facility at its larger size. 5 Conclusion Based on the preceding assessment of the October 2007 report and the impact of the change in the Reynolds Ranch project size on that analysis, there would be no benefit to conducting further analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Lodi Shopping Center and the Reynolds Ranch shopping center, because the conclusions are unlikely to change. This review process has shown that even if BAE had assumed that Reynolds Ranch was to be developed with 750, 000 square feet of retail space when preparing the October 2007 analysis, the conclusions and findings would not have been significantly different than what is reflected in the October 2007 report. Only if the City of Lodi is not confident that it can effectively enforce its "anti -blight' regulations in the face of a somewhat greater quantity of space at risk of becoming vacant as compared to what was determined in the October 2007 report would a revision of that report be in order. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) LODI SHOPPING CENTER CITY OF LODI OCTOBER 2008 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES B1. Avricultural B1. The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation Project Applicant with Prior to Land Conversion Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland. The agricultural approval of City of issuance of conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of land of at Lodi Community occupancy least 40 acres. This easement shall be located in San Joaquin County Development Director. permits. (excluding the Delta Primary Zone as currently defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural use; if it is not in current agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into agricultural production as a result of the conservation easement transaction. The lands subject to the easement shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land use to ensure its continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non-farm development and other uses that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The easement shall be held by the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the City. The applicant shall pay a fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for purposes of establishing an endowment to provide for adequate administration, monitoring, and maintenance of the easement in perpetuity. 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Cl. Seismic Cl. Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking Project Applicant with Prior to Ground Shaking shall be minimized by following the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and implementing the recommendations of the project approval by City of Lodi Building Official issuance of grading geotechnical engineer. and Lodi Public Works permits. Director. C2. Seismic C2. If subsequent geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable levels of Project Applicant with Prior to Settlement potential seismic settlement, available measures to reduce the effects approval by City of issuance of of such settlements would include replacement of near -surface soils Lodi Building Official grading with engineered fill, or supporting structures on quasi -rigid and Lodi Public Works permits. foundations, as recommended by the project geotechnical engineer. Director. C3. Stormwater C3. Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential of Project Applicant with Prior to Bank Stability bank instability at the proposed basin and recommend appropriate setbacks, if warranted. approval of City of Lodi Public Works issuance of grading Director. permits. C4. Soil C4. The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by Project Applicant with Prior to Consolidation placing shallow spread foundations on a uniform thickness of engineered fill; specific measures shall be specified by an engineering approval of City of Lodi Public Works issuance of grading and Collapse geologist as appropriate in response to localized conditions. Director and Building permits. Official. C5. Expansive C5. The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced Project Applicant with Prior to Soils by placement of non -expansive engineered fill below foundation approval of Lodi Public issuance of slabs, or other measures as recommended by the geotechnical Works Director and grading engineer. Building Official. permits. 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Cont'd) C6. Soil C6. The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigated by Project Applicant with Prior to Corrosivity using corrosion -resistant materials for buried utilities and systems; approval of City of issuance of specific measures shall be specified by an engineering geologist as Lodi Public Works grading appropriate in response to localized conditions. Director. permits. D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY D3. Erosion and D3. A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention Project Applicant with Throughout Sedimentation program shall be implemented during grading and construction. (See EIR text for details.) approval by City of Lodi Public Works grading and construction of Director. the project. D4. Urban D4. The project shall include stormwater controls to reduce nonpoint Project Applicant with Throughout Non -Point pollutant loads. (See EIR text for details.) final approval by City construction Pollution of Lodi Public Works and operation Director. of project. E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES E3. Loss of E3. In accordance with the SJMSCP and City of Lodi requirements, Project Applicant, in Prior to Habitat for the project proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees accordance with issuance of Special Status to compensate for loss of open space and habitat resulting from development of the project site, and will ensure the completion of SJMSCP, and with approval of City of grading permits. Animals preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks, burrowing owls, and Lodi Community California horned larks, as well as the implementation of specified Development Director. measures if any of these species are found on the site. 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd) E4. Disturbance E4. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that Project Applicant, in Prior to to Burrowing raptors (hawks and owls) are not disturbed during the breeding consultation with issuance of Owls and season: CDFG, and with grading Raptors • If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (Feb. approval of City of permits. 1 to Aug. 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre- Lodi Community construction survey for nesting raptors (including both tree- and Development Director. ground -nesting raptors) on site within 30 days of the onset of ground disturbance. These surveys will be based on the accepted protocols (e.g., as for the burrowing owl) for the target species. If a nesting raptor is detected, then the ornithologist will, in consultation with CDFG, determine an appropriate disturbance - free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet) around the tree that contains the nest or the burrow in which the owl is nesting. The actual size of the buffer would depend on species, topography, and type of construction activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. The setback area must be temporarily fenced, and construction equipment and workers shall not enter the enclosed setback area until the conclusion of the breeding season. Once the raptor abandons its nest and all young have fledged, construction can begin within the boundaries of the buffer. • If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -breeding season (September 1 to January 31), a qualified ornithologist will conduct pre -construction surveys for burrowing owls only. (Pre - construction surveys during the non -breeding season are not necessary for tree nesting raptors since these species would be expected to abandon their nests voluntarily during construction.) • If burrowing owls are detected during the non -breeding season, they can be passively relocated by placing one-way doors in the burrows and leaving them in place for a minimum of three days. (Continued on next page.) 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont'd) E4. (Cont'd) Once it has been determined that owls have vacated the site, the burrows can be collapsed and ground disturbance can proceed. F. CULTURAL RESOURCES F1. Disturbance F1. Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any Project Applicant in Throughout to Buried potential impacts to cultural resources. consultation with a grading and Cultural • In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials qualified archaeologist construction of Resources are exposed or discovered during site clearing, grading or and/or qualified project. subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find paleontologist, as shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist applicable, with contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential verification of recommendations could include evaluation, collection, mitigation by City of recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials Lodi Community followed by a professional report. Development Director. • In the event that fossils are exposed during site clearing, grading or subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional paleontologist contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential recommendations could include evaluation, collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological materials followed by a professional report. (Cont'd next page.) 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS F. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Cont'd) F1. (Cont'd) • If human remains are discovered, the San Joaquin County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would identify a most likely descendant to make recommendations to the land owner for dealing with the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION H2. Future Plus H2. The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the installation Project Applicant with Prior to Project of a traffic signal at Lower Sacramento Road and Harney Lane. approval by City of issuance of Unsi nam Lodi Public Works occupancy Intersection Director permits. Operations H4. Cumulative H4. Modify the project site plan to provide dual eastbound left -turn Project Applicant with Prior to Plus Project movements out of the project site onto northbound Lower approval by City of issuance of Access Sacramento Road, consisting of a 150 -foot left -turn pocket and a full Lodi Public Works occupancy Conditions at travel lane back to the internal project site intersection. In the Director. permits. the Signalized eastbound direction, a left -turn pocket and a full travel lane back to the signalized intersection will provide adequate capacity for Access Drive Proposed Along inbound traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be installed on all approaches except the westbound to provide continuous traffic flow the Lower Sacramento into the project site and eliminate the potential for backups onto Road frontage Lower Sacramento Road. On the Food 4 Less approach, a 100 -foot left -turn pocket will be provided at the signalized intersection. 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Cont'd) H5. Cumulative H5. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: Project Applicant with Prior to Plus Project A) Extend a third southbound travel lane on Lower Sacramento final approval by City issuance of Access Road from its current planned terminus at the signalized project of Lodi Public Works occupancy Conditions at driveway to the southern boundary of the project site; Director. permits. Northern Unsi nalized B) Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized Access Drive project driveway; AlongL C) Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by 100 feet; Sacramento D) Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120 -foot taper; Road E) Eliminate the northbound left -turn lane into the northern project driveway (under Alternative B). H6. Inadequate H6. The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project Project Applicant with Prior to Left -turn Lane driveway on Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to accommodate the required 90 -foot taper length. approval of City of Lodi Public Works issuance of occupancy Taper on Westgate Drive Director. permits. H7. Inadequate H7. The project site plan shall be modified to extend the northbound Project Applicant with Prior to Left -turn Lane left -turn pocket to 250 feet, and extend the taper from 70 to a City standard 120 -foot taper. approval by City of Lodi Public Works Director. issuance of occupancy permits. Taper on Lower Sacramento Road H8. Public H8. The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share Project Applicant with Prior to Transit Service funding to the City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to expand transit service to the project. final approval by City of Lodi Public Works issuance of occupancy Director. permits. 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (Cont'd) H9. Public H9. Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and Project Applicant, in Prior to Transit Stop passenger shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a consultation with City issuance of second transit stop in the eastern portion of the project near Lower of Lodi Grapeline grading Sacramento Road. Service, and with permits. approval of City of Lodi Public Works Director. H11. Pedestrian H11. Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve Project Applicant with Prior to Facilities Pads 8, 9, and 12 in order to complete the internal pedestrian approval of City of issuance of circulation system. Lodi Community grading Development Director. permits. I. NOISE I3. Noise from I3. The following noise mitigation measures are identified as Project Applicant with Prior to Project Activity appropriate for the various types of project activities, to reduce project noise at both existing and planned future adjacent development: approval of City of Lodi Community issuance of building Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. To ensure that the potential noise Development Director. permits. impact of mechanical equipment is reduced to less -than -significant levels, the applicant shall submit engineering and acoustical specifications for project mechanical equipment, for review prior to issuance of building permits for each retail building, demonstrating that the equipment design (types, location, enclosure specifications), combined with any parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in noise levels exceeding 45 dBA (Leq-hour) for any residential yards. Parking Lot Cleaning. To assure compliance with the City of Lodi Noise Regulations regarding occasional excessive noise, leaf blowing in the southeast corner of the project site shall be limited to operating during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS L NOISE (Cont'd) I4. Noise from I4. The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate Project Applicant with Prior to Stormwater potential noise generated by the stormwater basin pump: approval of City of issuance of Basin Pump 1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest Lodi Community grading future planned residential development. In addition, the noise Development Director. permits. levels generated by pump shall be specified to produce noise levels no greater than 45 dBA Leq at the nearest residential property lines. The pump facility shall be designed so that noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest residential property lines. The pump may need to be enclosed to meet this noise level. Plans and specifications for the pump facility shall be included in the Improvement Plans for the project and reviewed for compliance with this noise criterion. 2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance during nighttime hours, pump operations shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., except under emergency conditions (e.g., when the basin needs to be emptied immediately to accommodate flows from another imminent storm). 15. Construction H5. Short-term noise impacts shall be reduced through Project Applicant, to be Throughout Noise implementation of the following measures: limiting the hours of verified by the City of grading and construction; proper muffling and maintenance of equipment; Lodi Building Official construction. prohibition of unnecessary idling; noise shielding of stationary and City of Lodi equipment and location of such equipment away from sensitive Community receptors; selection of quiet equipment; notification to neighbors of Development Director. construction schedule, and designation of a `noise disturbance coordinator' to respond to noise complaints. (See EIR text for details.) 887538.3 11233.26 IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION PARTY (To be completed by responsible party) DATE INITIALS J. AIR QUALITY J1. Construction J1. Dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 Project Applicant, to be Throughout Emissions emissions during grading and construction, as required by the City of verified by the City of grading and Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Lodi Public Works construction. District. (See EIR text for details.) Director and City of Lodi Community Development Director. J3. Re ig onal J3 Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project Project Applicant, to be Prior to Air Quality area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management verified by the City of issuance of (TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and Lodi Building Official building resulting air emissions; however, these measures would not reduce and City of Lodi permits. the impact to a less -than -significant level. Community Development Director. J6. Restaurant J5. All restaurant uses within the project shall locate kitchen exhaust Project Applicant with Prior to Odors vents in accordance with accepted engineering practice and shall approval of City of issuance of install exhaust filtration systems or other accepted methods of odor Lodi Building Official building reduction. and City of Lodi permits. Community Development Director. 887538.3 11233.26 10 RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 08-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI DENYING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-03-01) RELATING TO THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003042113 WHEREAS, an application was filed by Browman Development Company for a commercial shopping center at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel numbers 058-030-08 and 058-030-02, and a portion of 058-030-09; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director made a determination that the project may have a potentially significant impact on the environment and ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR was prepared and distributed to reviewing agencies on April 14, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released on August 5, 2004, for circulation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice held a study session and public hearing on September 9, 2004. Public comments on the DEIR were taken at this hearing; and WHEREAS, a Final EIR (FEIR) responding to all public comments on the DEIR submitted prior to the expiration of the comment period was prepared and released to the public and commenting agencies on November 22, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice held a public hearing before said Commission on December 8, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi reviewed and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, that certification and approval was appealed to the Lodi City Council; and WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council, on appeal, reviewed and certified the FEIR prepared for the project (Resolution No. 2005-26, February 3, 2005); and WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council rescinded the certification of the FEIR on May 3, 2006, pursuant to Superior Court Order of December 19, 2005, which order directed revisions to be made to the EIR; and EIR Denial Resolution 902116.1 Lodi Shopping CenterEIR WHEREAS, in response to the Court Order, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (REIR) and distributed it to reviewing agencies on September 25, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) was released and circulated on October 17, 2007, for public comment and review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice held a study session and public hearing on November 14, 2007. Public comments on the DREIR were received at this hearing; and WHEREAS, a Final Revisions to the EIR (FREIR) including responses to all public comments on the DREIR submitted prior to the expiration of the comment period was prepared and released to the public and commenting agencies on August 26,2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice held a public hearing before said Commission on October 8, 2008 to consider certification of the FREIR; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2. For the reasons stated on the record at the October 8, 2008 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission denies certification of the FREIR. Dated: October 8, 2008 I hereby certify that Resolution No. P.C. 08-28 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at their meeting held on October 8, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kiser, Kirsten, Olson, Heinitz, Hennecke NOES: Commissioners: Cummins ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Mattheis ATTEST: S c e ary, Planning Commission EIR Denial Resolution 2 902116.1 Lodi Shopping Center EIR Comment Letters Kari Chadwick From: Caroline Byerly[carolinebyerly@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 3:01 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Caroline Byerly It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents dont want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: kathy small [kathyinmotown@webtv.net] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 2:46 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: kathy small It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. Kari Chadwick From: Laura -Marie Taylor [veralinnyumsweet@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 2:44 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Laura -Marie Taylor If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Thank you 1 Kari Chadwick From: nina muenzenbereg [karlheinz@frontiernet.net] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 2:38 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: nina muenzenbereg It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now itis our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: John Sheckles [thebossjohn@clearwire.net] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:24 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: John Sheckles It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Sara Schiappa [italiana_bella una@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 1:56 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Sara Schiappa It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart -----Original Message ----- From: Niaree Hopelian [mailto:nhopelian@seiulOOO.org] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:49 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Niaree Hopelian It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it. public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Robert Neil [bobbyneill@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 1:54 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Robert Neil It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents dont want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Kathy Cridge [cridgema@gmaii.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 1:53 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Kathy Cridge It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Maria Crandall [fcrandall@csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 1:41 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Maria Crandall Just for the record, my sister and her neighbors were able to dissuade Wal-Mart from building a store on Sheldon Road in Elk Grove. Why Wal-Mart wants a store in Lodi when they already have 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton is puzzling. If the store on West Kettleman is doing fine. do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? The economy is in a slump and it's not getting any better. It is a well-known fact that Wal-Mart endangers Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. What will a closed and abandoned supercenter do to Lodi 's physical environment? Do Lodi residents really want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings? If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. The Sheldon area community beat back Wal-Mart as have other communities across the country. Now it's Lodi's turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Karl Costenbader Ukerry@competent.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 1:23 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Karl Costenbader It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Sarah Hafer[charityh@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:15 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Sarah Hafer It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: dorena goding [dorenah@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 3:23 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: STOP WAL MART! SUPPORT THE LOCAL BUSINESSES! From: dorena goding It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Kathryn Starring -Rogers [kaystarring@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 6:44 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Kathryn Starring -Rogers It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Elizabeth Burk [dzymzlzy@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 4:37 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Elizabeth Burk It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. Kari Chadwick From: Sharon Parks [sharonparks@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Sharon Parks It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Gary Lo [cheesypuff357@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 3:34 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Please listen to me From: Gary Lo As being a former Lodi Resident, I already heard complaints of the current walmart on kettleman raping the commuinity apart. Lodi prides itself with being pro small business and the local economy will be sucked dry if a new walmart is built. please consider the GDP of lodi and how that money will filter out of the pockets of local residents and be put in the pockets of big corporate business. be graceful. don't let it happen Previous Lodi Resident, Gary Lo Kari Chadwick From: Danny DeTora [mizuno53@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 3:14 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Danny DeTora It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and €or all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Gary Watkins [wasterix@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 10:09 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Gary Watkins It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Debbie Egan [cactusfiowers@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 9:15 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Debbie Egan Cities always think that if WalMart comes in, the city will get thousands of dollars in tax revenue. but this is not true. WalMart uses loopholes to send the money out of the area! Check out the movie: WalMart - the high cost of low price (2005). its a documentary It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Lema Perkins [QuietStorm_3@msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:17 AM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Lema Perkins It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Dennis Ledden [Ics5779@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:18 AM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Dennis Ledden It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Kirk Walser [scannerbuddy@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 29,2008 7:00 AM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Kirk Walser It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. Kari Chadwick From: Ronald Peterson [rcp95240@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 9:20 AM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Ronald Peterson It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Aug. 28. 2008 3:33PM STATE OF CALIFORNIA FACSIMILE COVER 10.2A-0049 (NEW 10/92) No, 0214 P. 1/3 ATTENTION: FROM: Kathy Selsor Department of Transportation Immanuel Bereket 1976 East Charter Way Stockton, CA 95205 UNIT{COMPANY: DATE: TOTAL PAGES pnctudiag Cover Pape) Planning Division 8128108 FAX # pnClude Area Cody ATSS FAX (209) 948-7194 8-423-7194 {STRICT/CITY PHONE # is Area Cone) ATSS City of Lodi (209) 948-7190 8-423-7190 221 West Pine Stravt Lodi, CA 95241-1910 PHONE # (A Area coda) FAX it (a Area 00ae) ORIGINAL DISPOSITION: Destroy Return Call for Pickup (209) 333-6711 209 333-6842 COMMENTS: SJ-12-PM15.1 RFEIR SCH# 2003042113 Lodi Shopping Center Aug. 28. 2008 3:33PM No. 0214 P. 2/3 STATE OF CALIFORMA—MARC, ARC,gS_ TAANSPOkTATION AND HOUSiNO AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEOOER, Ooveroor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 2048 STOCKTON,CA 95201 ' (1976 F. CHARTER WAY/19761;. DR, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD. 95205) TPY; California Relay Service (800) 735-2929 Flex yourpolverl PHONE (209) 941-1921 Re energyehiiciend FAX (209) 948.7194 August 28,2008 10 -SJ -12 -PM 15.1 SCH92003042113 Lodi Shopping Center Immanuel Bereket City of Lodi Planning Division 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Dear Mr. Bereket: The California Department of Transpoitation (Department) appreciates the opportunity to have reviewed the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) for the proposed Lodi Shopping Center located at the south west corner of Lower Sacramento and Kettleman/State Route 12 (SR 12) in the City of Lodi. The comments made for the Site Plan in a letter dated August 26,2008 have not been addressed and still remain valid. In order to ensure the Site Plan has adequate right of way dedication for future improvements on SR 12 and Westgate Drive please address the following comments. Provide the striping plan for SR 12 west of the intersection of Westgate Drive and SR 12/Lo'wer' Sacramento Road, Provide typical cross sections to show future dual left -turn lane at Westbound SR 12 to Southbound Westgate Drive. Provide the ultimate plan for SR 12/Westgate Drive Provide truck off tracking analysis for the following movements at the intersection of SR 12/Westgate Drive: o Eastbound SR 12 right turn Westbound SR 12 left turn to Westgate Drive Westgate Drive northbound to eastbound and westbound SR 12 Site Plan needs to show Caltrans Right of Way (WW) and ultimate R/W a All signals should be coordinated • All work within the State Right of Way will require an Encroachmentpermit. "Caltrans Improves nloblllty across CdVornla" aog.28, 2008 3:34PM Mr. Bereket August 28,2008 Page 2 No, 0214 P. 3/3 If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments in more detail, please contact Kathy Selsor at 948-7190 (e-mail Kathy selsorRdot.ca.gov) or me at 941-1921. Since ly, TOM DUMAS, CHIEF OFFICE CE' METROPOLITAN PLANNING "Caltrans Improves mobility across Califbrala" S J C O G, Inc. AUG 2 9 2008 Via t, I rt 10 555 East Weber Avenue • Stockton, CA 95202 • (209) 468-3913 • FAX (209) 468-1084 San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation & Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) SJMSCPRESPONSE TO LEAD AGENCY ADVISORY AGENCY NOTICE TO SJCOG, Inc. To: Immanuel Bereket, City of Lodi Community Development Department From: Anne -Marie Poggio-Castillou, SJCOG, Inc. Date: August 26,2008 Re: Lead Agency ProjectTitle: Lodi Shopping Center (Super Wal-Mart) Tentative Map Lead Agency Project Number: 08 -SP -08,08-U-1 1 Assessor Parcel Number(s): 058-030-01 and 058-030-02 (058-030-09 Basin) Total Acres to be converted from Open Space Use: approximately 40 acres Habitat Types to be Disturbed: Agriculture Species Impact Findings: Findingsto be determined by SJMSCP biologist. Dear Mr. Bereket: SJCOG, Inc. has reviewed application for the Tentative Map for the Lodi Shopping Center (Super Wal-Mart). This project involves the construction of approximately 339,966 square feet of commercial retail uses, representing a variety of retail sales and services, to be contained in 13 buildingsof varying sizes. The primary userwill be Wal- Mart which will occupy which will approximately 226,868 square feet. The project is located at the southwest corner of West Kettleman Lane and South Sacramento Road. The project site is located entirely within the incorporated boundary of the City of Lodi. The SJMSCP is requesting a revision on section E3 of the Draft EIR (Biological Resources). This section states that no mitigation is required. This project is subjectto a site visit by a SJMSCP Biologistto perform a pre - construction survey prior to any ground disturbance. The projectwill also have to sign and return Incidental Take Minimization Measures to SJMSCP staff. This projectwill also have to pay current fees 30 prior to pulling permits. The Tentative Map also shows approximately4 acres adjacent and southwest of the shopping center site for construction of a storm water detention basin. The four acres will need to be addressed as to its part in the project or if it is a part of the Southwest Gateway Project. The City of Lodi is a signatory to San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Participation in the SJMSCP satisfies requirements of both the state and federal endangered species acts, and ensures that the impacts are mitigated below a level of significance in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary, lead agents should be aware that if project applicants choose against participating in the SJMSCP, they will be required to provide alternative mitigation in an amount and kind equal to that provided in the SJMSCP. This Project is subject to the SJMSCP. This can be up to a 30 day process and it is recommended that the project applicant contact SJMSCP staff as early as possible. Please contact SJMSCP staff regarding completing the following steps to satisfy SJMSCP requirements: ■ Schedule a SJMSCP Biologist to perform a pre -construction survey prior to any ground disturbance ■ Sign and Return Incidental Take Minimization Measures to SJMSCP staff (given to project applicant after pre -construction survey is completed) ■ Pay appropriate fee based on SJMSCP findings ■ Receive your Certificate of Payment and release the required permit If you have any questions, please call (209) 468-3913. Kari Chadwick From: Jeff Hood Sent: Friday, August 29, 200810:20 AM To: Randi Johl; Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Say No to Wal-Mart -----Original Message ----- From: Mary Hamlett[mailto:MaryHamlett@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:19 4M To: Jeff Hood Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Mary Hamlett It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. I am most concerned that the report and talks are not open and public. People should be informed of the process as it is happening and have a chance to comment on anything happening that is of concern to them. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Mike McLaughlin [mmclaughlin@iaff4577.org] Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 9:34 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Mike McLaughlin Please don't let Wal Mart build another Supercenter. Kari Chadwick From: Christina Graybill [tbill@infostations.com] Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 4:46 AM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Christina Graybill It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Wal-Mart ISN'T the kind of SUSTAINABLE development Lodi needs. Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. Wal-Mart Company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Candy Bowman [canbowring@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 31,2008 8:41 AM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Candy Bowman It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi 's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Michelle Johnston [mishj@zapcom.net] Sent: Sunday, August 31,2008 10:47 AM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Michelle Johnston It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick From: Jeff Hood Sent: Monday, September 08,2008 8:38 AM To: Randi Johl; Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Say No to Wal-Mart - --Original Message ----- From: Jean Wilbourn [mailto:cllctr55@sbcglobal.netl Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 7:48 PM To: Jeff Hood Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Jean Wilbourn It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart -----Original Message ----- From: Bob Sipe [mailto:bobsipe@netzero,com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:01 PM To: Peter Pirnejad. Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Bob Sipe It seems that after years of debate, Wal-Mart has again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart -----Original Message ----- From: David Smith(mailto:davidsmith20o7@gmail.com) Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:58 PM To: Peter Pirnejad Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: David Smith No Walmart in LODI!! Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi's own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: Poison Toys & Lead Paint in downtown Lodi _____Original Message ----- From: Stephanie Conrad[mailto:stephfran2fish@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:13 PM To: Peter Pirnejad. Subject: Poison Toys & Lead Paint in downtown Lodi From: Stephanie Conrad Brought to you by the City Council and Walmart Corporation. Just say no to poison toys. S. Conrad Sacramento, CA. 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart -----Original Message ----- From: Jessica Garcia [mailto:jgarcia@seiu1000.org] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:13 PM To: Peter Pirnejad. Subject: Say No to Wal-Mart From: Jessica Garcia It seems that after years of debate, Wa -Mart nas again decided it wants a new store in Lodi. The Stockton Record tells us that there are 20 Wal -Mart's within 40 miles of downtown Stockton. And Wal-Mart admits that its current store on West Kettleman is doing fine. Do we really need another Wal-Mart in Lodi? Another supercenter will further endanger Lodi Is own local businesses -- which, unlike Wal-Mart, treat their employees with respect and reinvest their profits in our community. The company has an infamous record of dodging its state and local taxes, as well as bringing excessive noise and traffic and lowering the property values for nearby residents. Finally, Lodi residents don't want the environmental damage that a new supercenter brings. If the city of Lodi is sitting on a draft version of the final Wal-Mart environmental report, I strongly urge you to make it public. This is not a private document, and the public should be given full access to such reports. Communities across the country have been standing up to Wal-Mart and winning -- now it's our turn to settle this debate once and for all. Thank you. 1 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Mark Anaforian [mjanaforian@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27,2008 2:51 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Re: Lodi Shopping Center Final Revised Environmental Impact Report Kari With respect to your findings your reasoning is completely wrong. On my first point addressed by the committee you state that while other stores would initially experience slower sales, an increase in population would resolve the problem. Has the board noticed the real estate market lately? People cannot pay their existing mortgages, as evidenced by all the foreclosures in this part of California, let alone afford a new house. You are putting your hopes on the market turning around a lot quicker than most experts expect. What qualifications does the board have in predicting future home sales? On top of the above stated comment, how big does Lodi want to be? I for one do not want this community to turn into our neighbors to the south. The second point you addressed was about the vacancy of the existing Wal-Mart. You first said that finding a tenant should not be a problem. Who? A store that size with it's enormous square footage can only accommodate a certain type of store. You also say that if the store is not rented out in 90 days it will be demolished. I'm sure the existing tenants would be thrilled with trucks, bulldozers and loud noises while trying to conduct business. As evidenced by this report it seems the board 'bending over backwards' to accommodate this project. Where is the loyalty to the existing businesses in Lodi? They represent your tax base and should be treated as a valuable asset to the city. So build your supercenter and watch as everything I warned you about come true. I deal with retail chains throughout California and have seen this in numerous cities. I would say it will give me great pleasure to say'I told you so' ,but it won't because people will have lost theirjobs as a result of your decision. Thank You, Mark Anaforian --- On Tue, 8/26/08, Kari Chadwick <kchadwick@lodLgov> wrote: From: Kari Chadwick <kchadwick@lodi.gov> Subject: Lodi Shopping Center Final Revised Environmental Impact Report To: Date: Tuesday, August 26,2008, 3:06 PM Please let this message serve as notification that the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report has been posted to the City of Lodi Web page and is ready for viewing. Should you encounter any difficulties, please do not hesitate to contact our office. http://www.lodi.gov/com dev/EIRs.html Thank you, Kari Chadwick Administrative Secretary Community Development Department (209) 333-6711 09/08/2008 555 E. f giber Avc,. Stockton, (tet 95202 WWW� 9JI00g Or DATE: September 12,2008 TO: Mr. Immanuel Bereketor Responsible Planning Staff .%s SEP 15 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI RE: Super Wal-Mart Proposal: File No. 08 -SP -08, 08-U-11, 08-P-04 Dear Mr. Bereket: On August 20, 2008 SJCOG received notification from the City of Lodi of a project that is proposing to construct approx. 227,000 sq. ft. retail center on the southwest corner of Lower Sacramento Rd. and SR 12. As the County's designated Congestion Management Agency, SJCOG is required to analyze and comment on future land usesthat may impact roadways located within the RCMP network. The Land Use Analysis Process was adopted as part of the 2007 Regional Congestion Management Plan and is also mandated by state CMP Legislation (Section 65089). The relevant portions from the RCMP, State Legislation, along with an exhibit of the RCMP Roadway Network are attached to this correspondence. Trip generation rates were estimated using ITE methodology. This methodology showed that the project would generate over 800 p.m. peak -hour trips. These trips were distributed (modeled) to evaluate the effect on the CMP roadway network. Results of the distribution show that the project will create degradation in the level of service that exceeds the LOS standards within the RCMP on the following two roadways: 1. Lower Sacramento Rd. —Turner Rd. to Harney Ln. 2. State Rte. 12 — Davis Rd. to South Hutchins St. As the project proceeds with the review process, SJCOG recommends that these potential impacts be analyzed within the project's Traffic Impact Analysis and accompanying environmental document. The analysis should contain a section that specifically addresses requirements and standards of the RCMP and State CMP Legislation and measures that will be appropriate for mitigating any impacts considered significant. SJCOG is currently in the process of developing measures that will be considered as acceptable mitigation. September 12,2008 File No. 08 -SP -08,08-U-11, 08-P-04 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for forwarding the project information to this office for review. Please feel free to call mewith any questions or comments you may have at (209)468-3913. Sincer y, Laura Brunn SJCOG Associate Regional Planner cc: Dana Cowell, Deputy Director Mike Swearingen, Senior Regional Planner Attachments: Map Exhibit - 1 page RCMP Excerpt- 6 pages California Code, Section 65089 - 3 pages CMP ROADWAY NETWORK - 2007 LEVEL OF SERVICE Cgnggstion,Management Plan CHAPTER 5 Land Use Impact Analysis Program 5.1 Introduction The Land Use Analysis Program focuses on the relationship between transportation and land use with a focus on the regional transportation impacts of local land use decisions. While most cities consider the effect that a new development will have on local roads and streets, the impact that new development may have on state highways or principal arterials in other jurisdictions is largely ignored. Ideally, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review takes into account the regional impacts of a given project; however, this is not always the case. As such, state statute' requires that CMP's evaluate the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on the regional transportation system. The RCM P's Land Use Analysis Program considers how local land use decisions affect travel on the RCMP transportation network. This program also provides a framework for addressing these impacts, either through the local planning processor ultimately through the RCMP Deficiency Plan Program. 5.2 Factors in the Design of the Land Use Analysis Program When designing the most appropriate Land Use Analysis Program for San Joaquin a number of factors were given consideration, namely existing legislation, the goals of the program and the challenges facing the RCMP. Legislation. CMP legislation states that the performance measures defined in the RCMP should be used, to the extent possible, to determine the impact of local land use decisions on the transportation system. The program must also include an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating the impacts, excluding the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel. Finally, the program shall provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to the regional transportation system. Goals. Drawing upon CMP legislation, Federal SAFETEALU legislation, and Measure K the following goals for the Land Use Analysis Program were identified: — To provide information that is useful to local jurisdictions. — To facilitate inter -jurisdictional cooperation in analyzing and mitigating the impact of land use decisions, when necessary. — To adopt programs that strive to keep the increase in VMT to an annual rate that is equal or less than the population increase. I California Government Code 65089(b)(4) 3O1Pa,e congestion_ Managemen&!?va — To adopt programs that promotes travel by alternate modes. — To support and plan for improved heavy passenger rail and regional bus connections with the Bay Area and Sacramento. — To identify local land use decisionsthat have a significant impact on the RCMP system and to establish a processfor mitigating these impacts. — To ensure that new development contributes a fair share and provides transportation improvements at the time of new construction. Local governments are required to be aware of any significant traffic impacts that a proposed project may create before the approval decision. Knowing what the transportation impacts are at this early stage gives the jurisdiction the opportunity to develop appropriate mitigation and fee measures with the applicant. 5.3 Regional Traffic Model The regional traffic model is an integral component of the Land Use Analysis Program, and its maintenance is a requirement of both the State CMP legislation and the Measure K Ordinance. One of the major functions of the model is to project the traffic impacts of potential and actual land use decisions on the regional transportation system. The regional traffic model is also used to project the future levels of traffic on the RCMP system, to predict where performance standards may not be met. These traffic volume projections are designed to give SJCOG and local governments a vision of the regional traffic congestion that will occur if no additional action is taken. RegionalTraffic Model Details One of the functions of S,JCOG is to develop and update projections of future traffic conditions for all major roadways in San Joaquin County. SJCOG staff accomplishes this through the use of this computerized traffic model. The model uses a three -tiered forecasting process: trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. First, the model projects the numbers of trips that will be produced and attracted for each land use, based on the assumed future land use conditions. Per California Code Section 65089.4, this figure cannot include interregional trips. Second, the model uses a standard gravity equation to assign an origin and destination traffic zone for each trip. Finally, the model assigns each trip to a specific route between its origin and destination. The model is run in-house on SJCOG's personal computers, using the TP+ Traffic Forecasting Program. The model is calibrated on 2005 base conditions. This calibration means that the model replicates actual 2005 traffic patterns within specific tolerance levels. 311PaLre Congestion_Management Plan SJCOG's model evaluates interregional trips involving San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, the Sacramento region, the entire Bay Area, Calaveras County, and Amador County. Average daily traffic (present and future) for all major roadways is dynamically represented between and within San Joaquin County and all of these regions. The model relies on the following five land use variables to forecast traffic: • Number of Single Family Households • Number of Multi -Family Households • Number of Retail Employees • Number of Service Employees • Number of Other Employees 5.4 Review of Proposed Land Use Projects The 2007 renewal of the Measure K Ordinance stipulates that SJCOG will "review all environmental documents and/or development applications for residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development in San Joaquin County generating 125or more peak hourtrips. based on ITE factors. Specific projects excluded as part of the cause of a deficiency include those cited in Government Code Section 65089.4 such as high-density residential and mixed use projects within mile of a fixed rail passenger station and low-income and very low income housing. SJOOG will comment on each of these developments as to their impact on the region's congestion management system and recommend the appropriate measures to address the impacts new development will have on the existing transportation system. It should be noted that SJCOG's ability to comment should not be interpreted as an authority to reject development applications. For the purpose of the RCMP, the review of development applications will include all new projects that are subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. These projects require the judgment or deliberation by a jurisdiction's policy decision-making body prior to approving or disapproving the land use activity. This is distinguished from other types of projects where the lead public agency or body is only responsible for determining whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. The traffic impacts of these types of projects will be captured through updates traffic counts and analysis of the effects on the CMS per section 1.3 of this document. In order to capture developments subject to review by the CMA, SJCOG has developed a simple single -page development questionnaire that is intended to be completed by the permitting jurisdiction at the time of application submittal. This form found in Appendix D solicits simple descriptive information for any project above a minimum size that wouldn't generate the required threshold of trips. The forms are transmitted to S100G where a simple trip generation 321Pa`,, Congestion. Management Plan. computation is performed to determine if the threshold has been met. For projects meeting the trip generation threshold, SJOOG prepares a comment letter addressing the impact these trips may have on regional transportation systems. As required within Measure K if the subject project is located on or near a State highway, SJCOG will seek further comment from Caltrans. The following items are considered during the preparation of the comment letter: ✓ Potential impact on the RCMP transportation network; ✓ Possible alternative modal infrastructure improvements that should be supported; and, ✓ Possible TDM programs that the project may participate in. Regarding SJCOG's review of General Plan updates and revisions; since revised general plans set the stage for development over a 20 year period, it is important to consider their impact on the regional transportation system. Currently, SJOOG as the CMA receives proposed general plan updates and amendments. Under this Land Use Analysis Program, SJCOG will review these documents and provide comments regarding the impact that the proposed land use designations will have on the regional system, if approved. 5.5 Use of Development Impact Information State law places responsibility for the Land Use Analysis Program on local jurisdictions, since they retain the power to approve or deny project applications. SJCOG can assist cities and the County in determining regional traffic impacts, but the Lead Agency is responsible for determining how to mitigate these impacts and what the cost will be to do so. SJOOG encourages local agencies to require development projects to cover the costs of mitigating transportation impacts, but the decision to do so rests with the city or County. Mitigation Local jurisdictions are responsible for determining the types of mitigations that will be used to address regional traffic impacts. These mitigations are left to the local jurisdiction's discretion, but SJCOG will provide support and coordination to determine the best strategy(s) as needed. A toolbox of possible mitigation measures is identified in Section 7. Inter -Jurisdictional Impacts A regional analysis based on local land use decisions will often involve more than one jurisdiction. For example, a large project approved by City A (Lead Agency) may affect traffic on a nearby 331Pa`re Congestion.Management Plan, principal arterial in City B (affected city). The RCMP places the responsibility for addressing the significant traffic impacts with the approving jurisdiction. However, SJOOG also recognizes that CityA will need to work with City B in order to properly mitigate the traffic impacts on the affected segment. It is the preference of SJCOG that the Lead Agency work with any affected jurisdiction to arrive at a mutually agreeable plan for addressing the inter -jurisdictional impacts of a given project. If a dispute arises, or at the request of either party, SJCOG will assist both localities in preparing a mitigation plan that meets the requirements of this land use program. 5.6 Local and Regional Traffic Impact Fees Per Measure K this Land Use Impact Program is intended to ensure that "new development contributes a fair share and provides transportation improvements at the time of new construction." Meanwhile, State CMP legislation also expects that the Land Use Program will provide "credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to regional transportation systems," in order to prevent developers from paying twice for the same improvements to the regional transportation system. All jurisdictions developed and adopted a Local Traffic Fee program soon after the Measure K Transportation Sales Tax program began implementation. In addition, Measure K's Ordinance and Local Transportation Improvement Program stated the following: "It is an objective of the Local Transportation Authority that a program of Regional Traffic Mitigation fees, assessments, or other mitigations, as appropriate, to fund regional and sub -regional transportation projects, be developed and implemented in San Joaquin County by January 1, 1993." The rationale for a regional fee is that it would capture the impact of each development that local governments approve rather than just capturing the impact of large general plan amendments. While the impact of certain projects will be small, their cumulative effect could be significant. Also, large projects developed under existing General Plans will also have an effect on the regional transportation system. Another advantage of the regional fee approach to impact mitigations is that the requirement for equity in the project approval process would be met. All projects must be treated equally with respect to project approval conditions. Because a regional fee would apply to all projects, regardless of size, each project would pay its proportionate share of the costs. In addition, State law requires that there be a direct relationship (nexus) between a project's impact and the required fees or mitigations. Another advantage of a regional fee over the analysis 341Pa-e Canggstion,Management Plan, of General Plan Amendments is that the fee can be linked directly to a project proposal. As such, the analysis would be more specific, the mitigation would be clearly defined (the fee), and the time lag between the project approval and the adoption of a mitigation would be reduced. The legal nexus between the project and the condition would be clearly established. Finally, mitigating impacts outside of one's jurisdiction can be a difficult process. A regional fee whose revenues are used to fund a set of regional projects would obviate the need to work out mitigation agreements for each project with an inter -jurisdictional impact. Each project's proportionate share of the costs of mitigations would be determined by the fee, based on the projected trip ends. All jurisdictions adopted and began implementation of the R11F program by July 1, 2006. To ensure that the R11F is being assessed and applied toward regional traffic mitigation projects that were identified in the development of the fee, SJCOG monitors the local jurisdictions' collection and disbursement of the fee. This monitoring will be accomplished through SJCOG's annual audit process of local agency transportation funds. 351Pa,,` 65088.5. Congestion management programs, if prepared by county transportation commissions and transportation authorities created pursuant to Division 12 (commencing with Section 130000) of the Public Utilities Code, shall be used by the regional transportation planning agency to meet federal requirements for a congestion management system, and shall be incorporated into the congestion management system. 65089. (a) A congestion management program shall be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent with the schedule for adopting and updating the regional transportation improvement program, for every county that includes an urbanized area, and shall include every city and the county. The program shall be adopted at a noticed public hearing of the agency. The program shall be developed in consultation with, and with the cooperation of, the transportation planning agency, regional transportation providers, local governments, the department, and the air pollution control district or the air quality management district, either by the county transportation commission, or by another public agency, as designated by resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county. (b) The program shall contain all of the following elements: (1) (A) Traffic level of service standards established for a system of highways and roadways designated by the agency. The highway and roadway system shall include at a minimum all state highways and principal arterials. No highway or roadway designated as a part of the system shall be removed from the system. All new state highways and principal arterials shall be designated as part of the system, except when it is within an infill opportunity zone. Level of service (LOS) shall be measured by Circular 212, by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, or by a uniform methodology adopted by the agency that is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual. The determination as to whether an alternative method is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual shall be made by the regional agency, except that the department instead shall make this determination if either (i) the regional agency is also the agency, as those terms are defined in Section 65088.1, or (ii) the department is responsible for preparing the regional transportation improvement plan for the county. (B) In no case shall the LOS standards established be below the level of service E or the current level, whichever is farthest from level of service A except when the area is in an infill opportunity zone. When the level of service on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established level of service standard outside an infill opportunity zone, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4. (2) A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, these performance measures shall incorporate highway and roadway system performance, and measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. These performance measures shall support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and shall be used in the development of the capital improvement program http: //www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=Q"19412226+0+0+0&WAISa... 09/10/2008 required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4). (3) A travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, including, but not limited to, flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs. The agency shall consider parking cash -out programs during the development and update of the travel demand element. (4) A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. This program shall measure, to the extent possible, the impact to the transportation system using the performance measures described in paragraph (2). In no case shall the program include an estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel. The program shall provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to regional transportation systems. However, in the case of toll road facilities, credit shall only be allowed for local public and private contributions which are unreimbursed from toll revenues or other state or federal sources. The agency shall calculate the amount of the credit to be provided. The program defined under this section may require implementation through the requirements and analysis of the California Environmental Quality Act, in order to avoid duplication. (5) A seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods, to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified pursuant to paragraph (4) The program shall conform to transportation -related vehicle emission air quality mitigation measures, and include any project that will increase the capacity of the multimodal system. It is the intent of the Legislature that, when roadway projects are identified in the program, consideration be given for maintaining bicycle access and safety at a level comparable to that which existed prior to the improvement or alteration. The capital improvement program may also include safety, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects that do not enhance the capacity of the system but are necessary to preserve the investment in existing facilities. (c) The agency, in consultation with the regional agency, cities, and the county, shall develop a uniform data base on traffic impacts for use in a countywide transportation computer model and shall approve transportation computer models of specific areas within the county that will be used by local jurisdictions to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system that are based on the countywide model and standardized modeling assumptions and conventions. The computer models shall be consistent with the modeling methodology adopted by the regional planning agency. The data bases used in the models shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional planning agency. Where the regional agency has jurisdiction over two or more counties, the data bases used by the agency shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional agency. (d) (1) The city or county in which a commercial development will implement a parking cash -out program that is included in a congestion management program pursuant to subdivision (b), or in a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4, shall grant to that development an http:l/www.leginfo.ca. gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAIS docID=07139412226+0+0+0& WAISa... 09/10/2008 appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise in effect for new commercial development. (2) At the request of an existing commercial development that has implemented a parking cash -out program, the city or county shall grant an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise applicable based on the demonstrated reduced need for parking, and the space no longer needed for parking purposes may be used for other appropriate purposes. (e) Pursuant to the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and regulations adopted pursuant to the act, the department shall submit a request to the Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator to accept the congestion management program in lieu of development of a new congestion management system otherwise required by the act. 65089.1. (a) For purposes of this section, "plan" means a trip reduction plan or a related or similar proposal submitted by an employer to a local public agency for adoption or approval that is designed to facilitate employee ridesharing, the use of public transit, and other means of travel that do not employ a single -occupant vehicle. (b) An agency may require an employer to provide rideshare data bases; an emergency ride program; a preferential parking program; a transportation information program; a parking cash -out program, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 65088.1; a public transit subsidy in an amount to be determined by the employer; bicycle parking areas; and other noncash value programs which encourage or facilitate the use of alternatives to driving alone. An employer may offer, but no agency shall require an employer to offer, cash, prizes, or items with cash value to employees to encourage participation in a trip reduction program as a condition of approving a plan. (c) Employers shall provide employees reasonable notice of the content of a proposed plan and shall provide the employees an opportunity to comment prior to submittal of the plan to the agency for adoption. (d) Each agency shall modify existing programs to conform to this section not later than June 30, 1995. Any plan adopted by an agency prior to January 1, 1994, shall remain in effect until adoption by the agency of a modified plan pursuant to this section. (e) Employers may include disincentives in their plans that do not create a widespread and substantial disproportionate impact on ethnic or racial minorities, women, or low-income or disabled employees. (f) This section shall not be interpreted to relieve any employer of the responsibility to prepare a plan that conforms with trip reduction goals specified in Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code, or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec, 7401 et seq.). (g) This section only applies to agencies and employers within the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 65089.2. (a) Congestion management programs shall be submitted to the regional agency. The regional agency shall evaluate the consistency between the program and the regional transportation plans http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0713 9412226+0+0+0& WAISa... 09/10/2008 SEP 2 5 200 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CREPT OF LODI 17 alticl ate. � � 'Clol Jo Ai td3a -LN31Nd0T33All AIINWOO C!!A13,--)3H 1-2 V1 go i Mr. & Mrs. Jack Fiori Z4-1 A/ 0 -Ab c,zk/tt 7LZI l�ff nv� /D rfs COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI Y084434 September 26,2008 Community Development Director P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, Ca 95241-1910 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission, • - R,. CITY •r Unfortunately this Wal -mart Project "dialogue" seems to have to go on and on. The document circulating in local mail from "Lodi Residents for Community Preservation" is quite frustrating to me and keeps rehashing old ground whose points were clearly rejected by the voters in Lodi and also have been diligently reviewed in the Revised EIR by paid 3r party professionals. Yet the locals keep getting badgered by this constant mantra of resisting change, with a lot of self serving rhetoric. I have lived in Lodi since 1967 and find the downtown area a better place to dine, recreate, and shop than it ever has been in the past. Please keep in mind the fact that those who don't like Wal -mart can take their business elsewhere, and stop whining. I would prefer to avoid rehashing old issues such as the waste of traveling to Holman and Hammer Lane in Stockton, turning our backs on improved tax revenues for the City of Lodi, and not providing additional opportunities for Lodi residents to have better access to competitively priced every days commodity needs "here at home". 1 have confidence that you will again make the right decisions and provide an affirmative go ahead for the Wal -mart Supercenter complex. lembrace useful change and in the 41 years that I have been a resident of Lodi I have witnessed a lot of very positive change. People that reject "constructive change" are deluding themselves and living in fantasy land. The Lodi -News -Sentinel had an item in last Saturday's edition, about the rescheduling of the expected Planning commission meeting on the 24"', which is now rescheduled for the 8"' of October. Iwas expecting to attend the meeting on the 2e, to try to get my $.25 worth in but now that it is re -scheduled to a time when I will be out of town participating in some "Senior Games" in St. George, Utah, from 10/5 to 10/18/08, (will not be able to be present at the scheduled meeting on October 8t'. (would greatly appreciate your entering this message into the records of your meeting and deliberations. Thhaa�nk you for Nstening, sincerely, Jim Locke 511 Willow Glen Drive Lodi, Ca 95240-0511 368-9009 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: myra mortenson [myralodi@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, September 29,2008 4:43 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: comment for planning commission Lodi does not need a Walmart Supercenter. Please vote NO. Fred Mortenson Growth has hurt Lodi's small community feel for serveral decades Stockton's Walmart Super Center is only 15 minutes away, let the traffic stay down there! 09/29/2008 Kari Chadwick From: Nancy Watts [nawatts@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 8:14 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: NO to Wal-Mart Supercenter TO: City Clerk, Mayor and City Council of Lodi, I urge a NO vote by our city council on approval of the Wal-Mart Supercenter! Their one page ad in today's paper cites $ statistics that in no way reflect the economic impact on locally owned and operated businesses. Is your decision based on $'s or sense? IT isnIt always about $'s, but quality of life. We do have a Wal-Mart presently that offer's local households their services. WE DO NOT NEED MORE. The article states, "In every community where Wal-Mart opens its doors, local shoppers benefit Perhaps, but take a look across the country at small town America where the entry of Wal-Mart into the retail mkt. has dried up downtowns and closed local businesses. Your decision reaches far into the heart of our community where we should be supporting local businesses, giving them opportunities to grow and thrive, not take away those opportunities. My second major objection concerns their businesses practices and intimidation of manufacturers and suppliers. Seeing large plants standing vacant in middle America, because Wal-Mart made demands that economically could only be met in China ... they are not for America and the American worker. Wal-Mart is for Wal-Mart! Wal-Mart is not for Lodi. It is Wal-Mart greed. Other cities have stood their ground against Wal-Mart .. it is time Lodi did the same! (Just an additional note ... what would happen to the existing building? They would be required to lease it? Another box store? What happens if the tenant fails? How long would Wal-Mart be responsible for it.) I urge a NO VOTE on the Lodi Wal-Mart Supercenter! Sincerely, Nancy Watts Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Mike Boggus [mboggus@sunmaid.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 200810:01 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart Just a note to state that I am for allowing Wal-Mart to proceed with their proposed new location at Lower Sac & Kettleman. I don't understand why Lodi would risk losing this new source of taxes? It is a no brainer — if the new location goes in then everyone (including) my wife that leaves Lodi to shop in Stockton for cheaper prices will return to shopping in Lodi. I am a resident in Lodi and live at 1142 Bridgetowne Drive, 95242. Mike Boggus Director of Sales & Marketing - Licensing Sun -Maid Growers of California 7273 Murray Drive, Suite 18 Stockton, CA 95210-3386 Direct Telephone: 1-209-472-8445 Cell Phone: 1-209-482-3484 Facsimile: 1-209-472-8448 Email: mboggus@sunmaid.com Web: www.sunmaid.com 10/01/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Doris Osburn [doris612@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 10:02 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart 1011108 To whom it may concern. My Husband and Iwish to put in our thoughts on the new Wal-Mart . we wish for it to be built. it would be a much needed service to the low income and senior citizens of Lodi and surrounding areas. We do most of our shopping at Wal-Mart and we got to Lodi or Elk Grove to do this On some occasions we have gone to Stockton which has a very nice store and has every thing one could want with out going to far from home in this age of high gas prices. Since Galt does not have any stores in which to purchase most of our needs .we have to go out of town which means Lodi Elk Grove Sacramento or Stockton. And as for it closing stores in down town that wont happen as stores up town don't sell what Wal-Mart does and Wal-Mart has already been there for several years and the uptown stores are still there. Thank you for you letting me send in our input in this matter. Doris & Leoland Osburn 21 Ramon Drive Galt,Ca 95632 10/01/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: evelyn_gannon@att.net Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 12:38 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Re: Walmart Why is there a HOLD UP on this projectwhen the voters of Lodi have voted and passed the building of WalMart here in Lodi? Evelyn Gannon dammad 10/01/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Dorothy Washburn [dotwash@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 10:43 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: walrnart super center Cityclerk and city leaders: My husband and I fully support a Wal Mart Supercenter in Lodi. We shop at Wal Mart and frequently shop at the Stockton Wal Mart on Hammer Lane. We have other friends and neighbors in Lockeford who shop at Wal Mart and are in favor of the supercenter. Dorothy and Richard Washburn 18573 Milford Drive Lockeford,CA 95237 IDYIIH►• IZII:� Page I of I Kari Chadwick From: Carol Linde [cl!nde@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 2:42 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Please! Planning Commission: I'm writing to tell you please let us have the Wal-Mart we approved by vote along time ago. Wal-Mart needs this store and so doe we. The current store is grossly inadequate. The isles are so narrow that one can barely pass another with a cart. I understand the need for them to make them narrow because they desperately need the room . This should be one stipulation in the new store. Please tell them to give us wider isles. All the arguments about this store hurting downtown are ridiculous. The people who shop downtown do not shop at Wal-Mart. Those of us who can't afford to shop downtown need a store like Wal-Mart and these days there are probably more of us then previously. Thank you, Carol A. Linde 10/01/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Ginny Perry [gin nyl ue@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 3:21 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart Supercenter In response to the ad in today's Lodi News -Sentinel, Wednesday, October 1st, I want my voice heard: OUR CITY NEEDS THE TAX REVENUE FROM A WAL-MART SUPERCENTER ASAPI Thank you, Virginia Perry 303 Tioga Dr. Lodi, CA 95242 10/01/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: wilona perry [wilonaf@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 4:29 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: RE: Walmart I saw an ad in today paper to e-mail you if we were in favor of the new Super Walmart. I am e -mailing you to let you and anyone else who might care, that we are riot in favor of a new Super Walmart. Thank you, Robert & Wilona Perry, 2401 Woodlake Ct. Lodi, CA 95243. 10/01/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Sue McCombs [osmccombs@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:52 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION Lodi Planning Commission: We overwhelmingly support the plans for a new Wal Mart in Lodi. The current Wal Mart obviously is too small and congested for the increased population in Lodi now. It's a shame that this has dragged on for years and we really hope that this will be approved now and not delayed again. After seeing the Reynolds Ranch project approval of double the commercial area that was approved in the original plan, we do not see how there could be a problem with this approval and it would take a major amount of rationalizing to the public if not approved. Olen and Suzanne McCombs 363 S. Sunset Dr. Lodi HIIEIW G IZ11:? Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: ANTHONY AND SHANNA MEDEIROS [anthnshanna@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 6:05 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart NOON WALMART! THEY ARE RUINING THE ECONOMY JUST LIKE WALL STREET! 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Ted McBrayer [tedmcbrayer@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:23 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart Supercenter Please approve the Wal-Mart Supercenter! ! ! ! ! PLEASE APPROVE THE WALMART SUPERCENTER! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sincerely, Ted and Lynda McBrayer G Robin Court Lodi 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 2 Kari Chadwick From: LARRY NITSCHKE [lazylc@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02,2008 2:05 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wall Mart Planning commissioners: This e-mail is about the meting on Oct 8th on the new Wall Mart store. I am very much in favor of it being built. My reasons being that it will provide more jobs even for those who are disabled or senior citizens, as you well know our city could surly use some of the tax money they could bring in. Now to the planning committee it has been discussed about a possibility of building up to 7000 houses in that area, there would more than likely be an average of two cars per household , I doubt Wall Mart will generate that much traffic a day probably less than half. There will be senior citizens ri ding the buses out to Wall Mart where they will be able to make most of if not all their purchases in one stop. My other remark I would like to make is having read a number of letters against Wall -Mart and that it will hurt downtown HOW ? I don't think they are planing on putting in restaurant's, bars, wine tasting rooms or a theater. Lodi First and others need to get a life and let those who voted FOR and passed Wall Mart to be built here enjoy what Wall -Mart can do for the city of Lodi. Maybe some people will get their groceries there but I feel people will still purchase most at their regular grocery store and buy forgotten or quick purchases while shopping there. Thank you; Cheryl Nitschke 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Virginia Denner Unnym1 @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11;17 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart Super Center Of all the things that the city of Lodi has done to this community, building a super center Wal-Mart probably puts the icing on the cake. Have you taken a look at the Wal-Mart that is already here? The store and parking lot are never clean. The bathrooms are dirty and never seem to be working properly. Security forget it. The guy that drives around in his little car with the yellow light on top wouldn't scare anyone away. So if the Wal-Mart Super Center is built does this mean that the mess will go away? Will Wal-Mart guarantee that their store will be clean and the parking lot kept clear of trash and people doing drugs? Will Wal-Mart guarantee that their store will be maintained in the proper manner? I use to like shopping at Wal-Mart because their prices are lower, but not at the expense of shopping in a dirty store. I want to shop in a clean well kept store like Target. 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: reformedgranny@att.net Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:00 PM To: RandiJohl Subject: WalMart Dear Commissioners; Iam unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday, October 8th, but want you to know that I am all for the Supercenter. Ibelieve that it would be very good for the community. As far as the small businesses being hurt --most of the people that shop at those businesses probably never step foot in a WalMart. Thank you. Darlene Ward 1390 W. Lockeford St. #3 Lodi, CA 95242 107[1MKII7:� Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Tom Roehrich [tomroehrich@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October01,2008 8:47 PM To: RandiJohl Subject: Please Let Us Have the Supercenter t was unanimous six years ago and still is now. The people of Lodi want a Wal-Mart Supercenter. I for one am tired of having to drive to Stockton's Supercenter for my groceries. Although it is cheaper to go there, it is inconvienient. Let's keep the money in Lodi. Pleasevote yes on the Supercenter!! Thank you Tom Roehrich Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now 11117LIN►• IZII:1 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Wanda Van Santen Dwvans5@softcom.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 7:46 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: For WalMart Supercenter! Dear Joann Mounce, The is in about the WalMart Supercenter and I hope that it gets approved by the city council. I hope that you support this as well! Thanks, Wanda Van Santen 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: John Costa Bohnlcosta@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,20087:24 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart Im against a super walmart in lodi. 'When i drive by the one in Stocton , Im struck by the moonscape like apperance . I cant help but think that this kind of entity in our small town may would crater our emerging economy as a turist destination. walmart is a preditor and inconsistant with livable lovable lodi. REGARDS J.Costa. Kari Chadwick From: Alan Goldberg [agoldberg45@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 7:211 PM To: RandiJohl Subject: Wal-Mart Planning Commission on 10/8 Planning Commissioners: Please approve the Wal-Mart Super Center! i can think of no viable reason against not doing so. The SW corner of Kettleman and Lower Sac is slated for retail, the center should create more jobs, and we'll get more sales revenue in Lodi. Furthermore, our poorer citizens, as well as all others, will have access to lower priced merchandise thereby improving their standard of living. Traffic might increase some, but then we have an extremely large existing intersection which is currently under-utilized. Don't let all citizens of Lodi be held hostage by a small number of special interest groups. Thank you. Alan M. Goldberg 912 Evert Court Lodi 333-1045 1 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Wally Emery [wally@wallyemery.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 6:43 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: wal mart I want a lodi Wal mart supercenter. Wally Emery 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Pegi [pegi-poo@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 6:43 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: walmart I cannot get to the meeting tonight, however I do hope we get a supercenter in Lodi. Pegi Morgan 2001 carmel cir • Lodi,ca95242 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Dale Hughes [ddh1968@softcom.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02,2008 7:36 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Approve Wal-Mart We would enjoy having a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Lodi. It was voted on and approved several years ago by 2/3 majority of Lodi residents. Let the store be built! 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: demars [demarsl@comcast.netj Sent: Thursday, October 02,2008 1:15 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Vote FOR Walmart Supercenter I WANT a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Lodi. Please count my YES vote. Jennie G. DeMars 2663 Alder Glen Dr. Lodi, CA 95242 Phone # 334-5434 10/02/2008 Brent Ives CHAIR L. arg Hansell VICE CHAIR Andrew T. Chesley EX3?CUTIVE DIRECTOR Member A;encies C:ITIFS OF L'SCALON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 555 E. W,,eber Avenue • Stockton, California 95202 209.468.3913 0 209.468.1084 (fax) tvunu sjcog. org October 2, 2008 Mr. Immanuel Bereltet City of Lodi — Planning Division 221 West Pine Street/P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, GA 95241-1910 a R ENT DEPT CITY OF LODI RE: Super Wal-Mart Proposal: File No. 08 -SP -08, 08-U-11, 08-P-04 Dear Mr. Immanuel Bereket: LAT I1110P, On August 20,2008, SJCOG received notification from your office 1,01)1, requesting review per the Congestion Management Plan's "Land Use MANTECA, Analysis Program". State CMP statute requires that all Congestion RIPON, Management Agencies implement a "Land Use Analysis Program" as part S-1.0 c h TO N, of the adopted congestion management plan. During the initial review, TRACY, SJCOG staff misinterpreted the letter as notification of a newly proposed AN T) project in the beginning stages of processing and subject to the CMP review. 'I'HTi CO IIN'1'S' OF This project is not subject to the CMP review process because it was SAN JC1AQ[S7N commenced prior to January 2,2008. Subsequent modeling was completed and the results of the potential impacts to Lower Sacramento Rd. and State Rte. 12 were forwarded to you in a letter dated September 12,2008. We apologize for the error and request that your office please retract the letter. Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments you may have at (209) 468-3913. Sincerely, r' 'Mike Swearingen, Senior Regional Planner cc: Blair King, Lodi City Manager Andrew Chesley, SJCOG Director Dana Cowell, SJCOG Deputy Director Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Stan Mall [stanleyj@lodinet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:02 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: In favor of walmart supercenter Dear Commissioners, My wife and I have lived and worked in Lodi all our lives. We would like to see Walmart build a supercenter in Lodi. Please consider our voice in your vote on the store this October 8th. Respectfully, Kathleen M. Mall and Stanley J. Mall 10/02/2008 Kari Chadwick From: John Hanneson [haneson2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:19 AM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: NO WAL-MART .... WITH THE NEW APPROVALS FOR REYNOLDS RANCH RETAIL SPACE, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO DEVELOP ANOTHER SUPER WAL-MART IN LODI PLEASE VOTE DOWN, THANKS ....JOHN H Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Pegi [pegi-poo@comcast.neq Sent: Wednesday, October 01,2008 6:43 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: walmart • I cannot get to the meeting tonight, however I do hope we get a supercenter in Lodi. • Pegi Morgan • 2001 camel cir 0 Lodi,ca95242 10/07/2008 Kari Chadwick From: Willis Marzolf[vikinghearts@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02,2008 7:00 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart Supercenter This has been voted on by the people. Build the Walmart Supercenter already. NO MORE DELAYS!!!!! WILLIS MARZOLF Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: shirleyrnikeburns@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:50 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart I voted for Walmart and am looking forward to shopping at the supercenter. Please vote to let it be built. Shirley Burns 111 Applewood Dr. Lodi, Ca. 95242 209-369-4643 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Webmail winesong [winesong@myexcel.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:24 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: supercenter Please listen to the majority of the people of Lodi concerning the Wal Mart Supercenter. As retirees, we appreciate the opportunity to shop in one store for all our needs, and also know that we will save money doing so. The prices at Safeway, Raleys and even S Mart are too high, and running from sale to sale is impossible with the price of fuel. the sales tax revenue to the city is certainly a plus also, as well as new jobs. Do not let the pressure of special interest groups (who I am sure is mainly S Mart) deny the public what they have already overwhelmingly said yes to. We have had enough of that in the State and especially Federal Government, enough is enough! Many Lodi residents travel to Stockton to the supercenter on Hammer Lane, let's keep business in our own city. Thank you for you service to the citizens of this fine city. R. Verl and Maxine Tanner 13857 E Live Oak Rd Lodi Ca 95240 10/07/2008 Kari Chadwick From: randy@wahldeck.com Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:45 AM To: Randi Johl i want my wal-mart super store! Erma Wahl 400 s lee Lodi, CA 95240 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Margaret Hillious [mhillious@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 5:44 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart supercenter The residents of the city of Lodi are being exorbitant] , charged for electricit water, trash pickup. Wh r not allow them what they want - a W -M Supercenter? Jobs will )e made available and more money stays in Lod therefore, Lodi will benefit as well as the residents at large. I understand the concern of the small downtown merchants but they are a small percentage of the total population of Lodi and city officials should not make decisions based on what a select group desires. I believe downtown Lodi will continue as it currently is: a peaceful, laidback, small town environment for tourists and residents alike to enjoy. Thenk you for reading this. 10/07/2008 Kari Chadwick From: Beth Brampton [bbrampton@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 200810:28 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart disaster Dear City Clerk, Please forward a copy of this note to the Planning Commission members listed below. Thank you. Dear Commissioners, I am deeply opposed, as are the 3 other voting members of my household, to a Super Walmart in Lodi. Walmarts harm local businesses and are inappropriate to our small town Let's invest in promoting the things, places and businesses that make Lodi special, rather than relying on a massive big box store for revenues. Save our neighborhood grocery stores ... we in Lodi have stores that we can walk to or travel only a short distance to get to, which conserves energy. Putting these at risk would be a hardship for many and short-sighted during this time of energy shortage. Thanks for considering my opinion. Beth Brampton Lodi, CA I Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Alma Stroup [almadons@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04,2008 11:28 AM To: RandiJohl Subject: Walmart Supercenter in Lodi We are in favor of a Walmart Supercenter in Lodi We feel it would be a get benifit to our area. Before living in Lodi we lived in a comminty smaller the Lodi. There was all kind of opposition expressed there also when a Super Walmart was being planned. The biggest opposition was that it would run all the other smaller businesses out. We had two major supper markets in town Walmart built right next door to an Albersons. There business dropped for the first month then picked up and now 8 years later everyone has survived and all are doing well. We noted in the Lodi Sentinel a couple days ago it listed conditions that Walmart would need to meet. One was they would have to pay out over $600,000 to be used to improve the Lodi down town area. We think this is absolutely ridicules. Since when does free cntcrprizc require some one to pay to upgrade or improve someone elses business. I feel that a Walmart Supercenter would be a great asset to the community of Lodi. Donald W and Alma Stroup 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Mavis Ballantine [rnmavis@att.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 1:23 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal Mart Super center I support a Wal Mart Super Center to be built in Lodi. The people have voted on the issue and have made their voices heard.. Somehow the city is always finding obstacles to make the plans not happen. Putting more money into down town area is not feasable . Poor parking and shops that are not affordable to the average working class. The people have spoken so lets go on with the plans. Sincerely, Mavis Ballantine. INLOWN1I11;3 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: James Funk [sand iandjim@sbcglobal.netj Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 5:05 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart Supercenter I am writing to show my support of the new Walmart Supercenter. First of all, all you have to do is try to shop at our existing Walmart to see how badly a larger store is needed. During busy seasons, the parking lot is not large enough, the isles are too narrow, and crowded with shoppers, giving the store a crowded and messy look and feel. It is not a pleasant experience to shop at our existing store anymore. If Lodi is going to have a Walmart, why not have a beautiful new facility we can be proud of and enjoy shopping in (if we chose to). Secondly, I disagree with those that use the argument that it would bring too many low-paying jobs with poor benefits. Having been a Human Resources Manager for many years, I am well aware of the need forjobs to be available in many different pay levels. Many people (even herein Lodi) do not have the skills or abilities to do higher level, higher-payingjobs. There needs to be jobs available for ALL skill levels. If you were an unskilled, inexperienced, unemployed worker, would you not rather have a steady j ob with SOME benefits, rather that NO JOB AT ALL? A Superwalmart would add to job opportunities in Lodi, and take more people OFF THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINES. If Lodi denies the store, what are they offering to those workers instead? They are certainly not going to find j obs in downtown Lodi shops! Think about it! Also, I think it is entirely wrong to single out Walmart for all of those costly conditions. For instance, why did you not put those same conditions on Blue Shield, which now occupies the two huge buildings on Guild Avenue? Why are you authorizing all of the additional retail for Reynolds Ranch, with no similar conditions (which, incidentally, I feel will hurt downtown Lodi Businesses much more than a new Walmart). If any of you have ever been in an income bracket where you would have a need to shop in a Walmart or a KMart, you would KNOW that the downtown Lodi shops and the Walmart-type shopping are NOT in competition with each other. The only ones that would be competing with a Super Walmart might be the existing Supermarkets and Drugstores such as Longs and Walgreens. But why should we be concerned about that?? THEY were not Concerned years ago, when THEY came to town and put all the "Mom and POP" stores out of business. What is the difference? I don't feel our city leaders have listened to the majority of the people of Lodi when they voted NOT to limit the "big - box" stores (which was a "sneaky" way of being able to say no to Walmart). I believe the people in Lodi have a right to a nice, new Walmart, and the right to CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES whether or not to shop or work in that store. 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Marie Rizzolo [m_rizzolo@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 10:01 PM To: RandiJohl Subject: WALMART SUPERCENTER IN LODI CITYCLERK: My husband and I clearly want a Walmart Supercenter in this city. We need it very much and by and large most of the people in this city deserve this. During this time of crisis for so many people, help is a Walmart. Just think of the many people who will benefit by being employed by this good company. You do not see the people who do work for Walmart (some of them others would never employ) complaining about their employer. The media cannot be trusted with their complaints and downright lies. VOTE FOR THIS SUPRCENTER! ! ! Marie Rizzolo Eugene Rizzolo 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: liza hiltscher [lizahiitscher@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04,2008 10:52 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart I support the expansion of Wal-Mart business. Go for it Wal-Mart. We need big or supercenter Wal-Mart here in Lodi. "" Liza C. Hiltscher 464 Almond Drive Apt. 8 Lodi, CA 95240 USA 209-339-2325 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Norrene McLaughlin [enorie24@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 2:46 PM To: Randi Johl; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; Larry Hansen Subject: Walmart Supercenter Please, please, please for all of the reasons listed on page 12 of the Lodi News -Sentinel dated Saturdya, October 4, 2008, DO NOT allow a Walmart Supercenter to infiltrate the beautiful, well-managed and family- oriented Lodi. Thank you! Norrene McLaughlin Dedicated Lodi Resident 10711y/L►' I Kari Chadwick From: keith [hopcom@peoplepc.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:49 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: walmart supercenter TO CITY COUNCIL MY WIFE AND I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE WALMART SUPERCENTER. THANK YOU KEITH AND CYNTHIA HOPSON PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: NO WALMART SUPERSTORE!!!!!!!!!!!!HT! From: Claire Pacheco [mailto:cnpacheco@live.comj Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 1:00 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: NO WALMART SUPERSTORE!!!!HHH!!!!!!!! Imoved to LODI because it had smart growth and planning. You will lose many of with young families if the plan is to develop a suberb of Stockton. Itis a fact that every city to build a Super Walmart saw an increase of crime!!!!!!!! Please advise.... the citizens deserve better planning. VOTE NO TO WALMART superstores is a vote to maintain safety and quality of life for our citizens through limiting traffic and crime!! !!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE CONSIDER WHOLE FOODS STORE WHICH WILL KEEP GOOD PAYING JOBS FOR OUR CHILDREN AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO LOCATE To LODI. WE wi I I vote our interests... Claire Pacheco 840 Alder Place, Lodi CA 95242 See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go. See New 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Wal-Mart Supercenter From: Ken and Naomi Magdanz [mailto:magdanz@cleanvire.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 12:52 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart Supercenter would like my voice to be heard in favor of building Wal -mart Supercenter. I live about 2 miles out of the city limits so I didn't have a vote all those years ago when the people of Lodi said they wanted the new Super -Center. I discovered the benefits of shopping at Wal -mart a few years after it was built in Lodi and I have been shopping there about every week since. I note the aisles are crowded most of the time so many others like it too. The downtown stores are mainly specialty stores with either established clientele or grossly overpriced merchandise (two clothing stores for young women come to mind) Other times a sign is on the door saying they will be back at "2 PM". It is now 2:30 PM -are they serious about their business? Two weeks ago my daughter and I were asked to leave a downtown store because they were closing for lunch. We noted that there were three employees there. Couldn't they have staggered their lunch hours? Were they interested in customer service? Wal-Mart doesn't always have the lowest prices but over-all, I think they give excellent customer service. They known for being extremely fair about returning items. There IS a reason the Wal-Mart store is so well utilized by the population of the area. I have seen Lodi people with high as well as low income shopping there. Give Wal -mart Supercenter a break! They certainly are good to Lodi! Naomi Magdanz 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Yes to the Super Wallmart in Lodi From: John A Barrett [mailto:barrett41 @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 20081:42 PM To: Bob Johnson; Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; JoAnne Mounce; Larry Hansen; Phil Katzakian Cc: Judy Gullicksen; Ipgullicksen@aim.com; Robert L Subject: Yes to the Super Wallmart in Lodi We are retired Seniors on a fixed income and don't want you to back down to the newspaper ads nor the mailings supporting opposition to the Supercenter because it will cause crime to increase, more pollution, and other Bull Crap ideas in these fliers. Please support our local Wall Mart Super Center on the 8th of October. Thanks in advance for your support John and Joanne Barrett Lodi, CA 95242 10711W G IDI -11 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: SAY NO TO WALMART! From: Jean Murray [mailto:jmmonopoly@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:22 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: SAY NO TO WALMART! PLEASE SAY "NO" TO WAL$MART! SIGNED, DOUGLAS & JEAN MURRAY CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LODI 10/07/2008 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Wal-Mart Super Center -__- Original Message ----- From: John Hanneson [mailto:haneson2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:05 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart Super Center If you knew the total number of retail square feet vacant in the city of Lodi you might think twice if you're in support of the Super Wal-Mart Center. I conducted a survey and found that there are thousands of vacant spaces at different shopping centers, including Lakewood Mall, Lowe's Center, and others. Not to mention Reynold's Ranch. The traffic will increase at the corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman and considering that Highway 12 is a major thorough fare it does not make sense to place a Super Center at the site. Carolyn Hannesson 1 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Wal -mart From: BEVERLY DUNAHOO[mailto:beverlydunahoo@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:21 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal -mart We support a Viral -mart Supercenter in Lodi. (Two Votes) Beverly Dunahoo At Dunahoo Register Voters living in Galt and shopping in Lodi. Jesus said, " I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him wllo sent me has eternal life." --John 5:24 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Wal-Mart upercenter From: PAUL C LAWRIE[mailto:paulandholly@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 5:56 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart upercenter Attn: Planning Commission We find it hard to believe that after five years construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter still hasn't been started. We've shopped at Supercenters in Scottsdale, AZ, San Dimas, CA and frequently in Stockton, CA. We're in our mid 60's and certainly would find it more convenient to shop at a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Lodi, rather than Stockton! Paul & Holly Lawrie 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Walmart From: Shirley A Rutz [mailto:sarutz@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:21 AM To: Randi Johl Cc: JoAnne Mounce; Larry Hansen; Phil Katzakian; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson Subject: Walmart Dear Planning commission and city council members Ijust wanted to tell you that I support building the new Walmart supercenter. I can't walk very far and I really appreciate Walmart because it has carts I can ride so I can enjoy shopping there. I also appreciate the fact that I can buy almost anything I want there. ft means I only have to park once and make it into the store. They also have lots of free parking where you won't get a ticket for staying there too long. It is very well to talk about saving downtown but I have to tell you I don't shop down there now. It is hard to find a parking place and you have to keep moving your car to a new location when you can't walk very far. I think you need to keep trying to get restaurants down there as you only have to park once for them. I don't know what else you can put downtown but not building the new Walmart is only going to deny Lodi the tax revenues it would generate—it is only going to make people shop downtown. do agree that you need to make them do something with the old Walmart building rather than leaving it vacant. Please don't deny those of us who want a new Walmart the bigger store. Those who think Walmart is terrible do not have to shop there. Shirley Rutz 174 Hemlock Drive Lodi, CA 95240 sarutz sbcglobal _net 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Walmart Supercenter In Lodi From: Donna Helwig[mailto:llodijewell@sbcglobaI.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:57 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart Supercenter I n Lodi Jeffrey Stoddard 315 1/2 S. Pleasant Ave Lodi, Ca 95240 (209) 663 1896 reply to: .Istoddard@.tnilitary.com via: Donna Helwig (mother) Im writing to you for my vote/support for Lodi's Walmart Supercenter. I will not be able to attend the meeting on oct 8 08. My shift is 4pm - 1 a.m. at Stockton Walmart Supercenter. Im a 7 year veteran of Walmart: Lodi,Ca Woodstock va, Winchester va and now at stockton ca supercenter. We need a Supercenter in Lodi, Gas Prices, Unemployment, Needs dictate that need one here. please add my voice/opinion to the meeting oct 8. thank you. 10/07/2008 RECEIVED OCT 07 ?"R coMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEEPI CITY OF LON October 1, 2008 Kari Chadwick@ planning commission Dear Kari I am a concerned citizen of Lodi and I would like my voice heard but I am unable to attend the meeting about the Super Walmart Store. 1 am totally against the super walmart store to build in Lodi. Lodi has already been invaded with other business and this is taking away our small town. So please, please don't let this happen to our town. Building this store will bring more traffic and violence, which we certainly do not need. I feel letting this store build in our fair city will only hurt our local grocery stores that have already built here. The super walmart in Stockton is close enough for anyone who would like to shop there. Thankyou for letting me be at the meeting via a letter. Please vote NO on this issue. Thank You in advance Janice Harrison I d IN30yd01 W96 VO'!POI rt OCT, 0 3 21J08 vt ��/PTYLOF LODI d, Ms Gem M Arrigale 512 Connie St T ndi f A 057dn_1001 fro, cc T =77- Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick Subject: FW: Wal Mart From: RGH [mailto:hoop@softcom.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 10:35 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal Mart Lodi City Clerk; I cannot attend the public hearing on the Mega Wal-Mart. I moved here from Southern California 50 years ago. One of Lodi's attractions is it's SMALL TOWN feel. We do not need a Mega Wal-Mart. The present one we have is adequate & really does not detract from our small town feel. I vote NO to a Mega Wal-Mart in Lodi. R.G. Hooper, 1725 W. Vine St. 368-3097 10/07/2008 October 6, 2008 9 TO: The Lodi Planning Commission ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF LODI RE: NO on Lodi Shopping Center Please vote NO on the behalf of my parents who moved to Lodi in 1964 and stayed to raise their family. They watched Lodi's vineyards and farmlands disappear to become mostly homes and businesses. They appreciate and shop at locally -owned and operated businesses. It is what makes Lodi the friendly and safe place it is. Please vote NO on my behalf and my children's behalf. Lodi does not need another shopping center. Super Wal-Mart will increase problems with added vehicle traffic, pollution, congestion and need for police surveillance. The area of Hwy 12 -Lower Sacramento Rd already has all the stores that meet our wants and needs. These businesses and their employees will have their livelihoods threatened by the price - cutting, the wage -cutting, the benefits -poor actions of the Wal-Mart conglomerate. Do not let this happen to all of us. Because a Super- Walmart will in the long -run hurt our quality of life and what Lodi has to leave to its future generations. One Wal-Mart is big enough for Lodi. Let's continue to provide a healthy life style for all Lodi citizens. Let's use the land for people of all ages to access for walking, resting, biking and playing (like Oak Grove Park). Let visitors who drive down Hwy 12 going east stop at the park before continuing their journeys. Let them spend their dollars at the businesses that are established and ready to serve. A cheap, ugly, dirty shopping center with empty buildings is an eye -sore and a real reason to keep on driving through our lovely town. NO on the Lodi Shopping Center. Respectfully submitted, 816 Tilden Dr. Lodi, CA 95242 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Pat and Paul Underhill [patundpaul@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 5:55 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Proposed Lodi Supercenter Dear Planning Commission members, Last year I wrote to the commission explaining tl ie concerns we , iave about the proposed Wz Mart supercenter. It said, in part, "the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley is notoriously poor. The potentail increase in traffic.. would add to the health risks of Lodi citizens. More trucks would be traveling along Highway 12, which is already a hazardous route, and truck emissionswould further pollute the air." "The city of Lodi ... has maintained a certain charm, which was further enhanced by the downtown improvements along School Street. One of the primary entrances to Lodi is Highway 12 at Lower Sacramento Road. It is a reasonably inviting first impression. Adding an enterprise of the size proposed will have a decided impact on that commercial neighborhood. Most certainly, current businesses would suffer under competition from such a big box store. If these stores are forced to close, what will come in to replace them? We worry that it will result in an unpleasant environment." We have seen such deleterious results in other communities. The concerns stated above have not been alleviated. Wal-Mart is firmly established already in Stockton. We don't need another in Lodi. The current disasterous economic conditions adds to our concerns for struggling businesses in that area of Lodi. I recognize that there are challenges involved in trying to encourage commerce without destroying the very quality of life that has kept Lodi's image one of a friendly small (but not too small) town. We are attracting interest in our reputation as a competitive Wine Country, drawing visitors and tourists. Big Box stores do nothing to enhance that new/old personality. We urge you to please reject the Draft Revised Environmental Impact Reportas we do not feel that the traffic and pollution problems have not been adequately studied, nor have all of our questions from last year been satisfied, Sincerely, Pat and Paul Underhill 1946 Millbrook Drive Lodi, CA 95242 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Shirley Collins [sunshineshirley@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 4:27 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart Supercenter I would like to express myself about Lodi Wal Mart. This is how I feel. Would please let Wal-Mart come to Lodi. am tired of driving to Stockton to get the things this Wal Mart does not have. The sad part is the tax money helps Stockton not Lodi. We need job here in Lodi, personally I will be applying for work. We have voted, been waiting and for me my vote to have Wal-Mart come to Lodi mean just that. Thank you for your time. Shirley Collins 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Janice Baxter [Janiceb@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 4:11 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: walmart Yes, I would vote for a super walmart in lodi. janiceb@pacbell.net 10/08/2008 Kari Chadwick From: cakey92671 @mypacks.net Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 3:46 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart Super Center My many friends and i totally agree that a Walmart Super Center , to replace their current location, would be a great thing for all of us living in Lodi . We do not understand, why it is so difficult for our elected officials to favor this wonderful opportunity . Some of the arguments we hear is that it will hurt downtown business, increase crime, traffic congestion, damage to our quality of life etc. These are excuses, not valid reasons to deny the opportunity for thousands of Lodi citizens to partake of all of the advantages offered by a Walmart Super Center ! This, in addition to all the benefits and revenue that the City of Lodi will reap . You owe it to the "Citizen'sof Lodi" not the "Business Owners" to vote in favor on this issue. P Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: alien vallero [valfino@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 3:03 PM To: Randi Johl cc: QuoVadis Subject: "WE DESERVE BETTER' "WE WANT A WALMART SUPERCENTER" It's high time the City Leaders listen to the voice's of it's "Non -Business" citizens ! You keep making reference to the "Down Town Area" like its some kind of "Sacred Cow" , well times change and progressive cities change with it! Let's face it, A WalmartSuper Center will bring in thousands of dollars more revenue than all the down town business put together and will employ many more people who will additionally contribute to the community. The citizens of Lodi "Deserve" competitive bargaining powers .The opportunity to be able to choose where they shop for groceries, gas, prescriptions, etc. etc. etc. to get the best value for their dollar ! AND IT IS ONLY JUST AND FAIR! alien vallero vaJ_fino earthl ink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Jon Leach Ui[6398@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 5:04 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Planning Comissioners Dear Ms. Chadwick, Could you please forward this e-mail to the Planning Commissioners? Dear Lodi Planning Commissioners, My family has lived in Lodi for over 100 years and I would greatly encourage you to consider the effects each developnient will have on the future of Lodi. Lodi has such a unique personality, and a true sense of community that is so rare in most cities. With each Reynolds Ranch and Wal-Mart we chip away at what makes Lodi special, and once we lose Lodi's uniqueness and its sense of community, it's gone forever. And I don't want to live in a large sprawling city like Elk Grove, I want to live in Lodi. Lodi survived two World Wars and the Depression, we do not need another Wal-Mart. Please do not use that old chestnut that a bigger tax base will provide better police and fire protection, and will provide better city services. If that were true, Sacramento, Stockton, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and New York City would all be safer places to live with more city services available. We all know that isn't true. The East side of Lodi desperately needs its K -mart, and the report that was paid for by the City of Lodi stated that a new Wal-Mart will cause the K -Mart to close. So with K -Mart closed, and non-taxable groceries now available at a Super Wal-Mart, how much more tax revenue would the city collect? Each family has only so much monthly discretionary income to spend, are people really going to be buying more during these horrible economic times just because Lodi has anew Wal-Mart? Some will, but not enough to make any significant difference in Lodi's budget. More traffic and all the other negatives that a Super Wal-Mart will bring to Lodi is not a good trade off for the possibility of a few thousand dollars more of tax revenue in Lodi's multi million dollar budget. NO on Wal-Mart! Yours truly, Jon Leach 1136 Tamarack Drive Lodi 10/08/2008 Kari Chadwick From: George and Betty Sampson [gbsam@softcom.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 2:38 PM To: Randi Johl cc: George and Betty Subject: Favor of Wal-Mart Dear PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: This is to urge you to approve and make this Wal-Mart Supercenter a reality. For the past 6 years, Wal-Mart has been my favorite and most frequented place to shop. Helpful clerks are readily available to assist in location and choice of any item I may be looking for. My returns have been cheerfully processed. They have always proven to have the lowest prices. Wal-Mart has generously supported any community oriented program with which I have been involved. Please approve the Wal-Mart Sue center. With all things considered, I believe this will be good for Lodi. THANK YOU. George Sampson. Page 1 of 1. Kari Chadwick From: Julie Cantrell Ocantrell@freemanfirm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 7:54 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Wednesday City Council Meeting Re Walmart Supercenter Council Members: As a citizen of Lodi, I am greatly concerned about the possible approval of the Walmart Supercenter. I truly believe that a Walmart Supercenter will only be detrimental to Lodi, increasing traffic, causing small businesses to close their doors and the consequent loss of employment for those who earn their living at such establishments, leave the current Walmart retail premises vacant, and ultimately destroy the viability of the stores located in the Kettleman Lane center which now contains the Walmart store. I'd like to address only the issue of Walmart Superstore's effect on nearby retail establishments. In the current economic climate, there is no guarantee that the large building that houses Walmart could be leased. There are many retail locations in downtown, at the Lakewood center, and other strip malls which lie vacant. Permitting Walmart to vacate the current location with the promise that it will be inhabited by a new tenant is unwise. What is a reasonable time within which this building could be leased? If we allow Walmart to use their "best efforts" to do so, that certainly is no guarantee that in reality, that property can be re-leased. Additionally, any retail business which decides to occupy that large building would probably compete with a Walmart Superstore since that the Superstore carries most items sold by other retailers. Eventually that new business would fail due to the near location of the Walmart Superstore. The stores which occupy the retail areas near the proposed Walmart Supercenter location will suffer and ultimately may be forced to vacate. When stores such as Safeway, Food Less, and possibly JC Penny pull out, those retail areas will suffer greatly. The traffic those stores once brought in will cause the other, smaller stores to be adversely effected. You must consider that at a time when large chains are closing individual stores, such as Starbucks, it is extremely foolish to permit a Walmart Supercenter to add to the economic woes suffered by all retail business. There are numerous additional problems which will arise if the proposed Walmart Supercenter is approved, however, an email is hardly sufficient to address them. I plan to attend tomorrow's council meeting and believe that other opponents of this superstore will be able to bring these to your attention. Let's keep our beautiful Lodi, which has the "small town" feel, safe from large corporate takeovers and the resulting detrimental effects. Sincerely, Julie K. Cantrell 726 Dorchester Circle Lodi, CA 95240 Tel: 209.339.9501 U1: P11110, Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: KimberAust@cs.com Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 10:56 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Support of WalMart Supercenter Dear Sir, I'm writing to you in support of the proposed WalMart Supercenter in Lodi. Lodi residents drive to Stockton in droves to shop at the Supercenter there and it seems foolish for Lodi to miss out on all the sales tax money that would otherwise stay in town. Thank you for your time and consideration, KimberlyAustin 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Kendra Sandeen [kbon97@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08,2008 7:10 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart supercenter Good Morning, I am in complete support of a Wahnart Super center in our town. As it is now I travel to Stockton to the Walmart super center to do my shopping. In this day and age with things the way they are and the time restraints that we all have it's convenient and cost effective for my family. We own our own business in construction and since everything has nose dived in that industry it's good to know that I will at least get more for my dollar and right now and forever that means alot. Not to mention the jobs and revenue it will bring back to our city, because right now Stockton is receiving those benefits. Sincerely, Kendra Sandeen 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: eleanor roberts [ellie.roberts@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:24 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Commission hearing on Lodi Supercenter Please vote NO on the Lodi Supercenter. Eleanor Roberts 2909 White Oak Way Lodi CA 95242-2032 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: JazboRenis@cs.com Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:35 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart Supercenter Please gO ahead with the Walmart Supercenter. As a single mother of I- (Z sons in college) I have to gO to jtocLton to shop- I have waited years now For a safer shopping area with a{fordakle prices in Lodi. This store will n o t have a bad effect on the downtown area specialty shops because they sell different items. I have another meeting tonight o r I would be at this hearing. -thank you, Claire Lima 1 12-1 W rlm 5t. Lodi Ca 95240 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: acomfort928@att.net Sent: Wednesday, October 08,2008 10:22 AM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Supercenter vote (would like to add 2 names to the 'no' list. Joyce Boullet 2633 Bayberry Dr Lodi, 95242 Phil Arnberger 124 Harvest Ln Lodi, CA 95242 We are very much against the Super Center. The traffic will be a huge mess..Jobs will be lost, downtown will be a blight and the lovely city of Lodi will no longer be Lovely. It is moving downhill fast. Thank you. Joyce Boullet 10/08/2008 1020 Kirkwood Drive Lodi, CA 95242 Lodi Planning Commission C/O Planning Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Lodi Planning Commission: " , , ENT F?i October 8, 2008 Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonight's planning commission meeting regarding the Wal-Mart Supercenter project. However, as a member of Lodi First I wish to take this opportunityto briefly express my opposition to the EIR and this project. I am also informed that other members of Lodi First and the group's attorneys from Herum Crabtree Brown will be present at the meeting to reiterate our objections. I object to both the EIR and the proposed project. I object to the EIR because it fails to tell us what the true impacts of the project will be. It blatantly refuses to address questions about global warming, public safety, and water supply simply because these issues were not challenged as part of the original lawsuit on this matter. But this corner -cutting ignores the fact that the Stockton court voided the original EIR and the new EIR shouldn't rely on that document as gospel. Ignoring impacts — particularly the topic of global warming which is Attorney General Jerry Brown's pet issue right now (just ask Stockton) — is careless at best and dishonest a worst. Also, the EIR tells us that the project may close up to 3 grocery stores and several general retail stores but says there is insufficient evidence to require Wal-Mart to mitigate these impacts. Well, if the evidence is insufficient, how can you certify the EIR? Wait until there is sufficient evidence to determine whether Wal-Mart must mitigate these impacts. Otherwise, the Lodi taxpayers — yes you and I — will be stuck footing the bill to mitigate these impacts. also wonder how the EIR can conclude that "urban decay" impacts will not be significant because the city has zoning laws and code enforcement staff that will prevent blight and decay. Didn't the City Council just determine that much of east Lodi is "blighted" and establish a redevelopment area? And didn't the City Manager just announce that Lodi is looking at a $1.5 million tax revenue deficit that will result in cutting programs and lightening city staffing? If these zoning laws and code enforcement measures were insufficientto prevent blight in east Lodi when we didn't have these budget problems and a supercenter, why do we assume these taxpayer-fundedmeasures will prevent decay and blight when this project sucks the remaining life from several of our local shopping centers? I just don't get it. Finally, I object to the project, itself, because we simply don't need it. People say they need Wal-Mart for cheap goods. Fine. We already have a Wal-Mart. People say they want discount groceries. Fine. We already have a Food 4 Less next to the existing Wal-Mart. People say we need more sales tax revenue. Show me any hard evidence that says this project will increase tax revenue for the City. It won't. Instead, it will simply shift tax revenue from other places in the City to this location — while at the same time possibly putting existing businesses out of commission? The project's benefits simply do not outweigh its costs to our community. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the planning commission refuse to certify this EIR and refuse to approve this project for Lodi. 824 Westwind Drive Lodi, CA 95242 October 8, 2008 Lodi Planning Commission GO Planning Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 0 Dear Planning Commission members: (will be unable to attend tonight's hearing so as a part of Lodi First, lam asking you to reject and vote "no" on the Revised Environmental Impact Report on the Lodi Shopping Center. I'm very concerned about the impacts this very large project will have on our city. With the recent increase in the size of Reynolds Ranch, adding the additional commercial space of the Lodi Shopping Center is a dangerous move in these tough economic times. Just as homeowners have having difficulty getting credit from banks for loans, we're bound to see a slow down in commercial development as well as developers and builders will have trouble obtaining the funding for new stores. We don't know what the impacts of both projects will be, because the REIR fails to consider what the combined additional commercial square footage will mean for Lodi and our downtown. Until this is studied, we shouldn't approve this project. Thank you, Elizabeth Galbreath 2227 West Vine Lodi, CA 95242 October 8, 2008 Lodi Planning Commission C/O Planning Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Planning Commissioners: I will be unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing tonight on the Lodi Shopping Center, so I ask you to vote NO on the environmental impact report. As part of Lodi First and a local business owner, I believe in putting Lodi's local businesses first. I was alarmed to read that the EIR says that urban decay caused by the Supercenter won't be significant because Lodi has code enforcement measures in place to prevent decay and blight. So, we're counting on the city to make sure empty buildings in the city don't become eye sores? I find this rather ironic especially since Lodi is facing a $1.5 million budget deficit, as reported in yesterday's Lodi News -Sentinel. The taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to clean up Wal -Mart's mess. We should hold Wal-Mart and the developer accountable for paying for measures to prevent the blight and decay the Supercenter will bring. Second, Lodi shouldn't rely on anti -nuisance ordinances and code enforcement to combat blight and decay. The City Council voted to create a redevelopment area on the east side of the city because they declared it blighted. Obviously, code enforcement and anti - blight ordinances failed to stop urban decay on the east side, so we can't count on it the prevent blight on the west side. Thank you. C:� avid ras October 7, 2008 City Counsel of Lodi, MY • am writing this note because I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. I request that you go ahead with the planned Wal-Mart Supers center in Lodi. I am a single mother of 4 (2 sons in college) and I need to make every penny count. At this time I drive to Stockton to do my shopping. I have been waiting for a safer shopping environment here in Lodi for several years now. Please give Lodi shoppers a choice. The downtown spatiality shops do not offer the same products as Wal-Mart so I feel there is not real com petition. Thank you, Claire Lima Lodi,CUy C&u*w-41, I say yek tz).- th& Lod�l Wal/-Ma*t Stkper ce4lber! io- Xt*Vvwy A v4tL-4,i/ '16 OCT 8 200S] DEPT CITY OF LODI Kari Chadwick From: Elizabeth Fiske [betfiske@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08,2008 3:00 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Wal-Mart EIR Comments Attachments: WalMart Letter.doc WalMart Letter.doc (39 KB) Ms. Chadwick, Please accept the attached letter as my comment on the Wal-Mart Supercenter EIR as I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Betsy Fiske Betsy Fiske 727 S. Lee Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 October 8, 2008 Lodi Planning Commission C/O Kari Chadwick via e-mail Lodi City Hall, 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 kchadwick@lodi.gov Dear Planning Commission: Unfortunately due to prior commitments I will likely be unable to attend tonight's planning commission hearing on the Lodi Shopping Center project. Although other members of Lodi First and attorney Brett Jolley will attend tonight's meeting, I would like to weigh in on the Wal-Mart Supercenter debate. As some of you may recall, in addition to my involvement with the Small City Preservation Committee, I served as the unofficial leader and spokesperson of the Lodi First group during the initial lawsuit that forced the City to redo the EIR. I also submitted two comments on the revised EIR on behalf of Lodi First (comments 31 and 32). Although I have decided to take a less active leadership role in Lodi First for this round of Supercenter hearings I am still a member of Lodi First and strongly oppose this project and EIR in their current forms. Regarding my comments on the EIR mentioned above, I do not believe the EIR answered my questions. In my first comment I asked how east Lodi redevelopment and Downtown Lodi would be impacted by this project? The response says it is premature to consider east Lodi redevelopment at this time. But if we have blight in east Lodi, won't that make it harder to prevent blight from this project in other parts of town and won't this project make it harder to rehabilitate blight in east Lodi? Why add another shopping center to west Lodi when the east side of town needs retail? This is especially true in these tough economic times that Lodi and the rest of the country are facing. My second comment asked how Wal -Mart's recycling programs will impact our landfills. The EIR says this comment is outside the scope of the EIR because the court did not require the EIR to address solid waste issues. It also says neither the City nor the EIR preparer is familiar with this issue and more information is needed. Whether the Court ordered the new EIR to look at solid waste does not excuse the EIRfrom looking at this issue. Nothing in the courtjudgment prevents the EIR from looking at topics other than urban decay and energy. It only requires the EIR to consider these new areas at a minimum. After all, why does this new EIR reanalyze impacts to agricultural lands? As for Wal -Mart's landfill problems, I urge the EIR preparer to review an August 2006 article in Smithsonian magazine called "Corn Plastic To the Rescue". The story says that Wal-Mart uses corn -based plastic for packaging on their products but the plastic is not biodegradable in normal environment and "Recyclers consider PLA a contaminant. They have to pay to sort it out and pay again to dispose of it." Going back to my original question, what will this project do to our Lodi Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 local landfills and who — Wal-Mart or the City of Lodi — will be responsible for dealing with Wal - Mart's increased production of corn plastic packaging from this project? In addition to my prior comments on the EIR, I am truly amazed at the EIR's treatment of global warming. Specifically, at comment 5 Citizens for Open Government shows that this is a serious and issue that was not really known in 2004 when the original EIR was prepared. The Attorney General has written numerous letters to cities and counties about this issue and has even brought several lawsuits challenging development over this global warming. But rather than force Wal-Mart to mitigate this impact, the EIR says this topic is off limits. Isn't this part of energy anyway? Finally, I ask the planning commission to remember that the EIR says this project will cause significant and unavoidable impacts to our air quality and our agricultural lands. Why then approve it? The cost to our community is simply too great to justify another generic shopping center in Lodi. Sincerely, Betsy Fiske Page 1 of 1 Kari Chadwick From: Carole& Jack Pardella [cjpard@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 3:17 PM To: Kari Chadwick Subject: Super Wal-Mart This is to: The Lodi Planning Commission - We have been living in Lodi for 15 years and it is the best City! We would love to keep it this way for future generations. Lodi does NOT need a Super Wal-Mart, there is nothing wrong with the one we already have that a little upgrade would not fix. The list is a mile long why it should not be built in Lodi. It would not be a good Western Gate Way into our "small town feel" as well as all the traffic it is going to generate on Hwy. 12 & Lower Sac. What kind of stores is it going to attract? We need a Barnes & Noble, Trader Joes etc. As for the tax dollars, groceries do not generate tax. Please do not approve this Big Box! John & Carole Pardella 10/08/2008 ....... ... .... ....... ....... . . - - ----- ... . ...... . ..... ------ - -------------- . . .. . ........... - - --------------- 4� ---- ------ - - --- - 01 Co CD C a)LAja6 �ai 9 coSL -t4o v 4c - S To,: 3 s 4-s to 7 f COmMUN TY DEVELOPMENT DEF CITY OF LODI Page 1 of I Kari Chadwick From: Rand! Johl Sent: Wednesday, October 08,20084:44 PM To: Kar! Chadwick Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject FW: Wal Mart (peoplevs politics) :root: Lester and Arlene Schlabs [mailto:tootlesl@sbcglobal.net] ient: Wednesday, October 08,2008 2:13 PM 'o: Rand! Johl subject: Fwd: Wal Mart (people vs politics) legin forwarded message: From: Lester and Arlene Schlabs <tooties10sbcglobal.net> Date: October 8, 2008 2:0828 PM PDT To: lester schlabs<tootlesl(asbcglobal.neh Subject: Wal Mart (people vs politics) There has been so much said, but nothing applicable to the heart of the matter, Why have a Superstore! For someone in a wheelchair, or other wise in need of assistance in shopping, It is a matter of great inconvenience. Try shopping in downtown, parking for disabled is limited, not only spaces, but many spaces are a good distance from where you need to go, are not easily accessible with a wheelchair, and are many times occupied, After driving around block after block, using precious fuel, and finally getting onto the sidewalk, and reaching a store, the aisles are so cluttered it is impossible to navigate through them because they are so filled you might knock something over or down. Not a great experience to encounter. Plus not all items are made in the U.S. A. either! Need to go to another store, now we start the whole cycle over again ! Now let's talk about the employees at Wal Mart, Have you ever seen any mentally challenged or disabled employed in the great downtown?? Well, Wal Mart has them, and other employees that are happy with their jobs, let them be, sure there may he some that aren't ,( so let them move on.) We personally have spoken to several of them and the benefits are reasonable, they accrue sick leave, vacation , etc, without the need for paying union dues. The times have changed when the need for unions was crucial, but now, let the employees make the decision, if the employer treats them well and they are satisfied, so be it. At least they are employed. I can not understand why we can't have our shopping at one spot, saving inconvenience, fuel and frustration. Plus, putting people to work that otherwise would find no place in the work force. I would like to comment about shopping our local Wal Mari,and then walking to the super market located in the area for our grocery needs, Try it in a wheelchair, then tell me how easy it would be. Especially in the heat or inclement weather! ! ! Sincerely, Arlene Schlahs 1/08/2008 Kari Chadwick From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, October 08,2008 4:45 PM To: Kari Chadwick cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood Subject: FW: - —Original Message ----- From: Wayne Westbrook[mail to: waynewestbrook22@yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:27 PM To: JoAnne Mounce; Larry Hansen; Phil Katzakian; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; Randi Johl Subject: NO SUPER WAI-MART!!!! I LIVE IN ACAMPO, BUT MY FAMILY CAN NOT SEE A NEED FOR A SUPER WAL- MART IN LODI. WAYNE WESTBROOK 1 RECEIVED OCT 0 8 2008 c) C�-0 Yom►' �cD0 � ����NI CITY OF TY LOPDEVEMDEPT �e wf-:4 d propose VvaFv�cir� G:k �- �� (�lll G Vsr'lr112�nA , O C�� (=k\ hn a sA-cw� c) S hn (a A- u8 ,c,, r o-� -q2r 4A-1 C,-. A-k� ttk G 07 c Cf� �e-- You i at auw a . k�CUJ4 Lodz )CA, q 5Q-++a- Public Comments Received by the City Clerk's Office through 12/3/08 (Further comments received up to the meeting date will be provided to Council on Blue Sheets.) Page 1 of 2 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, November 03,20088:52 AM To: City Council Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer;Je$' Hood; Rad Barflam Subject: FW: LODI SHOPPING CENTER From: Sue McCombs[mailto:osmccombs@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:09 PM To: Kari Clmdwick Subject: LODI SHOPPING CENTER To: Lodi City Council Re: LODI SHOPPING CENTER October 30,2008 Lodi Shopping Center: 340,000 sq. ft. of retail. Reynolds Ranch: 400,000 sq. ft. added to the original 350,000 sq. ft. Total 750 sq. ft. of retail. Reynolds Ranch additional retail space of 400,000 sq. A is more than the total Lodi Shopping Center retail space and was approved not even knowing what retail will be built. Wal Mart has been working for several years to build an updated store with wider aisles, more space to present merchandise, easier shopping for customers and yes, groceries. They have agreed to one requirement after another from the city. Some are arguing that Wal Mart will leave a glut of empty store sites. Many many stores downtown and in other areas of Lodi have come and gone in the last 10 years — not the fault of Wal Mart. The argument that this will "ruin" downtown is ridiculous as Wal Mart does not compete with the women's clothing stores, Burtons shoes, Tuxedos, and it does not provide beer gardens or wine tasting and therefore is definitely not in competition with downtown. According to the Stockton Record dated August 17,2008: "In 2005, the city struck a deal with the Van Ruiten Family Winery that would allow the winery to dump its wine waste directly to the city sewer plant at an inexpensive rate. In exchange, Van Ruiten promised to open a tasting room downtown." "3 years after city leaders created incentives to attract from the rural vinyards to the city's revamped downtown, two tasting rooms are open for business, and another two may start pouring later this year." "The Lodi Planning Commission on Wednesday enthusiastically endorsed plans for the fourth to be opened..." So you see, the emphasis and goal for downtown would not be anymore affected by a new and improved Wal Mart than it is now. Are we holding Wal Mart hostage for $680,000 for the downtown to help the prospering wineries locate tasting rooms downtown? Or to assist any business who wants to open downtown? Why don't we welcome the additional income and jobs that this project would create? Traffic has been nicely handled at the current Wal Mart Shopping Center and can also he managed if they move one block west. And lastly, let's let people shop where they choose to shop whether it is for 11/04/2008 Page 2 of 2 clothes or toilet paper or groceries. It should be their choice and not up to the City Council or the Planning Commission to tell them that they don't need a better affordable place to shop. Remember that the majority of our population does not patronize many of the downtown businesses for many reasons (including the fact that there isn't a men's clothing store or affordable women's clothes or children's clothes) and attention needs to be paid to what these people need and want. We can only go to so many downtown restaurants and little specialty stores or buy so many shoes every week or month. Yes, Mervyn's is closing however these are two very different stores with Mervyn's being basically a clothing store and Wal Mart being a major variety store. We are also very concerned about the item in the Lodi News Sentinel this week that Ms. Mounce accepted a $3,500 campaign contribution on October 6th from Food 4 Less supermarket, one of the strongest opponents of the Lodi Shopping Center, and used it to buy food from Food 4 Less for an event. She also mentioned that Food 4 Less contacted her a year ago about supporting her campaign and that Wal Mart was not an issue at that time. We all know that Wal Mart has been an issue for several years. Ms. Mounce compared this $3,500 contribution from a business with a major interest in the decision to "less than $100" contributions from Wal Mart backers. This is a definite conflict of interest and she should not be voting on this project. Thank you for your time. Olen and Suzanne McCombs 363 S. Sunset Dr. Lodi 11/04/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: RandiJohl Sent: Monday, November03,2008 9:00 AM To: City Council Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: FW: Wal*Mart Supercenter Attachments: Lodi City Council - Wal-Mart Supercenter.pdf From: KShull@pcoastp.com [mai Ito: KShu I I@pcoastp.com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:18 AM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Wal*Mart Supercenter Please see the attached letterfrom Dan Vincent, President/CEO of Pacific Coast Producers. 11/04/2008 R%CbAff October 31,2008 planum Lodi City Council 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear City Council: Pacific Coast Producers ("PCP") asks for your consideration of its position in support of the proposed Wal*Mart Supercenterproject in Lodi. PCP is a grower -owned cooperative corporation headquartered in Lodi. PCP's products are distributed throughout the United States both in retail (grocery store) and foodservice (restaurants and institutions) markets. PCP's growers are all located in northern California, tLth some of those growers in the Lodi and Delta area. PCP processes and packages fruits, including peaches, pears, grapes, apricots and tomatoes which are delivered to the company's facilities primarily by its grower/owners. In Lodi, PCP maintains its corporate offices, its central distribution center, and the fruit cannery. PCP operates two other facilities outside of Lodi. PCP employs approximately 2,000 people in its Lodi facilities, and residents of Lodi who work in PCP's other facilities. PCP contributes over $24 Million in payroll and benefits to the Lodi community, and over $20 Million in payments to local vendors for services such as trucking, landscaping, security, and a host of other items. Additionally, several of PCP's growers in the Lodi/Delta area deliver product to be processed. Those growers maintain their own payroll and contribute dollars to goods and services in the local market. One of PCP's valued customers is Wal* Mart, Without Wal* Mart as a customer, PCP would not be what itis today. Wal *Mart has in t= been supportive of PCP, its employees, and growers, and has been a loyal customer of PCP. For these reasons, we ask that you give positive considerationto the Wal* Mart Supercenterproject. Please contact me on my direct line below if you have any questions or I can provide further input. Thank you for your kind consideration, Sincerely, Dan Vincent President & Chief Executive Officer Cc: Joanne Mounce, Mayor Larry Hansen, Mayor Pro Tempore Susan Hitchcock, Phil Katzakian, Bob Johnson — Council Members 631 North Cluff Avenue - Lod4CA 95240 ■ P.O. Box 1600 - Lodi, CA 95241-1600 - 209 / 36748800 - PAX: 209 / 367-1084 � J � J r � r � PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS Lodi City Council 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear City Council: October 31,2008 RECEIVED NOV 3 2008 CRy clerk City of Lodi Pacific Coast Producers ("PCP") asks for your consideration of its position in support of the proposed Wal*Mart Supercenterproject in Lodi. PCP is a grower -owned cooperative corporation headquartered in Lodi. PCP's products are distributed throughout the United States both in retail (grocery store) and foodservice (restaurants and institutions) markets. PCP's growers are all located in northern California, with some of those growers in the Lodi and Delta area. PCP processes and packages h i t s, including peaches, pears, grapes, apricots and tomatoes which are delivered to the company's facilities primarily by its grower/owners. In Lodi, PCP maintains its corporate offices, its central distribution center, and the h i t cannery. PCP operates two other facilities outside of Lodi. PCP employs approximately 2,000 people in its Lodi facilities, and residents of Lodi who work in PCP's other facilities. PCP contributes over $24 Million in payroll and benefits to the Lodi community, and over $20 Million in payments to local vendors for services such as trucking, landscaping, security, and a host of other items. Additionally, several of PCP's growers in the Lodi/Delta area deliver product to be processed. Those growers maintain their own payroll and contribute dollars to goods and services in the local market. One of PCP's valued customers is Wal*Mart. Without Wal*Mart as a customer, PCP would not be what it is today. Wal*Mart has in turn been supportive of PCP, its employees, and growers, and has been a loyal customer of PCP. For these reasons, we ask that you give positive consideration to the Wal*Mart Supercenterproject. Please contact me on my direct line below if you have any questions or I can provide further input. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Dan Vincent President & Chief Executive Officer Cc: Joanne Mounce, Mayor Larry Hansen, Mayor Pro Tempore Susan Hitchcock, Phil Katzakian, Bob Johnson — Council Members 631 North C1uffAvenue - Lodi, CA 95240 • P.O. Box 1600 • Lodi, CA 95241-1600 • 209 / 367-8800 9 FAX: 209 / 367-1084 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Friday, November 07,2008 3:11 PM To: 'MShulman@pcoastp.com' Subject: RE: Wal Mart hearing The matter will be heard at a Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday, December 10,2008 at 6:30 p.m From: MShulman@pcoastp.com [mai Ito: MSh u I man@pcoastp.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06,2008 9:51 AM To: Randi ]ohl Subject. Wal Mart hearing Greetings, What was the date set for the Wal Mart Supercenter hearing at the Nov. 5 City Council meeting? Thank you, Mona Shulman General Counsel 209.367.6271 209.339.8815 Fax 11/07/2008 RE New Walmart Shooplim Center To Whom it may Concern: I am not sure why I am getting emails from the Community Development Department regarding this issue, but I am. Since we live in the County, we are never allowed to vote on anything concerning the City of Lodi. First of all, I think that is wrong. We spend 90% of our money in the city of Lodi, yet have no voice in any of the issues, l.e., propositionV —the well -water issue that pertains specifically to us and not the majority of Lodi residence. That being said and since you have involved mein the Walmart issue, (would like to give you my two -cents worth. I think it would be wrong to exclude Walmartfrom expanding their store in this economic era. Walmart seems to be the only large company making a profit, instead of collapsing — and why is this? Because, when money gets tight, everyone shops "cheaper" and Walmart fits this criteria. Not only would the new store create a place for the Lodi area to save money on many items including groceries, it would provide many newjobs in the area. I am sure that Food -4 -Less and Safeway are not happy about this competition, but we all need to be able to make choices and Walmart would provide another choice. Safeway is really not in the same category as Food -4 -Less, as they are a fairly expensive grocery store, not a warehouse - type store. Besides, Lodi needs all the revenue it can get right now. Right? Thank you for letting me voice my preference and maybe you can answer my question as to why, even though I have a Lodi address, pay all the Lodi school taxes, which we were happy to do since our children attended Lodi school (many years ago), we are not allowed to vote on anything. 5incefely, A. kips 19261 Perryman Rd Lodi, CA 95242 RECEIVED November 10,2008 City Clerk's Office NOV 12 2008 P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Cityyof Lodi RE New Walmart Shooplim Center To Whom it may Concern: I am not sure why I am getting emails from the Community Development Department regarding this issue, but I am. Since we live in the County, we are never allowed to vote on anything concerning the City of Lodi. First of all, I think that is wrong. We spend 90% of our money in the city of Lodi, yet have no voice in any of the issues, l.e., propositionV —the well -water issue that pertains specifically to us and not the majority of Lodi residence. That being said and since you have involved mein the Walmart issue, (would like to give you my two -cents worth. I think it would be wrong to exclude Walmartfrom expanding their store in this economic era. Walmart seems to be the only large company making a profit, instead of collapsing — and why is this? Because, when money gets tight, everyone shops "cheaper" and Walmart fits this criteria. Not only would the new store create a place for the Lodi area to save money on many items including groceries, it would provide many newjobs in the area. I am sure that Food -4 -Less and Safeway are not happy about this competition, but we all need to be able to make choices and Walmart would provide another choice. Safeway is really not in the same category as Food -4 -Less, as they are a fairly expensive grocery store, not a warehouse - type store. Besides, Lodi needs all the revenue it can get right now. Right? Thank you for letting me voice my preference and maybe you can answer my question as to why, even though I have a Lodi address, pay all the Lodi school taxes, which we were happy to do since our children attended Lodi school (many years ago), we are not allowed to vote on anything. 5incefely, A. kips 19261 Perryman Rd Lodi, CA 95242 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, November 17,200811:21 AM To: 'Dan Wolcott' Cc: City Council: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Walmart Thank you for your email. It was received and forwarded to the appropriatedepartment(s) for information, responseand/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Dan Wolcott [mailto:dan@downingpaint.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:17 AM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Walmart I have been concerned, but quit about this Wal-Mart project over the years of debate and discussion. I am not a Wal-Mart fan and have never been, there business practices and model is based on the failure of small business. They talk about bring newjobs but it's at a cost of many morejobs within the city and thejobs they bring are low pay and minimal benefits. These are the main reasons I do not like Wal-Mart and have not and will not support them. That being said the main reason of my e-mail is to voice my really concern with the Wal-Mart project, and what is the present business environment within the Lodi city. Wal-Mart is already here why do they need to expand to a super Wal-Mart and divide up the existing grocery business more then it already is, all they can possible do is weaken existing business. As you look around at the empty retail space in Lodi it's a little scary and building more is crazy as there is more the 9,000 sqf empty across the street from the proposed project now. Mervyns will be empty any day and Lowe's continues to complain about the difficult business environment in Lodi. We do not need a super Wal-Mart in Lodi or any more empty retail space, let's focus on building a strong community with the present projects we have and the exist business. A super Wal-Mart is a bad direction and would not help or benefit the Lodi community business environment. Dan & Kim Wolcott Downing Paint Juice It Up 11/18/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, November 17,2008 5:12 PM To: City Council cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood: Rad Bartlam Subject: Wal-Mart Correspondence Attachments: scan.pdf The attached correspondence was received today and will be included as public comments in the agenda packet for the December 10th meeting regardingthe same. Randi doh2, JI?, CIA! C `ifq Clerk, Ci(y of Loch =_r VISvstMw'ifreet Lodi. Culifmwia 95240 (2')()) 333-()702 11/18/2008 d ffor JffPh a 4248 V. W4od64d9r Q"d Xedi, Ca 95240 (209) 369- 9260 Thursday, November 13, 2008 Lodi City Council 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, Ca 95240 Council Members; As a life long resident of the Lodi/Woodbridge community, I feel that a good number of the Council members, have no idea as to what makes this community as special as it is or may I say was in the past. Why?, because it appears that you, the City Council, are not looking out for the best interest of our community. You, the council, have wasted much time on the argument over the pending Super Center. All I hear is your concern for more tax revenue for the city coffers. Can you not see there are privately owned businesses going under in this community, just about weekly? Have you been to the Lakewood Mall lately? Do you not see all of the available commercial and retail space in town? Do you really care? If any of you answered yes to my questions, then perhaps you will set aside your personal political goals and consider doing something admirable and beneficial for our community. I would suggest the Council contact the "Trader Joe's" corporation, and make every effort to get them in town. The perfect location in my opinion would be the vacated Lakewood Drug Store space at Lakewood Mall. Since the city needs money due to poor spending decisions of the past and looks to tax revenue for this income; I feel this would be an excellent way to bring more business into Lodi without the risk of taking business from other local privately owned businesses. Yes, I realize there is no tax benefit to the city on the grocery side of this business, however with a location such as the Lakewood Mall, this will attract patronage for the other existing businesses in the mall, without going to Stockton's, Trader Joe's, and then going and spending money in the other small businesses at their mall. Lets bring into Lodi something new and exciting; not another Starbucks, Second Hand Store, Bar or Super Center. Tax revenue can grow quickly if you bring the right business to the people you are representing. Think outside of the mega corporation box and give, we the people, a business we desire. We are proud to be a small community with everything we need within city limits, but sensibility in the types of business that are best for our community need to be at the forefront of your minds and your positions as elected council members. R ctfully; �,C.� Angie etas CC: Trader Joe's Corporation RECEIVED NOV 1 7 2008 City Clerk City of Lodi Page 1 of 2 Randl Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, November 19,2008 2:08 PM To: 'Janice Harrison' Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: the super walmart store Thank you for your email. It was received by the City and was forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, responseand/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Janice Harrison [mailto:ladyjan45@hotmai1.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:13 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: the super walmart store To whom it may concern I am writing in regard to the walmart that wants to build a super store in Lodi. I had voiced my choice when the planning commission had their meeting and now I have the opportunity to voice again at the council meeting. I am totally against having a super walmart store built in Lodi. I Feel it will draw more people thus more traffic and violence. We do not need this in Lodi. If someone wishes to shop at a super walmart store, Stockton is close enough for them to go there. I feel it will hurt the already established businesses here in Lodi, for instance, S -Mart, Raleys and Safeway, not to mention the mom and pop stores that have been here for many years. We DONOT need more building in our fair city. We are losing that small town atmosphere. Please accept my vote (if I can use that term) as NO for the super walmart to come to Lodi. I am asking that ALL who love Lodi vote AGAINST the building of super walmart in Lodi. Thank you for letting me at this meeting via e-mail. Thank you for reading and listening to my voice. God bless you all and this meeting Janice Harrison 11/19/2008 Message Randi Johl From: Sent: To: cc: Subject: Randi Johl Friday, November21,2008 2:51 PM City Council Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Wal-Mart Attachments: scanw.pdf Page 1 of 1 Attached please find correspondence regarding the Wal-Mart appeal which will be included as public comment in the agenda packet for the December 10th meeting. 11/21/2008 RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2008 City er . November 18,2008 city o o IQdi City Council C/O City Clerk 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor Mounce and Council Members: I am writing to ask you to vote NO on the Wal-Mart Supercenter's environmental impact report. As part of Icdi First, I believe in putting Lodi's local businesses first. I was alarmed to read that the EIR says that urban decay caused by the Supercenter won't be significant because Lodi has code enforcement measures in place to prevent decay and blight. So, we're counting on the city to make sure empty buildings in the city don't become eye sores? I find this rather ironic especially since Lodi is facing a $1.5 million budget deficit. The taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to clean up Wal -Mart's mess. We should hold Wal-Mart and the developer accountable for paying for measures to prevent the blight and decay the Supercenter will bring. Second, Lodi shouldn't rely on anti -nuisance ordinances and code enforcement to combat blight and decay. Earlier this year, you voted to create a redevelopment area on the east side of the city because they declared it blighted. Obviously, code enforcement and anti - blight ordinances failed to stop urban decay on the east side, so we can't count on it the prevent blight on the west side. Thank you. rQ Priait pboaye RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2008 November 19, 2008 Mayor JoAnne Mounce and Council Members GO City Council Clerk 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor and Council, As a part of Lodi First, I am asking you to reject and vote "no" on the Revised Environmental Impact Report on the Lodi Shopping Center. Iwas very pleased to see that the Planning Commission voted against it and Ihope you will follow their lead. CitVCleor1- oTT L I'm very concerned about the impacts this very large project will have on our city. With the recent increase in the size of Reynolds Ranch, adding the additional commercial space of the Lodi Shopping Center is a dangerous move in these tough economic times. Just as homeowners have having difficulty getting credit from banks for loans, we're bound to see a slow down in commercial development as well as developers and builders will have trouble obtaining the funding for new stores. We don't know what the impacts of both projects will be, because the REIR fails to consider what the combined additional commercial square footage will mean for Lodi and our downtown. Until this is studied, we shouldn't approve this project. Thank you, Print Name wes-r W-� N.D b-(,>, ---- Address phone :!!ew3 S la _. :aagwnN auoyd A :d!Z'AI!D Zfyo :ssajppd :aweN ON saA r iiaz.ioddns a se A!:)!!qnd aweu anoA asn am ue:) •b j29 sak n Isiali oddns jo isil 6uimoi6 ino uiof of a)i!l oA pinoM seed Al!unwwo:) s!oog3s a.t!3 a3!!od spo)] i(apip asea!d) nog( of }ueatodwi lsow s! a:)lnaas Alp jeuM 'Z PaW03 ayl le aas of a)i!l not pinom s;ueinelsai pue sia!!epi le4M -!, :molaq suoilsanb aqj BuijaMsup dq sainjeal s,aalua:) 6uldd04S W01 ayl au.lwjalap sn d184 asea d Page 1 of 1 Randl Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, November 24,2008 10:35 AM To: 'SndDllr@aol.com'; City Council Cc: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE. Lodi Shopping Center - Walmart Supercenter Thank you for your email. Itwas received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriatedepartment(s) for information, responseand/or handling. Randi Johl. City Clerk From: SndDllr@aol.com [mailto:SndDllr@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 8:57 PM To: City Council Subject: Lodi Shopping Center - Walmart Supercenter I am writing to ask for your support and approval of the Environment Impact Report (EIR) for the Lodi Shopping Center and specifically for the construction of the Walmart Supercenter. Lodi has long outgrown the existing Walmart facility and the City needs additional retail to bolster the economy and keep more sales tax within the city limits. The recent closure of a major retail store and the closing of other smaller stores is evidence that more retail is essential to the City's economic well-being. Walmart is one of the strongest retail stores in the country and has had a presence in Lodi for many years. The Supercenter will not only provide economic benefits, it will also provide more choices and services to the citizens of Lodi. Please approve the EIR and finally bring the Supercenterto reality in Lodi. Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter. Respectfully, Marilyn Domingo 877 Dorchester Circle Lodi. Ca 95240 One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the newAOL...c..om todayl 11/24/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Sent: To: cc Randi Johl Tuesday, November25,2008 8;30 AM City Council Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood Subject: Wal -Marl Correspondence Attachments: scan1.pdf Attached pleasefnd additional Wal-Mart correspondence received yesterday. This too will be included in the agenda packet for the December 10th meeting as public comment. R(indi Johl..w, CnrC Citri Clerk, Cit11 of Lodi ­ , West Pine Street Lodi. Culif wniu !),,apn �=091 3.i.3-!i?02 11/25/2008 November 21,2008 The Lodi City Council C/O Lodi City Clerk 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear City Council, As you prepare to take up the Wal-Mart Supercenter in December and I hope that you will take the advice of the Planning Commission and vote against the environmental impact report. I object to the project itself, because we simply don't need it. People say they need Wal-Mart for cheap goods. Fine. We already have a Wal-Mart. People say they want discount groceries. Fine. We already have a Food 4 Less next to the existing Wal-Mart. People say we need more sales tax revenue. Show me any hard evidence that says this project will increase tax revenue for the City. It won't. Instead, it will simply shift tax revenuefrom other places in the City to this location —while at the same time possibly putting existing businesses out of commission? The project's benefits simply do not outweigh its costs to our community. For these reasons, I respectfully request that you refuse to certify the environmental impact report and refuse to approve this project for Lodi. Sincerely, &A Name �_m_ __..______ Address RECEIVED NOV 2 4 2008 cavo ILe 0 tY November 21,2008 The Lodi City Council CO City Council Clerk 221W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor Mounce and Council Members, As a member of Lodi First, I urge you to pleasevote NO on the Wal-Mart Supercenter. We don't need It, especially with the approval of the Reynolds Ranch project which will result In even more retail space in Lodi. That area should be developed first before another field is paved over by a large shopping center. The Planning Commission members understood why the Supercenter is poor planning. Please don't make a mistake with Lodi's future and approvethis unnecessary development. .I.K. i j Phone RECEIVED N O V 2 4 2008 City Clerk City of Lodi Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, November 25.2008 1:03 PM To: 'terrycope@sbcglobal.net' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Walmart Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriatedepartment(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: terry cope [mailto:terrycope@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 25,2008 11:51 AM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Walmart Please do not support the proposed Lodi Shopping Center/Supercenter. The present Walmart Center already looks bad (especially being the major corner it is)- it will look even worse when the Walmart building is vacant. And, consider what will happen to the markets/centers that are located in the area .... will these end up closing and what will happen to those empty buildings? We have enough big (and discount) stores, if you feel we really need another one (which I'm not convinced we do)- at least locate it by highway 99. That would be close to a major freeway and in an area of town that needs development. Thank you, Terry Cope 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, November26,200810:56 AM To: 'cliff lenzi' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Walmart! Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: cliff lenzi [mailto:clifflenzi@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 25,2008 1:14 PM To: City Council Subject: Walmart! Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Please listen to the will of the people and rememberthe people's vote, some three years ago embracing the Walmart Project. Do not be influenced by the union thugs, bused in outsiders and the attorneys of a paid agenda that swayed and intimidated the Planning Commission. The majority of tax paying, hard working people in the community supports the Project. The Planning Department conditions on the Project are outrageous at best, and are unlike anything I have ever encountered in other jurisdictions regarding similar projects. Our community is in financial straits and you can not keep asking the taxpayers to bail you out; we need the revenue and commerce that the Walmart Projectwill produce. Walmart is an outstanding organization and this projectwill also provide morejob opportunitiesto our citizenswho could use the work and be productive. Do the rightthing and stand up for the people's vote and will. Do not allow the legislative system to continue to be legislated through thejudicial branch of governmentwhich has allowed empowermentof various m i nority fractions to over rule the people's vote. Please VOTE TO APPROVE the EIR on 12110108. Sincerely, The Lenzi Family 11/26/2008 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, December 01,2008 9:35 AM To: 'Lorinda Jonard' cc: Jennifer Perrin Subject: RE: when will the Super Walmart issue be on the agenda? The Wal-Mart appeal will be considered at a special meeting of the City Council on Wednesday, December 10th, at Carnegie Forum at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will be televised by Comcast and available as a live stream as well on the Internet. The agenda packet for the same will be available on Friday, December 5th. Randi Johl, City Clerk -----Original Message ----- From: Lorinda Jonard [mailto:lorindaj@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:38 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: when will the Super Walmart issue be on the agenda? I have difficulty accessing the agendas and minutes on -line. Thanks for responding to this special request. 1 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, December 0 1, 2008 9:37 AM To: 'reformedgranny@aft.net' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Lodi Shopping Center Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: reforrnedgran ny@aft. net [mai Ito: reformedgranny@aft,net] Sent: Wednesday, November 26,2008 4:59 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Lodi Shopping Center Dear Council Members; Iwould like to express my vote "for"the Lodi Shopping Center. Ithink that itwould be very good for our city's economy. With other businesses closing down and thus unemployment on the rise, we truly need the extra jobs plus the lower prices that the WalMart store, f or one, would provide. I urge you to vote "for" the center. Thank you. Darlene Ward 12/41/2008 Pieasp help us determine the Lodi ShoppingCenter's features by answering the questionsbelow: 1. What retailers and restaurants would you like to see at the Center? A1Q 6,,J cz 7_. 7/�4.a/p_,T. v •'r � e- e- LA,&e A c..radd AQR-Aw C, XaA4ifs. Ae-777, /r� C1P�•�TSra��. 2. What city service is most im ortant to you (please circle)? � d� Roads Police Fire Schools Community Parks-�Q/�y 2 ,e X 3. Would you like to join our growing list of supporters? ❑ Yes x No T �. Can we use your n;WNo, publicly as a supporter? ❑ Yes Jame: address: / e/Z -Z "v / G�vac�li� :ity, Zip: /10 a/, . hone Number:c>�'Q ,!� - s;�cP-J/// Email: "O'V0009 ric y would .d jed bq WWHaW_,,,46 � via Wxn6-6c on 1-421ol?, An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Supercenters December, 2008 NAvI GANT C 0 N S U L i 1 N G Prepared for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Lon Hatamiya, MBA, JD Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. NAvIGANT C O N S U L T I N G Executive Summary We were retained by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to perform an independent and objective analysis to quantify the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales in California communities where Wal-Mart Supercenters have opened during the period of 2003-2007. We also analyzed the number of Retail Business Permits in those same communities. We accomplished this through a comparative analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits from the years just prior to and the years just after the opening of the various Wal-Mart Supercenters. We also looked at data from subsequent years for those locations that have been opened for more than one year. Since data is only available through the end Cf 2007, we were able to perform these comparisons for the cities of 21 of the 32 Wal-Mart Supercenters in California (the remaining 11 Supercenters opened in 2007 or later). The results of our analysis are as follows: • In every, city where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter in California, the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales (including apparel stores, general merchandise stores, grocery stores, home furnishing and appliance stores, and other retail stores) have increased in the year following the opening of the Supercenter as compared to the Taxable Retail Sales of the year prior to the opening. Moreover, city-wide Taxable Retail Sales have continued to increase in each subsequent year in all communities that have had Wal- Mart Supercenters for multiple years. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2008 NAvEGANT CONSULTING Increases cf city-wide Taxable Retail Sales one year after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged over $79 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all communities (21 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases averaged 15.0%for all cities. • Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Sales two years after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged nearly $123.9 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations opened more than one year (10 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases after two years averaged over 25.9%for the ten cities. • Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Sales three years after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged over $206.2 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations opened for more than two years (3 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases after three years averaged over 39.6%for the three cities. • Taxable sales for Other Retail Outlets (including restaurants and bars, building materials and farm implements, auto dealers and supply, and service stations) also increased in each community following the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters. These increases averaged over $72 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations with available data (15 Supercenters). This was an average increase of 10,5% for each city. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2009 2 NAUIGA NT CONSULTING • Increases of taxable retail sales for Other Retail Outlets two years after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged over $124.1 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations (with available data) opened more than one year (7 Supercenters). This was an average increase of 16.8% for each city. Increases of taxable retail sales for Other Retail Outlets three years after the opening averaged over $204 million (3 locations),with an average increase of 30.414oper city. • When combined, city-wide Taxable Retail Sales and Other Retail Outlets ("total taxable retail sales") one year after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter increased by an average of $157 million when compared to the year prior to the opening (15 Supercenter locations). The total taxable retail sales increased even more dramatically after two years to an average of $271.6 million per city (7 Supercenter locations). After three years, total taxable retail sales increased even further to an average of $410.3 million per city (3 locations). • in 18 cf 21 communities, the number cf Retail Business Permits increased in the year following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter when compared with the year prior to the opening. The average increase in the number of Retail Business Permits was 32.7per community. Slight declines occurred in Gilroy (from 516 to 508), Palm Desert (from 1446 to 1388), and Palm Springs (from 881 to 803). However, these were offset in those communities by sizable gains in Retail Business Permits two years following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter—Gilroy (up to 517), and Palm Springs (up to 840). An Analysis ofTaxableRetail Sales and Retail Business Permits in CaliforniaCities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2W8 3 NAvIGANT CONSULTING • In 9 of 10 communities, the number of Retail Business Permits increased twos ears following the opening cf the Wal-Mart Supercenter when compared with the year prior to the opening. The average increase was 65.8 Retail Business Permits per city. This is double the increase after only one vear and reflects a total increase of 658 new Retail Business Permits across 10 cities and an average increase of 8.2% per city. Additionally, the number of Retail Business Permits increased three years following the opening in all three communities, nearly doubling again to an average 130.3Retail Business Permits per city or a 15.7% increase. • Regardless of population, all California communities which opened a Wal-Mart Supercenter also enjoyed sizeable gains in city-wide Taxable Retail Sales. Cities with populations over 50,000 had an average increase of nearly $91 million; cities with populations under 50,000 had an average increase cf more than $64.2 million; and cities with populations under 25,000 had an average increase CC more than $34.4 million. • Central Valley and Imperial Valley communities, where economic growth is historically the slowest in the state, experienced strong city-wide Taxable Retail Sales gains after the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters. From the north to the south through the Central Valley, Anderson has seen an increase of $51.2 million or 371/o; Marysville—$8.9 million or 6.6%; Yuba City—$35.2 million or 7.9%; Dixon—$27.8 million or 17.4%; Stockton—$122.3 million or 21.4%; Dinuba—$49.9 million or 12.8%; and Hanford—$32.4 million or 10%. In addition, the Imperial Valley cities cf An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2W8 4 NAVIGA NT CONSULTING Calexico and El Centro have seen increases of $38.5 million or 18.4% and $61.8 million or 16.1% respectively. Just as impressive, all cC the aforementioned communities also experienced a gain in the number of Retail Business Permits over this same period. Based upon our analysis of the available data and information, we believe that the presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters across California has provided various positive economic benefits to their local economies. City-wide Taxable Retail Sales have increased, often dramatically, in every California community where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter. In addition, these increases in Taxable Retail Sales were not solely the result of Wal -Mart's presence, but also the result cf other new businesses opening in the same communities. Furthermore, the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters also enhanced the taxable sales of Other Retail Outlets such as restaurants, auto dealers, and service stations. Thus, increased retail traffic brought on by the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters appears to have resulted in sizable sales gains for other related service providers. In addition, the benefits of the greater Taxable Retail Sales were not limited to metropolitan or suburban communities. Economically challenged rural areas such as the Central Valley and Imperial Valley both experienced strong increases in Taxable Retail Sales and in the number cC Retail Business Permits after the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters in their communities. In sum, the presence cf Wal-Mart Supercenters in any California community appears to enhance the local community as it relates to increased Taxable Retail Sales and increased numbers cf Retail Business Permits. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2008 5 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December03,2008 3:40 PM To: 'mmm32mom@yahoo.com' Cc: City Council: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood Subject: RE: Super Center Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: MABEL MARTIN [mai Ito: mmm32mom@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03,2008 2:56 PM To: City Council Subject: Super Center I feel we do not need any more empty stores in Lodi. Wal Mart will not add anything to Lodi . I have been to super stores in Arizona and they are a blight to the area. We have a nice clean city --so let's keep it this way. I have lived in Lod i over 73 yrs. and have always been proud of Lodi. Wal Mart will not make proud of Lodi, Please vote NO. Mabel 12/03/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December03,2008 3:41 PM To: 'Russ In Lodi' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: I oppose the Lodi Supercenter. Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Russ In Lodi [mailto:russemartin@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:35 PM To: City Council Subject: I oppose the Lodi Supercenter. 1 oppose the Lodi Supercenter. I am a Lodi resident registered Democrat and I have no union affiliation My reason is; I do not believe we need it and I personally don't like them because they are too big Russ 12/03/2008 Randl Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, December02,2008 5:18 PM To: 'haneson2000@yahoo.com' cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Wal- Mart Supercenter Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk --_-_Original Message ----- From: John Hanneson [mailto:haneson2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:1.7 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal- Mart Supercenter Lodi City Council Members, We urge you to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and vote no on the Wal-Mart Supercenter for the following reasons: 1. There is an oversupply of retail space in Lodi in the Lakewood Mall, Lowe's center, Beckman, and many others. 2. The Mal -Mart Supercenter will put Food 4 Less and many other retail stores out of business. 3. Wal-Mart allows overnight camping in their parking lots which has been an ongoing problem at the present Wal-Mart store. Being situated on Highway 12 the parking lot is a magnet for campers, motor homes, and trailers. 4. There will he no increase of sales tax when other retail stores go out of business, especially during this economic period. 5. what the city needs to concentrate on bringing to Lodi instead of a Wal-Mart Supercenter is a good bookstore, department store, and possibly hotel on the west side of town. 6. The traffic on the corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane/Highway 12 will be increased to the point of gridlock at certain times of the day. 7. With so many vacant retail spaces, there will be increased blight, such as on Lodi Avenue where the Alexander Bakery and State Theater have sat empty for so many years. Thank you, Carolyn and John Hannesson 1 City Council Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 2008-238 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-03-01) RELATING TO THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003042113 WHEREAS, an application was filed by Browman Development Company for a commercial shopping center at 2640 W. Kettleman Lane more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel numbers 058-030-08 and 058-030-02, and a portion of 058- 030-09; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director made a determination that the project may have a potentially significant impact on the environment and ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR was prepared and distributed to reviewing agencies on April 14, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released for circulation on August 5,2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice held a study session and public hearing on September 9, 2004. Public comments on the DEIR were taken at this hearing; and WHEREAS, a Final EIR (FEIR) responding to all public comments on the DEIR submitted prior to the expiration of the comment period was prepared and released to the public and commenting agencies on November 22,2004; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice held a public hearing before said Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi reviewed and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, that certification and approval was appealed to the Lodi City Council; and WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council, on appeal, reviewed and certified the FEIR prepared for the project (Resolution No. 2005-26, February 3, 2005); and WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council rescinded the certification of the FEIR and approval of the project on May 3, 2006, pursuant to Superior Court Order of December 19, 2005, which order directed revisions to be made to the EIR; and WHEREAS, in response to the Court Order, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (REIR) and distributed it to reviewing agencies on September 25, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Draft Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) was released and circulated on October 17, 2007, for public comment and review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, after ten (10) days published notice held a study session and public hearing on November 14, 2007. Public comments on the DREIR were received at this hearing; and WHEREAS, a Final Revisions to the EIR (FREIR), which includes the DREIR, as revised, and responses to all public comments on the DREIR submitted prior to the expiration of the comment period was prepared and released to the public and commenting agencies on August 26,2008; and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2008 the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi held a hearing on the adequacy of the FREIR, and the Planning Commission declined to certify the FREIR; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Browman Development Company have each filed timely appeals of the Planning Commission's denial of the FREIR to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared which identifies one or more significant effects, the decision-making agency make certain findings regarding those effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby finds that full and fair public hearings have been held on the FREIR and the City Council having considered all comments received thereon, said FREIR is hereby determined to be adequate and complete; and said FREIR is hereby incorporated herein by reference. 3. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby determines, in connection with the proposed project identified in the FREIR, which includes a Use Permit and Tentative Map for the Lodi Shopping Center, that the Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (FREIR) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state and local environmental guidelines and regulations, that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained therein, including the written comments received during the Draft REIR review period and the oral comments received at the public hearings, and that the Final REIR represents the independent judgment of the City of Lodi as Lead Agency for the project. 4. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find and recognize that the Final REIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications and other information in its responses to comments on the DREIR and also incorporates text changes to the Draft REIR based on information obtained from the City since the Draft REIR was issued. The City Council does hereby find and determine that such changes and additional information are not significant new information as that term is defined under the provisions of the CEQA because such changes and additional information do not indicatethat any new significant environmental impacts not already evaluated would result from the project and they do not reflect any substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impact; no feasible mitigation measures considerably different from those previously analyzed in the DREIR have been proposed that would either lessen a significant environmental impact of the project or result in a new, substantial environmental impact; no feasible alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the DREIR have been proposed that would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and the DREIR was adequate. Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds and determines that recirculation of the Final REIR for further public review and comment is not warranted. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). 5. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings with respect to the significant effects on the environment resulting from the project, as identified in the hereinbefore mentioned Final REIR, with the stipulation that (i) all information in these findings is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the Final REIR, which full administrative record is available for review through the Director of Community Development at his office in City Hall at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, 95241, and (ii) any mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by the commentators on the Draft REIR and were not adopted as part of the Final REIR are hereby expressly rejected for the reasons stated in the responses to comments set forth in the Final REIR and elsewhere in the record. !. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Impact: The project would convert approximately 40 acres of prime agricultural land to urban uses. While the severity of this impact can be reduced somewhat, no mitigation is available which would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level except an outright prohibition of all development on prime agricultural lands. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) 2. Mitigation: The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland (1:1 mitigation ratio). The agricultural conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of land of at least 40 acres. This easement shall be located in San Joaquin County (excluding the Delta Primary Zone as currently defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural use; if it is not in current agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into agricultural production as a result of the conservation easement transaction. The lands subject to the easement shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land use to ensure its continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non-farm development and other uses that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The easement shall be held by the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the City. The applicant shall pay a fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for purposes of establishing an endowment to provide for adequate administration, monitoring, and maintenance of the easement in perpetuity. 3. Finding: The acquisition of an off-site agricultural conservation easement would provide partial mitigation for the loss of prime farmland resulting form the project, but it would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. There are no feasible mitigation measures available that would avoid the significant loss of agricultural land if the project is implemented. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other 3 considerations make mitigation of this impact infeasible. In particular, mitigation is infeasible because it is not possible to re-create prime farmland on other lands that do not consist of prime agricultural soils. This impact, therefore, remains significant and unavoidable. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is significant and unavoidable. As discussed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of loss of prime agricultural land resulting from the project to a less -than -significant level. The project's significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources could be avoided by denying the project or lessened by requiring a substantially reduced project, which would prevent the conversion of all or a major portion of the site to urban uses. However, this action would not meet the fundamental objective of the applicant or the City of Lodi of developing the site for a commercial retail shopping plaza in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designations applicable to the site. In addition, denial cf the project would not constitute a "feasible mitigation," and therefore would not be required under Section 15126.4 of the state CEQA Guidelines. Although project -specific impacts to prime farmland cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -than -significant levels, the City has minimized and substantially lessened the significant effects of the proposed project on prime agricultural land through the requirement that an off-site agricultural conservation easement be acquired by the project applicant. The City has also generally minimized the significant effects of development on prime agricultural land through the policies of its adopted General Plan. A principal purpose of the City's General Plan regulatory scheme is to minimize the impact on prime agricultural land resulting from the City's urban expansion. The City of Lodi is recognized for its compact growth pattern and clearly defined urban boundaries, its emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate and considered approach to urban expansion to accommodate housing and other long- term development needs. These guiding principles serve to minimize and forestall conversion of agricultural lands within the City's growth boundaries. The General Plan policies related to agricultural preservation and protection are intended, and have been successful, in maintaining the productivity of prime agricultural land surrounding the City by controlling urban expansion in a manner which has the least impact on prime agricultural lands. In addition to maintaining compact and defined urban growth boundaries, agricultural preservation and protection is primarily accomplished through the City's Growth Management Plan for Residential Development, which limits housing development to a growth rate of two percent per year, and which gives priority to proposed residential developments with the least impact on agricultural land, in accordance with General Plan policy. The General Plan implementation program includes a directive to "identify and designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the City" (Land Use and Growth Management Implementation Program 10). This buffer zone is intended to provide a well-defined edge to the urban area, and to minimize conflicts at the urban -agricultural interface by providing a transition zone separating urban from agricultural uses, and to remove uncertainty for agricultural operations near the urban fringe. The greenbeltwill perform an important function in minimizing 4 urban -agricultural conflicts and promote the preservation of prime agricultural land beyond the greenbelt; however, it will not constitute mitigation for loss of farmland since it cannot itself replace land lost to development. The City is continuing to study the implementation of a greenbelt area between Stockton and Lodi, and is committed to the implementation of such a greenbelt. In summary, the City of Lodi has attempted to reduce the impact for the loss of prime agricultural land at the project site through the required acquisition of off-site agricultural conservation easements, and also through its extensive efforts to avoid the loss of prime farmland through its careful planning of urban areas. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact on the project site to a less -than -significant level and, therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's finding. 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide substantial revenue for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax and propertytax, and will generate employment opportunities for Lodi residents. The project will cause vital municipal infrastructure improvements to be implemented in the project vicinity, and development impact fees paid by the applicant will help fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. The project will reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City. 11. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. SEISMIC HAZARD FROM GROUND SHAKING 1. Impact: Strong ground shaking occurring on the site during a major earthquake event could cause severe damage to project buildings and structures. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Structural damage to buildings resulting from ground shaking shall be minimized by following the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and implementing the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impactwill be reduced to a less -than -significant level. All portions of the project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 3 to avoid or minimize potential S damage from seismic shaking at the site. Conformance with these requirements will be ensured by the Building Division through its routine inspection and permitting functions. These facts supportthe City's findings. B. SEISMICALLY -INDUCED GROUND SETTLEMENTS Impact: There is a potential for seismically -induced ground settlements at the site, which could result in damage to project foundations and structures. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: If subsequent design -level geotechnical studies indicate unacceptable levels of potential seismic settlement, available measures to reduce the effects of such settlements would include replacement of near -surface soils with engineered fill, or supporting structures on quasi -rigid foundations, as recommended by the project geotechnical engineer. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support cf Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigationswill be completed prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and these buildings will be designed in conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. Implementation of the recommendations will be ensured by the Public Works Department and Building Division through their routine inspection and permitting functions. These facts support the City's findings. C. STORMWATER BASIN BANK INSTABILITY 1. Impact: There is a potential for bank instability along the banks of the proposed basin. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Design -level geotechnical studies shall investigate the potential d bank instability at the proposed basin and recommend appropriate setbacks, if warranted. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. As part of the mitigationfor this impact, geotechnical investigationswill be completed along with the design -level improvement plans for the stormwater basin, and the Public Works Director will ensure that the basin is constructed in conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. These facts supportthe City's findings. 71 D. SOIL CONSOLIDATION AND COLLAPSE 1. Impact: Soils present on the site are subject to moisture -induced collapse, which could result in damage to structures. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The effects of soil consolidation and collapse can be mitigated by placing shallow spread foundations on a uniform thickness of engineered fill; specific measures shall be specified by an engineering geologist, as appropriate, in response to localized conditions. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigationswill be completed prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and the Public Works Department and Building Division will ensure that these buildings are be designed in conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendationsto reduce this potential hazard. These facts support the City's finding. E. EXPANSIVE SOILS Impact: There is a low, but not necessarily insignificant, potential for soils expansion at the site, which could result in differential subgrade movements and cracking of foundations. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The potential damage from soils expansion would be reduced by placement of non -expansive engineered fill below foundation slabs, or other measures as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed prior to the approval of building permits for specific buildings, and the Public Works Department and Building Division will ensure that these buildings are be designed in conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. These facts support the City's finding. F. SOILCORROSIVITY 1. Impact: The corrosion potential d the on-site soils could result in damage to buried utilities and foundation systems. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The potential damage from soil corrosivity can be mitigated by using corrosion -resistant materials for buried utilities and systems; specific measures shall be specified by an engineering geologist as appropriate in response to localized conditions. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. As part of the mitigation for this impact, geotechnical investigations will be completed prior to the City's approval specific buried utilities and foundation systems for buildings, and these features will be designed in conformance with the geotechnical report's recommendations to reduce this potential hazard. These facts support the City's finding. 111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. Impact: During grading and construction, erosion of exposed soils and pollutantsfrom equipment may result in water quality impacts to downstream water bodies. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: A comprehensive erosion control and water pollution prevention program shall be implemented during grading and construction. Typical measures required by the City of Lodi to be implemented during the grading and construction phase include the following: • Schedule earthworkto occur primarily during the dry season to prevent most runoff erosion. • Stabilize exposed soils by the end of October in any given year by revegetating disturbed areas or applying hydromulch with tetra -foam or other adhesive material. • Convey runoff from areas of exposed soils to temporary siltation basins to provide for settling of eroded sediments. • Protect drainages and storm drain inlets from sedimentation with berms or filtration barriers, such as filter fabric fences or rock bags or filter screens. • Apply water to exposed soils and on-site dirt roads regularly during the dry season to prevent wind erosion, • Stabilize stockpiles of topsoil and fill material by watering daily, or by the use of chemical agents. • Install gravel construction entrances to reduce tracking of sediment onto adjoining streets. 8 • Sweep on-site paved surfaces and surrounding streets regularly with a wet sweeper to collect sediment before it is washed into the storm drains or channels. • Store all construction equipment and material in designated areas away from waterways and storm drain inlets. Surround construction staging areas with earthen berms or dikes. • Wash and maintain equipment and vehicles in a separate bermed area, with runoff directed to a lined retention basin. • Collect construction waste daily and deposit in covered dumpsters. • After construction is completed, clean all drainage culverts of accumulated sediment and debris. The project also is required to comply with NPDES permit requirements, file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicatethat the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The above mitigation measures are derived from Best Management Practices (BMPs) recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and are to be included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared and implemented by the project proponent in conformance with the state's General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. In addition, the project grading plans will conform to the drainage and erosion control standards of the City of Lodi, and will be incorporated into the project Improvement Plans to be approved by the City. Implementation of the erosion control measures will be monitored and enforced by City grading inspectors. These facts support the City's finding. B. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM NON -POINT POLLUTANTS 1. Impact: The project would generate urban nonpoint contaminants which may be carried in stormwater runoff from paved surfaces to downstream water bodies. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The project shall include stormwater controls to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loads. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 9 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. In January 2003, the City adopted a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) to implement the provisions of its Phase II NPDES stormwater permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. The SMP contains a comprehensive program for the reduction of surface water pollution. The project includes feasible structural BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as vegetated swales and a stormwater basin. Much of the stormwater runoff generated in the northern and southern portions of the site will be conveyed to vegetated swales or bioswales which will provide partial filtering of pollutants and sediments. This partially treated runoff, along with all other parking lot and roof runoff from the project will be conveyed to the 3.65 -acre stormwater basin planned adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. The basin would serve as a settling pond where suspended sediments and urban pollutants would settle out prior to discharge of the collected stormwater into the City's storm drain system, thereby reducing potential surface water quality impacts to drainages and water bodies. The pump intake for the basin will be located two feet above the bottom to provide for accumulation of sediments which would be cleaned out on a regular basis. Non-structural BMPs typically required by the City include the implementation of regular maintenance activities (e.g., damp sweeping of paved areas: inspection and cleaning of storm drain inlets: litter control) at the site to prevent soil, grease, and litter from accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff. Stormwater catch basins will be required to be stenciled to discourage illegal dumping. In the landscaped areas, chemicals and irrigation water will be required to be applied at rates specified by the project landscape architect to minimize potential for contaminated runoff. Additional BMPs, as identified from a set of model practices developed by the state, may be required as appropriate at the time of Improvement Plan approval. These facts support the City's finding. VA -.1 A. LOSS OF HABITAT FOR SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES 1. Impact: The project would result in the loss of approximately 40 acres of foraging habitat for three protected bird species, and could result in the loss of breeding habitat for two protected bird species. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: In accordance with the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) and City of Lodi requirements, the project proponent will pay the applicable in -lieu mitigation fees to compensate for loss of open space and habitat resulting from development of the project site, and will ensure the completion of preconstruction surveys for Swainson's hawks, burrowing owls, and California horned larks, as well as the implementation of specified measures if any of these species are found on the site. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 10 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reducedto a less -than -significant level. The in -lieu mitigation fees prescribed under the SJMSCP vary depending on the location of the site, its designation under the SJMSCP, and annual adjustments. The project site is covered by two designations or pay zones under the SJMSCP. The 20.5 -acre eastern portion of the shopping center site, is designated "Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands," where in -lieu fees are currently $6,165 per acre (2008). The 19.5 -acre western portion of the site, which includes the proposed stormwater basin, is designated "Agricultural Habitat and Natural Lands," where in -lieu fees are currently $12,329 per acre (2008). The compliance with the provisions of the SJMSCP, along with the prescribed preconstruction surveys and any required follow-up measures prescribed at that time, would fully mitigate the small reduction in foraging habitat resulting from development of the project site. The applicant's duty to mitigate the loss of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio will further mitigate the loss of foraging habitat. These facts support the City's finding of less -than -significant after mitigation. B. IMPACTS TO BURROWING OWLS AND RAPTORS 1. Impact: The project could adversely affect any burrowing owls that may occupy the site prior to construction, and could also adversely affect any tree -nesting raptor that may establish nests in trees along the project boundaries prior to construction. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that raptors (hawks and owls) are not disturbed during the breeding season: • If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey for nesting raptors (including both tree- and ground -nesting raptors) on site within 30 days of the onset of ground disturbance. These surveys will be based on the accepted protocols (e.g., as for the burrowing owl) for the target species. If a nesting raptor is detected, then the ornithologist will, in consultation with CDFG, determine an appropriate disturbance -free zone (usually a minimum of 250 feet) around the tree that contains the nest or the burrow in which the owl is nesting. The actual size of the buffer would depend on species, topography, and type of construction activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. The setback area must be temporarily fenced, and construction equipment and workers shall not enter the enclosed setback area until the conclusion of the breeding season. Once the raptor abandons its nest and all young have fledged, construction can begin within the boundaries of the buffer. • If ground disturbance is to occur during the non -breeding season (September 1 to January 31), a qualified ornithologist will conduct pre -construction surveys for burrowing owls only. (Pre -construction surveys during the non -breeding season are not necessary for tree nesting raptors since these species would be expected to abandon their nests voluntarily during construction.) If burrowing owls are detected during the non -breeding season, they can be passively relocated by placing one-way doors in the burrows and leaving them in place for a minimum of three days. Once it has been determined that owls have vacated the site, the burrows can be collapsed and ground disturbance can proceed. 11 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. While none of these species are currently on the project site, this mitigation measure is included as a contingency to be implemented in the event nesting occurs prior to construction. As specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this document, the Community Development Directorwill ensure that the pre -construction surveys are undertaken and that a report of the survey findings is submitted to the City prior to the approval of the project Improvement Plans. If any of the species are found on-site during the surveys, the Public Works Director will ensure that the required setback zones are established. No grading or construction in the vicinity of the nests would be permitted until the project biologist is satisfied that impacts to the species are mitigated or avoided. Relocation of burrowing owls would be allowed to occur only under the direction of the California Department of Fish and Game. These facts support the City's finding. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Impact: It is possiblethat previously undiscovered cultural materials may be buried on the site which could be adversely affected by grading and construction for the project. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any potential impactsto cultural resources: • In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are exposed or discovered during site clearing, grading or subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential recommendations could include evaluation, collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials followed by a professional report. • In the event that fossils are exposed during site clearing, grading or subsurface construction, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional paleontologist contacted for further review and recommendations. Potential recommendations could include evaluation, collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological materials followed by a professional report. • If human remains are discovered, the San Joaquin County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would identify a most likely descendant to make recommendations to the land owner for dealing with the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 12 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. While the detailed site reconnaissance by Basin Research Associates indicated that there is no evidence to suggest that cultural resources may be buried on site, the mitigation measure is a standard contingency that is applied in all but the least archaeologically sensitive areas. In the unlikely event artifacts are encountered during grading or excavation, the Public Works Director will enforce any required work stoppages, and the Community Development Director will contact the project archaeologist and will ensure that the archaeologist's recommendations are implemented. These facts supportthe City's finding. VI. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION A. NEAR TERM PLUS PROJECT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Impact: The addition of project -generated traffic would exacerbate LOS F operations at the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road / Harney Lane during both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The project shall contribute its fair share cost to the installation of a traffic signal at Lower Sacramento Road and Harney Lane. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates calculated that with the above mitigation in place, the level of service at the affected intersection would rise to Level of Service C and thus meet the service standards of the City of Lodi. These facts supportthe City's finding. B. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ACCESS CONDITIONS AT SIGNALIZED ACCESS DRIVE PROPOSEDALONG LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD FRONTAGE 1. Impact: During the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound left -turn queue length of 250 feet (average queue) to 375 feet (95"' Percentile queue) of exiting vehicles would extend west to the internal intersection located south of Pad 10. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Modify the project site plan to provide dual eastbound left -turn movements out of the project site onto northbound Lower Sacramento Road, consisting of a 150 -foot left -turn pocket and a full travel lane back to the internal project site intersection. In the eastbound direction, a left -turn pocket and a full travel 13 lane back to the signalized intersection will provide adequate capacity for inbound traffic. In addition, STOP signs shall be installed on all approaches at the on-site intersections adjacent to Pads 10 and 11, except the westbound approaches to provide continuous traffic flow into the project site and eliminate the potential for backups onto Lower Sacramento Road. On the Food 4 Less approach, a 100 -foot left -turn pocket will be provided at the signalized intersection. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above mitigations in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be eliminated. These facts supportthe City's finding. C. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT ACCESS CONDITIONS AT NORTHERN UNSIGNALIZED ACCESS DRIVE PROPOSED ALONG LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD Impact: The addition of a northbound left -turn lane underAccess Alternative B would result in Level of Service F conditions at this unsignalized intersection. (This condition does not occur under Access Alternative A where no northbound left -turn movement would occur.) In addition, a non-standard 60 -foot back-to-back taper is provided between the northbound left -turn lane (Alternative B) at the northern unsignalized access drive and the southbound left -turn lane at the signalized project entrance. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The following mitigations shall be implemented: a. Extend a third southbound travel lane on Lower Sacramento Road from its current planned terminus at the signalized project driveway to the southern boundaryof the project site; b. Construct a 100 -foot southbound right -turn lane at the signalized project driveway; c. Extend the southbound left -turn pocket by 100 feet; d. Extend the taper from 60 feet to a City standard 120-foottaper; e. Eliminate the northbound left -turn lane into the northern driveway. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. 14 The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above mitigations in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be eliminated. These facts support the City's finding. D. INADEQUATE LEFT -TURN LANE TAPER ON WESTGATE DRIVE 1. Impact: On Westgate Drive, a non -City standard 64 -foot back-to-back taper is proposed between the northbound left -turn lane at W. Kettleman Lane and the southbound left -turn lane at the northern project driveway. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The project site plan shall be modified to move the north project driveway on Westgate Drive south by 25 feet in order to accommodate the required 90 -foot taper length. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicatethat the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above mitigation in place, the potential for traffic conflicts arising from inadequate queuing capacity on Westgate Drive would be eliminated. These facts support the City's finding. E. INADEQUATE LEFT -TURN LANE TAPER ON LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD 1. Impact: On Lower Sacramento Road, a non -City standard 70 -foot back-to-back taper is proposed between the dual northbound left -turn lanes at W. Kettleman Lane and the southbound left -turn lane at the middle Food 4 Less Driveway. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The project site plan shall be modified to extend the northbound left -turn pocket to 250 feet, and to extend the taper from 70 feet to a City standard 120 -foot taper. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. While the traffic report by Fehr & Peers indicated that mitigation for this impact would need to be achieved through closure of the southbound left -turn lane at the middle Food 4 Less Driveway, the applicant instead proposes to provide additional roadway right-of-way along the project frontage on Lower Sacramento Road to accommodate side-by-side left -turn lanes (instead of the back-to-back turn pockets as originally proposed). This would allow the mitigation to be implemented as specified while also maintaining the existing southbound left turn. Fehr & Peers Associates has reviewed 15 the proposed roadway configuration and concurs that it would serve as adequate mitigation for the deficiencies noted in the El traffic impact report. Therefore, Fehr & Peers Associates concludes that with the above mitigation in place, the potential for traffic conflicts at this intersection would be eliminated. These facts support the City's finding. F. PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE 1. Impact: Development of the project would create a demand for increased public transit service above that which is currently provided or planned. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The project applicant shall work with and provide fair share funding to the City of Lodi Grapeline Service and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to expand transit service to the project. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above mitigation in place, the additional demand for transit service generated by the project would not exceed the capacity of the transit system. These facts support the City's finding. G. PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP 1. Impact: Development of the project would create an unmet demand for public transit service which would not be met by the single transit stop proposed for the northwest portion of the project. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Modify the project site plan to: 1) provide a bus bay and passenger shelter at the proposed transit stop; and 2) include a second transit stop and passenger shelter in the eastern portion of the project near Lower Sacramento Road. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above mitigations in place, the transit service to the site would be adequate to meet ridership demand and would be provided in a manner which is convenient to transit riders, and which avoids traffic and circulation conflicts or congestion. These facts support the City's finding. 16 H. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 1. Impact: Development of the project would create an unmet demand for pedestrian facilities along West Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road and Westgate Drive, and internally between the different areas of the project site. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided to serve Pads 8, 9, and 12 in order to completethe internal pedestrian circulation system. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measure, which has been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates indicates that with the above mitigations in place, the pedestrian facilities provided in the project would be adequate to meet demand and provide for safe pedestrian movement throughout the project. These facts supportthe City's finding. VII. NOISE A. NOISE FROM PROJECTACTIVITY 1. Impact: Noise generated by activity associated with the project would elevate off-site noise levels at existing and future residences in the vicinity. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The following noise mitigations are identified as appropriate for the various types of project activities, to reduce project noise at both existing and planned future adjacent development: Rooftop Mechanical Eauipment. To ensure that the potential noise impact of mechanical equipment is reduced to less -than -significant levels, the applicant shall submit engineering and acoustical specifications for project mechanical equipment, for review prior to issuance of building permits for each retail building, demonstrating that the equipment design (types, location, enclosure specifications), combined with any parapets and/or screen walls, will not result in noise levels exceeding 45 dBA (L. -eq - hour) for any residential yards. Parking Lot Cleaning. To assure compliance with the City of Lodi Noise Regulations regarding occasional excessive noise, leaf blowing in the southeast corner of the project site shall be limited to operating during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel. 17 The City of Lodi Building Official will require demonstration of compliance with noise specifications for rooftop mechanical equipment in conjunction with each individual building permit required for the project. The enforcement of the City Noise Regulations with respect to leaf blower noise will be the responsibility of the Community Development Director, who may enforce the noise restrictions with or without a citizen complaint from a nearby resident. These facts support the City's finding. B. NOISE FROM STORMWATER BASIN PUMP 1. Impact: Occasional pumping of water noise at the planned future residential (Significant Impact) from the stormwater basin would generate areas to the south and west of the basin. 2. Mitigation: The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate potential noise generated by the stormwater basin pump: 1) The pump shall be located as far as is feasible from the nearest future planned residential development. In addition, the pump facility shall be designed so that noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest residential property lines. The pump may need to be enclosed to meet this noise level. Plans and specifications for the pump facility shall be included in the Improvement Plans for the project and reviewed for compliance with this noise criterion. 2) In order to avoid creating a noise nuisance during nighttime hours, pump operations shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., except under emergency conditions (e.g., when the basin needs to be emptied immediately to accommodate flows from an imminent storm). 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than significant level. The City of Lodi Public Works Director will require demonstration of compliance with noise specifications for the basin pump in conjunction with the Improvement Plans for the project. The enforcement of the City Noise Regulations with respect to the hours of pump operation will be the responsibility of the community Development Director, who may enforce the noise restrictions with or without a citizen complaint from a nearby resident. These facts support the City's finding. C. CONSTRUCTION NOISE 1. Impact: Noise levels would be temporarily elevated during grading and construction. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Short-term construction noise impacts shall be reduced through implementation of the following measures: 18 Construction Scheduling. The applicantkontractor shall limit noise -generating construction activities to daytime, weekday, (non -holiday) hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. The applicant/contractor shall properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. Idling Prohibitions. The applicantkontractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Equipment Location and Shielding. The applicant/contractor shall locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far as practicable from existing nearby residences. Acoustically shield such equipment as required to achieve continuous noise levels of 55 dBA or lower at the property line. Quiet Equipment Selection. The applicantkontractor shall select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order. Notification. The applicant/contractor shall notify neighbors located adjacent to, and across the major roadwaysfrom, the project site of the construction schedule in writing. Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The applicantkontractor shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would notify the City, determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Applicantkontractor shall conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site, and include it in the notice sent to neighboring property owners regarding construction schedule. All complaints and remedial actions shall be reported to the City of Lodi by the noise disturbance coordinator. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Each phase of grading and construction will be required to implement the above noise control measures and other measures which may be required by the City of Lodi. The construction noise control measures will be required to be included as part of the General Notes on the project Improvement Plans, which must be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of grading. Although there are noise sensitive uses such as residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project site, most existing dwellings would be at least 200 feet away from the nearest grading and construction activity. This distance separation from the noise sources 19 and the effective implementation of the above mitigation measures by the contractors, as monitored and enforced by City Public Works Department and Building Division, would reduce the noise levels from this temporary source to acceptable levels. These facts supportthe City's finding. VIII. AIR QUALITY A. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 1. Impact: Construction and grading for the project would generate dust and exhaust emissions that could adversely affect local and regional air quality. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Dust control measures, in addition to those described in the FEIR, shall be implemented to reduce PM,o emissions during grading and construction, as required by the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Air District). (See Original DraftEIR, p.120). 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less -than -significant level. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Each phase of grading and construction will be required to implement the dust control measures specified in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's Regulation VIII, as well as additional practices itemized in the FEIR and as otherwise required by the City of Lodi. The dust control measures will be required to be included as part of the General Notes on the project Improvement Plans, which must be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of grading. The Public Works Department will monitor and enforce the dust suppression requirements as part of their site inspection duties. Violations of the requirements of Regulation VIII are also subject to enforcement action by the Air District. Violations are indicated by the generation of visible dust clouds and/or generation of complaints. These facts support the City's finding. B. REGIONALAIR QUALITY 1. Impact: Emissions from project -generated traffic would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: Project design measures shall be implemented to reduce project area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air emissions, including those measures described in the FEIR; however, these measures would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. 3. Finding: While the implementation of specified design measures and a TDM plan in conjunction with the project would reduce the level of the air quality impact, the impact would not be reduced to less -than -significant level. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable. 20 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is significant and unavoidable. Due to the large size of the project and the very low thresholds for significance established by the Air District for the emission of Reactive Organic Gases, Nitrogen Oxides, and fine Particulate Matter, the air quality report by Donald Ballanti concluded that the project would exceed the significance thresholds established for these pollutants. In addition, large commercial shopping centers attract high volumes of personal vehicles, and transportation alternatives such as public transit, carpooling, and bicycling have limited effectiveness in reducing automobile traffic generated by this type of project. Thus, although the City will require the implementation of selected Transportation Demand Management measures, as appropriate, it is estimated by Donald Ballanti that such measures would reduce project -generated traffic by no more than five percent. The small reduction in associated emissions would not reduce overall regional air quality impacts to less - than -significant levels. These facts support the City's finding. 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax and propertytax, and will generate employment opportunities for City residents. The project will implement vital municipal infrastructure improvements in the project vicinity, and impact fees paid by the project will help fund its pro -rata share Cr public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site. The project will reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City. C�:7*�1� 7170,01 �10Z�1- 1. Impact: The restaurant uses in the project could release cooking exhausts which could result in noticeable odors beyond project boundaries. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: All restaurant uses within the project shall locate kitchen exhaust vents in accordance with accepted engineering practice and shall install exhaust filtration systems or other accepted methods of odor reduction. 3. Finding: The above feasible mitigation measures, which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact described above to a less-than-significantlevel. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a less -than -significant level. While the nature and location of restaurants within the project has not been determined, this mitigation requirement will ensure that cooking odors from any on - 21 site restaurants will not result in annoyance or nuisance conditions. The Building Official will ensure that the required equipment is included on the plans, and will ensure that the equipment is properly installed and functioning. These facts support the City's finding. IX. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A. AGRICULTURAL LAND CONVERSION 1. Impact: The conversion of prime agricultural land at the project site, combined with the agricultural conversion associated with other foreseeable projects in the area, would result in a cumulatively substantial impact to agricultural resources. (Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: The applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation Easement over 40 acres of prime farmland (1:1 mitigation ratio). The agricultural conservation easement shall consist of a single parcel of land of at least 40 acres. This easement shall be located in San Joaquin County (excluding the Delta Primary Zone as currently defined by State law). The easement shall be in current agricultural use; if it is not in current agricultural use, the easement shall be required to be put into agricultural production as a result of the conservation easement transaction. The lands subject to the easement shall be placed under permanent restrictions on land use to ensure its continued agricultural production capacity by limiting non-farm development and other uses that are inconsistent with commercial agriculture. The easement shall be held by the City or a qualified entity (i.e., land trust) approved by the City. The applicant shall pay a fee (in an amount to be determined by the City) for purposes of establishing an endowment to provide for adequate administration, monitoring, and maintenance of the easement in perpetuity. 3. Finding: It is the City's current practice to require development projects to acquire off-site conservation easements to off -set the loss d prime farmland. The acquisition of an off-site agricultural conservation easement would provide partial mitigation for the cumulative loss of prime farmland resulting from development projects, but it would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. As with the project - specific agricultural impacts, there is no feasible mitigation measure available that would reduce or avoid the significant cumulative loss of agricultural land resulting from development of the proposed project and other foreseeable projects in the area. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make mitigation of this impact infeasible. In particular, mitigation is infeasible because it is not possible to re-create prime farmland on other lands that do not consist of prime agricultural soils. This impacttherefore remains significant and unavoidable. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is significant and unavoidable. As discussed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, there are no feasible measures that would reduce the impact of loss of prime agricultural land to a less -than -significant level. Although impacts to prime farmland cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -than - significant levels, the City has in fact minimized and substantially lessened the significant effects of development on prime agricultural land through requirements 22 that an off-site agricultural conservation easement be acquired by project applicants. The City has also generally minimized the significant effects of development on prime agricultural land through the policies of its adopted General Plan. A principal purpose of the City's General Plan regulatory scheme is to minimize the impact on prime agricultural land resulting from the City's urban expansion. The City of Lodi is recognized for its compact growth pattern and clearly defined urban boundaries, its emphasis on infill development, and its deliberate and considered approach to urban expansion to accommodate housing and other long-term development needs. These guiding principles serve to minimize and forestall conversion of agricultural lands within the City's growth boundaries. The General Plan policies related to agricultural preservation and protection are intended, and have been successful, in maintaining the productivity of prime agricultural land surrounding the City by controlling urban expansion in a manner which has the least impact on prime agricultural lands. In addition to maintaining compact and defined urban growth boundaries, agricultural preservation and protection are primarily accomplished through the City's Growth Management Plan for Residential Development, which limits housing development to a growth rate of two percent per year, and which gives priority to proposed residential developments with the least impact on agricultural land, in accordance with General Plan policy. The General Plan implementation program includes a directive to "identify and designate an agricultural and open space greenbelt around the urbanized area of the City" (Land Use and Growth Management Implementation Program 10). This buffer zone is intended to provide a well-defined edge to the urban area, and to minimize conflicts at the urban -agricultural interface by providing a transition zone separating urban from agricultural uses, and to remove uncertainty for agricultural operations near the urban fringe. The greenbelt will perform an important function in minimizing urban -agricultural conflicts and promote the preservation of prime agricultural land beyond the greenbelt; however, it will not constitute mitigation for loss of farmland since it cannot itself replace land lost to development. In addition, the City is continuing to study the implementation of a greenbelt area between Stockton and Lodi, and is committed to the implementation of such a greenbelt. In summary, the City of Lodi has applied feasible mitigation measures for loss of prime agricultural land at the cumulative project sites through the required acquisition of off-site agricultural conservation easements, and also through its extensive efforts to avoid the loss of prime farmland through its careful planning of urban areas within its boundaries. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level on a project -specific or cumulative basis and, therefore, the impact remains cumulatively significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's finding. 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for Lodi residents. The project will cause vital municipal infrastructure improvements to be implemented in the project vicinity, and development impact fees paid by the 23 applicant will help fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards public services throughoutthe City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with the City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. The project will reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City. B. REGIONALAIR QUALITY IMPACTS Impact: Emissions from project -generated traffic, combined with the emissions of other foreseeable projects in the area, would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. (Significant Cumulative Impact) 2. Mitigation: For the proposed project, design measures shall be implemented to reduce project area source emissions, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan should be implemented to reduce project traffic and resulting air emissions. However, these measures would not reduce the impact to a less -than - significant level, either on a project -specific basis or on a cumulative basis. 3. Finding: While the implementation of specified design measures and a TDM plan in conjunction with the project would reduce the level of the air quality impact, the impact would not be reduced to less -than -significant level. This impact would be exacerbated by emissions from other foreseeable projects in the area. Therefore, the cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable. 4. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts indicate that the identified impact is significant and unavoidable. Due to the large size of the project and the very low thresholds for significance established by the Air District for the emission of Reactive Organic Gases, Nitrogen Oxides, and fine Particulate Matter, the air quality report by environmental consultant, Donald Ballanti, concluded that the project would far exceed the significance thresholds established for these pollutants. In addition, large commercial shopping centers attract high volumes of personal vehicles, and transportation alternatives such as public transit, carpooling, and bicycling have limited effectiveness in reducing automobile traffic generated by this type of project. Thus, although the City will require the implementation of selected Transportation Demand Management measures, as appropriate, it is estimated by Donald Ballanti that such measures would reduce project -generated traffic by no more than five percent. The small reduction in associated emissions would not reduce overall regional air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project to less -than - significant levels. Other foreseeable projects in the area may be more suitable for the implementation of TDM measures to reduce emissions on an individual project basis; however, the cumulative impact would not be reduced to a less -than - significant level. These facts support the City's finding. 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The following is a summary of the benefits that the City Council has found to outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, the full discussion of which can be found in the "Statement of Overriding 24 Considerations" at the end of this document. The project is expected to provide substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax and property tax, and will generate employment opportunities for City residents. The project will implement vital municipal infrastructure improvements in the project vicinity, and impact fees paid by the project will help fund its pro -rata share of public services throughout the City of Lodi. The project will implement adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi's long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. The project will reflect a high quality of design, through the on-site implementation of the City's Design Guidelines for Large Commercial Establishments, which will be particularly important at this visually prominent western gateway into the City. IMPACTSANALYZED IN THE REIR FOUND TO BE LESS LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT. CEQA does not require that findings be made on impacts found to be less -than - significant (See CEQA Guideline § 15091 (requiring findings on impacts found to be significant)). Nonetheless, set forth below is a summary of the City's conclusions on new items analyzed in the REIR for which impacts were found to be less -than - significant. LAND USE AND PLANNING —SOCIOECONOMIC/URBAN DECAY IMPACTS Urban decay is the product of an economic chain reaction that results in the closures of retail businesses as a result of a project, such as a shopping center, which in turn leads to physical deterioration of the surrounding neighborhood and businesses. (See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal.AppAth 1184 (2004)). An EIR need only disclose and analyze the direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts of a proposed project if they are significant. (Guidelines, §§ 15126.2, 15064(d)(3)). An impact "which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(d)(3)). Mere economic and social impacts of proposed projects are outside CEQA's purview. However, when there is evidence that economic and social effects caused by a project, such as a shopping center, could result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact, such as urban decay or deterioration, then the CEQA lead agency is obligated to assess this indirect environmental impact. (See Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson. 130 Cal. ADD. 4th 1137 (2005). As summarized below, urban decay impacts of the Project are found to be less -than -significant. A. POTENTIAL FOR URBAN DECAY DUE TO SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 1. Impact: The Project would include new retailers who would compete with existing retailers in the City of Lodi; however, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that this increased competition would result in business closures, and consequently would not indirectly result in substantial physical deterioration of properties, or urban decay (Less -than -Significant Impact). 2. Mitigation: None Required. 3. Findings: The above impact is less than significant. 25 4. Facts in Support of Findings: The DREIR, the FREIR, the BAE study and analysis included with the DREIR and the supplemental BAE Supplemental Report dated October 1, 2008, which are incorporated herein by reference, discuss the potential for urban decay. The analysis considered the economic effects of the project on local supermarkets general merchandise outlets, and businesses in Downtown Lodi. As explained further in the REIR and the BAE analyses, the evidence gathered as part of the economic analysis is insufficient to support a finding that the project alone would result in or contributeto business vacancies or a downward spiral resulting in physical deterioration or urban decay. While there may be some decline in sales of competing supermarkets, supermarket store closures are not reasonably foreseeable. Sales are expected to decline for general merchandise stores such as Target and Kmart. The Kmart store is at risk of closure. However, the owners of the Kmart site indicate that they feel they could find new tenants should Kmart close and cease operation, thus minimizing the prospect of long term vacancies or total neglect leading to urban decay. Furthermore, the City Council has directed diligent code enforcement, which will assist in the prevention of urban decay. The City is entitled to rely on the effectiveness of its Code Enforcement program to prevent code violations. (See City Municipal Code Section 1.10.010 et seq.; Cal. Health and Safety Code Sections 17980-17992). Downtown Lodi has shifted its retail mix to specialty stores, entertainment, and restaurants which are less directly competitive with the proposed project and therefore not anticipated to realize urban decay because of the Project. With respect to the closure of the existing Wal-Mart store in conjunction with the project, conditions would be imposed on the project requiring, prior to the issuance of a building permit, either re -tenanting by a retailer, sale to a retailer, or demolition of the structure to minimize the possibility of urban decay resulting from its closure. In summary, even if the project were to result in the failure of one or more existing competing businesses, any resulting vacancy would not necessarily lead to urban decay. Other contributing factors would need to occur to result in urban decay, such as the failure of surrounding businesses, combined with little or no effort on the part of property owners to maintain or improve their properties to a condition suitable for leasing. To reach a condition recognized as a physical impact under CEQA would require total neglect or abandonment of these properties by their owners for an extended period such that substantial physical deterioration or urban decay would ensue. Such a conclusion is not reasonably foreseeable. Moreover, the City Council has directed staff to pursue diligent code enforcement, and such an urban decay impact is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, this impact is found to be less -than - significant. B. POTENTIAL FOR URBAN DECAY DUE TO CUMULATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF COMPETING RETAIL PROJECTS 1. Impact: When the effects of the project are combined with those of the other approved, pending, or probable future retail project in the project trade area (e.g., Reynolds Ranch), there is a likelihood existing retail centers in Lodi would be subject to reduction in sales. Consequently, it is possible, but not reasonably foreseeable, that one or more business closures could result, and that the affected properties could be subject to long-term vacancies under cumulative conditions, 26 2. Mitigation: None 3. Findings: The above i 4. Facts in Support of analysis included witl Report dated Octobe discuss the potential Reynolds Ranch deve the Target Center (wh Center (which includ( includes the existing er Westgate Shopping includes local -serving red. is less than cumulatively significant. idings: The DREIR, the FREIR, the BAE study and the DREIR and the supplemental BAE Supplemental 1, 2008, which are incorporated herein by reference, r urban decay. The analysis considered the proposed pment and other existing retail within the City, including, i includes a Target and a Safeway), the Cherokee Retail a Kmart and OSH store), the Sunwest Plaza (which Val -Mart and a Food 4 Less Supermarket), Vineyard IP (which includes a Raley's), Lakewood Mall (which i) the Lockeford Payless IGAITrue Value Hardware, Accordingly and as further explained in the REIR, even assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario that results in one or more business closure, urban decay impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center, when combined with the economic effects of projects such as Reynolds Ranch, would result in a less -than -significant cumulative urban decay impact. II. ENERGY Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines provides than an EIR should consider potentially significant energy implications. (See also Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1) (energy mitigation measures should be discussed when relevant)). As summarized below, energy impacts of the Project are found to be less - than -significant. A. ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1. Impact: The project would increase energy consumption in the construction and operational phases of the project. However, energy conservation measures incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the project would avoid wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Less -than -Significant Impact) 2. Mitigation: None Required. 3. Findings: The above impact is less than significant. 4. Facts in Support of Findings: The operation of the project would result in the consumption of about 162 billion BTU of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel per year. This is over 500 times more energy than the estimated 0.3 billion BTU in annual energy inputs that would be applied in an agricultural operation on the site. The energy consumed by the project operation would represent 1.9 percent of the total annual energy consumption in the City of Lodi of about 8,634 billion BTU, and about 0.002 percent of statewide energy consumption. However, there are a number of energy conservation measures beyond those required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which will be incorporated into the design, construction, and operational aspects of the project, as discussed in the REIR, which would result in a considerable reduction in project energy consumption, particularly electricity. These measures include the use of skylights, energy-efficient HVAC units, solar -reflective roofing materials, energy-efficient lighting systems, and the reclamation of the "heat of rejection" from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not present a significant demand upon energy resources. Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through implementation of the noise mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR such as fuel savings from the prohibition of unnecessary idling of vehicles and equipment. The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. The project demand for electricity would be approximately 4.42 gigawatt -hours per year during the operational phase; however, compared to the total electrical demand for the City of approximately 470 gigawatt -hours during 2005, the project would represent less than one percent of the total electrical demand in the City. The project demand for natural gas would be approximately 12.6 million cubic feet per year during the operational phase; however, compared with the total natural gas year demand for the City of approximately 3,892 million cubic feet during 2005, the project would represent about 0.3 percent of total gas demand. The project would not result in a significant impact to energy resources since it would result in the consumption of relatively small amounts of energy, compared to statewide and local consumption rates, in both the construction and operational phases, and because the energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and operation of the project would avoid wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. B. IMPACT ON ENERGY SUPPLIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Impact: The increased demand for energy resulting from the project would not be substantial enough to require new or expanded sources of supply or the construction of new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure capacity. (Less-than-Significantlmpact) 2. Mitigation: None Required 3. Findings: The above impact is less than cumulatively significant. 4. Facts in Support of Findings: The energy requirements associated with the project would not exceed the energy supplies available to the project or exceed the ability of the various energy infrastructures to provide adequate supplies of energy to the project, during normal and peak demand periods, for the foreseeable future. As such, no new energy supplies would need to be developed to serve the project, and no system improvements would be needed to the energy delivery infrastructure to serve the project. Therefore, the impact of the project upon energy supplies and energy delivery infrastructure would be less than significant. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS— GLOBALWARMING The issue of global warming has been raised in the processing of the REIR. At the time the initial EIR was prepared and certified in 2005, no commenter raised the issue of climate change despite there being general awareness of the issue within the scientific and environmental communities. At that time, CEQA also did not require an analysis of global warming impacts. Assembly Bill 32 ("AB 32"), known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 38500 et seq., was passed in September 2006 and became effective on January 1,2007. AB 32 sets a statewide goal to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and it directs the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations on greenhouse gas emissions verification and monitoring. Senate Bill 97 ("SB 9T'), enacting Public Resources Code section 21083.05, was passed in August of 2007, and became effective January 1, 2008. SB 97 directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to prepare, 29 develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, by July 1,2009. It further directs that the Resources Agency certify or adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. Both AB 32 and SB 97 were passed after the certification of the initial EIR, which occurred in February 2005. However, the issue of global warming is not a new concept, and it was known at the time the original EIR was certified in 2005. Comments concerning global warming impacts could have been, but were not, made on the initial EIR certified in 2005_ Since no comments were made on the topic of global warming at the time the original EIR was circulated for public review, and because the Court did not order analysis of global warming impacts, the City is not required to analyze global warming impacts in this EIR. Additionally, AB 32 and SB 97 are not the type of new information contemplated by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 thatwould require revisionsto an EIR. The City finds that it is not required to conduct an analysis of global warming in the FREIR, in part, because it is outside the scope of the FREI R prepared on remained and in response to the Superior Court's decision.. Nonetheless, the City notes that evidence and materials submitted by the applicant indicate that global warming impacts would be less than significant in any event and speculative on a cumulative level of analysis. FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES Under CEQA, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision -makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. The findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the Final REIR are described below. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A. Description of the Alternative: The No Project alternative consists of not building on the project site and possibly resuming agricultural cultivation of the propertyfor oats, hay, or row crops. B. Comparison to the Project: The No Project alternative would avoid some of the significant unmitigable effects of the proposed project, such as conversion of prime farmland and regional air quality impacts. For all other areas of concern, the differences in impacts between the No Project alternative and the proposed project would not be significant because the project impacts could be reduced to less -than -significant levels through feasible mitigation measures. On balance, the No Project alternative would be superior to the proposed project because it would not result in the significant unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality which are associated with the proposed project, and because it would result in little or no impact in the other impact categories. 30 C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below. The substantial revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund through increased sales tax and property tax that would be generated by the project would be lost, as would the employment opportunities for City residents created by the project. The vital municipal infrastructure improvements that would be constructed by the project would be foregone, as would the development impact fees paid by the applicant which would help fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards vital public services throughout the City of Lodi. Unlike the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not implement adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries, or the objective of meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future residents of Lodi. The No Project alternative also would not implement the high quality of design reflected in the proposed project for this visually prominent western gateway into the City. For the reasons mentioned above, because the No Project alternative would not meet the project objectives, and because the No Project alternative would not provide the same benefits as the proposed project, it is not a feasible alternative. II. REDUCED PROJECTSIZE ALTERNATIVE A. Description of the Alternative: This alternative would consist of a substantially reduced project site of approximately 24 acres, including about 22 gross acres for retail development and 2 acres for the stormwater basin. This would represent approximately 60 percent of the proposed project size of 40 acres. This alternative would include the Wal-Mart Supercenter, as proposed, but would not include any of the ancillary retail pads proposed in the project. B. Comparison to the Project: The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in a slight reduction in the levels of impact associated with the proposed project in several topic areas, although these impacts would be mitigated to less -than -significant levels under the proposed project. For the two significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project — impacts to agricultural resources and regional air quality — the Reduced Project Size alternative would lessen these impacts but would not avoid them or reduce them to less -than -significant levels. Thus, although the Reduced Project Size alternative would be slightly superior to the proposed project, it would not achieve the CEQA objective of avoiding the significant impacts associated with the project. C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejectedfor the reasons set forth below. The revenues for the City of Lodi General Fund that would be generated by the project would be substantially reduced, as would the number of employment opportunities for City residents created by the project. This alternative would not complete the vital municipal infrastructure improvements that would be constructed by the project, and would substantially reduce the development impact fees paid by the applicant to help fund the project's proportionate share of contributions towards vital public services throughout the City of Lodi. This alternative would lessen the City's ability to implement adopted City plans and policies for accomplishing long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site. This alternative would also compromise the City's ability to implement the high quality of design reflected in the proposed project for this visually prominent western gateway into the City and for these reasons is not a feasible alternative. For the reasons mentioned above, because the Reduced Project alternative 31 would not meet the project objectives, and because the Reduced Project alternative would not provide the same benefits as the proposed project, it is not a feasible alternative. III. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION A. Description of the Alternative: An alternative project site was identified in the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County known as Flag City, consisting of approximately 36 gross acres in the northeast quadrant of Highway 12 and Thornton Road, just east of 1-5. To allow direct comparison, it was assumed that a 36 -acre portion of the lands at this location would be developed with roughly the same land use configuration and intensity as the proposed project. B. Comparison to the Project: The impacts associated with development of the Flag City site would be somewhat greater than for the proposed project site. Although the impacts for many categories would be similar for both project locations, development of the Flag City site would result in negative effects in terms of land use policy, and the resulting potential for growth inducement, which would not occur with the proposed project site. Traffic impacts would be greater for the Flag City site, as would impacts to utilities and public services, although these impacts would be less than significant or could be fully mitigated. More importantly, the alternative project site would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality as are associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative site would not lessen or avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. C. Finding: This alternative is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth below. The alternative project site is not environmentally superior to the proposed project site. In addition, due to its location outside the City of Lodi, the alternative site would not provide the benefits associated with the proposed project including increased municipal revenues and development impact fees for providing services, creation of employment opportunities for Lodi residents, meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future Lodi residents, construction of the project's proportionate share of vital municipal infrastructure improvements, and the opportunity to implement City goals and policies with respect to the commercial development of the project site (consistent with City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries), and the chance to provide a high quality development at the western gateway to the City. For the reasons listed above, this alternative is infeasible. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE OF the three project alternatives considered, only the No Project alternative would avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project. The significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality associated with the proposed project would both be avoided by the No Project alternative. Since all other project impacts are either less than significant or can be reduced to less -than -significant levels through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the No Project alternative would not offer substantial reductions in impact levels under the other impact categories. Therefore, the No Project alternative would represent the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. The No Project alternative was not selected because it would not meet the applicant's objective of developing the site for shopping center uses; nor would it meet the City's goals of enhancing its revenue base, creating jobs, providing vital municipal infrastructure, and implementing the City's policy objective of developing the site with commercial retail uses. 32 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requiresthat if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Size alternative was found to result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources and air quality as the proposed project. However, it would result in slightly lower levels of impact in several impact categories, although these impacts would all be reduced to less -than -significant levels in conjunction with the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Project Size alternative representsthe environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Project Size alternative was not selected because it would not entirely fulfill the project objective of developing the proposed project site with a regional shopping center in conformance with the City of Lodi General Plan and zoning regulations, and because it would be substantially less effective than the proposed project in fulfilling the project objective of meeting unmet retail demand from existing and future residents of Lodi. It also would be substantially less effective than the proposed project in fulfilling the City's objective of enhancing its fiscal resources through increased sales tax and property tax revenues, or in meeting the objectives of creating new jobs, and providing a pro -rata share of vital municipal infrastructure. In conclusion, there are no alternatives to the project which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but also avoid or reduce the significant impacts associated with the proposed project to less -than -significant levels. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Attached to this resolution and incorporated and adopted as part thereof, is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Lodi Shopping Center project. The Program identifies the mitigation measures to be implemented in conjunction with the project, and designates responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of the mitigation measures, as well as the required timing of their implementation. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091- 15093, the City Council of the City of Lodi hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the project and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the project. A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts With respectto the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included in the record, the City Council has determined that the project would result in significant unavoidable impacts to prime agricultural land and regional air quality. While mitigation measures have been identified which will reduce these impacts, they cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level by feasible changes or alterations to the project. B. Overriding Considerations The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement d Overriding Considerations that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining significant, unavoidable impacts of the project are acceptable in light of environmental, economic, social or other considerations set forth herein because the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and adverse effects of the project. The City Council has considered the EIR, the public record of proceedings on the proposed project and other written materials presented to the City, as well as oral and written testimony 33 received, and does hereby determine that implementation of the project as specifically provided in the project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits: i . Proiect Will Generate Citv Taxes. The sales generated by the Lodi Shopping Center will generate additional sales tax and property tax revenues for the City, which would otherwise not be generated by the undeveloped site. These revenues go to the City's General Fund which is the primary funding source for the construction, operation and maintenance of a number of essential City services, programsand facilities includingfire and police services, recreation programs, transit operations, library services, public infrastructure such as water and sanitary sewer service, and administrative functions, among other things. 2. Proiect Creates Emolovment Opportunities for Citv Residents. The Lodi Shopping Center project will generate both temporary construction jobs as well as hundreds of permanent full-time and part-time jobs. The vast majorityof the permanentjobs will not require special skills and therefore could be filled by existing local residents. Thus, with the exception of a very few management positions which will likely be filled by transferees from other localities, no specially -skilled workers would need to be "imported from outside the City. Consequently, it is expected that City residents would benefit from added employment opportunities offered by the Lodi Shopping Center project. 3. Proiect Will Implement Vital Municipal infrastructure Improvements. Through the development of the project, a number of public infrastructure projects will be constructed on the project site and the project vicinity. As described on page 15 of the Draft EIR, the project will construct planned roadway improvements along the portions of Lower Sacramento Road and State Route 12/Kettleman Lane that front the project site, and as well as Westgate Drive to its full design width along the western project boundary. This is an economic benefit of the project in that these improvements would otherwise not be made without approval and implementation of the project. The project will also be conditioned to pay impact fees to the City in accordance with City's adopted Development Impact Fee program, which can be applied toward it's pro -rata share of municipal improvements such as water, sewer, storm drainage, and streets, as well as police, fire, parks and recreation, and general City government. These are vital municipal improvements necessary to the function of the City and the quality of life for City residents, providing another economic benefit as well as social benefit of the project. 4. Proiect Imolements Adooted City Plans. The project is situated within Lodi City limits and has been planned for commercial development in the current City of Lodi General Plan since its adoption in 1991. Therefore, the project implements adopted City plans and policies by accomplishing the City of Lodi long-term development plans for commercial use at the project site, consistent with City's growth control measures prioritizing in -fill development within the existing City boundaries. In addition, the project completes the development of the "Four Corners" area by providing a large-scale retail center on the last remaining undeveloped site at the Lower Sacramento Road/Kettleman Lane intersection consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 5. Creates Nigh Qualitv Desion at Western Gatewav to the City. The Lodi Shopping Center has been designed in conformance with the City's Design Standards for Large Retail Establishments which will ensure a consistent high quality of design throughout the 34 project site. This is a particularly important consideration given the project's visually prominent location at the western gateway to the City, and will effectively implement the General Plan goal and policies which call for the establishment of identifiable, visually appealing, and memorable entrances along the principal roads into the City. 6. Project Features Numerous Enerav Conservina Measures. The project proposes to include energy efficient and sustainable features as part of the project designs, including, for example, automated control system for heating/air conditioning, lighting controls, energy efficient lighting, and light colored roof materials to reflect heat. In making the statement of overriding consideration in supportof the findings of fact and this project, the City Council has weighed the above economic and social benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and, therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable. CONCLUSION The Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center project was completed in compliance with CEQA, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and representsthe City Council's independentjudgment and analysis. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center project, as amended by the Final Revisions to the Environmental Impact Report, is hereby certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. All feasible mitigation measures for the project identified in the Environmental Impact Report and accompanying studies are hereby incorporated into this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lodi that the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR-03-01) relating to the Lodi Shopping Center project; State Clearinghouse No. 2003042113 is hereby certified, and the City Council hereby adopts the findings, statements of overriding considerations, and other matters set forth in this resolution. Dated: December 10,2008 hereby certify that Resolution No. 2008-238 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a special meeting held December 10 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS—Johnson, Katzakian, and Mayor Hansen COUNCIL MEMBERS— Hitchcock and Mounce COUNCIL MEMBERS— None COUNCIL MEMBERS— None f►�iI�I:1y�cI:3 35 4f HL City Clerk Lodi Shopping Center Applicant: File No.: Browman Development Company EIR-03-01-Final Revised EIR Lodi Shopping Center Final Revised Environmental Impact Report: The Revised EIR includes the five (5) sections which were subject to revision or augmentation as directed by the Court. • Cumulative Urban Decay Impacts . Energy Impacts . Agricultural Resource Impacts . Project Objectives . Project Alternatives Lodi Shopping Center Background: • Planning Commission approval: December, 2004 • City Council approval: February, 2005 • EIR found deficient for cumulative urban decay and energy impacts: December, 2005 • City Council rescinds original approvals: May, 2006 • Draft Revised EIR: October, 2007 • Final Revised EIR: March, 2008 • Planning Commission denial of FREIR: October, 2008 Lodi Shopping Center: Zoning &Vicinity Map 41 'a .:•T:zi� 'Y� :, r'f '. '. .: wEs F'+ adb .. 771 ' - .— .. "� �''�" ����''�� �_� �r•`F* ^f 'rte �°� } Rim.'•# �f h,.� _4. 1 .� �."�,� � T _�iy' h"'~ S=?�."� irk � , _ � * rr•!G 17. mp INS 19 LT 4.c 1p - - - T ' x meq„ ►a Lvp S. hF J Lodi Shopping Center Summary of Environmental Impacts: • Cumulative Urban Decay . The project would include new retailers who would compete with existing retailers in the City of Lodi. . There is insufficient evidence to suggest that this increased competition would result in any business closures, and consequently would not indirectly result in substantial deterioration of properties or urban decay. . This is considered less than significant. Lodi Shopping Center Summary of Impacts: • Energy . The project would increase energy consumption in the construction and operational phases of the project. . Energy conservation measures incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the project would avoid wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. . This is considered less than significant Lodi Shopping Center Summary of Impacts: • Energy Cont. . The increased demand for energy resulting from the project would not be substantial enough to require new or expanded sources of supply or the construction of new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure capacity. . This is considered less than significant Lodi Shopping Center Summary of Impacts: • Agricultural Resource . The project would convert approximately 40 acres of prime agricultural land to urban area. . No mitigation is available which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This is considered a significant impact. . As partial mitigation, the applicant shall obtain a permanent Agricultural Conservation Easement covering 40 acres of prime farmland within San Joaquin County. Lodi Shopping Center . Additional Project Objectives: • To expand the existing Wal-Mart to a Wal-Mart Supercenter. . To develop the proposed project site in conformance with City standards. . To help reverse leakage of retail spending from Lodi. • To provide commercial development which does not negatively affect Downtown. Lodi Shopping Center Alternative Project Location: • An alternative project location was analyzed. • Site located at northeast quadrant of Hwy. 12 & Thornton Rd. . Analysis found that impacts would be somewhat greater. • Alternative site does not meet all of the project objectives. Lodi Shopping Center: Landscape Plan I - TFIEE$: �bhlwfT ot < : I 111111CIIIIIII�Fir 'I[ < a .a ML W''`MAO p L 1 I �1061H0004FR9 SrFE PLAN �. - �r ao�.. � SCu. i•.ro r �..,..—,.--�-r•��.�.r�.ua..�.ar,a�..a.�. Noticing Requirements Please immediately confirm receipt d this fax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS OF BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND WAL-MART STORES, INC. REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8,2008 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One li 1 please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: RANDI JOHL, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 DATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6,2008 ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK AhNIFER Nt PERRIN, CMC �SSISTANT CITY CLERK Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 a F'hcned to confirm recei formOadvins.doc MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK DECLARATION OF POSTING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS OF BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND WAL-MART STORES, INC. REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT On Friday, November 7, 2008, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a Notice of Public Hearing to consider appeals of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to not certify the Lodi Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report (attached and marked as Exhibit A) was posted at the following locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 7, 2008, at Lodi, California. NIFER PERRIN, CMC A SISTAN CITY CLERK N:\Adniinistration\CLERK\Forms\DECPOSTCD.DGC ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK DECLARATION OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS OF BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND WAL-MART STORES, INC. REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT On Friday, November 7,2008, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a Notice of Public Hearing to consider appeals of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to not certify the Lodi Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report, attached hereto marked Exhibit A. The mailing list for said matter is attached hereto marked Exhibit B. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 7, 2008, at Lodi, California. J f CMC aSrNITERPERRIN, ISANT ITY CLERK Formsldecmail,doc ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK &1*& CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: December 10,2008 Time: 6:30 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Randi Johl City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING [E(XXHIBIT A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, December 10,2008, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider approval of the following item: a) Appeals of Browman Development Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. regardingthe decision of the Planning Commission to not certify the Lodi Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6711. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2"d Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the close of the public hearing. 2B er of the Lodi City Council: Johl City Clerk Dated: November 5,2008 Approved as to form: D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney CLERMPUBHEAAWOTICESMTCW.WC 11Mx08 EXHIBIT B APPEALS REGARDING DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT CERTIFY THE LODI SHOPPING CENTER EIR Mailing List Judy V. Davidoff, Esq. Sheppard Mullin Richter& Hampton LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Andrea K. Leisy, Esq. Remy Thomas Moose & Manley LLP 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 Lodi Shopping Center Public Hearing 300' radius mailing list APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 02742001 GEWEKE PO BOX 1210 LODI CA 95241 FAMILY PTP 02742002 GEWEKE VIII PO BOX 1420 LODI CA 95241 LP 02742003 IN N OUT 13502 BALDWIN CA 91706 BURGERS HAMBURGER PARK CORP LN 02742014 GEWEKE VIII PO BOX 1210 LODI CA 95241 LP 05803003 VAN RUITEN PO BOX 520 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 RANCH LTD 05803011 BDC LODI 111 100 SWAN OAKLAND CA 94621 LP WAY SUITE 206 05803012 WAL MART MAIL STOP BENTONVILLE AR 72716 REAL EST 0555 BUSINESS TRU 05803013 BDC LODI 111 100 SWAN OAKLAND CA 94621 LP WAY STE 206 05814001 TESORO 300 SAN ANTONIO TX 78216 SIERRA CONCORD PROPERTIES PLAZA DR LLC 05814004 FRAME, 212 LODI CA 95242 DEAN K & RUTLEDGE SHARON DR TR 05814006 HERRMANN, 1200 LODI CA 95240 CHARLENE K GLENHURST TR ETAL DR 05814011 GREVER, 1432 PARK LODI CA 95242 ZANE M& ST PATSY R TR 05803010 LODI CITY PO BOX 3006 LODI CA 95241 OF 05814011 GREVER, 1432 PARK LODI CA 95242 ZANE M & ST PATSY R TR Created on 11/06/20081:46:00 PM * * BLUE SHEET * * Public Comments Received by the City Clerk's Office 12/4/08to 12/10/08 Dec 10 2008 12;43PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5307587169 FACSIMILE COVER LETTER FOR MULTIPLE DISTRIBUTION Date: December 10,2008 Time: 12;57 PM PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: City Clerk, City cf Lodi From: Donald B. Mooney Message: Number of Pages Sent: 8 209-333-6807 Driginal/Copies tobe mailed No APPLICABLE. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address v fa the US. Postal Service. Thank p.1 Dec 10 2008 12:43PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5307587169 p.2 LAW OFFICES OF DONALD B. MOONEY 129 C Street, Suite 2 DONAi D B. MOONEY Davis, California 95616 Telephone (530) 758-2377 Facsimile (530)758-7169 dbraminey dCri.nrg December 10,2008 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (cityclerk(a),lodi,eov) AND PASCIMILE (209-333-6807) City Council City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, California 95241-1910 Re: Appeal of Lodi Planning Commission's Determination Not to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Shopping Center Dear Honorable Council Members: 0 n October 8,2008, your Planning Commission held a four hour meeting to gather testimony, hear public comment and debate whether to certify the City of Lodi's ("City") Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Lodi Sbopping Center project (or the "Project"). After considering input from all sides, the Planning Commission voted overwhelmingly (five to one) not to certify the EEIR because they found its analyses incomplete and unsatisfactory in a number of areas. Wal-Mart and the Browm an. Development Company now appeal to you the Planning Commission's decision. On behalf of the Citizens for Open Government ("Citizens"), we urge you to affirm the common sense decision of your Planning Commission for the reasons set forth below. We also urge you to reject the conceptthat the Wal-Mart Supercenter shouldbe considered at all given the documented adverse economic effects on the Downtown even in the best of economic times. The Lodi Shopping Center simply fails to meet the key development objective of the City — only approve developmentthat does not negatively affect Downtown and the past and ongoing investment in Downtown. A. Deference to the Planning Commission The Planning Commission's careful, objective analysis of the EEIR as fundamentally inadequate should not be overturned absent strong and compelling showing of error. The Planning Commission reviews regularly the adequacy of California Environmental Quality Act ("CBQA") documents and their judgment is usually sound. For the Lodi Shopping Center FEIR, the Planning Commission stayed well within its legal discretion regarding the scope of the issues under review and Dec 10 2008 12:43PM Law Office of DB Mooned 5307587169 P.3 City Council Members December 10,2008 Page 2 of 7 rendered the only rational decision given the overwhelming weight of the evidence establishing the inadequacy of the CEQA documentation. B. The Plannine Commission Correctly Interpreted Its Scooe of Review The City decertified the entire previous FEIR — not just certain elements found to be inadequate in the Lodi First litigation. The City staff then produced a Revised Draft EIR that included not only the two remand issues (urban decay and energy) but also modifications to other areas staff decided needed additional work (agricultural resources, project objectives and alternatives). City staffthen brought the entire EIR back to the Planning Commission for consideration, notjust the revisions. During the October 8 Planning Commission hearing, Wal-Mart, the Brownian Development Company and City staff argued that the Planning Commission's scope of review was limited to the five issues exactly as presented in the Revised Draft EIR. In response to questions from the Planning Commission regarding this artificial restriction on its scope of review, City staff stated that they "could have opened [the EIR] up for more review but they did not." (October Planning Commission Minutes at 9 (packet page 147),) The Planning Commission refused to take such a limited view of its discretion. It desired to examine whether the EIR as a whole met CEQA's standards for adequacy. For example, the Planning Commission declined to certify the FEIR based on the absence of critical studies of the impacts of the Project on, irtr alio, global warming. Given that the EIR was decertified, expanded beyond the remand issues and then presented as a whole for certification, the Planning Commission certainly possessed the discretion to determine the adequacy of the E3:t in its entirety. In its November 24,2008 letter in support of its appeal, Wal-Mart and Brownian Development Company argue that the Planning Commission's action was improper because the doctrine of "res judicata" allegedly stops the prior litigants from subsequently challenging in court any issues other than those set forth in the Final Revised EIR. (See November 24 Letter at 4-5 (packet pages 15-16).) This highly technical legal argument, however, is not applicable to the Planning Commission or, in fact, operates to preclude subsequent litigation by the Citizens. First, regardless of whether the doctrine applies to the prior litigants (i.e., the Citizens or Lodi First), the Planning Commission is not precluded fnan exercising its independentjudgment on the adequacy of the EIR. The Revised FEIR presents a range of issues based upon City staffs recommended changes; nothing precludes the Planning Commission (and the City Council) from examining the EIR and exercising its discretion by finding that in order to be adequate under CEQA additional work was necessary. Dec 10 2008 12:43PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5307587169 P•4 City Council Members December 10,2008 Page 3 of 7 Second, the Citizens are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the holding in Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. Cityof Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4'' 1180, from litigating the adequacy of the EIR should the City Council reverse the sound judgment of the Planning Commission. As set forth in the Citizens October 8, 2008 letter to the Planning Commission, under the Stipulation for Dismissal executed by the Citiz.ems and the City, the City agreed that the Citizens "shall have the right to comment fully on the revised draft and final EIRs ...." without limitation. The City then agreed that it would not assert any defense to any subsequent litigation "claims" that is not inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulation ...." In other words, the City cannot agree on the one hand to allow Citizens to comment fully but on the other hand disregard those comments.' In addition, the Federation of Hillside case is factually dissimilar. Here, the City of Lodi completely decertified the entire prior EIR and then recirculated a revised EIR for comment (something that did not happen in the case relied upon by the appellants) as well as the City stipulating that Citizens may raise any issue they deem appropriate.2 Finally, the scope issue is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The Planning Commission's concerns regarding an adequate global warming analysis appears to be sole issue that raised staffs hackles regarding the scope of the Planning Commission's review. (See Minutes at 9 (packet page 147).) The City itself, however, raised the global warming/greenhouse gas emissions issue in the energy section of the Revised Draft EIR. (See e,g,, Revised Eka& EIR at 66, 73-74 (summarizing global warming/GHG concerns).) The Planning Commission can therefore find that the short discussion of this pressing environmental concern merited additional analysis. In sum, the Planning Commission's action fell well within its authority to review the EIR for CEQA adequacy. I In their November 24 letter, Wal-Mart and Browman appear to argue that the Stipulation dismissing the Citizen's litigation somehow operated to set the scope of the environmental document recirculated by the City. (See November 24 letter at 4 (packet page 15) (asserting that the original EIR was "revised to analyze five (5) impact sections that were subject to revisions by the San Joaquin County Superior Court or subject to augmentation based on the stipulation for dismissal and order.").) Not only is this representation factually false (the stipulation merely recited the contents of the City's Notice of Preparation) but also irrelevant as the Citizens preserved the right to fully comment and thereafter bring "any" claim against the adequacy of the document. 2 We also note that the City has an independent obligation to not take action without assessing impacts to public trust values, which include impacts to natural habitats, wildlife and humans caused by global warming, (See National Audubon Society v. StlneriorCourt (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419.) Dec 10 2008 12:44PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5307587169 P.5 City Council Members December 10,2008 Page 4 of 7 C. Inadequate Energy Analysis Cannot Be Cured By Wal -Mart's Last -Minute Submission Recognizing that the EIR's Energy section was flawed without an adequate analysis of global warming/GHG impacts, Wal-Mart and Browman submit a last-minute eighty-eightpage "Climate Change Analysis Report" ("Report"). (See Attachment C to Wal -Mart's November 24 letter (packet pages 44-132).) Not surprisingly, the self- serving Report concludes that Wal-Mart is a wonderfully responsible company and that any attempt to measure the impacts of this project's green house gas emissions is speculative. Wal -Mart's submission, however, cannot cure the defect in the EIR for the following reasons. First, the Report, the City Council cannot rely upon the Rpt as it was not subject to meaningful public critique or, apparently, governmental review. The Report represents at best an effort by a highly biased party to augment the record while avoiding effectivepublic scrutiny. Second, the Report confirms that the Lodi Shopping Center project may have an adverse environmental impact not analyzed in the EIR. As such, it reinforces rather than negates the Planning Commission and the Citizens' argument that the FIR's Energy section is deficient without an unbiased, publicly reviewed GHG analysis. Third, even a cursory review of the Report reveals that it does not represent a good faith analysis. For example, the Report dismisses as speculative the GHG emissions related to manufacture and transportation of goods that will be sold at the Wo -1 - Mart. It is simply not believable that Wal-Mart does nct have some concept of where the goods it will sell come from and the number and distance of truck trips necessary to supply the Wal-Mart store in order to arrive at a good faith estimate of GHG emissions. Indeed, the Report seems to have just arrived at its GHG emissions from simply mining existing data reported in the EIR for air quality emissions rather than under taking a good faith effort at disclosing the emissions associated with the construction and operation of entire Lodi Shopping Center. Similarly, the Report errs by failing to render a determination of the significance of even the substantially under -estimated GHG arnissions. After the Report extols the number of measures Wal-Mart implements to reduce its energy costs and how any and all measures to reduce GHG emissions are not feasible, the Report determines that it is simply too speculative to determine the significance of the Project's GHG emissions. (See Report at 44-46 (packet pages 89- 91).) Such an attempt to short-circuit the City's CEQA obligation is undermined by the many CEQA documents that in fact arrive at a GHG significance determination — if similarly situated public agencies can make GHG significance determinations, the City of Lodi can as well. (See e.g., the guidance documents and EIRs cited in the Citizens' October 8,2008 and December 7,2007 comment letters.) Deo 10 2008 12:44PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5307587169 p.6 City Council Members December 10,2008 Page 5 of 7 Fourth, though flawed, the Report demonstrates the City may remedy the clear inadequacy of the EIR by preparing an independent GHG analysis and recirculating it for public review and comment. The Planning Commission recognized that the EIR lacked a meaningful GHG analysis part of its Energy section, a determination well within its scope of review and supported by the record before. In light of this sound conclusion, the City Council should not accede to Wal-Mart and Browman's stratagem to accept as a substitute a self-serving report not subject to meaningful public review and comment. D. Urban Decay/Adverse Impacts trn Downtown Approval of the Lodi Shopping Center with the Super Wal-Mart will have adverse economic consequences for Downtown Lodi. There is no dispute that the primary effect of both the Lodi Shopping Center and Reynolds Ranch project will be to "cannibalize" existing sales within Lodi, including Downtown. (See packet at page 35,) Indeed, the City's impacts analysis projects a 13% percent drop in sales for drugstores in Lodi (including in downtown) from the Supercenter Wal-Mart alone, and a generalized 7% decline for Downtown business from the Lodi Shopping Center. When the cumulative effects of the 330, 000square foot Lodi Shopping Center are added to the newly approved 750,000 square feet from the Reynolds Ranch project, existing Lodi retail sales are projected to drop 340/a.3 At the same time, arecent report establishes the "fragile" nature of business in the Downtown (packet at 35) and concludes that any gains recently made by business there "could be reversed by the loss of local shoppers using a community - serving commercial establishments [like the Lodi Shopping Cernerj," In light of these facts, the Planning Commission dismissed as inadequate the conclusions of the EIR tht notwithstanding the loss of 34% of sales, no urban decay could possibly result because (1) it is speculative that closure of exiting businesses may occur, and (2) that in any event, the City claims it will enforce code measure requiring property upkeep. We agree with the Planning Commission that the EIR's analysis is faulty. First, the conclusion that no business will close as a result of such a substantial loss of sales is simply irrational given (1) the "fragile" nature of Downtown business, (2)the cumulative impacts from over 1 million new square feet of commercial retail development, and (3) the already depressed levels of retails sales as a result of the recent economic downturn In fact, this last consideration, the current lean economic times, renders inappropriate 3 As pointed out in our earlier comments, the EI', actually underestimates the "cannibalization" of local business because it unreasonably inflates capture of sales leakages. Therefore, the percentage of Supercenter sales diverted from local business is actually substantially higher than described in the EIR. Dec 10 2008 12;45PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5aU7587168 p.7 City Council Members December 10,2008 Page 6 of 7 reliance on the EJR urban decay analysis as it v$s prepared prior to and without consideration of the new baseline economic conditions. Second, the EIR's reliance on the City's code enforcement is similarly suspect As documented in the July 15.2007 GRC Report on Economic Conditions in Downtown Lodi, the conditions generally represent a "depressed and abandoned urban landscape" (i.e,, urban decay). Given that these conditions have arisen with the same code enforcement opportunities, one cannot expect a different result when more business close as a result of the approval of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter. Moreover, as we noted in our comments to the Planning Commission, the City's code enforcement policy places enforcement of"[v]iolations related to property maintenance issues" next to the bottom of its "Operational Priorities" (9* out of 10). Finally, the City has not demonstrated how, when it is facing huge budget short falls as a result of declining sales tax and the other revenues (see above), it will actually increase property maintenance enforcement over what is has done in the past in order to abate nuisance that will be created by the Lodi Shopping Center. In start, approval of the Lodi Shopping Center as proposed will adversely affect Downtown Lodi and likely cause urban decay. As a result, the Project does not meet the main objective of City — approving development that does not harm the Downtown. E. Other Considerations We believe that the City Council should affirm the decision of its Planning Commission. As described above, the Planning Commission's main grounds for rejecting certification of the EIR as adequate include the absence of n1mcient GHG emissions and urban decay analysis. In addition, the Citizens in their October 8,2008 and December 7,2007 comment letters set forth other bases for why the EIR is inadequate under CEQA. These grounds include, inadequate analysis of certain air quality impacts such as PM2, 5 emissions and SJVAPCD 9510 compliance, inadequate mitigation for prime farmland conversion, and lack of a set of alternatives to provide you with a reasonable policy choice. Lastly, Wal-Mart disclosed at the October 8 2008 Planning Commission that the Lodi Shopping Center will employ approximately 1000 people. As such, the City is required to do a water supply assessment ("WSA") as part of its CEQAprocess under Cal. Water Code Section 10912. The City must therefore produce a WSA prior to certification. Dec 10 2008 12:45PM Law Office of DB Mooney 5307587169 P.8 City Council Members December 10, 2008 Page 7 of 7 F. Conclusion After hours of input and consideration, the Planning Commission declined to certify the Lodi Shopping Center EK instead finding it inadequate under CEQA. Wal- Mart and Browman Development Company's appeal of that decision should be rejected and the EIR sent back to staff for further processing in order to produce a legally adequate document. Sincerely, Dec 10 2008 12:45PM Law Office of DB Moaney 5307587165 I°•5 John L. Marshall Attorneys for Citizens f government cc: Client RECEIVED D E C 1 0 2008 Whyis it when someone follows the rules set u b our Founding Fathersrlerk Lo � P Y g i_odi are always some one against them and their success'? Take Wal-Mart. they are a great company, during disasters, they are the first to help. and they expect nothing in return. Check what they did during the floods in the South? Sam Walton. founder of the Wal-Mart empire. was a great example of successful transition tax planning. He passed the bulk of his business interest to his heirs with little tax erosion by preparing the plan early in his career. Sam and Helen Walton started their retail business after WWII with $5.000 in savings and $20,000 borrowed from Helen's father; then they built that stake into a multi -billion dollar marketing behemoth. the American dream our Founding Fathers set up for them by using brains, hard work, and competition! Many have done the same thing the same way, I knew three pharmacist who each had small drug store after WWII, and could not compete with the large drug chains, they did not cry and yell. they incorporated and form what was Payless Drugs, by using their brains. hard work. and competed! Of course if Wal-Mart had let the Union run their store, they might have been greater like our school system among the worst. or our government who panders to them, and not lets forget the American. Auto industry, which the tax payer may be paying for if Pelosi .and other Socialist have there way; taxes and union benefits cost you a minimum of $13.000 on every automobile! Where are the brains, hard work and COMPETITION? When all foreign cars built in the US are competing, WHY? v Editor: As a Part of Lodi Eb st, I en, courage the City Council tq vote "No" on the Reviaed Emri, ronmental Impact Report oil the Lodi Shopping Center. I was very pleased to see that tho Planning Commission vot- ed against it and I hope they will follow the,, mission's lead. I am very erg the impacts t vvm_.:, project -01 bM au via- ptly With the recent increase in the size of Reynolds Ranch, adding the additional commer- cial space of the Lodi Shop Center is a dangeroup' move in these tough economig times. Just as homeowners have difficulty getting credit from banks for loans, we're bound to see a slowdown in commercial development as well as developers and builders having trouble ob- taining the funding for new stores. We don't know art the im Tracts of both projects will ire because the REIR fails to con- sider what the combined addi- tional commercial square footage will mean for Lodi and our Downtown. Until this is studied, the council shouldn't approve this project, .Elizabeth Galbreath Lodi enfomernonf for t Editor I applaud the Lodi Plarmin g Commission's vote against the Wal-Mart Supercenter's envi- ronmental report. With the Citv Council getting ready to vote on the project, I hope they follow the commission's ex- pertise and vote "No" as well. I was alarmed to read that 0* report. says that urban decay caused by the Supercenter won't be significant because Lodi has code enforcement measures in place to prevent decay and blight. So we're counting on the city to make find this rather ironic, AW dsw since Lodi is facing 'a $1.5 million budget deficit. The taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to clean LP Wal` Mart's We should hold V%~ and the developerac- countable forpaying for meas" to prevent the blight Ad pj"'_.q. — - woo decay on the Eastside so we can't count on it to prevent blight on the westide AWN DOW M T.2t_ a, A'f ri . fi1�Nr mel' � r - ,:SA ,€if `'First, I en .:: i �rme amity council to vote "No" on the Revised - $1 million budget defici The taxpayers shouldn't be ronmental Impact Report on the Lodi Shopping Center. I hook to clean up Will - Mart's mess. We should hold was Very pleased to see that Wal -Mast and the developer ac- the Planning Commission vot- ed against it and I hope they pa countable for mg for meas - t and ayes to prevent the blight will follow the Planning Com- decay the Supercenter will mission's lead. bring. � I am very c4mcerned about the impacts this verylarge Second, �' shauldn�trelY project will ha" �, : i on anti nuisance, ordinances ad LV " With the recent increase in the bid blight and decay The Size of Reynolds Ranch. # voted to create a ` adding the additional commer- add space d the LodimShop. cial velopment area on the East- side of the city because IM Ping Center is a dangerous it blighted. Obviously, move in these tough economic code enforcement and anti - times. Just as homeowners blight ordinances failed to stop haw difficulty getting credit Y urian decay on the Eastside p from banks for loans, we re bound to see a slowdown in vxP 'tr uXlt on it to prevent ,l» t side. commercial development as d DWM well as developers and`AW builders having trouble ob- tainingthe funding for new s - stores. We don't tam what Pacts of both projects will be because the REIR fails to con -,off, sider What the combined addi- tional commercial square .b9 *4406 will mean for i;,odi and our Downtown. Until this is studied, the council shouldn`t .- approve this pr9ject.n00, Editor: I applaud the Wdi Planning ` V,; Commission's vote against the Wal-Mart Supercenter's envi ronmental report. With the City Council getting ready vote on the project, I hope they follo'A, the Commission's ex- pertise and vote "No" as well. I was alarmed to read that theiF SIR; 19M says that urban decay caused by .the Supercenter wnn't be significant because ' t` - '-" Lodi has code enforcement *00 measures in place to prevent decay and blight. So we'reL , counting on the city to makeTl . impar# of nom qpM Editor: As a PaM of Lodl Eirst. I en - the City Counclr to vote " No" on the FA*UW Envi- ronmental Impact Report on the Lodi Shopping Center. I was very pleased to see that the Planning Commission vot- ed against it and I hope they will follow the Planning mission's lead. I am very concerned about his very large M .n, AU_ Editor: �%, I applaud the Lodi Planning, Commission's vote against the Wal-Mart Supercenter.'s envi- ronmental report. With the City Council getting ready to vote on the project, I hope they follow the commission's ex- pertise and vote "No"® well. i was alarmed to read that the M says that urban decay caused by •the Supercenter won't be significant because Lodi has code enforcement measures in place to prevent decay and blight. So we're counting on the city to make an the hook to clean UP Wal - Mart's mess. We should hold. and the developer ac- countable for paying for meas- ures to prevent the blight and decay the Supercenter 4W. bring. Second, Lodi stwuldi`t#1&' °. on anti -nuisance ordinances a and coag — bat blight and decay. The City WNW voted to create a . velopment area on the East- side of the city because declared it blighted. Obviously code enforcement and anti - blight ordinances failed to MP *"mm decay. on the Eastside so we can't count MI it to prevent blight on the �t side. DavtdDMFW Dodi Z96 --c -,� t772 A/tV4-ae,1 P� �i. 4X�. vote "No" on the Revised Envi., ronmental Impact Report on the Lodi Shopping Center. h was very pleased to see that the Planning Commission vot• ed against it and I hope they will follow the Planning Com- mission's lead. I am very concerned about the impacts this very large project will hawe on ow Oft With the recent increase in the size of Reynolds Ranch, adding the additional commer4 cial space of the Lodi Shop ping Center is a dangerout; move in these tough economiq times. Just as homeowner4: have difficulty getting credit from banks for loans, we're bound to see a slowdown iiq,: commercial development a5. well as developers and builders having trouble ob- taining the funding for new stores. We don't Maw what the im- pacts of both projects vM be because the RHR fails to con. sider what the combined addi- tional commercial square footage will mean for Lodi and our Downtown. UtU this is studied,.tbe council shouldn't approve this .profect. LOW, U04oft ft on cede I for blight, Editor: 1 ai)plaud the Lodi Planning Commission's vote against the Wal-Mart Supereenter's envi- ronmental report. With the City Council getting ready to vote on the project, I hope they follow the commission's ex- pertise and vote "No" as well. I was alarmed to read that the report says that urban decay caused R► • the Supercenter won't be significant because Lodi has code enforcement measures in place to prevent decay and blight. So we're rounting on the city to make 4 sure empty buildings " city don't become eYesO ' MA this rather ironic, espe cially since Lodi is facing a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. The taxpayers shouldn't on the hook to clean TLP mess. We should hold WAPUM and the developer ac- countable for paying for meas- T ures to prevent the blight decay the Supercenter will bring. gee�­ LW shouldn't on aniti•nuisance ordinances and code ezuorceift"I bat blight and decay The.. Council voted to create a NAWJ velopment area on the East- side of the city because GW declared it blighted. Obviously,; code enforcement and ant'-- blight nti Might ordinanc. urban decay on WC can't count = it to prevent blight on the est side. Lodi VLA'%')' /1S /, V, Of/ Ce-- ?C��s� r,6 ,Ile ®1tr Zdw-(�4 �I�` s REIR ldh 6 WSM of more she F:clitor: As a part of UW, First, I en - Courage the City Council to vote "No" on the Revised Ermi• rorimental Impact Report on the Lodi Shopping Center. I was veruDUWWto CPP that x - ed. aft- a". Row the impacts project will unz aLy. With the recent increase in the SM of Reynolds Ranch, adding the additional commer- cial space of the Lodi Shop. &a gM enzorcezaew, "J bat blight and decay. The @ 00001 voted to create a vA�lopment area on the East- side of the cityty because O . it bli ebli bite. w pacts of both projects , because the REIR fails to con- sider what the combined addi- tional commercial square footage will mean for Lodi and our Downtown. Until this is studied,.the clouncii shouldn't approve this project. Mizabetk Galbreah LOM Ch't teiY on Code ri for blight = T Editor: il `e 1Nr t o vis+s vuia.11 Lt-duy ry vote on the project, I hope they follow the commission's ex- pertise and vote "No" as well. I was alarmed to read that the sport says that urban Cecay ,,aused by the Supercenter won't be significant because Lodi has code enforcement measures in place to prevent decay and blight. So we're rounting on the city to make Page 1 of 1 Rand/Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December 10,200811:44 AM To: 'maganadc@yahoo.com' Cc; City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Wal mart Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Raoul Magana [mailto:maganadc@yahoo.corn] Sent: Wednesday, December 10,2008 11:36 AM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Re: Wal mart Dear City Council, I am sending this note to convey the detrimental effects a "Super Walmart" would present to Lodi. 1) The economy would cause the local, Food4 less, JC Penny, Raleys, Smart, and other local businesses to close. 2) The existing Wal Mart should be updated as opposed to building a new one. 3) There is already the closure ofMervyns which is a large vacant(to be) store location. 4) Most of the businesses located in the current Wal Mart shopping center would likely be closing due to their main "Anchor store" leaving. 5) There should be a completely leased center prior to any new building of the same/similar store across the street. 6) The City Council needs to think 10-20 years down the road and see that existing businesses are protected and remain in Lodi first!! Thanks, Raoul Magana Have a Great Today! 12/10/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 20081 1:45 AM To: 'Pat Johnston' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: message to council members Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Pat Johnston [mailto:pcjohns@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:08 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: message to council members NO, NO, NO, ON WAL-MART! What we have is enough. We can change our inclination to sin into a willingness to serve God. Romans 12:1-3 12110/2008 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December 10.2008 11:46 AM To: 'ricky3d2000@yahoo.com' cc: City Council: Blair King: Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood: Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Super Wal-Mart Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate departments) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk --- -Original Message ----- From: Rick [mailto:ricky3d2000@yahoo,com) Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:00 AM To: City Council Subject: Super Wal-Mart Nothing equates a small town atmosphere less than a Super Wal-Mart. A few people who are unwilling to drive a little around town to do their shopping should not have too loud a voice since most items at a super Wal-Mart can be already be found in Lodi. Besides who needs another empty building where the current Wal-Mart is should a superstore be built. Rick Castelanelli Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December 10,200811:49 AM To: 'C/V Grant' cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Lodi's Retail Plans Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: C/V Grant [mailto:calgrant@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:23 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Lodi's Retail Plans Members of the City Council: Lodi's community pride and commitment to planning is unique in our region. Thank you in advace for treating the the retail designation at the southwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road the same way—part of a long standing plan for our fine city. cg Christopher Grant 1712 Mariposa Way Lodi, CA 95242 12/10/2008 December 4,2008 Mayor Mounce and City Council CIO Lodi City Clerk City Hall 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear City Council Members, RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2008 city Clerk city of Lodi I am a business owner here in Lodi and I am writing to ask you to vote no on the new Wal-Mart Supercenter. I think it's important that you hear from owners who have been apart of the Lodi community longer than Wal-Mart. Sure, my business will never be as large as Wal-Mart, but I would like to think that my voice is just as powerful. Please do what is best for us, the locally owned businesses in Lodi, and vote against the Supercenter. Sincerely, C G �Z "_ %0 L L ki e-- RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2008 December 3, 2008 City Clerk City of Lodi Lodi City Council c/o City Clerk 2,i West Pine St, Lodi, CA 95240 Ms. Mounce and Council, If I could have any wish this holiday season, it would be that Lodi had no Targets or Wal -Marts and we had more parking spaces on School Street. Anything to attract more shoppers! In all seriousness, many of us are worried about our business sales, especially during the holiday season. This month is very, very important to us. For some, it will be make or break. So, it is with a plea for help that I ask you to vote against the Wal- Mart Supercenter. I really do see a decline in buyers on School St, Everyone just assumes that Target and Wal -Mart's prices will always beat any price in a store downtown. There are times when this is true, but also times when it is not. I wish shoppers would really do some price comparisons on their own. But, when we are constantly barraged with "same money, live better", I guess we just become conditioned to believe it and not even think about. Many stores downtown can't compete with the big chains. We don't need a larger Wal-Mart drawing even more shoppers away from our stores. Please vote no. Sincerely, Olt -M L-�-� 6 t6l tUJA _L, (.)b �),U JitL_ Why is it when someone follows the rules set up by our Fouqding Fathers, there are always some one against them and their success? Take Wal-Mart, they are a great company, during disasters, they are the first to help. and they expect nothing in return. Check what they did during the floods in the South? Sam Walton, founder of the Wal-Mart empire. was a great example of successful transition tax planning. He passed the bulk of his business interest to his heirs with little tax erosion by preparing the plan early in his career. Sam and Helen Walton started their retail business after WWII with $5.000 in savings and $20,000 borrowed from Helen's father: then they built that stake into a multi -billion dollar marketing behemoth. the American dream our Founding Fathers set up for them by using brains, hard work. and competition! Many have done the same thing the same way, I knew three pharmacist who each had small drug store after WWII, and could not compete with the large drug chains, they did not cry and yell, they incorporated and form what was Payless Drugs, by using their brains. hard work. and competed! Of course if Wal-Mart had let the Union run their store, they might have been greater like our school system among the worst, or our government who panders to them, and not lets forget the American, Auto industry. which the tax payer may he paying for if Pelosi .and other Socialist have there way; taxes and union benefits cost you a minimum of $13,000 on every automobile! Where are the brains, hard work and COMPETITION? When all foreign cars built in the US are competing, WHY? RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2008 Crit Clerk CRT at Lodi Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From Sent: To: cc: Subject: Randi Johl Tuesday, December 09,2008 2:12 PM City Council Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood WalMart Correspondence Attachments: D00003.PDF The attached will be included in the Blue Sheet for the special meeting tomorrow. Raluli Johl, JD, CYIC Citi) Clerk. City of Lodi Lod, California 95-240 (200) 333-670-2 12/09/2008 Randi Johl From: Rad Bartlam Sent: Monday, December08,20085:45 PM To: Randi Johl cc: Steve Schwabauer Subject: FW: Lodi - Shopping Center Attachments: D00003.PDF xd�h� D00003.PDF (2 MB) Randi, can you deliver to the City Council? Thanks, Rad ____-Original Message ----- From: Alexis Pelosi[mailto:APelosi@sheppardmullin.com] Sent: Mon 12/8/2008 4:54 pM To: Rad Bartlam Cc: Steve Schwabauer; Hobbs, Jonathan; Andee Leisy; Judy Davidoff Subject: Lodi - Shopping Center Rad, Attached are a few more documents that we are submitting to be included in the record and ask that they be given to the City Council members in anticipation of the December 10, 2008, hearing. Thank you and please call me if you have any questions. Alexis Alexis M. Pelosi Direct: (415) 114-2974 Fax: (4 15) 403-6080 apelosi@sheppardmullin.com www.sheppardmullin.com Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Circular 230 Notice: In accordance with Treasury Regulations we notify you that any tax advice given herein (or in any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any attachments). Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Four Embarcadero Center I 17th Floor I Sacs Francisco, CA 94111-4109 415-434-9100 alfice I 415-434-3947 fax I www.rheppardmullin.com A T T 0 K N E Y 5 A T L A W Writer's Direct Line: 415-774-2974 apelosi@sheppardmuIli n.corn December 8,2008 Our File Number: 15CM-130407 VIA E-MAIL AND MAIL Rad Bartlam Interim Community Development Director City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1.910 Re: Agenda Item B- I - December 10,2008. City Council 1-i eating on Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to not certify the Lodi Shoppin Cg enter EIR (October 8. 2008. Planning Commission Agenda item Dear Rad: Attached please find two additional documents in support of our October 10,2008, appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to not certify the Lodi Shopping Center EIR (October 8,2000, Planning Commission agenda item 3a). We ask that these documents be included in the record and distributed to the City Council in anticipation of the hearing on Wednesday December 10,2008. The first document is a study prepared by Navigant Consulting entitled "An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters" (December 2008). The second document is a visual depiction of the additional alternative mentioned by those who are economically motivated to oppose the Project to expand or redevelop the Wal-Mart store on its existing site. If you have any questions please call me at 415-774-2974 Very truly yours, Alexis M. Pelosi for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON UP W02 -WEST 5AMP11401 1868411 Attachments cc: Judy V. Davidoff Oil/i. i i ' . 0 ,L� ml- W Stores, Inc. 1-800-333-0085 www watmarifcKh.ccrxxn What local community members are sayiniz about Wal-Mart... "Wal-Mart hasprovided a tremendous boost to our economy. Wal-Mart hasprovided neededjobs and has boosted local sales tax revenues. As 1 see it with the economy the way it * Wal-Mart is starting to get the attention it deservesfor its businessplan. " City Councilmember Terry Hanson, City of La Quinta "Wal-Mart is apositivepresence in our community. Wal-Mart is a good corporate citizen, providesjobs and stable revenuesfo r the city. Also, new businesses have succeeded since Wal-Mart opened. " Councilmember Luis J. Castro, City of Calexico "We are glad to have Wal-Mart in our city. Wal-Mart'spresence has stimulated other retailers to locate to Palmdale expanding ourpotentialfor increased revenues. " City Manger, Steve Williams, City of Palmdale "TheSanger Wal-Mart has been agreat communitypartnerfor the City of Sanger. Not only do theyprovide needed opportunityfor the citizens of the area to buy goods and services, they have become involved with the community and the Sanger Chamber of Commerce as a community supportpartner. They haveprovided supportfor other Sanger business to encourage residents to shop in their home town. They are a great addition to Sanger. " Supervisor Judy Case, Fresno County Wal -Mart's presence in Brawley is already attracting additional development and sparking investment in our community. Weanticipate the addition of Wal-Mart to our retail mix willjumpstart sales tax revenues in the city of Brawley. " Mayor John Benson, City of Brawley Wal-Mart Press Release, Wal-Mart Brings Economic Boost to Brawley, 10.13.08 "The 300 plusjobs offered by the store wM be an immediate boast to our economy, and the sales tax revenue it generates will helpfund a variety of city services. " Joy Madison, Modesto Chamber of Commerce President Modesto Bee, New Wal-Mart Supercenter Readies for Grand Opening, 11.7.08 WAL*NUkRT Stares, Inc. 1-800-331-7085 WWW wohn*rpFocts cam December 3,2008 Contact: Tiffany Moffatt 209.369.1377 (office) 479.381.8206 (cell) NEW RESEARCH REVEALS STRONG LOCAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF WAL-MART SUPERCENTERS Regions throughout California Experienced Growth in Additional Businesses and Local Sales after Wal-Mart Opening LOS ANGELES — The local business climate in communities throughout California benefits significantly from the presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters, according to a new study released today by the international consulting firm Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NYSE: NCI). "The presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters in any California community enhances as it relates to local revenues and business development," said Lon Hatamiya, a Director at Navigant Consulting and former Secretary of California's Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency. "According to the study, Wal -Mart's benefits are not limited to metropolitan or suburban communities, but also help economically challenged rural areas such as the Central Valley and Imperial Valley." The report found: • In every city where a Wal-Mart Supercenter opened, city-wide taxable retail sales increased in the year following the opening and continued to grow in subsequent years in all communities that have had Supercenters for multiple years. • Citywide taxable retail sales increases after the opening of a Supercenter averaged more than $79 million the first year, $123.9 million the second year, and $206.2 million the third year compared to the year before the opening. • The number of retail business permits increased by an average of 32.7 percent the first year after the opening of a Supercenter and all communities showed increases in the second year. • In ] 5 communities where the data was available, taxable sales at other retail stores, including restaurants and bars, building materials and farm implements, auto dealers and supply, and service stations also increased an average of more than $72 million following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter. -- more -- The study, commissioned by Wal-Mart, reviewed the 2I California Supercenters in operation between 2003 and 2007. The Supercenters are based throughout the state from Shasta to Imperial County. The full report is attached. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart discount stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club locations in the United States. The Company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom and, through ajoint venture, in India. The Company's securities are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www.wali-iiartstores.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com and www.samsclub.com. About Lon Hatamiya Lon I-latamiya provides international, national and regional economic analysis and expert testimony as a Director at Navigant Consulting. He has testified over a hundred times before. the WTO, U.S. Congress, California Legislature, and all levels of courts, hoards and commissions on a wide variety of issues. He served as Secretary of the California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency, as well as Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service at USDA. He serves as a lecturer at the UC Davis School of Law, and at the University of Denver International Studies Program. Mr. Hatamiya previously served as an adjunct professor at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management. About Navigant Consulting Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NYSE: NCI) is a global consulting firm providing dispute, investigative, operational, risk management and financial and regulatory advisory solutions to government agencies, legal counsel and large companies facing the challenges of uncertainty, risk, distress and significant change. The Company focuses on industries undergoing substantial regulatory or structural change and on the issues driving these transformations. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Supercenters December, 2008 NAVIGANT CQNSULT1*4G Prepared for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Lon Hatamiya, MBA, JD Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. NAV IGA NT Table of Contents I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 11, Objective of Report................................................................................................... l III. Major Findings.......................................................................................................... 2 IV. Methodology.............................................................................................................. 6 A. Design...................................................................................... ..............5 B. Scope of Analysis.................................................................... .............7 C. Data........................................................................................... ..............7 V. Results of Analysis................................................................................................. 10 A. Changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permitsafter One Year ..................................................................................10 B. Changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Sales Permits afterMultiple Years.......................................................................................13 C. Changes in Taxable Retail Sales by Population...............................14 VI. Summary of Analysis............................................................................................. 17 An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters Decemher 2008 N VIGANT List of Tables TABLE 1 -Changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits after One Year (21 Cities) TABLE 2 - Changes in Taxable Retail Sales in Other Retail Outlets (15 Cities) TABLE 3 -Changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits after Two Years (10 Cities) TABLE 4 - Changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits after Two Years (3 Cities) TABLE 5 —Difference in Taxable Retail Sales for Cities with Populations greater than 50,000 TABLE 6 —Difference in Taxable Retail Sales for Cities with Populations less than 50.000 TABLE 7 — Difference in Taxable Retail Sales for Cities with Populations less than 25,000 List of Appendices Appendix A — Calculation and Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits for Selected California Cities from 2003-2007 Appendix B — Calculation and Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales of Other Retail Outlets for Selected California Cities from 2003-2007 NAvIG NT CQN.SUITING Executive Summary We were retained by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to perform an independent and objective analysis to quantify the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales in California communities where Wal-Mart Supercenters have opened during the period of 2003- 2007. We also analyzed the number of Retail Business Permits in those same communities. We accomplished this through a comparative analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits from the years just prior to and the years just after the opening of the various Wal-Mart Supercenters. We also looked at data from subsequent years for those locations that have been opened for more than one year. Since data is only available through the end of 2007, we were able to perform these comparisons for the cities of 21 of the 32 Wal-Mart Supercenters in California (the remaining 11 Supercenters opened in 2007 or later). The results of our analysis are as follows: • In every city where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter in California, the city- wide Taxable Retail Sales (including apparel stores, general merchandise stores, grocery stores, home furnishing and appliance stores, and other retail stores) have increased in the year following the opening of the Supercenter as compared to the Taxable Retail Sales of the year prior to the opening. Moreover, city-wide Taxable Retail Sales have continued to increase in each subsequent year in all communities that have had Wal-Mart Supercenters for multiple years. • Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Sales one year after the opening of the Wal- Mart Supercenter averaged over $79 million compared to the year prior to the An Analysis ofTaxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits h California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters uecemher 2009 111 NAvIGA NT C 0 N S U L# I N G opening for all communities (21 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases averaged 15.0% for all cities. • Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Safes two years after the opening of the Wal- Mart Supercenter averaged nearly $123.9 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations opened more than one year (10 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases after two years averaged over 25.9% for the ten cities. Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Sales three years after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged over $206.2 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations opened for more than two years (3 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases after three years averaged over 39.6% for the three cities. Taxable sales for Other Retail Outlets (including restaurants and bars, building materials and farm implements, auto dealers and supply, and service stations) also increased in each community following the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters. These increases averaged over $72 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations with available data (15 Supercenters). This was an average increase of 10.5% for each city. • Increases of taxable retail sales for Other Retail Outlets two years after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged over $124.1 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations (with available data) opened more than one year (7 Supercenters). This was an average increase of 16.8% for each An Analysis ofTaxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters Decernber 2009 ry N,V IG A N T C(JNSU L1ING city. Increases of taxable retail sales for Other Retail Outlets three years after the opening averaged over $204 million (3 locations), with an average increase CC 30.4% per city. • When combined, city-wide Taxable Retail Sales and Other Retail Outlets ("total taxable retail sales") one year after the opening cf the Wal-Mart Supercenter increased by an average of $157 million when compared to the year prior to the opening (15 Supercenter locations). The total taxable retail sales increased even more dramatically after two years to an average of $271.6 million ver city (7 Supercenter locations). After three years, total taxable retail sales increased even further to an average of $410.3 million ver city (3 locations). • In 18 of 21 communities, the number of Retail Business Permits increased in the year following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter when compared with the pear prior to the opening. The average increase in the number of Retail Business Permits was 32.7 per community. Slight declines occurred in Gilroy (from 516 to 508), Palm Desert (from 1446 to 1388), and Palm Springs (from 881 to 803). However, these were offset in those communities by sizable gains in Retail Business Permits two years following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter—Gilroy (up to 517), and Palm Springs (up to 840). • In 9 of 10 communities, the number of Retail Business Permits increased two vears following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter when compared with the year prior to the opening. The average increase was 65.8 Retail Business Permits per city. This is double the increase after only one, pear and reflects a total increase of 658 new Retail Business Permits across 10 cities and an average An Analesis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters Mcember 2008 NAVIGANT C()NSULI!%C; increase of 8.2% per city. Additionally, the number of Retail Business Permits increased three years following the opening in all three communities, nearly doubling again to an average of 130.3 Retail Business Permits per city or a 15.7% increase. • Regardless cf population, all California communities which opened a Wal-Mart Supercenter also enjoyed sizeable gains in city-wide Taxable Retail Sales. Cities with populations over 50,000 had an average increase of nearly 591 million; cities with populations under 50,000 had an average increase of more than $64.2 million; and cities with populations under 25,000 had an average increase of more than 534.4 million. • Central Valley and Imperial Valley communities, where economic growth is historically the slowest in the state, experienced strong city-wide Taxable Retail Sales gains after the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters. From the north to the south through the Central Valley, Anderson has seen an increase cf $51.2 million or 37%; Marysville—$8.9 million or 6.6%; Yuba City -535.2 million or 7.9%; Dixon -527.8 million or 17.4%; Stockton -5122.3 million or 21.4%; Dinuba- 549.9 million or 12.8%; and Hanford—$32.4 million or 10%. In addition, the Imperial Valley cities of Calexico and El Centro have seen increases of 538.5 million or 18.4% and 561.8 million or 16. 1 %respectively. Just as impressive, all of the aforementioned communities also experienced a gain in the number of Retail Business Permits over this same period. Based upon our analysis of the available data and information, we believe that the presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters across California has provided various positive An Analysis ofTaxable Retai I Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters IlecembCr 2()08 vi NAv iG, A N T economic benefits to their local economies. City-wide Taxable Retail Sales have increased, often dramatically, in every California community where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter. In addition, these increases in Taxable Retail Sales were not solely the result of Wal -Mart's presence, but also the result of other new businesses opening in the same communities. Furthermore, the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters also enhanced the taxable sales of Other Retail Outlets such as restaurants, auto dealers, and service stations. Thus, increased retail traffic brought on by the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters appears to have resulted in sizable sales gains for other related service providers. In addition, the benefits of the greater Taxable Retail Sales were not limited to metropolitan or suburban communities. Economically challenged rural areas such as the Central Valley and Imperial Valley both experienced strong increases in Taxable Retail Sales and in the number of Retail Business Permits after the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters in their communities. In sum, the presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters in any California community appears to enhance the local community as it relates to increased Taxable Retail Sales and increased numbers of Retail Business Permits. An Analvsis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters December 2009 vii AVI(JANT C:u1�,?U1,FI,, G I. Introduction' In this report, we provide a comparative analysis of the changes in the local Taxable Retail Sales and the Retail Business Permits for each community that Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter in California. To this end, we first provide a general perspective on Wal -Mart's operations in the state of California. As of August 2008, Wal-Mart has 32 Supercenters, 139 Discount Stores, 36 Sam's Clubs, and 7 distribution centers in California.2 As of September 2008, the total number of Wal-Mart associates (employees) in California is 72,893, with an average hourly wage of 511.38 for regular full-time associates. In its Fiscal Year 2008 (February 1, 2007 — January 31, 2008), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. spent 526,667,718,003 for merchandise and services with 3,743 suppliers in the state of California, supporting 249,175 supplier jobs.1 The sales tax collected on behalf of the state of California by Wal-Mart amounts to more than $831.5 million, and Wal-Mart itself paid more than $147.4 million in state and local taxes to the state of California and other various local governments. II. Objective of Report The objective of this report is to identify, quantify, and analyze changes to the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California communities whcrc Wal-Mart has opened new Supercenters or expanded an existing Wal-Mart Discount Store into a Supercenter. The information generated by this analysis demonstrates positive measures of the value as well as potential public benefits to This section is based on the California section at WalMartPacts.com (ht :�isyairnxrt;tures.cum/Fatts�ieti4s tziteBvSij,_itL _fatc.as >Md=5), downloaded October28. 2WY !The average size of a Supercenteris 185,000 sq. ft., about 80% larger than the average size ofa Discount Store. A Supercenter provides, on average. 142.000items about 18%higher than a discount store. 'Supplier Figures are provided by Mti & Bradstreet An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wsl-Man Supercenters December 2008 I NAviGANT CONSULT I NG stakeholders and municipal leaders of the presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters within their communities across California. III. Major Findings In every city where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter in California, the city- wide Taxable Retail Sales (including only the sales from apparel stores, general merchandise stores, grocery stores, home furnishing and appliance stores, and other retail stores') have increased in the year following the opening of the Supercenter as compared to the Taxable Retail Sales of the year prior to the opening. Moreover, Taxable Retail Sales have continued to increase in each subsequent year in all communities that have had Wal-Mart Supercenters for multiple years. • Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Sales one year after the opening of the Wal- Mart Supercenter averaged over $79 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all communities (21 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases averaged 15.0% • Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Sales two years after the opening of the Wal- Mart Supercenter averaged nearly $123.9 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations opened more than one year (10 Supercenters). These are five categories of retail businesses that the California Board of Equalization provides quarterly and annual reports on the value of taxable retail sales. We chose there categories for analysis since they most closely correlate with the types of retail items sold in W al -Mart Supercenters. An AmIysis ofTaxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2008 NAVIGANT CON SU LT I NG Taxable Retail Sales increases after two years averaged over 25.9% for the ten cities. Increases of city-wide Taxable Retail Sales three years after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged over $206.2 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations opened for more than two years (3 Supercenters). Taxable Retail Sales increases after three years averaged over 39.6% for the three cities. Taxable retail sales for Other Retail Outlets (including only the sales from restaurants and bars, building materials and farm implements, auto dealers and supply, and service stations;) also increased in each community following the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters. These increases averaged over $72 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations with available data (15 Supercenters). This was an average increase of 10.50/ofor each city. • Increases of taxable retail sales for Other Retail Outlets two years after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter averaged over $124.1 million compared to the year prior to the opening for all locations (with available data) opened more than one year (7 Supercenters). This was an average increase of 16.8% for each city. Increases of taxable retail sales for Other Retail Outlets three years after the opening averaged over $204 million (3 locations), with an average increase of 30.4% per city. `These are four additional categories of retail businesses that the California Board of Equalization provider quarterly and annual reports on the value of taxable retail sales. Taxable retail sales data for Other Retail Outlets was only available from the Board of Equalization for 15 cities, including Calexico, Chino, El Centro, Gilroy, Hanford, Hemet, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palmdale, Rosemead, Roseville, Sacramento, Santa Clarita, Stockton, and Yuba City. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2008 3 N ,ii. v C.,i A f V T COINSULTIIN,G • When combined, city-wide Taxable Retail Sales and Other Retail Outlets ("total taxable retail sales") one year after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter increased by an average of $157 million when compared to the year prior to the opening (15 Supercenter locations). The total taxable retail sales increased even more dramatically after two years to an average of $271.6 million per city (7 Supercenter locations). After three years, total taxable retail sales increased even further to an average of $410.3 million per city (3 locations). • In 18 of 21 communities, the number of Retail Business Permits increased in the year following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter when compared with the year prior to the opening. The average increase in the number of Retail Business Permits was 32.7 per community. Slight declines occurred in Gilroy (from 516 to 508), Palm Desert (from 1446 to 1388), and Palm Springs (from 881 to 803). However, these were offset in those communities by sizable gains in Retail Business Permits two years following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter—Gilroy (up to 517), and Palm Springs (up to 840)6. • In 9 of 10 communities, the number of Retail Business Permits increased two years following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter when compared with the year prior to the opening. The average increase was 65.8 Retail Business Permits per city. This is double the increase after only one year and reflects a total increase of 658 new Retail Business Permits across 10 cities and an average increase of 8.2% per city. Additionally, the number of Retail Business Permits F Since the Wal-Mart Supercenterin Palm Desert was opened in 2006, there is insufficient data on Retail Business Permits two yea rs after the opening for this location. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters December 2008 4 NAv1GAIN T increased three years following the opening in all three communities, nearly doubling again to an average of 130.3Retail Business Permits per city or a 15.7% increase. • Regardless of population, all California communities which opened a Wal-Mart Supercenter enjoyed sizeable gains in city-wide Taxable Retail Sales. Cities with populations over 50,000 had an average increase of nearly $91 million; cities with populations under 50,000 had an average increase of more than $64.2 million; and cities with populations under 25,000 had an average increase of more than $34.4 million. • Central Valley and Imperial Valley communities, where economic growth is historically the slowest in the state, experienced strong city-wide Taxable Retail Sales gains after the opening Cf Wal-Mart Supercenters. From the north to the south through the Central Valley, Anderson has seen an increase Cf $51.2 million or 37%; Marysville—$8.9 million or 6.6%; Yuba City—$35.2 million or 7.9%; Dixon—$27.8 million or 17.4%; Stockton—$122.3 million or 21.4%; Dinuba— $49.9 million or 12.8%; and Hanford -532.4 million or 10%. In addition, the Imperial Valley cities of Calexico and El Centro have seen increases of $38.5 million or 18.4% and $61.8 million or 16. 1 % respectively. Just as impressive, all of the aforementioned communities also experienced an increase in the number of Retail Business Permits over this same period. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-ManSupercenters December 2008 5 NAviG NT €;0'4 tULIING IV. Methodology A. Design Identification and quantification of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits for specific California cities was accomplished by analyzing detailed data provided by the California Board of Equalization in quarterly and annual reports and further compiled in the California Retail Survey, 2008 Edition, published by the Eureka Group ("Survey"). More specifically, the Survey provides detailed reports on each of California's 58 counties and 272 of the largest cities. The Survey also provides summary coverage on 210 smaller cities across the state. Retail sales data contain eleven years of sales data for up to 45 individual retail store categories. In addition to historical sales and outlet trend data, the Survey also includes a wide range of statistical measurements that evaluate past performance of individual markets and the prospects for future growth. Data was available for all 21 California cities analyzed in this report, except where noted. Moreover, we also relied upon the most up-to-date California population statistics as provided by the California Department of Finance's City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percentage Change for January 1, 2008.7 In order to best utilize the available data from the Survey, we determined that a comparative analysis of historical data was warranted. First, we identified the opening dates for each of the 21 Wal-Mart Supercenters analyzed in this report. Second, we reviewed and compiled the Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business 'hFt:,'tvt,�tv.it,F.ra.�i,s�Ireu�archftfc.moiraphidre�orts/eStintiatesfe-1 2t10(�-E)';s�rHzlnx-ntclE:-ltablc.xlS.dati+mioaded 10/29/2008 An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2008 6 NAvIGANT Permits data from the one year prior to the opening of each Supercenter. Third, we reviewed and compiled the Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits data from the year(s) after the opening of the Supercenter. Finally, we compared and analyzed this year -over -year data to come up with our results to determine the impacts upon each community. B. Scope of Analysis As of the date of the writing of this report, local Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits data for California was available through the end of 2007. Therefore, the comparative analysis includes only 21 of 32 communities in California where Wal-Mart has opened or expanded Supercenters. These include the cities of Anderson, Beaumont, Calexico, Chino, Dinuba, Dixon, El Centro, Gilroy, Hanford, Hemet, La Quinta, Marysville, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Palmdale, Rosemead, Roseville, Sacramento, Santa Clarita, Stockton, and Yuba City. The remaining 11 Wal-Mart Supercenters in California were opened in 2007 or later. C. Data As outlined above, we relied upon historical data regarding Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits as compiled in the Survey. Since the first Wal- Mart Supercenters were built in California in 2004, we analyzed data starting in 2003 and ending in 2007. The Survey defines Taxable Retail Sales as those sales that include all retail transactions subject to California's sales tax. The Survey defines Retail Business Permits as any licensed business establishment that is An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters December 2008 1 N VIGANT (_ 0 N. SU t7I IN G engaged to some degree in the sale of goods at retail, either from a storefront location, or mail order. Individual store locations that are part of a multi -store chain are each counted as individual retail outlets. For the purposes of this comparative analysis and review, we identified the most appropriate individual retail store categories which best correlate with the items sold in a Wal-Mart Supercenter. These categories include Apparel stores; General Merchandise stores; Grocery stores; Home Furnishings and Appliance stores; and Other Retail stores. The Survey defines these as follows: Apparel stores—includes outlets primarily engaged in the retail sale of new clothing and accessories. General Merchandise stores—includes larger scale retailers, offering a broad range of consumer goods, including apparel for all ages, furniture and home furnishings, electric appliances, jewelry, and personal care products. Grocery stores—includes food stores offering a wide range of grocery products, but do not also offerliquor for retail sale. However, many do sell a range of beer and wine beverages. Home Furnishings and Appliance stores—includes retailers such as furniture, floor covering, curtain and upholstery, lighting and lamps, household appliances, consumer electronics, computers and software, and radio and other audio equipment. An Analysis of i axabic Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December ZWX 8 NAVIGANT Other Retail stores—includes gifts, art supplies, sporting goods, florists, photo equipment and supplies, musical instruments, stationary and books, jewelry, office and school supplies, and other specialties. For additional comparative analysis, we also reviewed the data from Other Retail Outlets to determine the impact of the opening of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on these types of stores. Data for Other Retail Outlets was only available for the 272 largest cities in California. Therefore, only 15 cf the 21 cities are analyzed in this study. Other Retail Outlets include Restaurants and Bars, Building Materials and Farm Implement stores, Auto Dealers and Supply stores, and Service Stations. The Survey defines these as follows: Restaurants and Bars—includes eating places and bars offering a full - range of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and/or spirits) for on -premises consumption, and eating places that do not offer any type of alcoholic beverage, such as fast-food restaurants, ice cream shops, lunchrooms and cafeterias, and pizza restaurants. Building Materials and Farm Imalement store—includes lumber and building material stores, hardware stores, plumbing and electrical supply stores, paint, glass, and wallpaper outlets, farming/gardening supply stores, and farm equipment/implement and related supply stores. Auto Dealers and Supplies—includes retailers that are predominantly involved in the sale of new and used automobiles, automobile parts and repair, and automobile parts and supplies. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2W8 9 NAVIGANT ( 0NSUllkTIIN`G Service Stations—includes retailers primarily engaged in the sale c£ gasoline and/or diesel fuel, auto parts and repair service, and a limited line of packaged and prepared convenience food. V. Results of Analysis A. Changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits after One Year In every city where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter in California, the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales have increased in the year following the opening of the Supercenter as compared to the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales of the year prior to the opening. Taxable sales for Other Retail Outlets also increased in each community following the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters. In 18 of 21 communities, the number of Retail Business Permits increased in the year following the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter when compared with the year prior to the opening. The results of our analysis of the changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits as the result of the opening of a Wal-Mart Supercenter are presented in the Tables below and the details of the calculations are fully presented in Appendices A and B. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters Dcccmbcr 2VJS to N' AV I G A INT (' t: )N S t 1 L T I N- C, City Year Opened Taxable Retail Sales Year Prior ($000) Taxable Retail Sales Year After (5000) Difference in Taxable Retail Sales (5000) Retail Permits Year Prior Retail Permits Year After Difference in Retail Permits Anderson 2006 110,108 ('05) 161.,263 ('07) 51,155 228 '05) 230 ('07) 2 Beaumont 2006 137,595 '05 249,970 '07) 112,375 360('05) 375 '07) 15 Calexico 2005 209,086 ('04) 247,556 ('06) 38,470 1122 '04) 1276 ('06) 154 Chino 2006 529,510 ('05) 564,790 ('07) 55,280 624 ('05) 669 ('07) 45 Dinuba 2006 170,608 '05) 220,464 ('07) 49,856 173 ('05) 189 ('0 16 Dixon 2005 159,319 ('04) 187,097 ('06) 27,778 189 ('04) 196 ('06) 7 El Centro 2006 384,067 '05) 445,847 '07) 61,780 353 ('05) 360 ('07) 7 G'slro 2005 468,711 (04) 558,486 ('06) 89,775 516 '04 508 ('06) -8 Flanford 2(*6 323,568 ('05) 355,911('07) 32,343 422 ('05) 422 ('07) 0 Hemet 2004 284,158 ('03) 345,048 ('05) 60,890 452 ('03) 563('05) 111 L, buinta 2004 127,508 ('03) 265,583 ('05) 137,075 211 ('03) 312 ('(15) 101 Marysville 2005 134,220 ('04) 143,132 ('06) 81912 253 ('04) 267('06) 14 Palm Desert 2006 1,011,750 (105) 1,046,665 ('07) 34,915 1446 ('05) 1388 ('07) -58 Palm Springs 2005 194,817 ('04) 330,017 ('06) 135,200 881 ('04) 803 ('06) -78 ('almdale 2005 652,514 ('04) 781,256 '06) 128,742 1012 ('04) 1094 ('06) 82 Rosemead 2006 148,641 ('05) 148,662.(,Q7) 21 160('05) 228 ('07) 68 Roseville 2005 1,398,008 ('04) 1,525,211 ('06) 127,203 1561 '04 1625 ('06) 64 Sacramento 2006 2,091,995 ('05) 2,214,249 ('07) 122,254 3724('05) 3788 ('07) 64 Santa Clarita 2006 946,934 ('05) 1,050,176 ('07) 103,242 2518('05) 2572 ('07) 54 Stockton 2004 1,150,032 ('03) 1,395,756 ('05) 245,724 1829(' 1848 ('05 19 Yuba City 2006 443,893 ('05) 479,893 ('07) 35,222 515 ('05) 523('07) 8 TOTAL CHANGE 1,659,212 687 AVERAGE CHANGE X79 Oi0 32.7 Table 1 highlights the changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Sales Permits one year after the opening cf a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The average change in Taxable Retail Sales from the year prior to the opening to the year after the opening is $79,010,000 per city. The average change in the number of Retail Sales Permits is 32.7 permits per city. An Analysis of Taxable Retail 5ales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 2008 11 NAvIGANT C()NS(1ETING TABLE 2 CHANGES IN TAXABLE RETAIL SALES IN OTHER RETAIL OUTLETS (15 CITIES) City Year Opened Taxable Retail Sales Other Outlets Year Prior(5000) Taxable Retail Sales Other Outlets Year After (SM) Difference in Taxable Retail Sales Other Outlets ($000) Calexico 2005 149,895 ('04) 161,299 ('06) 11,404 Chino 2006 405,580 ('05) 412,829 ('07) 7,249 El Centro 2006 337,208 COS) 375,905 ('07) 38,697 Gilroy 2005 496,410 ('04) 513,994 ('06) 17,584 Hanford 2006 271,616 ('05) 281,556 ('07) 91940 Hemet 2004 401,389 ('03) 562,080 ('OS) 160,691 La Quinta 2004 249,358 ('03) 337,527 ('05) 88,169 Palm Desert 2006 305,587 ('05) 362,170 ('07) 56,583 Palmdale 2005 649,629 ('04) 698,543 ('06) 48,914 Rosemead 2006 117,817 ('05) 119,299 ('07) 1,482 Roseville 2005 1,857,362 ('04) 2,006,830 ('06) 149,468 Sacramento 2006 1,947,786 ('05) 2,034,250 ('07) 86,464 Santa Clarita 2006 1,339,344 ('05) 1,436,893 ('07) 97,549 Stockton 2004 1,361,242 ('03) 1,652,249 ('05) 291,007 Yuba City 2006 384,068 ('05) 399,260 ('07) 15,192 TOTAL CHANGE 1,08Q,393 AVERAGE CHANGE $72026 Table 2 highlights the changes in Taxable Retail Sales cif Other Retail Outlets one year after the opening of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The average change in Taxable Retail Sales of Other Retail Outlets from the year prior to the opening to the year after the opening is $72,026,000 per city An Analysis of Taxable Retail 5a les and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters December 2003 12 NAVIGANT C0 N S U ITI N G B. Changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Sales Permits after Multiple Years In those cities where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter in California and been open for more than one year, the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales have increased in all years following the opening of the Supercenter as compared to the city-wide Taxable Retail Sales of the year prior to the opening. TABLE 3 CHANGES IN TAXABLE RETAIL SALES AND RETAIL BUSINESS PERMITS AFTER TWO YEARS (10 CITIES) City Year Opened Taxable Retail Sales Year Prior Mm) Taxable Retail Sales Two Years After (SM) Difference in Taxable Retail Sales ($000) Retail Permits Year Prior Retail Permits Two Years After Difference in Retail Permits Calexico 2005 i 209,086 263,031 53,945 1122 1290 168 Dixon 2005 1 159,319 207,303 47,984 189 204 1 15 Gilroy 2005 468,711 573,039 104,328 516 517 I Hemet 2004 284,158 368,938 84,780 452 552 I00 La Quinta 2004 127,508 317,312 189,804 211 427 216 Marysville 2005 134,220 I45,851 11,631 253 263 10 Palm Springs 2005 194,817 341,704 146,887 881 840 41 Palmdale 2005 652,514 808,576 156,062 1012 1100 88 Roseville 2005 1 1,398,008 1,562,397 164,389 1561 1643 82 Stockton 2004 1,150,032 1,428,887 278,855 1829 1848 19 TOTAL. CHANGE 1,238,665 658 AVERAGE CHANGE $123,866 65.8 Table 3 highlights the changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits two years after the opening of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The average change in Taxable Retail Sales from the year prior to the opening to two years after the opening is $123,866,000 per city. The average growth in the number of Retail Business Permits is 65.8 permits per city An Analysis ofTasable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wnl-ManSupercLnters DecemberZ008 13 NAvIGANT € ONSULT1146 TABLE 4 CHANGES IN TAXABLE RETAIL SALES AND RETAIL BUSINESS PERMITS AFTER TWO YEARS (3 CITIES) City Year Taxable Retail Taxable Retail Difference in Retail Retail Difference Opened Sales Year Prior Sales Three Years Taxable Retail Sales Permits Permits in Retail ($000) After ($000) ($000) Year Three Permits Prior Years After Hemet 2004 284.,158 381,898 97,740 452 569 117 La Quinta 2004 127,508 333,451 205,943 2I1 446 235 Stockton 2004 1,150,032 1,465,076 1 315,044 1,829 1,868 39 TOTAL CHANGE 618,727 I 391 AVERAGE CHANGE 4:70; 11) I 1'1[1 1 Table 4 highlights the changes in Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits three years after the opening of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The average change in Taxable Retail Sales from the year prior to the opening to three years after the opening is $206,242,000 per city. The average growth in the number of Retail Business Permits is 130.3 permits per city. C. Changes in Taxable Retail Salesby Population Regardless of population, all California communities with Wal-Mart Supercenters have enjoyed sizeable gains in city-wide Taxable Retail Sales. Cities with populations over 50,000 had an average increase of nearly $91 million (]FABLE 5); cities with populations under 50,000 had an average increase of more than 564.2 million (TABLE 6); and cities with populations under 25,000 had an average increase of more than 534.4 million (TABLE 7). An Analysis ofTaxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters December 2009 14 AvIGANT C ON5ULTtfvG TABLE 5 Difference in Taxable Retail Sales for Cities with Population greater than 50,000 250,000 b d 200,000 d 150,000 z 100,000 W d 50,000 x go r 0 o b ;� c U c t � `O `0 Cb a m Q, m o V 4 H ti -G 61! ZN 4 a Q7 v' } a, m 1 y y ar a 4 Califomia C i s An Analysis cE Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters December 2008 Is N vIGANT TABLE 6 Difference in Taxable Retail Sales for Cities with Population less than 50,000 140,000 120,000 �a U) 100,000 ;r O 80,000 60,000 40,000 cxc 20.000 F- 0 60, 50, California Cities TABLE 7 Difference in Taxable Fetdi Sales for Cities with Populations less than 25,000 Anderson Dinuba Dixon Marysville Average (5000) California Cities An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal-Mart Supercenters December 200 16 NAv iGAN T C O. SU1LfINC, VI. Summary of Analysis Based upon our analysis of the available data and information, we believe that the presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters across California has provided various positive economic benefits to their local economies. City-wide Taxable Retail Sales have increased, often dramatically, in every California community where Wal-Mart has opened a Supercenter. In addition, these increases in Taxable Retail Sales were not solely the result of Wal -Mart's presence, but also the result of other new businesses opening in the same communities. Furthermore, the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters also enhanced the taxable sales of Other Retail Outlets such as restaurants, auto dealers, and service stations. Thus, increased retail traffic brought on by the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters appears to have resulted in sizable sales gains for other related service providers. In addition, the benefits of the greater city-wide Tuxable Retail Sales were not limited to metropolitan or suburban communities. Economically challenged rural areas such as the Central Valley and Imperial Valley both experienced strong increases in Taxable Retail Sales and in the number of retail business permits after the opening of Wal-Mart Supercenters in their communities. In sum, the presence of Wal-Mart Supercenters in any California community appears to enhance the local community as it relates to increased Taxable Retail Sales and increased numbers of Retail Business Permits. An Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales and Retail Business Permits in California Cities with Wal -Man Supercenters December 2008 17 Appendix A I axable S&S QatX h ilboe.ca. ov nMAs .htm and Caiifunua Retail Survey. 2008 Edition by the Eureka Gros Yner_ dt t Pogulation Data: h :FAvww.dof.ca. ovlresearchidem raDhick !ss' atesie-t 2 -07idocum n iE-ltable.xls AVG. CHANGE 15_0% gm 3939m 3.8% 32.7 These figures include only Taxable Retai I Sales for Apparel stores, General Merchandise stores, Grocery stores. Home Furnishings and Appliance stores. and Other Retail stores. Appendix B Calexico W;.9� 170,313 1 11,404 7,249 20,418 38,470 55,280 Chbto El Centro38,697 A-. 61,780 GAroy 530,577 17,584 34,167 89,775 Hanford Hemet 576,474 9,940 32,343 596,306 160,691 175,085 194,917 60,890 La Quints 351,698 368,421 88,169 102,340 119,063 138,075 Palm Desert.- 56,583 34,915 Palmdale ,;.-`° 723,642 48,914 74,013 128,742 Rosemead ..' 1,482 21 Roseville =R= 2,069,812 149,468 212,450 127,203 Sacramento 86,464 122,254 Santa Clarb 97,549 103,242 Stockton MWI, I Will, 1,611,898 11,659.469 1 291,007 250,656 298,227 245,724 Yuba City 15,192 35,222 TOTAL AVG. CHANGE ($000) 1,080,393 869,129 612,207 1,273,936 72,026 124,161 204,069 84,929 #These figures Include only Taxable Retail Salas for Other Outlets --Restaurants and Bas. Building Materials and Farm Implements, Auto Dealers and Supply, and Service Stations Dec 09 08 02:05p BIRlDELTR 209-235-7837 P.1 Cotta too Tia•c\71'1'L.4x,' pr' i3t•u.cK:�i. I:scrxtt:�'t: FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Ranch JoM FROM: John Beckam COMPANY: Gty of Lod I' ] 10NL. NTjMR I: K: D ATF: 12-9-08 1,1 iQ N 1' Nl-TmR F. F: 209-235-7831 FAX NIJMb 3R_ FAXNL1MlWlkI . 209-235-7837 RE TOTAL P AG F 5 INCLUDING MY F R Throe ❑ URGENT FOR REVIF.. W ❑ FOR YOUR USE NOTES/ COMMENTS ___ 509 WEST WEBER AVENUE, SUITE 410 STOCKTON, CA 95203-3167 Dec 09 08 02:05P ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATl;Vc; Tw AT), YPARs of BVH.111m; EXCv1.1.Fhk E OFULLILS Dudley 1%zGee Kimball !till homes Mahesh Ranchhud American -USA IiorneS Jeremy White The Grupe Company Juhn Looper J•op Grad!' ConSIR10 kill BOARD OF DIRECTORS Debbie Armstrong Old Repuhllc Title Cornpany Klatt Arnaiz H.D. Arnaix Corponart ion Rod Attebery Neunidler& Beardslce Rey Chavu Kelly -Moore Paint Company Ryan Cording Plllle Homes Cathy Ghav Oaic Valley C'omntunity_ Sank Geurge Cibson FCB Domes Steve Heruitl Horden Crabtree Brown IR'ayne LeBaron _el3a1-011 RRllheS Ferry Miles Icichcr( Cons(ruc:(ina 4'arol Ornelas Jisio(lary Home Builders, Inc Iim Panagopoulos X.G. Spanos Conipanics )enise Tsclyirk� vlattllews Homes ,IFETIMF DIRECTORS tenni+ Rennett 3emlett Developncyll till Filios 1KF Devclapment, l.I-C Nike Hakeem Iakeem, F.11is & Marengo effrey Kirst okay Development teve Moore .alandev Development .andra Morris ltd RcpuhIicTitle Coidpany eta, t» ins aynlus home~, Inc. oily sotiiza auza Really & Developmen BIR/UEL-TR 209-235-7837 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF THE DELTA December 9.2008 Mayor Mounce City of Lodi 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, CA 95240 RE: City Council Meeting of December 10, Item B- I Mayor Mounce, I have attached the letter we sent to the Planning Commission regarding the agricultural mitigation requirements imposed on the Lodi Shopping Center Project. I would like you to consider the: arguments posed in that letter in addition to the following. The City has asserted "It is the City's current practice to require development projects to acquire oft -site conservation casements to off -set the loss of prime fannland." This "practice" of the City has NOT been adopted by the Council as an official policy, rule, regulation or development guideline. Although the City has the power to adopt statutes cf general applicability, in the case of agricultural mitigation, the City has chosen not to do so. A project specific condition such as this must meet a heightened scrutiny level under the legal principles of Nolan/Dolan. Although the BIA remains neutral on the proposed project we strongly oppose the project -ley -project approach the City is using in regards to agricultural mitigation and specifically the requirements iinposed on the Lodi Shopping Center Project. if the City wishes to have a "practice"with regards to agricultural mitigation a city-wide ordinance should be adopted. The exaction called for in the conditions of this project regarding agricultural mitigation should be eliminated or at least modified to mirror the requirements of the San Joaquin County Agricultural Mitigation Ordinance. The BIA continues its strong opposition towards the mitigation measures imposed on this praj ect. AHou, ./44 ..�ekman Chief Executive Officer 509 WEST WEBERAVENVE,SUITE alis SIA)VI "t'ON, CALIFORNIA 95203-3167 (209) 235-7831 PH (2119123S-7837 FX P-2 Dec 09 08 02s05p BIR/DELTn 209-235-7837 P.3 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ANNIVERSARY CELENRA77NGTWLNr1'YEARs October 8 2008 QF BuILVINU EaCfLLENCE OF THE DELTA OFFICERS Dudley McGee Kimball Hill Homes Maheslt Ranchhod American -USA Homes .Ieremy White The Grupc Company John Looper Top GrtdeConsiruction BOARD 0FDIRECTORS Planning Commission City of Lodi 221 W. Pine St. Lodi, CA 95240 Commission Members, The Building Industry Association has been actively engaged in the process of mitigation for the loss of agricultural land for several years now. Every city in San Joaquin County. with the exception of Lodi, has Debbie Armstrong Feld Republic Title Company an Agriculture Mitigation Ordinance and the BIA participated in the Matt Arnaiz creation of each of those. Recently Spin Joaquin County passed an H D. AraaizCorporaiLion Rod Attebery Agriculture Mitigation Ordinance and created an Agriculture Technical Noumillcr & Beardslee Advisory Committee (ATAC) to implement the ordinance. The BIA Rey' appoints three ofthe nine voting members of the ATAC. ic,:lly-ivloare nfli,lt comp -any Ryrr, Gerdiug Pulte Hones Section 9-1080.1(a) ofthe County ordinance calls for intergovernmental Cathy ishan coordination. " It is the policy of San Joaquin County to work Oak Valley Coi,vt,unity Bank George Gibson cooperatively with the cities within the County and to encourage them to FCR Homes adopt agricultural preservation policies and ordinances which are Steve Herum Herum Crnhtree Brown consistent with this ordinance in order to undertake an integrated, Wayne LeBaron comprehensive Countywide approach to preservation. It is the ultimate LeBaron Ranches 'ferry goal ofthe County that all seven cities participate in or adopt an Miles Teicl,erl Construction agricultural mitigation ordinance that is the salve as or substantially Carol Ornelas similar to this ordinance." Visionary Hone 13t1i1der& Isle Jin, Panagepoules A.G. Spanos Companies The agricultural mitigation required in the Lodi Shopping Center EIR Denise Tschirky specifically excludes the Delta Primary Zone from use as mitigation land. Matthews Homes This exclusion is in direct conflict with the County ordinance, Through LIFETIME DIRECTORS careful deliberation the County found that preserving prime farm land in the Primary Zone ofthe Delta is as important as preseln+ing prime farm Dennis Ben11Ctt land outside of the Delta. Considering the stated purpose of an Bennett Development Bill Filios agricultural easement, there is no legitimate reason to exclude the primary AK1= Development. LLC zone for mitigation purposes. We strongly oppose the inclusion of this Mike hakeem restriction on agricultural easements. Hakeem, Ellis & Marengo Jeffrey Kirst Toka, , Development Thank you, Steve Moore Calandev Development Zandra Morris + Old ReptrblicTitleCon,panY John Beckman Toni Rayinus Ravinus Homes, Inc. Chief Executive Officer "roily Souza Sou,2.i Reality &. Deveiupmen 509 I E' rl' Wrllrlt AVENUE. SHITE 410 SrOCKI-U-i, C'ALIFO RNIA 95203-3167 (209) 235-7831 PH (209) 235-7ti37 PX Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, December 09,2008 1:43 PM To: 'strings1@sbcglobal.net' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood: Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Wal-Mart Supercenter Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriatedepartment(s) for information, responseand/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Mark Green Dba Green [mailto:stringsl@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:35 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Wal-Mart Supercenter Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, The purpose of this letter is to communicate my support of Browman Development for its ongoing proposal for the Wal Mart Supercenter. (have been a tenant of Browman Development since 1994. It has been my experience that Browman Development is a quality landlord and is committed to their tenants success. Our Center has always been totally occupied and (have confidence that all efforts will be made to insure that it will continue to be fully occupied in the future. (believe Browman Development is very aware of the importance of making sure all of their tenants continue to prosper, even with the Supercenter approval, as they will continue to be our Landlord after Wal-Mart has re- located. In my opinion, this project will only help keep more consumer spending In Lodi, which is good for our entire community. I urge each of you to take appropriate action to insure the approval of this project. Regards, Mark Green, Owner Strings Italian Cafe 2314 W Kettleman Lane Lodi. CA 95242 12/09/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, December 09,2008 9:29 AM To: 'Dorothy Shaw' Cc: City Council: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Walmart center Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Dorothy Shaw [mal Ito: ncs@softcom.net] Sent: Monday, December 08,2008 8:13 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart center We surport a super center forLodi. I shop regularly at the one in Stockton and I amvery pleased with the prices there. The quality of the food is very good . I.lould like to shop here in Lodi. We are in our 80s and would rather not go to Stockton. We prefer to have our taxes used here. We do believe a super center would be good for Lodi. Dorothy Shaw 12/09/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, December 09,2008 9:29 AM To: 'George and Betty Sampson' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Want Wal-Mart Super Market Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: George and Betty Sampson [mailto:gbsam@soRcom.net] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:02 PM To: Randi Johl Cc: George and Betty; danisaniceguy@yahoo.com Subjed: Want Wal-Mart Super Market Dear Mayor Larry Hansen; Council member Bob Johnson; Council member Joanne Mounce; Council member Susan Hitchcock; Council member Phil Kazakian: This is to urge you to please vote and approve the new Walmart Super Shopping Center. Wal-Mart has proven to be good for our community I am grateful and I appreciate their: FRIENDLINESS. PROMPT PHONE ANSWERING, CHEERFUL CLERKS READILY AVAILABLE FOR ASSISTANCE, WIDE CHOICE OF MERCHANDISE AT BEST PRICES, RETURNS WITHOUT HASSLE, GENEROUSITY TO CHARITABLE GROUPS WITH WHICH I AM AFFILIATED. THANK YOU! George L. Sampson 522 Willow Glen Dr. Lodi, CA 95240 209-368-3707 12/09/2008 Page I of I Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, December 09,20089:28 AM To: 'Michael Kost' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood: Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Wal Mart Supercenter Attachments: Mr. Mayor and Council Members.doc Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Michael Kost [mailto:gomichaell@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:21 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Wal Mart Supercenter Mr. Mayorand Council Members: This correspondence is to urge you to NOT approve the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on Lower Sacramento Road and Highway 12. It is my belief that this prime location can be put to use for more worthwhile endeavors than the expansion of this low-end mega -discount retailer. As one of the major "gateways" into Lodi. the LowerSac/Hwy 12 intersection reflects our town's character and priorities to everyone who travels this route: character and priorities that have embodied thoughtful foresight and a conservative approach to growth that has helped Lodi maintain its small town charm. I believe this Super Wal- Mart project will cheapen Lodi's image and cast a negative shadow over her future. Please don't sell out our principles in order to receive the gratification of tax revenue, Lodi deserves better. Thank you. Michael Kost 12/09/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, December 09,2008 9:28 AM To: 'Dan Wolcott' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Wal-Mart Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Dan Wolcott [mailto:juiceitupoflodi@clearwire.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:55 AM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Wal-Mart As a community concerned resident of Lodi and a business owner in Lodi as well, I can see nothing good for a super Wal-Mart development. As a resident of Lodi we do not need a super Wal-Mart and the extra retail space that it brings, we are unable to fill the existing retail spaces already vacant and have the Reynolds Ranch Project on the horizon. Out of control growth is not a good thing and the reason we have planning commissions is to design smart growth notjust growth. As a business owner anyone that believes additional competition in a sagging economy that is at best halfway through a major recession is not a smart business analyst, this can and will bring major loses to local long standing businesses with loss of jobs and lively hoods. The possible income tax gain will be nothing but mostly dollars traded. There is noway this make any sense at the present time. Kim Wolcott Juice It Up Lodi 12/09/2008 RECEIVED Q E C 8 2008 December 1,2008 City Clerk CitV of Lodi Lodi City Hall City Council 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor Mounce and Members of the Council: own a business downtown and I have been following the recent debates about the Lodi ShoppingCenter. I guess that I am not surprised that the Planning Commission raised concerns about the economic impacts that the Supercenter wi I I have other businesses here in Lodi. I've never been convinced that we need a Supercenter. We already have a Wal-Mart. Why do we need a largerone? What's wrong with the existing one? Perhapsthere is nothing wrong and maybethe Planning Commission knows something don't. Or, perhaps they know something Wal-Mart doesn't want any of us to know. I believe the Planning Commission has Lodi's interests at heart. It's time to move on. Please vote NO on the Supercenter. Sincerely, \, ow �� Inman s imaky December4,2008 RECEIVED Lodi City Council DEC 8 200g C/O City Council Clerk C,a LQgi 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor Mounce and Council Members: As a part of Lodi First, I'm asking you to vote NO on the Wal-Mart Supercenter at the December 10" meeting. I think the Planning Commissioner's made the right choice when they rejected the project. I'm not convinced by Wal -Mart's arguments made at the Planning Commission hearing that there will not be significant store closures and in fact Commissioner Kirsten, who is more knowledgeable about these issues then I am,felt that Wal -Mart's economic report was insufficient and leaves too many unanswered questions. These are tough economic times and I think it would be irresponsible for you to build this new retail development and risk losing existing businesses. Please do what is best for Lodi's future and vote no. Sincerel , December 5.2 00 8 Mayor -elect Hansen and Council Members City Hall 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Council: RECEIVED D E C 8 2008 City Clerk City of Lodi Ian writing to ask you to vote "no"on the Wal-Mart Supercenter. I own a business here in Lodi and I'd like to think that my voice is just as powerful as Wal -Marts. I do not understand Wal -Mart's argument that a Supercenter will bring our tawn any more tax revenue then the store we have now. A Supercenterjust adds groceries, which aren't even taxable. Perhaps Lo& should wait to see happens with the development of Reynolds Ranch before the Supercenteris built, I would hate to see Reynolds Ranch built and then fall victim to this bad economy, attracting no tenants. Lodi could end up having a Supercenter on the western side and an empty strip mall on the east I don't see how that benefits the planned Lxli Community Improvement Project you all are looking forward to starting. Let's hold off on giving the OK on the Supercenter. Sincerelyyours, RECEIVED DEC 8 2008 December 4, 2008 Cit Clerk; Otwf Lodi The Honorable JoAnne Mounce and City Council Lodi City Hall 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor Mounce and Members of the Council: I am a business owner here in Lodi and I recently saw the fancy Wal-Mart mailer making the claim that Wal-Mart is a "local" company. This is absolutely preposterous. This is a pathetic PR move and Lodi residents are smart enough to see through it. How dare they insult our intelligence! You ought to vote no just to prove the point that Lodi doesn't want companies like Wal-Mart to be the image of a local Lodi business Thank you, A P4JPA1rR_ � J"IA HARD pv. � u G K TA"� December 5 2008 The Lodi City Council RECEIVED C/0 City Council Clerk 221 W. Pine Street DEC 8 2008 Lodi, CA 95240 city city o f%0dir Dear Mayor Mounce and Members of the Council: t seems to me that the time has come for Lodi to move past its Wal-Mart Supercenter dreams. Four years have passed since we first were confronted with the question of should we build it or not? Fortunately, you have continued to move forward with a vision for the future of Lodi such as the Community Improvement Project. As the city looks forward, it saddens me that we're still stuck in the past and the Supercenter is back fora vote. The Planning Commission has already determined that it is a bad fit. ask you to please put the Supercenter where it belongs, in the past and move forward. Vote No. Sincerely yours, Page 1 of 2 Randi Johl From: BOB JOHNSON [value@softcom.net] Sent: Sunday, December 07,20088;43 AM To: City Council; Randi Johl; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer Subject: FW: Fw: Wal-Mart -----Original Message ----- From: Mary Colbert[mailto:lovetolaugh0443@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, December 07,2008 5:50 AM To: Robert Johnson Subject: Re: Fw: Wal-Mart Thank you for your informative reply. Ms. Mounce has contacted me by telephone and informed me that it indeed was not our trusty CIty Council that put out that ad, so I apologize and do so appreciate you taking the time to put me in the right lane of thinking. Your Lodi Neighbor,,,,,, Mary Colbert Message from MARY COLBERT - Life is Good! --- On Sat, 12/6/08, Robert Johnson <value@softcom.net> wrote: From: Robert Johnson <value@softcom.net> Subject: Re: Fw: Wal-Mart To: lovetolaugh0443@sboglobal.net Date: Saturday, December 6,2008, 11:07 PM Ms. Colbert I too was appalled by the ad in the paper. Please believe me it was not placed by any member of the City Council or by the city. If you reread the ad, I'm certain that you will realize that our names were inlcuded to provide a means for people to contact us Bob Johnson Lodi City Council On 12/6/08, Mary Colbert <l..ov..etolaugh0443-9sbc&llpbal.net> wrote: Message from MARY COLBERT - Life is Good! --- On Sat, 12/6/08, Mary Colbert 4ovetolaugh044-3 a hctloha_l.net> wrote: From: Mary Colbert <to_v_etolaug_h0443@sbcglobal. net> Subject: Wal-Mart To: Hitchcock@lodi.gov 12/08/2008 Page 2 of 2 Date: Saturday, December 6,2008, 12:57 PM Dear Mr. Johnson, I was appalled and disgusted with your full page add in the Lodi News Sentinel today, I had no idea that our Council members would stoop so low to take a swing at Wal-Mart. If you will notice in the add it shows partial writings concerning the events at Wal -mart, first off the man was not molesting children at Wal-Mart it happened to be his friends children he just happened to be employed by Wal-Mart. In the second article the employee that found the meth reported it to police therefore taking that parolee off of the streets to keep from spreading that terrible drug. I am sending this article to everyone I know to let them know how low our City personnel are. I called Wal-Mart early this morning to make them aware of this add, I hope they come back at you people swinging just as hard as you have swung. A lot of other big box stores have been allowed in our town and taken out a lot of our local stores so what is the big hang up with Wal-Mart? What about the priest that molested Ann Jyono, you did not take an add out about the Catholic Church, or other churches in our town that have had employees that are predators? This is so low, I am ashamed of these actions........ Mary Colbert 2133 Jackson Street Lodi, California 95242 209 369-1102 Message from MARY COLBERT - Life is Good! 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 2 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, December 08,2008 9:37 AM To: 'osmccombs@sbcglobal.net' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood Subject: RE: WAL-MART Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Sue McCombs[mailto:osrnccombs@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:51 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Fw: WAL-MART Since this was mailed to an incorrect address, I am forwarding a copy to you to be sure it went to City Council members. Thank you, Olen & Sue McCombs --- On Fri, 12/5/08, Sue McCombs <osmccombs@sbcglobaLnet> wrote: From: Sue McCombs <osmccombs@sbcglobal.net> Subject: WAL-MART To: "Susan Blackston" <sblackston@lodi.gov> Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 11:06AM Lodi City Council. We are writing one last time before your vote on the Wal-Mart issue hoping that you can see the positive benefits for the city but most of all for the citizens of Lodi who have fewer and fewer places to shop without heading to Stockton . Yes, there are empty store fronts, but this is about moving and enlarging an existing store, and adding groceries at an affordable price which is a definite plus for the citizens. When I moved to Lodi in 1966, Lodi had 35,000 people and had a fabric store, Squires and The Toggery for men, a boy's clothing store (maybe (vans), Girl Talk and a store downtown on the mall for girls, Christensens, Christines, Color Closet, and Du Bois for women besides Penneys, Burtons , Parrots, Cottage Bakery and Alexanders for shopping. 12/08/2008 Page 2 of 2 Now Lodi is 60,000 plus and we have Christensens, Burtons , Penneys and a new men's store at Lakewood , Target, Wal-Mart, and. Penneys is small and not a full service department store. Wal-Mart has limited space for the merchandise they carry. It would be wonderful to have a larger fabric and craft department for example. Any shopping we can do in Lodi to avoid the many trips Stockton would be a welcome relief. As a matter of fact, we venture to say that none of you on the City Council buy your suits off -the -rack at Penneys and do all your other shopping in Lodi . Try as we may, the fact is that Lodi has limited shopping in many areas. We hope the council does not prefer to leave the fourth corner of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road with weeds instead of Lodi Shopping Center and Wal-Mart Supercenter. The entrance to Lowes on Kettleman Lane and the landscaping are very nice and I'm sure this would be the same. Itwould be a thriving shopping center. Please get this project started as soon as possible. Thank you, Olen & Sue McCombs 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, December 08,2008 9:39 AM To: 'j bett' Cc: City Council: Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood Subject: RE: Walmart Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: j bett [mailto:motoracn116@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 05. 2008 4:56 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Walmart I support Super-Wal*mart! Let me keep my money in Lodi and stop driving to Stockton... 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johi Sent: Monday, December 08,20089:47 AM To: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer;Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood Cc: Bob Asklof Subject: RE: Wal Mart Store in Lodi Thank you foryour email. It was received by the City Council and forwardedto the appropriatedepartment(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johi, City Clerk From: BOB JOHNSON [mailto:value@softcom.net] Sent: Friday, Decmiber 05, 2008 9:28 AM To: City Council Cc: Bob Asklof Subject: FW: Wal Mart Store in Lodi Per a citizens request :s1 -----Original Message ----- From: BobAsklof [mailto:basklof@comcast. net] Sent: Thursday, Decenitu 04, 2008 4:11 PM To: Bob Johnson Subject: Wai Mart Store in Lodi Bob: Can you circulate this email of support for Wal Mart's proposed Super Store among your fellow council members please? My wife, my daughter (a new homeowner in Lodi) all support the proposed Wal Mart Super Store. The Wal Mart store values definitely give us more purchasing power for our dollars. I really don't like driving to Stockton to purchase goods, I would much rather support Lodi tax revenues and shop locally. The Wal Mart proposed store will not in anyway cause a lack of business in downtown Lodi or downtown businesses to "suffer", there are no businesses in downtown Lodi that compete with Wal Mart. The Wal Mart Super Store is a "win, win" situation for all residents of Lodi and the City itself in the tax revenue that will be gained from it by those of us that live in Lodi. Thank you, Bob Asklof 1107 Lake Home Dr. Lodi, Ca. 95242 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, December 08,2008 9:49 AM To: 'Janice Harrison' Cc: City Council; Blair King: Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam; Jeff Hood Subject: RE: the suoer walmart Thank you for your emaii. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response, and/or handling. Randi Johi. City Clerk From: Janice Harrison [mailto:ladyjan45@hotrnail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: the suoer walmart Hello My name is Janice Harrison. I had e-mailed a letter to the clerk about the super walmart store a few weeks ago. Well today I received a letter saying there would be a meeting of city council on Dec. 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm. I was just wondering if the letter that I e-mailed was for this meeting or not. If it isn't I am writing a new one. Re: Walmart super store in Lodi I am very much opposed to this happening in Lodi. I. It will bring more traffic to our city. 2. Which will cause more violence and accidents. 3. I feel it will hurt the grocery stores that are already established here. for instance S -mart, Safeway, Raleys not to mention the Mom and Pop stores. I feel that if someone wants to shop at a Super Walmart Store, Stockton is close enough for them to go there. I love Lodi and Ifor one do not want my town any bigger. We do not need more people here. A lot of people moved to this town because it was a small town. We want to keep it that way. Thanks for letting me be at this meeting via e-mail. I want my voice heard and my voices says "No to the Super Walmart I n Lodi. Sincerely Janice Harrison Lodi, California You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. Learn more about Windows Live 12/08/2008 November 29, 2008 The Lodi City Council GO City Council Clerk 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I'm writing in support of Lodi First's efforts to support our local businesses and ask you to vote against the Lodi Shopping Center Project. I don't think Lodi needs a Wal-Mart Supercenter. We've already got great shopping options on School Street and I like having the option to shop at Target if need be. I don't understand why people think we need a Super Wal-Mart. We already have one and it seems to be successful. Plus, all the Supercenter adds is groceries, which are non-taxable. Idon't buy the tax revenue argument and I hope you see through Wal -Mart's expensive PR campaign. Please listen to us residents and vote NO. Lodi is a special place and unlike our neighbors, people want to come to Lodi because of our wineries and great downtown. We don't need a Supercenter to attract outside dollars. Thank you, RELCEIVEI: DEC 4 2008 �yofIrk Cit 0 i December 3,2008 The Lodi City Council C/O City Council Clerk 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor and Council, Please vote no on the Lodi Shopping Center Project at the December 10t` hearing. The Planning Commission made the right decision by voting against the certification of the REIR. Asa member of Lodi First, I agree with the commission that there are still too many unanswered questions about store closures and possible blight. We don't need a Wal-Mart Supercenter. We don't have to be like all the other cities in the Valley. Thank you very much, 46- Or d27�s2�� 1 ffil�D ' C_ ;_ 11 2008 crty crty o 1 HERUM\CRABTREE A -I TC RNLYS December 10.2008 VIA EMAIL T 0 CITYCU3W%QL=GOV Mayor Lang Hansen City of Lodi 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241 Bre f 3. Jolley bjolley@herumcro btree.com Fie. Opposition to Browman/Wal-Mart's Appeals of Plannina Commission's Decision to not Certify Revised EIR Dear Mayor Hansen: This office represents Lodi First ("Lodi First"), an unincorporated association of Lodi -area residents, merchants, voters, property owners, and taxpayers interested in ensuring responsible and lawful development in Lodi - and the Petitioner in the pending San Joaquin County Superior Court matter of Lodi Fist v. City of Lodi which resulted in Lodi preparing the Revised EIR ("EIR") for the Lodi Shopping Center Project ("Project")that is before you on appeal. Our clients are particularly interested in Lodi discharging its public duty to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). This letter is submitted in support of the Planning Commission's determination the EIR is legally inadequatefor certification, in opposition to the appeals of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") and Browman Development Company ("Browman"), in response to the 600+ page City Council Packet received electronically on Monday December 8, 2008 and letter from Sheppard Mullin dated December 8, 2008, and in compliance with Pub.Res.C. §21 177 and the public hearing noticefor this meeting. Generally speaking, and as formally determined by the Planning Commission on a 5-1 vote, the EIR is legally deficient and does not fulfill its duty as an informational document. Ratherthan grant the Appeal and order the Planning Commission to certify an EIR that a super majority of its members believe fails to include sufficient information and disclosures, the City Council should deny the appeal and uphold the decision of its Planning Commission. 2291 WEST MARCH LANE SUITE 13100 STOC€(TON.CA 95207 PH2O9.472.7700 KODESTO PH 209.525.8444 FX 209.472.7986 APC Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 2 of 22 Lodi First's comments are founded on the principle that an EIR acts as an informational document identifying potentially significant impacts of a project, as well as alternatives and mitigation measures necessary for informed decision-making (Pub.Res.C. 921002.1). and that an EIR's findings and conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. An adequate EIR "must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences" and "must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project." Id. The Planning Commission overwhelmingly agreed that the EIR does not meet this threshold and Lodi First concurs. Accordingly, the EIR is not adequate for certification and the appeals should be denied. 1. Appeal Limited to EIR Adeauacv - Not Prolect's Merit In these appeals, the sole issue before the City Council is whether the Planning Commission erred in refusing to certify the EIR. The appellants bear a heavy burden not only in convincing the Council to overtum the Planning Commission decision, but also in demonstrating substantial evidence in the record supports this determination and this determination conforms to CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements. Because the Planning Commission did not decide whether to approve or deny the project itself, the Council is not to consider the merits of the Project application but rather only whether the EIR contains sufficient information that the San Joaquin County Superior Court will uphold its legal adequacy. As noted above, the Planning Commission found - via supermajority 5-1 vote - that the EIR does not meet the informational disclosure requirements of CEQA and therefore is inadequate to return to the Court for review and approval. Wal-Mart and Browman appeal this determination, but ignore the fact that "It is undisputed that members of the planning commission are experienced in matters of planning and development." and "opinions expressed during a formal hearing that the project will [cause undisclosed environmental effects] i3 significant." Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4tn 144. Instead, Wal-Mart and Browman ask the Council to ignore the Commission and simply certify the EIR. Unfortunately for the appellants, the record before the Council does not support their desired result. Moreover, Lodi First submits that the Council cannot actually certify the EIR - it may, at most, sustain the appeal and remand the EIR to the Planning Commission for certification. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4t^ 1184 prohibits segregating the CEQA process from the land use approval \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\900 i-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 3 of 22 process. In that case, the Bakersfield city council certified shopping center project EIRs on the consent calendar and then called the hearings on the land use applications claiming opponents were too late to raise CEOA issues. The appellate court repudiated this approach, "Apparently, [Bakersfield] did not realize that if a public hearing is conducted on project approval, then new environmental objections could be made until the close of this hearing..Jf a CE -OA action is subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to be deficient on grounds that were raised at any point prior to close of the hearing on project approval." The same resultwill occur here if the Council certifies the EIR and then remands to the Planning Commission for a hearing and decision on the Project. Accordingly, the Council cannot effectively certify the EIR before the close of the public hearing on the subject land use approvals. At the outset, the EIR suffers a fatal flaw in its treatment of impacts other than those expressly identified in the Revised EIR. Specifically, the EIR and staff reports claim that the public and responsible agencies may only comment on the topics included in the Revised EIR - and nothing more. In support of this claim, the EIR relies on Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Las Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 and Pub.ReS.C. 921166. This assertion is both factually and legally erroneous and renders the EIR's treatment of impacts such as water supply and climate change inadequate. The stipulated order dismissing the related case of Citizens forOpen Government v. City of Lodi(Case No. CV026002) signed by Browman and the City and entered by the Court states, "Citizens shall have the right to comment fully on the revised draft and final EIRs" and "Subject to applicable exhaustion of administrative remedies requirements, Citizens shall have the right to assert any claims, including any claim asserted in this action, in any subsequent litigation over Lodi's reconsideration of the Project and the revised EIR." (See Attachment A to Nov. 24, 2008 letter from counsel for Wal-Mart and Browman found in the Council Packet.) Thus, Lodi and Browman expressly opened the door to allow "any claims" to be raised subject to presenting the claims during the administrative proceedings and is not overridden by Federation, §21166, or other legal authority. To the extend the City/Browman/Wal-Mart claim the order allows only Citizens for Open Government- and not Lodi First or other project opponents to assert any claims subject to exhaustion - such a restriction violates Pub.Res.C. 921177 which allows CEOA litigants to contest iss� presented by themselves or others prior to the close of the public hearing. Moreover, the EIR fails to explain why the City staff may choose to evaluate issues beyond the scope of the Lodi First Judgment, but the citizenry, other \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 4 of 22 governmental agencies, and perhaps even the Planning Commission are prohibited from addressing deficiencies beyond the City's selected scope of review. Regarding the asserted legal defenses, Pub.Res.C. $21166's restrictions on supplemental environmental review apply only "[w]hen an EIR has been certified" (See Guideline § 15162(a)). The Judgment in Lodi First v. City of Lodi expressly ordered Lodi to vacate the Planning Commission and City Council resolutions certifying the EIR and Lodi did vacate certification in 2006. Thus, the original EIR i3 not certified and $21166 does not apply. And even if the Citizens for Open Government order did not resolve this issue, the EIR's reliance on Federation b misplaced. This case involved a CE -OA petition which re -litigated some of the same issues previously challenged. The court concluded because material facts had not changed, the issues were barred by res judicata. In contrast, each issued raised herein b either a new issue created by the revised EIR (such as energy, urban decay, and alternatives) or involves new material facts (such Browman's announcement that the project will employ 1,000 persons triggering a water supply assessment, the development of "climate change" as a CEQA topic with AB 32 and new reports submitted by Wal-Mart, and recirculation based on new information added to the record). Accordingly, Lodi First may properly raise all claims addressed in this letter. 3. The EIR's Urban Decay Analysis Is Fatally Flawed The EIR's urban decay analysis suffers two fatal flaws. First, it ignores and omits blight in East Lodi resulting in a fatally flawed urban decay environmental setting and a failure to proceed as required by CEQA. Second, it reverses the evidentiary burden, concluding there is "insufficient evidence" to find urban decay will be significant - rather than finding "substantial evidence" supports a finding the urban decay will be less than significant. a. Incomplete EnvironmentalSettina On the former point, the EIR must describe the environmental setting of the project to establish the baseline - the physical conditions on the ground - against which impacts are evaluated to determine significance. Guideline $15125. Failing to comply with §15125 and adequately disclose a project's environmental setting will render an EIR defective. Son Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.41h 713 (environmentalsetting that omitted wetlands and wildlife preserve was inadequate as a matter of law); Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000)83 Cal.App.4th 74 (environmental setting for landfill EIR was defective in that it identified underlying aquifer but did not quantify stze of aquifer). \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001.5402\BSJ\86549. doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 5 of 22 The EIR commits the same error here- in failing to describe existing blight in the City, the EIR is unable to establish a baseline or to determine the project's likelihood to cause, contribute to, or exacerbate urban decay and blight.' Specifically, on June 18, 2008 Lodi Redevelopment Agency and City Council certified an environmental impact report and adopted a redevelopment area (RDA) encompassing much of east Lodi. See Resolution RDA 2008-05, 2008-115, 2008-116, 2008-117, and Ordinance No. 1812, incorporated herein by reference. In order to establish a redevelopment area, the City must declare the area "blighted" -which Lodi did. Thus, the City Council affirmatively found substantial blight exists in Lodi.2 These blight conditions -which were known at the time the EIR for this Projectwas prepared - is curiously omitted from the EIR. The EIR's error is akin to concluding a project will not contribute to significant traffic congestion while ignoring the fact that existing roadways operate a failing levels of service: or as in the case of Son Joaquin Raptor, concluding a project will not significantly impact wetlands without describing existing wetlands in the area. Omitting this information prejudices the information disclosure process and necessitates redrafting and reticulating the EIR. Far- without this information, the public and decisionmakers lack sufficient information to understand the actual individual and cumulative impacts of this Project. Far example, how can the EIR claim vacant commercial space will be replaced before decay sets in when it ignores existing vacancy and blight in east Lodi? Or how can the EIR claim the Projectwill not result in decay because nuisance ordinances and code enforcementwill prevent decay, when such conditions already exist in Lodi? It can't, and it must be revised to include the relevant component in the environmental setting. 1 There remains confusion over the relationship between "urban decay" and "blight". Lodi First submits "blight" is a legal term to describe conditions identified in the Health and Safety Code. "Urban decay" is a term of art describing store closures, vacancy, deterioration, and neglect. Thus one may find urban decay even where blight is not declared to exist, however a blighted area will typically exhibit signs of urban decay. To this end, existing blight in Lodi is relevant to determining whether urban decay will be significant. z Although the City's legislative decision adopting the RDA (Ordinance No. 1812) has been qualified for election by the referendum process, Lodi First believes the City's decision to certify the RDA's EIR has not - nor has that document been challenged in court. Thus, whether or not the RDA is approved, there was no reason to exclude this project from the EIR. More pointedly, the Council's finding of blight is still relevant to the issue of whether urban decay will be significant and will require mitigation. \ \2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001- 6402\BSJ\86549. doc Mayor Lang Hansen December 10,2008 Page 6 of 22 In addition to constituting a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, failing to consider east Lodi blight necessarily means that concluding the Project is unlikely to cause or contribute to significant urban decay is not supported by substantial evidence. For, "substantial evidence" is defined as "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." Guideline § 15384(b). On the contrary, "Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence." In this case, concluding urban decay will be less than significant while ignoring existing blight and decay in the City reflects an unsubstantiated opinion based on clearly erroneous and inaccurate evidence. b. The EIR Reaches a Faultv Conclusion of "Insufficient Evidence" Ratherthan "Substantial Evidence" One additional error flows from the EIR's treatment of urban decay: a meaningless conclusion that never actually finds urban decay will be less than significant. Instead, the EIR states "The project would include new retailers who would compete with existing retailers in the City of Lodi: howeverthere is insufficient evidence to suggest that this increased competition would result in any business closures, and consequently would not indirectly result in substantial physical deterioration or properties, or urban decay." (EIR at 33). This "insufficient evidence" finding is repeated elsewhere at pages 14 and 35 of the EIR text. Unfortunately, an EIR's findings and conclusions are not evaluated against an "insufficient evidence" standard as the EIR indicates, they are evaluated against a "substantial evidence" standard - which places the burden on the agency to support findings of no impact with substantial evidence in the record. The EIR essentially places the burden on the public to show decay will occur before mitigation is imposed, rather than requiring the EIR to provide evidence that the impact will be less than significant. In short, once the EIR preparers determined they lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether or not significant decay would occur, they were obligated to gather more evidence or find the impact significant and impose mitigation. 4. The EI R's Altematives Discussion Does not Satisfy CEQA a. The E3R fails to Provide a Reasonable Ranae of Altematives that Would Attain Basic ProiectObiectives and ReduceSiciniiicant Impacts \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 7 of 22 CECA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project, or to the location of a proposed project, which would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Guidelines § 15126.6(a). range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects." Guidelines § 15126.6(c). Here, the EIR fails to describe one alternative, let alone a "reasonable range" of alternatives, that both substantially lessens impacts and feasibly obtains most of the Project's objectives as required. The EIR evaluates only three alternatives in detail, none of which would both reduce the Project's impacts and meet most of the Project's objectives. The EIR states the mandatory "no project" alternative would reduce project impacts but would not meet the Project's objectives. Likewise the "reduced project alternative" would slightly reduce some impacts, but "would not entirely fulfill the project objective of developing the project site with a regional shopping center." Finally, the "alternative project location" considers placing the project at Flag City in unincorporated San Joaquin County. According to the EIR this alternative would actually increase impacts while at the same time conflicting with the County's planning and zoning restrictions and failing to fulfill project objectives such as building within Lodi. Therefore, the EIR does not describe a range of alternatives which would both feasibly obtain most of the basic Project objectives and substantially lessen the significant effects of the proposed Project. It describes three projects which do one but not both. To this end, the EIR fails comply with $15126.6. b. Feasible Alternatives Do Fust that Would Both Reduce SianNicant Impacts and Satisfy Project Objectives More pointedly, the EIR's conclusion that "there are no alternativesto the projectwhich could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project which would also avoid or reduce the significant impacts associated with the proposed project to less -than - significant levels" b not supported by the record. Specifically, the EIR sets fairly detailed "project objectives" and then dismisses the three alternatives for failing to satisfy those objectives. However, upon concluding none of the selected alternatives would attain basic project objectives and reduce impacts, because the EIR must discuss a reasonable range of such alternatives, the City is obligated to identify and consider other alternatives that do meet this criteria. Strangely, the EIR ignores four seemingly obvious and feasible alternatives: (1) a "Reynolds Ranch" alternative. (2) an "East \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 8 of 22 Lodi/Redevelopment Area" alternative, (3) a "Proportionate Reduced See" alternative, and (4) a "High Efficiency" alternative more likely to satisfy the two-pronged criteria of § 15126.6 than the two selected in the EIR.3 Because the Flag City alternative was dismissed for failing to meet project objectives of building the project within Lodi. Lodi erred in not considering any alternative locations within Lodi. A "Reynolds Ranch" alternative would locate the shopping center at the mixed-use Reynolds Ranch development located at Hamey Lane and Highway 99. As the EIR notes the City Council approved this project in 2006 - which included a Blue Shield call center, housing, and approximately 350,000 sq. ff, of regional commercial retail - long before Lodi released the EIR in 2007. In 2008 the City Council approved modifications to Reynolds Ranch to allow development of up to 750,000 sq. ft of regional commercial retail. [See October 8, 2008 memo from Bay Area Economics to Rad Bartlam) Because Reynolds Ranch is already approved for commercial development and partially constructed, locating the shopping center at this location would not significantly impact agricultural lands, thereby reducing one of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Another obvious but ignored alternative location would locate the project on Lodi's eastside, likely within the proposed RDA. As noted previously, the City Council adopted the RDA on July 2, 2008 via Ordinance No. 1812, incorporated herein by reference. According to the environmental impact report prepared for the RDA [certified by the Council on June 18, 2008 and incorporated herein by reference), the purpose of the RDA is "to provide a financial and administrative mechanism to alleviate blight and improve physical and economic conditions in the Proposed Project Area." Goals for the RDA include "Stimulat[ing] new commercial, industrial and residential construction," "Rehabilitat[ing] and moderniz[ing] existing commercial, industrial, and residential properties," and "Creat[ing] local job opportunities by preserving and expanding the area's existing employment base." [See Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi Community Improvement Project at 18- 19.) Like the Reynolds Ranch alternative, the eastside alternative also would eliminate all impacts to agricultural lands (the RDA includes no agricultural lands). Moreover, unlike the Flag City alternatives these alternative locations would keep the Project in Lodi - apparently satisfying the objectives not achieved by the Flag City site. Moreover, although the EIR claims urban decay impacts will not be significant, as noted above Lodi First disagrees with this conclusion and the EIR concludes the potential closure of several anchor stones in west Lodi due to over -saturation of the immediate market area. By locating this Project on the east site of town - either in Reynolds Ranch or the proposed RDA, presumably some economic pressure would be alleviated from west Lodi anchor stores and retailers, in tum potentially reducing store closures and decay or blight risks. More pointedly, the RDA environmental impact report explains one 3 The "No Project" alternative is expressly required by CEOA and cannot be substituted. \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10.2008 Page 9 of 22 characteristic of blight is "A serious lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions" - or the very types of operations that the Lodi Shopping Centerwill add to an already-saturatedwest Lodi. Thus; in determining that alternative locations should be considered but any extra - jurisdictional locations would not attain a basic objective of developing the Project within Lodi (and therefore not satisfy § 15126.6), the EIR should have considered alternatives in Lodi or explained why no feasible alternative locations exist in Lodi. The former it did not do, and the latter it could not do: for substantial evidence in the record shows at least two viable Lodi locations that would presumably reduce significant impacts and attain most of the basic project objectives. The EIR also fails to consider a "Proportionally Reduced See" alternative. Specifically, the EIR includes a "reduced stze alternative" - but this alternative should really be labeled the "Supercenter Only Alternative": it keeps the Supercenter at its full 226,868 sq. ft. see, while eliminating the remaining 113,090 sq. ft. of non -Wal-Mart pads and smaller retail on site. According to the EIR this alternative would reduce agricultural land conversion from 40 to 24 acres, would reduce air pollution emissions "by approximately one-third," and would "result in far less energy consumption than the proposed project". Therefore, this alternative substantially lessens impacts from the Project. But according to the EIR, eliminating the "pads" does not satisfy the Project's objectives of developing a regional shopping center, meeting unmet retail demand, increasing sales tax, and capturing sales leakage. The implied predicate of this statement, then, is that the Supercenter use, itself, will not meet these objectives, and the "pads" are necessary to meeting these objectives. The EIR never says a Project that includes the pads only - or even the pads and a reduced Supercenter - would not satisfy this criteria. In light of this information, Lodi should have considered a reduced see alternative that includes a smaller supercenter and a portion or all of the ancillary retail. Such an alternative is feasible - in recent years Wal-Mart has been developing Supercenters as small as 99,000 sq. ft. (see Exhibit "A"4). In fact, the Stockton City Council just approved a 99,000 sq. ft. Supercenter at the Weston Ranch Towne Center Project. [See Exhibit "IB" [staff report and ordinance]). Although a 99,000 square foot Supercenter would not satisfy the applicant's objective of expanding the see of the 4 In fact, Wal-Mart is currently developing a 100,000 square foot Supercenter in Modesto. See January 12, 2008 Modesto Bee article attached. This store will be less than half the see of the proposed Lodi Supercenter. The list also includes Galt (132,000 sq. ft. Supercenter, per Sacramento Business Journal article). Wal-Mart is also developing 99,0005 sq. ft. 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenters in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and Texas. \\2008-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9041-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Lang Hansen December 10,2008 Page 10 of 22 existing 119,684 sq. ft. Lodi Wal-Mart store, a store between 119,684 and 228,868 sq. ft. would. With the EIR's Supercenter Only alternative - the land would be reduced from 40 to 24 acres (orto 60%) and building square footage would be reduced from 339,966 to 226,868 (or to 67%). Thus, after determining that a Supercenter -only alternative would not satisfy the project objectives, the EIR should have considered a true reduced project alternative that proportionally reduces entire project - including the Supercenter - to 601/o. Even under this alternative, a straight 40% reduction in Supercenter size would still leave a Supercenter footprint of 137,320, which exceeds the existing 119,684 sq. fl. Lodi Wal-Mart store by nearly 20,000 sq. ft. and even satisfies the recently added project objective 'To expand the existing Wal-Mart to a Wal-Mart Supercenterwith more retail space and the addition of grocery sales" (EIR at 31). The EIR also fails to consider a "High Efficiency' model Supercenter for the project. In March 2008, Wal-Mart introduced what it touts as its most energy efficient U.S. store - the HE.5 prototype - designed to use up to 45 percent less energy than a regular Supercenter like that proposed for Lodi. See articles attached as Exhibit "C". The HE.5 store, which is western climate -specific and is located in Las Vegas, features advancements in heating, cooling, refrigeration and lighting to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Id Prior to the HE.5 prototype, Wal-Mart developed the HE.1 and HE.2 prototypes, which use 20 to 25 percent less energy than a regular Supercenter, and have been in operation since 2007 and 2008. The HEA and HE.2 §t?, -es operate in Missouri, Illinois, Texas, and Colorado. See articles attached as Exhibit Not only does the City fail to consider an energy efficient alternative, but also the EIR's air quality and energy sections omit an analysis of the energy saving features of these high efficiency stores, which use between 20 to 45 percent less energy than typical Wal-Mart Supercenters and undoubtedly reduce the severity of air quality, health, energy impacts, and climate change impacts. In an area plagued by poor air quality, fuel prices approaching $5/gallon this past summer, and rolling blackouts - in this western climate - the EIR errs in failing to consider a "HE" Supercenter altemative.5 In short, after determining that none of the three selected alternatives would both substantially lessen project impacts and meet most of basic project objectives, the City failed to satisfy Guideline § 15126.6 by not considering other alternatives - such as the 5 The EIR concludes energy impacts will be less than significant, therefore Wal-Mart and Browman may assert considering an HE alternative is unnecessary. Such argument is materially flawed however. As noted elsewhere, the EIR's conclusion the energy will be less than significant i3 unsupported by the EIR because the project design attributes that will presumably reduce energy impacts are not included in the project description and are not included as mitigation measures or enforceable conditions. Moreover, the EIR acknowledges the air quality impacts will be significant. Increasing energy efficiency by up to 451/6 would presumably substantially lessen such impacts. \\2003-prolaw\ProL,aw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doe Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 11 of 22 four described above - to ultimately describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. C. The Record Does notSumort Reiectinathe Proposed Altematives Finally, the EIR's basis for rejecting the three proposed alternatives is not supported by the record and violates Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437 which holds that reasons for rejecting alternatives must be based on substantial evidence in the record (overturning County's rejection of BLM land swap alternative because EIR said BLM opposed land swap but record showed BML was receptive to land swap but developer rejected the proposal). With this Project, the EIR designates the Reduced Project Sim Alternative as the "environmentally superior alternative," but states the alternative is rejected by the applicant because it would not create a regional shopping center, would be "substantially less effective" in meeting unmet retail demand, would be "substantially less effective" in enhancing fiscal resources through sales tax and property tax, in creating jobs, or in reversing retail leakage. However, the record is devoid of evidence showing that the proposed Project will meet these objectives and the conclusion is materially flawed for several reasons. First, although Wal -Mart's representative told the Planning Commission that the project may bring in $790,000 in sales tax revenue, he failed to provide any evidence supporting this conclusion. Rather, he cryptically advised this figure reflected an average of California Supercenters open for 12 months but did not provide any data upon which this conclusion. Such naked conclusions are not fact based and therefore are not substantial evidence. Second, this statement compares apples to oranges and does not account for differing sales tax rates in California; the State's base tax rate is 7.25% and local government receives 1%. But local government can increase this amount subject to proper procedures (generally an election). San Joaquin County has adopted a 0.5% transportation tax increasing Lodi's tax rate to 7.75% - but the City still only receives 1%. Many larger cites in California -from which this speculative $790,000 figure derives - charge significantly higher local tax rates. For example, Stockton. has an 8% sales tax rate and one of the best performing Supercenters in the nation. Thus, with this quarter percent bump, Stockton receives 25% more sales tax than Lodi for every dollar spent. Therefore, including styes in these higher tax markets and styes with higher sales inflates the average above and beyond what will actually be generated in Lodi. Without this information, Wal -Mart's claim that the Project will increase sales tax is meaningless and cannot stand to support rejecting alternatives. \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 12 of 22 5. The EIR Incorrectly lanores Climate Chanae and the Belated MBA Report Does Not Cure this Defect. As explained by Citizens for Open Government, the EIR must evaluate the Project's climate change impacts. Lodi First generally concurs with those arguments an adds the following: Wal-Mart belatedly produced a climate change report prepared by Michael Brandeman Associates - effectively acknowledging the fact that this necessary information is missing from the EIR. Yet, when Citizens for Open Government commented on the need to do this assessment in the draft EIR, the EIR responded that global warming is beyond the scope of the document and falls within §21166's prohibitions on supplemental environmental review. As noted above, this response is factually and legally erroneous. But more importantly, rather than simply do the necessary analysis at that time, the EIR [which Lodi First believes was drafted by - or at least substantially influenced by - Wal-Mart and its attorneys) Wal-Mart waited until after the Planning Commission denied the EIR, and only on appeal to the City Council does Wal-Mart capitulate and address global warming [technically Lodi does not). But this is a case of too little. too late. For, "'[W]hatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report."' Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,405. There, the Supreme Court rejected the Regents' extra-EIR treatment of alternatives because, while it may have allowed the Regents to participate, it deprived the public of participating in the CEOA process: The Regents miss the critical point that the public must be equally informed. Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR, neitherthe courts nor the public can fulfill their proper roles in the CEQA process. We do not impugn the integrity of the Regents, but neither can we countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public, especially in light of CEQA's fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the environmental consequences of action by their public officials. Here, the belated climate change report suffers the same procedural defect as the Regent's rejection of alternatives. Notwithstanding its conclusions, the document was not included in the draft EIR nor was it even added to the final EIR: it only became available to the public a few days priorto the City Council hearing. \\2005-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 13 of 22 This omission i3 indeed prejudicial. According to a September 1, 2007 Real Property Law Reporter article called "Analyzing Climate Change in a Climate of Uncertainty" (and authored by Wal -Mart's counsel) 6 "Given California's political and actual climate today, there i3 a growing consensus among CEOA practitioners that in at least some, if not most, circumstances, even in the absence of an express statutory requirement to do so, governmental agencies will expand the traditional scope of their environmental review under CEOA to consider a project's GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts." The article further explains CERA compliance should come in one of three forms: C',EQA documents may address GHG emissions and a project's potential impacts on climate change by using one of the following approaches: • Limited discussion of the issue followed by a finding that the impact is too speculative for evaluation: • A "qualitative" analysis that discusses the issue in more detail, but ultimately concludes that one or more elements of the analysis are too speculative for determination; or • A "quantitative" analysis that makes determinations regarding the project's anticipated GHG emissions, findings of significance, and the adequacy of feasible mitigation measures. Strangely, even the October 2007 draft EIR -which post-dates both the enactment of AB 32 and this article - does not adopt any of these three approaches: it simply ignores the impact. This is not enough under CEOA and amounts to a failure to proceed in the manner required by law. Accordingly, as noted below the EIR should be revised to include this information and recirculatedfor public review and comment. 6. The ER Errs In its Treatment of Water Supply and Related Impacts. a. The EIR Improper Omits a Reaulred Water- Supply Assessment Before an agency may approve certain projects subject to CEQA. the agency must prepare a water supply assessment and include the assessment in the EIR. See Water Code §§ 10910, 10912, 10911 (b); see also Pub.Res.C. §21151.9. Projects subject to the water supply aunt requirement include proposed shopping centers having more 6 A Copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BST\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 14 of 22 than 500,000 square feet of floor space or employing more than 1,000 persons. See Water Code §10912(a)(2). When the water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, a water supply assessment must discuss and analyze specific information pertaining to groundwater sources and supply. See Water Code §10910(f). An agency that fails to prepare and include a water supply assessment in an ER for proposals meeting the statutory criteria fails to proceed in the manner required by law. In this case, substantial evidence shows the Project will likely employ more than 1,000 persons yet the ER does not contain the necessarywater supply assessment, nor does it explain why Lodi dispensedwith preparing the assessment. During the October Planning Commission hearing, Browman's representative, in touting the Project's purported benefits, stated the Project will create "900 to 1,000 new jobs." See October 8, 2008 Planning Commission Hearing Transcript at 26-27. Thus, by the developer's own admission, the Project likely triggers the statutory duty to prepare a water supply assessment. Moreover, easily accessible information (from Wal -Mart's own website) demonstrates that similarly sized Supercenters alone often employ 600 to 700 employees. See e.g., Wal-Mart Supercenter Store Facts, attached as Exhibit "F". For instance, the 207,000 square foot El Centro Supercenter has 720 employees; the 219,570 square foot Gilroy Supercenter has 650 employees; the 204,000 Yuba City Supercenter has 630 employees; the 216,000 square foot Beaumont Supercenter has 600 employees: the 209,860 square foot Hanford Supercenter has 600 employees; the 207,000 square foot Antelope Supercenter has 655 employees; and the 237,000 square foot West Sacramento Supercenter has 650 employees. And, according to Wal-Mart, a newly proposed 132,000 square foot Supercenter in Galt (roughly 100,000 square feet smaller than the Supercenter proposed for this Project) anticipates employing at least 450 employees. See Chris Nichols, Wal-Mart Eyes New Store Site in Galt, Lodi New Sentinel, attached as Exhibit "G". On average, the above-mentioned Wal-Mart Supercenters employ approximately 3.06 employees per 1,000 square feet. Other studies also show that 1,000 square feet of commercial space generates approximately three employees. See e.g., City of Glendale City Center II Mixed -Used Project DER at 4.2.3, attached as Exhibit "H". Applying a 3.0 employee per 1.000 square foot ratio reveals the Project will employ approximately 1020 persons, above the 1,000 -employee threshold. Moreover, the planned 226,868 square foot Supercenter constitutes roughly sixty-seven percent (67%) of the 339,966 square foot development. Assuming the proposed Supercenter employs as many people as the Supercenters listed above (which is a reasonable assumption, and indeed, highly likely), the remaining 33% (113,098 square feet) of the shopping \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-6402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 15 of 22 center need only employ approximately 300 people to meet the 1,000 employee criteria [or approximately 2.65 employees per 1,000 square feet). Exceeding the 1,000 -employee threshold triggers the duty to prepare a water assessment And, in any event, the EIR should have explained why the Project, based on substantial evidence, will not exceed the statutory threshold. Wholly ignoring the duty to prepare and include a water supply aunt in the EIR, or at a minimum, to explain why such an assessment i3 unnecessary, renders the Project's environmental document legally defective. By omitting this necessary information, the City failed to proceed in the manner required by law. The City must prepare the requisite water aunt prior to considering the revised EIR or approving the Project. b. The EIR Fails to Adeauately Analyze the Prolect's Individual and Cumulative Water Supply Impacts. The EIR omits relevant information regarding the Project's individual and cumulative water supply impacts. These errors violate CEQA's mandate requiring an EIR to address the "reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to a proposed project." See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, (2007) 40 Cal. 411, 412, 434 (emphasis in original). Because the omission of this relevant data precludes informed decisionmaking. the City cannot certify the EIR and approve the Project without first including the necessary water supply impact information and recirculating the EIR for public review and comment. Guideline§ 15088.5. According to the EIR, the Project will have less than significant water supply impacts. DER at 132. This unsubstantiated conclusion is based on the EIR's estimate that the Project will consume 49,397 gallons of water per day and that, according to a City Engineer, "the Lodi Water Utility has sufficient existing water supply to serve the project without adding new municipalwells or water storage facilities." CER at 132. Simply estimating the amount of water a proposed project will consume and then stating that the amount will be supplied to the project, however, is not enough under CEQA. See Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 829-31 (1981). In Santiago, the court held that an EIR for a proposed mining project was legally inadequate where it stated only that the mine would consume 12,000 to 15,000 gallons of water daily and that the local water district would supply the water. The court found that "[W]ithout any 'facts from which to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the [needed] amount of water"' to the project, the EIR was legally defective. Santiago at 829; see also Vineyard at 429, 434 (The ultimate question under CEQA... is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project."). \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\900 J.-6402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Lang Hansen December 10,2008 Page 16 of 22 In this case, the EIR suffers from the same infirmities as the EIR in Santiago and runs afoul of the mandates set forth by the California Supreme Court in Vineyard. The EIR never even identifies the source of the water needed to implement the Project, let alone analyzes the impact of supplying such water to the Project. The EIR instead contains only a naked conclusion, unsupported by any factual data or information, that water supply impacts are less than significant because sufficient groundwater exist to serve the Project. This conclusory statement, however, does not constitute evidence of less than significant water supply impacts. See City of Livermore v. LAFCO, (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 531, 542 (agency's conclusory statement unsupported by evidence is not substantial evidence). In fact, the EIR's conclusion directly contradicts other City documents, including the City of Lodi 2005 Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP"), which establish: (1) the City is currently overdrafting the groundwater basin: (2) this overdraft has adverse environmental impacts: and (3) the EIR did not analyze the impact of providing additional water to this Project. Far example, the City's 1990 General Plan EIR Water Supply section states, "Because overdraft of the acquifer already exists in the GP area (resultingin lowering the water table at a rate of between0.5 and 1.75 feet peryear), it is unlikely that future water demands can be met without increased overdraft and salt water intrusion, unless projected growth occurs in agricultural areas where groundwater pumping is occurring at a rate greater than that required for domestic use. Domestic water demand, however, is estimated to exceed agricultural uses by 2.5 times based on daily evapotranspiration rates (University of California Cooperative Extension 1987) and crop coefficients (University of California Agricultural experiment Station 1985) for grapes." See Draft General Plan EIR at 12-3, attached hereto as Exhibff "I". The 1990 General Plan EIR further provides, '7he overdraft of groundwater has caused the infiltration of saltwater from the San Joaquin Delta. Although salt -contaminated groundwater is not present in the GP area, it can be found a few miles west. Currently, the City relies on groundwater for municipal supplies. Increases in municipal demand caused by development allowed under the Proposed GP would cause continued overdraft. Continued overdraft of groundwater resulting in saltwater intrusion is a significant adverse impact." Id. at 12-6. According to the LAI\A P, "DWR had declared that the groundwater basin underlying Eastern San Joaquin County is overdrafted, and groundwater levels in the County and the City are generally decreasing." . See UANP at 3-1, attached hereto as Exhibit "J". Figure 3-1 of the UVUVP revealsthat groundwater elevation in the basin has dropped 32 feet from 1925 to 2005. Id. at 3-2. \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-6402\BSJ\86549.doc OOp'6t998\PSg\30t9-1006\94uauanaop\MV'IO d\astgoad-8OOZ\\ 'L -E P 'P1 '9661 cauls joaA Ajana PUD '986 L ul Bu1uulB8q play aIDs pa}DwlPa sI1 papaaoxa sD4 Aj1Z)a4� 4DW SI09Aaj 1-t algDl '9-E 10 'PI 'Allz) 941 Aq pa4sllgD4s9 plalA GIDS 4991 woD 000'91 a4+ 10 ssapxa ul Ical ajpD I l0'L l sDM VOOZ ui uoi4onpoid ja4DMpunoj6 �D4� slDanaj dvgmn 944 10 Z -C algDj 'L -C ID 'PI .'UDld tuawaBDuovq jelompunojo uinbDor uos uja4sD3 941 woj� Aluowud D4op buisn pawjo:jad (B xlpuaddy acs) suoijolnoloo aouDloq JOIDM uo pasDq 1pol Bulnjas jagnbD a4l jo} palowl4sa uaaq so4 (SC)OZ 'ollod puD IlempDaal) AjV 000'gl AIa4Dwlxojddo jo play( alos y •ajnl.nj o4l ul 6uidwnd jalompunojB IlDaano sI1 aonpaj of suold Allo 944 pajooj;xa 414uajjnp sl 4D4M uo44 ssal Oul4lawos sl Allo a44 o4 algD11DAD Alddns j94DMpunoj6 IDnuuo algDulolsns 944 4D44 suoaw A4lo 944 Bu1Aljapun japnbo 941 ul slanal JGIDMpunoj6 ;o aulloap Bulnulluoo a4i„ -9-£ #o -pi ,-ulsr)q ja4DMpunojB 941 az111gD4s o1. tJO:49 IDuolBaj D aq 04 9AD4 p1M pqm jo 4jDd sr) wja� Buol 944 ui 6uidwnd ja�oMpunojB sp aonpaj o4 suold A410 944 'ps4l A�1Z) 944 puD 'sjauMo IIaM a1.DAud 'ajn4Inou6o 'sail p ja44o Bulpnloul 'DajD a4} u1 sjadwnd japMpunojB IID Aq uol4pDj4xa ja4oMpunojB jo llnsaj o si u1sDq ja}oMpunojrD Bu!u!loop 941 4rDno44lb' •uisoq ja}DMpunojB s,A41Z) 944 u1 aoold bui�q Alluajjno BulUOJpjano 944 04 anp Alddns ui uoilonpaj wjal-ja6uol D (Z PUD 'spaM aA140D Alluenno sp jo A� pDdDo Buldwnd a4� (I Aq paulDj4suoo sl wa4sAs Alddns japm 4uajjno s,A4lo 941„ 'saplAojd ja4.and dvgmn 941 luawLmdan s3lio,M �Elyn�f E!x' l30 X3!7 :aaanoS ru 4961 4463 9j61 9061 4x01 L7➢ S" 0 9 uol;arnal3 jowmpunojo IroNoii1H : L -E aundid 91 09 a ZZ 10 L l 96Dd 8OOZ "O L jagwaoaa UasUDI-1 AUDI JOADVq Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 18 of 22 Other documents make clear that overdrafling and salt water intrusion constitute significant issues facing the City's water supply, which will most likely be exacerbated by providing water to the Project. Lodi's 2004 Surface Water Supply Options states, "Each year the City of Lodi water system delivers about 17,000 acre-feet of water... In general, groundwater extractions in the City and surrounding area exceed natural replenishment and groundwater levels have been declining for many years. Projected growth will add approximately 5,000 acre-feet of demand on the aquifer system underlying the City." See City of Lodi Surface Water Supply Options at Executive Summary, incorporated herein by reference. Similarly, according to Lodi's Public Works Director, 'The recently -completed 2005 Urban Water Management Plan concisely presents the City's existing a future water supply vs. demand outlook (see Exhibit A). As shown on Exhibit A, the safe long-term yield of the groundwater basin underlying the City is estimated at 15,000 acre-feet annually (AFA). At present the City is using 17,300 afa to meet the demands of existing customers, reflecting a current need for additional water supply and/or conservation." See March 1, 2006 Staff Report regarding Implementing Woodbridge Irrigation District Surface Water Program at 2, attached hereto as Exhibit "K". Exhibit A to the March 2006 Staff Report is depicted below. D(HIBITA 30.600 .... .. _ _. 25.600 20.000 16.000 10,000 5.000 AddIlDnal VNMw 2006 2010 2016 2020 2026 2030 Yew Lw►YpAa sMws�wwis a 1.5%M uwm ■wN1 nY n Lad \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86649.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 19 of 22 The March 2006 Staff Report further acknowledges that "[t]he groundwater basin Lodi shares with other agencies and individual property owners is being mined by over 150,000afa. This results in declining water levels in wells, which reduces yield, increases pumping costs, and impactswater quality as more saline water is drawn into the basin, rendering wells unfit for use" Id. at 3: see also December 20, 2006 City of Lodi Staff Report, incorporated herein by reference, Excerpts from Public Warks Director ["The groundwater basin in which Lodi draws its water i3 being overused to the point the area i3 seeing water quality being adversely affected. -ft is not a sustainable practice."). The above -referenced materials show that significant environmental impacts are associated with increased pumping of Lodi's groundwater supplies. The EIR, however, never discloses or addresses these issues. It is thus impossible to determine the foreseeable impact of supplying additional water supplies to the Project from the groundwater basin. -ft is precisely the type of information the Supreme Court found necessary for an adequate evaluation of water supply impacts under CEOA. See Vineyard at 430-34. Moreover, the EIR's significance threshold for determining water supply impacts is also fundamentally flawed. Fa' purposes of the EIR, "the project would be considered to result in a significant impact to utilities and service systems if it would have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources." DER at 131. It is possible, however, to have a sufficient quantify of water supplies but still have a significant adverse environmental impact from making that quantity available to the Project. In other words, although the Project may be able to pump additional water from the groundwater basin, it may not have the legal right to do so, or doing so may permanently destroy a portion of the groundwater basin. The EIR also fails to evaluate and disclose the Project's cumulative water supply impacts. In fact, the EIR's cumulative impacts analysis omits any information regarding the combined effects of the Project and other reasonably foreseeable projects on water supply. See DER at 141, 143-44 (briefly discussing water quality issues and wastewater collection and treatment capacity, but omitting any mention of water supply impacts). CEOA, however, stresses the significance of a comprehensive cumulative impacts evaluation. See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4t^ 1184, 1214 (2004) .A proper cumulative impact analysis, however, "is vital 'because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources."' Id. \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9401-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 20 of 22 Because the EIR omits relevant information and factual data regarding the proposed water supply and the impact of providing that supply to the Project, it fails to satisfy CEQA's mandate of disclosing and analyzing a proposed project's potentially significant individual and cumulativewater supply impacts. This dearth of information thus prevents the EIR from complying with its informational disclosure requirements under CEQA and from satisfying Lodi's General Plan requirement that 'The City shall provide for an adequate high-quality water supply prior to approving future development." Lodi General Plan at 7-3. Lodi must include this critical information in the EIR and recirculate the environmental document for public review and comment prior to certifying the EIR or approving the Project. Guideline § 15088.5. 7. The El R's Treatment of Energy Impacts is Still Fatally Flawed. The EIR improperly concludes that while the Project will increase energy consumption, "energy conservation measures incorporated into the design the project would avoid wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy." Therefore this impact is designated as "less -than -significant." Because the impact is deemed insignificant, no mitigation measures are identified. The legal error arises from the fact that neither Wal- Mart nor Browman is required to incorporate "energy conservation measures" into the Project. Instead. the EIR assumes compliance with Title 24 of the "California Energy Code" which appears to be minimum building efficiency standards applicable to all construction in California and a list of energy saving features "the Wal-Mart store is proposed to include." Tv&o errors flow from this analysis. Frst, this analysis addresses only energy from the Supercenter and ignores the remaining 100,000+ sq. ff, of the Project. Second, the less than significant finding relies on circular logic. Specifically, the proposed design features are not included the in the Project Description, nor are they included as mitigation measures, and when asked whether Wal-Mart would be open to conditioning project approval on specific energy saving features by Planning Commissioner Kirsten, Wal-Mart opposed. Thus, there is nothing that obligates Wal-Mart or Browman to incorporate the described energy saving features into the Project, and the proposed energy saving features could be abandoned at the drop of a hat should Wal-Mart, Browman, or their successors determine they are infeasible - financially or otherwise. The EIR essentially relies on the fox to guard the energy -conservation henhouse. Such a result turns CEG?A on its head and. once again, renders the EIR's treatment of energy defective. \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\docu3ments\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc Mayor Larry Hansen December 10,2008 Page 21 of 22 8. The Post -Denial information Submitted by Browman and Wal-Mart reauires Recirculation of the ER The City Council should uphold the Planning Commission decision and remand the matter to the Planning Commission to identify specific areas of the EIR that need redrafting. Thereafter any revised EIR should be recirculated for public comment. But even if the Council is disinclined to support its Planning Commission's determination, recirculation is still necessary. Significant new information has become available since the EIR was finalized, which requires the City to revise the EIR to include the information and to recirculate the environmental document for public review. See Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, (2001) 87 Cal. App. 41" 99,130- 31. Failing to do so deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the Project's environmental consequences and precludes informed decisionmaking. See Guideline§§ 15088.5,15003(a) -(f). In this case, significant new evidence regarding urban decay, global warming, and alternatives has subsequently become available since the City prepared the final EIR. Far example, evidence regarding feasible alternatives that the developer and W01 - Mart refuse to implement, such as a reduced size alternative, a high efficiency alternative, and an alternative location (such as in Reynolds Ranch) have not been appropriately considered in the EIR process. Wal-Mart itself even submitted information regarding an existing store expansion alternative on December 8, 2008. Evidence of feasible alternatives that clearly will lessen significant environmental impacts constitutes "significant new information" triggering a duty to recirculate. Guideline§ 15088.5(a) (3). Moreover, after the Planning Commission refused to certify the EIR, Project proponents, including Browman, Wal-Mart, and their consultants, submitted significant new information regarding the Project's environmental effects, including a Climate Change Analysis, an Analysis of Taxable Retail Sales, and a depiction of a feasible alternative for expanding the current Wal-Mart store location. The belated introduction of this significant new information does not substitute for critical information lacking in the EIR. Such information "must be subjected to the same 'critical evaluation that occurs in the draft stage,' so that the public is not denied an 'opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informedjudgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom."' Save Our Peninsula at 131. In other words, the information must be subjected to the "test of public scrutiny." Id. Notably, Wal-Mart has a course of conduct of advocating as little environmental review as possible, instead taking the risk that members of the public will not sufficiently raise \\2003-prolaw\ProLaw\documents\9001-5402\BSJ\86549.doc EXHIBITA WalMart opens Supercenter in Orangevale - Sacramento Business Journal: Sacramento Business Journal - May 20,2008 hftp //sac ramento.biziournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/05/19/dally2l.html Tuesday, May 20 , 2008 WaNart opens Supercenter in Orangevale Sacramento Business Journal - by Kelly Johnson Staff writer Page 1 of 1 Orangevale gets its first Wal-Mart Supercenter on Wednesday with the opening of a store at 8961 Greenback Lane. The 107,00o -square -foot store, open aroundthe clock, will employ more than 285 people. Its grocery department will offer bakery goods, deli and frozen foods, produce, meat and dairy. The Supercenterwas built with energy-efficient features to reduce energy and water consumption and reduce waste, including skylights, LED lighting, sensor-activatedfaucets and concrete flooring made in part with recycled materials. To mark the store opening, WWa1-Mart_.Stares Inc.. (NYSE: WMT) M11 give $1 8,000to local organizations. All contents of this site ©American (Hy Business Journals Inc.All rights reserved. http://sacramentobizjoumals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/05/ 19/dafy2 thtmM=printable 7/17/2008 Wal-Mart In the News Copyright 2008 The Modesto Bee The Modesto Bee (California) Distributed byMcClatchy-Tribune Business News February 29,2008 Friday BUSINESSAND FINANCIALNEWS 20080229 -MO -Wal -Mart -is -to -open -next -year -0229 423 words Wal-Mart is to open next year The Modesto Bee, Calif. Page 1 of2 LexisNexis- Feb. 29—The smallest Wal-Mart Supercenter in California is to open in Modesto in early 2009,according to company officials. The store, at 3848 McHenry Ave., will occupy one building that previously housed two stores in the North Point Landing Center. Aaron Rios, a California spokesman for Wal-Mart, said the store will be 105,000 square feet, slightly smaller than a supercenter that Wal-Mart opened in Sanger lastyear in what was formerly a Kmart. The Modesto supercenterwill have grocery items, including full produce, bakery, deli and meat counter areas, Rios said, along with items found at a standard Wal-Mart store. Rios said the supercenter will complement, not replace, an existing Wal-Mart store i n Modesto on Plaza Parkway. Wal-Mart also has a store in Ceres and plans for a supercenter in that city. The building that will house Modesto's supercenter has been home to a variety of tenants overthe years. Most recently, a SavMax store dosed there in 2002, and a Rite Aid dosed in the other half of the building in 1998. Wal-Martwill knock out an interiorwall in the building to create one store. Rios said site work will begin as soon as the Bentonville. Ark. -based retail giant receives permit approval from the city of Modesto. The supercenterwill need about 350 employees, Rios said, and generate about $500,000 in local sales taxes. Hiringwill begin about three months before the store opens, Rios said. Employeeswill get wages comparable with the average Wal-Mart pays in Stanislaus County — $11.67 an hour-- Rios said. The store will have a budgetfor contributingto local nonprofit groups, as other Wal-Mart stores do, he said. Wal-Mart Supercenters have been controversial in many cities — indudingTuriock, where they prompted a virtual ban — because of their effect on local economies and use of nonunion labor. Rios said Wal -Marts experiencewith supercenters in California suggeststhat consumerswill like what they find at the new Modesto store. "Once they're open, they're well-received," Rios said. "Its really an opportunity both for us to open a new store and for customers to save more money." http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=2708&topic... 8/22/2008 Studies for Wal-Mart project under way I Union Democrat I Sonora News, Sports, & Weather, Angels ... Page 1 of 2 do Print this Studies for Wal-Mart project underway October28,2008 12:00 am ByALISHA WYMAN The Union Democrat As one grocery store owner has announced plans to open in Sonora, Wal-Mart is navigating the application process to add a second new store. Wal-Mart officials sought Sonora City Council approval in January to expand the Sonora store by 27,477 square -feet dedicated to grocery sales. The city has contracted with San Ramon firm Michael Brandman Associates to complete the Environmental Impact Report. Jason Brandman, executive vice president and project director, estimates the report should be complete by early next year. A series of studies are examining traffic impacts, whether it will hurt other area grocery stores, lighting, watershed and other environmental issues. 'We may potentially have significant impacts resulting from the project," he said, adding that his firm will recommend ways Wal-Mart could mitigatethe effects. The studies are still underway, so Brandman couldn't detail the firm's findings so far. The existing 130,166 square -foot store was approved in 1992 as part of the Sonora Crossroads Shopping Center off of Sanguinetti Road. A 30,000 -expansion pad on the east side of the building was included in the original project. The store will help boost the local economy with job creation and other economic growth, as unemployment rises in the county, City Administrator Greg Applegate said. 'We've got to get some jobs going here; we've got to get some economic vitality going on, because we can't rely on the state government," he said. 'We can't rely on the federal government." The new grocery offerings at Wal-Mart will be in addition to a new grocery store slated to replace Albertson's in The Junction shopping center. Albertson's closed in February 2007 and left 65 employees without work. Randy Toy, owner of a grocery store in Stockton, plans to open a store called PriceCo in its stead. A languishing economy hasn't shaken Toy or Wal-Mart from their goals. Stores like Wal-Mart usually do market studies of the area before plunging into the local business arena, Applegate said. 'They're not about to make an investment not knowing they're going to have a positive return," he said. http://www.uniondemocrat.comlindex2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93928&pop=1&pag ... 12/10/2008 Studies for Wal-Mart project wider way j Union Democrat I Sonora News, its,& Weather, Angels ... Page 2 of 2 The two stores are essentially replacing John Sierra Market and Albertson's, he added. Wal-Mart officials did not return a call in time for publication. After completion of the EIR, there will be a 30 -to -45 -day public comment period. In addition to written comments, the city will hold a public hearing. The consultant will examine the comments and give a reply. It's up to the Sonora Planning Commission to approve or deny the final project. ContactAlisha Wyman at awyman@uniondemocrat.com or 588-4526. Close Window http://www.uniondemocrat.com/index2.php?option=com content&task=view&id=93928&pop=1&pag... 12/10/2008 Page 1 o f2 Sonora Wal-Mart expansion plan in works Published: January 11,2008 By REBECCA HO WES The Union Democrat Wal-Mart wants to expand its Sonora store by nearly 27,500 square feet. The City of Sonora Planning Commission will hold a public meeting Monday regarding the proposed expansion of the store, at 1101 Sanguinetti Road. The meeting is to discuss the project's environmental ramifications. Addressed will be city Community Development Director Ed Wyllie's recommendation that an environmental impact report be completed before a site plan and design review of the expansion proj ect proceeds. An original EIR, prepared 15 years ago and before the store was built, advised that further environmental review may be required if major changes to the project were made. The existing 130,166 square foot building at The Crossroads shopping center, if expanded as proposed, would grow to 157,657 square feet. "The proposed expansion would be grocery oriented. Wal-Mart is possibly taking advantage now that Albertsons is gone," City Administrator Greg Applegate said. The Albertsons store in East Sonora closed almost a year ago and has remained empty. Raley's, a West Sacramento - based chain of supermarkets in California and Nevada, holds the lease on the still -vacant store in The Junction shopping center. The closure of Albertsons left 65 employees withoutj obs. The proposed expansion of Wal-Mart would create 100 to 150 new j obs and increase the sales tax revenues for the city, Applegate said. The existing sboe is not open overnight, however, the proposed expanded store, if approved, would be open 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Should the project be approved, parking spaces will increase from 787 to 876, which meets the city's zoning code requirements of one space per 200 square feet for retail use. Additionally, the project would improve existing ADA parking spaces along the front of the building. The existing Wal-Mart store was approvedby the City of Sonora as part of the Sonora Crossroads Shopping Center prof ect in 1992. Included in the original project was a 30,000 -square -foot expansion pad on the east side of the building. The environmental review of the original project acknowledgedthe expansion pad, but it did not include development of the pad at that time. http://www,uniondemocrat,com/news/story_print.ofm?story_no=25468 8/22/2008 Page 2 of 2 The expansion area to the east of the building was rough graded when the shopping center was built and now houses storage containers. "We are not allowing for urban sprawl. The area is already equipped for sewer and water lines. As a city we have concentrated on keeping the stores confined in a concentrated commercial area," Applegate said. Since 15 years have passed since the first EK a new environmental report should be prepared by a consultant in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act and city EIR guidelines, Wyllie said. Giving Sonora residents mxe choice when grocery shopping, increased sales tax revenue for the city and the creation of new j obs all contribute to the overall positive outlook Wyllie and Applegate share for the proposed project. "I don't anticipate much muss or fuss," Wyllie said. "I feel pretty optimistic." Neither Wal-Mart representativesnor RSC Engineering, a Roseville firm which submitted a site plan and design review applicationto the city on Wal -Mart's behalf, would comment. Contact Rebecca Howes at 5 8 8 4 5 31 or rhawes@uniondemocrat . cam. http://www.uniondemocrat.conVnews/story_print.cfrn?storyno=25468 8/22/2008 W41 -Mart downsizing plans for Galt store to a hybrid format - Sacramento Business Journal: Page 1 o f3 Sacramento Business Journal - October 8,2007 htto:/ /sacramento.biziournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/ 10/08/ newscoIumni.htmi R1►i►ttlltlt�f�1 Friday,October 5, 2007 Wal-Mart downsizing plans for Galt store to a hybrid format Retailer hopes approvals will come more quickly with new site, size Sacramento Business Journal - by Kelly Johnson Staff Writer W.aL-XIaAStor..es.I=.. has moved to Plan B for Galt, with a site and smaller store that the giant retailer hopes will be more satisfactoryto the community. For several years Wal-Mart had expressed interest in -- but had no formal agreement for -- building a grocery -selling " supercenter" store in a 40o,000 -square -foot shopping center proposed for east of Highway 99 between Boessow and Simmerhornroads. Now Wal-Mart is in escrow for io acres a couple of miles away, at Twin Cities Road east of Fermoy Way, and has submitted plans to the city for a store cf 132, 000square feet. This store would sell groceries, but it would be a blend of traditional Wal -Marts and the company's larger supercenter format of more than 200,000 square feet. The proposed Wal-Mart also wouldn't be subject to a superstoreban the city is mulling. Galt city leaders are considering an ordinance that would ban stores bigger than 40, 000square feet and require extra studies for stores of more than 1oo,000 square feet. That requirement wouldn't be a problem for Wal-Mart, company spokesman Aaron Rios said, because the company already routinely includes the analysis the city is considering. Even so, Wal-Mart objectsto the proposed ordinance. The city's planning process already has the tools available to evaluate proj ects on an individual basis, Rios said. The proposed Wal-Mart is still several years away, Rios said. But Wal-Mart expects that this site and smaller store could get through the approval process and start serving customers sooner than the other location it was eyeing. The Twin Cities Road site has the appropriate zoning with no big constraints, though traffic will be an issue, said Crt Campion, Galt's community development director. Wal-Mart would become Galfs largest store, even at the smaller size. Galfs largest retailers now are grocery stores. Wal-Mart would employ about 45 o people. The retailer is still working on estimates for the amount of sales tax revenue the store would produce for the city. http://sacramentobizjoumals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/10/08/newscolumnl.html?t=printable 6/28/2008 Wal-Mart downsizing plans for Galt store to a hybrid format - Sacramento Business Journal: Page 2 of 3 While Wal-Mart has moved on, SouthemCalifomiadeveloperP..ZJ?artnersis stillworking dwoughthe planningprocess for 56 acres on which it wants to build the 400,000 -square -foot shoppingcenter. Baby fashion maker goes retail After 18years of selling wholesale socks for babies and toddlers, and other footwear, clothing and accessories, designer Jon Stevenson has opened his first retail lomtim of Trumpette. Trumpette opened in 1,000 square feet Aug 28 in Gold River at 2095 Gold River Lane. Stevenson, who moved himself and the business to the Sacramento area four years ago from Petaluma, figured his product line — with 427 separate stockkeeping units — was now large enough to warrant a store. He'd like to have five stores open within two years, either company-ownedor through licensing agreements. Stevenson, 52, said this region could support another store, perhaps in east Sacramento, Roseville or Sacramento-- he'd love to land in the upscale Pavilions center. Trumpette's colorful tights, socks designed to look like shoes, Maryjane rain boots and other items are sold through 32,000 vendors, including Bloomingdale's, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue stores, catalogs and Trumpette's Web site. Through a year-old deal with The Walt D sneg.Cot, Trumpette also can market itself in connection vdffi Disney (NYSE DIS) and sell its products at Disney's stores, parks and resorts. About 60 percent of Trumpette's business is baby socks sold in six-packs, Stevenson said, but the company sells a variety of products for babies and lads up to age 7. Stevenson had two menswear stores in San Francisco two decades ago when he discovered a void in the baby fashion industry. He was a new single father of an adoptedbaby boy when his au pair, out with the baby, would hear complimentary comments about the cute girl. After Stevenson had a romper printed in front with the word "BOY on it, others wanted to buy it. Trumpette was born. Tx Mpette.Ir -!., the wholesale business, employs 50 people in Rancho Cordova. Manufacturing is done overseas. In the past five years, revenue has grown by loo percent and the work force has grown to 50 from four. Now, v&h the store open, Stevensonwants to increase Trumpette's involvementwith charitable groups. Sacramento center sold Evergreen Center, a 29,823 -square -foot shopping center at 5575 Mack Road in Sacramento, has changed hands for nearly $7.9 million. The buyer is Li1at.-..B.eal...Hol.dings in Los Angeles, which was represented by Michael Pourmirza of SpVan.Ncm. It is the company's firstpurchase in Greater Sacramento. Brett Machale of C$.... Richar�tlEllis represented the seller, a Sacramento-basedfamily trust. Evergreen Center, built in 1985 on 2.94 acres, is i o o percent occupied. Its tenants include AutoZone and 7 - Eleven. http://sacramento.bizjoumals.comisacramentolstories/2007/10/08lnewsoolumnl.html?t=printable 6/28/2008 DATE: April 4,2008 TO: Interested Persons FROM: Chris Erias, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Galt Wal-Mart Project. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: April 4,2008 through May 5, 2008 The City of Galt is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Galt Wal-Mart project located within the City of Galt. The document is being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Section 15082 states that once a decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency (the City of Galt) must prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP)to inform all responsible agencies that an EIR will be prepared. The purpose of the NOP is to provide sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable responsible agencies to make a meaningful response regarding the scope and content of the information that should be included in the EIR. Comments are also being solicited from the `public. PROJEC DESCRI F Project Location The project is located in the City of Galt, California. Galt is located within Sacramento County and is approximately 27 miles south of Sacramento and 92 miles northeast of San Ftanciseo. Highway 99 runs north to south through Galt and provides the major regional access to the City (See Figure 1). The project site is located at the southeast comer of Twin Cities Road and Fermoy Way. The proposed project site consists of approximately 11.26 acres on a single undeveloped parcel (See Figure 2) identified as Sacramento Ca mty Assessor's Parcel Number (APN)148-0074-058. The existing land uses surrounding the proposed project site are as follows: • North: Twin Cities Road abuts the project site to the north. Undeveloped property exists outside the current City limits beyond. • South: The Emerald Senior Village abuts the project site to the south. • East: A single family residential development (Rancho San Jon) abuts the project site to the east • West: Fermoy Way abuts the project site to the west across from which is a developed commercial shopping center that includes a Raley's Grocery Store and a Dollar Store beyond. Highway 99 is located less than a'/2 mile to the west. Galt Wal-Mart Project/ Notice of Preparation/2 Project Components The proposed project includes the development of the approximately I I.26 -acre site and construction of an approximately 133,279 square foot Wal-Mart store, including a 6,030 square foot (s.f.) fenced outdoor garden center (See Figure 3). While the project site plan currently illustrates a 133,279 s.f. store, this EIR evaluates a maximum conservative not -to -exceed size of 137,277 square feet. The building would be oriented toward Twin Cities Road with vehicle access points on Twin Cities Road and Fermoy Way. Table 1 lists the components included in the floor plan for the proposed project. Table I Project Floor Plan Components General Merchandise SalesArea 69,119 sq. ft. Grocery Sales Area 24,999 sq. ft. Retail Tenant Area 782 sq. ft. Stockroom Receiving Area 11,803 sq. ft. Ancillary Area 7,247 sq. ft. Grocery Support Area 7,909 sq. ft. Indoor Garden Center 5,390 sq. ft. Outdoor Garden Center 6,030 sq. ft. Total Area 133,279 sq. ft. Necessary entitlements for the development of the proposed project would includethe following: • Certification of the EM, findings, and MMP • Sihe Plan and Design Review; • Sign Permit; • Architectural Review; and • Conditional Use Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The City has reviewed the proposed Galt M1+19rtproject application and has determined that the MR should address the following issues. Each issue chapter will include a discussion of the existing setting, the thresholds of significance, evaluation of potential impacts, mitigation measures, and monitoring strategies. Land Use — The Land Use chapter will evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with the City of Galt's adopted plans and policies. The chapter will address the City's General Plan, Northeast Area Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, as well as any other appropriate documents such as the recently Galt Wal-Mart Project Notice of Preparation/ 3 adopted Big Box Ordinance, to address consistency issues, The chapter will further assess the compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed. The land use chapter will identify land use impacts and mitigation measures and will note any inconsistencies or incompatibilities with adopted plans and policies created by the approval of the proposed project. Aesthetics — The Aesthetics chapter will summarize existing regional and project area aesthetics and visual setting. The chapter will briefly describe project -specific aesthetics issues regarding development of the proposed project such as scenic vistas, scenic highways, existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding areas. In addition, the potential impacts related to the light and glare associated with retail centers in close proximity to residential uses will be analyzed. This chapter of the EIR will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. Transportation and Circulation — The Transportation and Circulation chapter will describe existing traffic conditions, existing plus project traffic conditions (near-term), and cumulative traffic conditions (including with and without the proposed project). This chapter will be based upon a Traffic Impact Study prepared specifically for the proposed project. The chapter will also include standards of significance and methods of analysis, and will describe the impacts associated with the traffic and propose mitigation to reduce the level of impacts. The traffic chapter will summarize the existing and planned regional and local transportation network as well as existing and future traffic conditions. The chapter will identify traffic loads and capacity of street systems including level of service standards for critical street segments and intersections. In addition, a detailed site circulation and access review will be conducted to determine the adequacy of the proposed site plan in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Construction traffic, emergency access, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities will also be discussed and analyzed to ensure adequacy of the proposed facilities based upon existing City of Galt plans. Air Quality and Climate Change — The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter will summarize the regional air quality setting, including climate and topography, existing ambient air quality, regulatory setting, and presence of any sensitive receptors such as hospitals, convalescent homes, and schools near the project or roads providing access to the project site. This chapter will be based upon an Air Quality Study prepared specifically for the proposed project. The air quality impact analysis will include a quantitative assessment of short-term (i,e., construction) and long-term (i.e., operational) increases of criteria air pollutant emissions of primary concern (i,e., ROO, NOx, and PM,o) using the most current Urban Emissions (URBEMIS), an ARB -approved emission factor computer modeling program. Emissions of onsite sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with the proposed land uses and resultant impacts to nearby sensitive land uses are anticipated to be minor and, therefore, will be qualitatively discussed. Local mobile source carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations will be assessed using the CALINE4 model for any intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E or worse). In addition, detailed emissions calculations for diesel particulate based on expected activity levels will be prepared and a model run using the AERMOD dispersion program to estimate annual average concentration at sensitive receptors. The pzrject's cumulative contribution to regional air quality will be discussed, based in part on the modeling conducted at the project level. increases in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGxi.e,, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) attributable to the proposed project will also be quantified and included in the cumulative air quality impact discussion. The significance of air quality impacts will be determined in comparison to SMAQMD-recommended significance thresholds. SMAQMD-recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated to reduce any significant air quality impacts and anticipated reductions in emissions associated with proposed mitigation measures will be quantified. Galt Wal-Mart Project/ Notice of Preparation 14 Noise - The Noise chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. This chapter will be based upon a Noise Study prepared specifically for the proposed project. To assess potential construction noise impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure to the proposed project area (considering topographic barriers and distance) will be identified. Noise levels of specific construction equipment will be determined and resultant noise levels at nearby receptors (at given distances from the source) will be calculated. To assess potential operational noise impacts, traffic noise modeling will be conducted based on daily traffic volumes to be obtained from the traffic analysis to be prepared for this project. Traffic noise modeling will be conducted for existing, existing -plus -project, and cumulative -plus -project scenarios. The assessment of long-term noise impacts will also include an analysis of stationary source noise impacts associated with the proposed project. This analysis will include an evaluation of the potential for proposed onsite noise sources to affect nearby noise -sensitive receptors. The significance of noise impacts will be determined in comparison to state and local noise standards. Feasible mitigation measures will be identified for any impacts found to be significant or potentially significant. Energy - The Energy chapter will be based on Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. The chapter will consider the potentially significant energy implications of the proposed project. The chapter will identify the energy consuming portions of the project during construction and operations, and describe the existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the area. The EIR will describe potential impacts and propose mitigation measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. Public Services - The Public Services chapter will summarize setting information and identify potential new demand for services on water supply, storm water drainage, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, law enforcement, fine protection, and schools. The chapter will be based upon consultation with the appropriate City and other agencies in order to address public services and utilities and obtain the most recent information. Impacts to law enforcement will be determined based upon a Police Services Impact Report prepared specifically for the proposed project. This chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies, Socio -Economics- The EIR will include a Socio -Economics chapter to determine the extent to which the project will impact the existing retailers and shopping centers within the City and market area to determine potential impacts associated urban decay or deterioration. This chapter will be 1 amd upon an Economic Impact Study prepared specifically for the proposed pmject. The Economic Impact Study will include an acmual sales estimate, primary market area definition, competitive suns reconnaissance, vacancy analysis, and an analysis of retail sales leakage. The study will also assess the proposed project's impact on existing primary market area stores, address cumulative impacts, provide a determination regarding urban decay, and project fi ml revenues. Cumulative Impacts - The EIR will discuss and evaluate the cumulative development that would occur independent of, but during the same timeframe as, the proposed project, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. This chapter will determine whether project - level incremental contributions to impacts evaluated in the EIR are cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(ax 1) defines a cumulative impact as "[...I an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." Other Issues to be Addressed - The EIR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to impact existing on-site biological resources and the quality of stormwater runoff. Galt Wal-Mart Project / Notice of Preparation/ 5 ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will include an analysis of several project alternatives, includingthe No Project Alternative. The alternatives section will "describea range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The EIR will include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. The significant effects of the alternatives will be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project. The EIR will also include a discussion of the environmentally superior alternative, and a description of alternatives considered but rejected from detailed analysis. At this time, the alternatives to be analyzed by the EIR are still under consideration. Input is sought from the public as to alternatives to be included in the EIR. SUBMITTING COMMENTS To ensure that the full range of project issues and alternatives related to the proposed project are addressed and that all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Written comments or questions concerning the EIR for the project should be directed to the following address by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 5,2008. City of Galt Planning Department ATTN: Chris Erias 495 Industrial Drive Galt, CA 95632 (209) 366-7230 (209) 744-1642 fax planning@ci,galt.ca.us In addition, a scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday April 23,2008 at 6:00 P.M. at the Galt Police Department Community Room, 455 Industrial Drive to receive verbal and/or written comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP). All comments must include full name and address in order for staff to respond appropriately. Galt Ml+brtProject / Notice of Preparation 16 Figure 1 Regional Location Map Raney Planning andWaganent, 2008 30 0 30 60 Miles Galt W3l+brtProject/ Notice of Preparation/ 7 Figure 2 project parcel. To date, only three parcels have not been developed with senior home units. 1 i 1 O•ddD .- "j .�._�.! � � ' nuw)ol�u > twsa !��' � ' �; �I i L•.�. Y _lam 1.'-=�----- -- — �•1----#----- ,; �Ti�-w � ••• � r / �•�.•,• / a 11' Hiw Naa.� IMM W r a �''• i , J YII 1 �1 ,. _ �J �'� n' � r Y `�..A `,. 1 `•ro It �'hd'�VIfYL "r"'ar`�+i'i � •. '(y � y � I N � •• 'S +ta rf � 1 nwrm wael a i 1, k i �; y > n.rY.+Mrro+�wn.a ( C'i • 'c ..o-�tis„', :�: -v1l1 _ a WWI" IIIIgW h i s GS I s m. rx • J INaM.atalwn _ ./ ,•� :! � ; ' 1 �+'vs �}'1 _. ! ,.� . C.. ^ ,,,_. -, ss''."•"'' „�.� 1 is t 1 M Is. alr) r e w vn �y .��11�.w11 Y19QSIfOIi ; � ' •. jj1 ,•.J��...•�.,. _..., ....... w. .a ...... • y.. • ` �•-•'— 11� y � ^ .Aim 4 ._; .1 K 'w_Jbjil ry.�J.�• %a' ", � ^.'°fir �1.:� t_._.� v,'® 1� �i �' rar .�; � '•' 'L ,�=':.�' x. l:•'CI' :'!rl':'_ _L� D:"Y +•�, ❑' w,x'•III o ®'.. .bla —MON waw w arw raaauw are •. 'Y••� ; i ��•� '. ` ,. ti � . �..... ,.. (.... 1 ... •) EE yy ��! Q. C......:5 C�f Ju �pp7� apaaWIs�lwlH1Mawar•aaNywwuOalww.ofaarw>Moa�a.ar.owwlaCrrwr+ru 1a1wawo1a■1xwwwYrwv1lla._0�weM(aIl+wrNlawwyMl®fAeQ®b ..,-y�'''. .•. -. � c ,,. i�.4".a �"••.. I� ..\Ii.'I`��•,w.....,.��. ,:QSa. .11Lh_ ._"Z: Jy ora t1111 1e weal lw.! Fit .l.i..iin'nw:'l°a,��la4 :l .. C:e:'N- all Ypl .../ '�:•� '•�a•I�/v.r., v � .ti � ala/Aal wwwlal Natl1Y01w1® ,� `„ LY ���'� �v�s'a��w"e � 1Y11Mi0U11 aN1eY(0Y i 1191d 04IS 118W RM f aanolg S / uowndaJa;o SODOM / laefoid WN -FIA ROD EXHIBIT B Resolution N6.08 m 0477 STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR5-04) FOR THE WESTON RANCH TOWNE CENTER PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS: The City Council of the City of Stockton, after careful review and consideration of all comments received, and after using its independentjudgment, hereby approves the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Project and adopts the Findings. Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitorina/Reporting Proa ram for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Proiect, for property located on the west side of Manthey Road between Henry Long Boulevard and French Camp Road as set forth in the report of the Planning Commission filed with the City Council on December 2,2008, based upon the following findings: It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 5-04) and adopt the "Findinas of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitigation Monitorina and Rer)ortina P.roaram for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Proiect" (Findings), prior to, or in conjunction with any related discretionary actions for which the Commission is the final decision-making body. Similarly, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council certify FEIR5-04 and adopt the related Findings prior to, or in conjunction with, any applicable discretionary approvals for this project, based on the following findings: 1. The Draft EIR and Final EIR have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Guidelinesfor the Implementation of CEQA. 2. The FEIR has been reviewed and considered prior to any related project approvals, reflects the City's independent judgment, and has been found to be adequate for said approvals. 3. The anticipated benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable or unresolved adverse environmental effects, as supported by the Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Weston Ranch Towne Center commercial project. 4. Based on the significant and/or potentially significant environmental effects identified in Final Environmental Impact Report for the Weston Ranch Towne Center (FEIR5-04) and pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 cf the State CEQA City Atty Review Date November 20.2008 Guidelines, all applicable approvals are based on, and subject to the adopted findings, mitigation/measures and mitigation monitoring/reporting provisions, as specified in the Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Weston Ranch Towne Center project PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ::ODMAIGRPWISE%COS.COD.CDD Library:72115.1 P" December 2,2008 PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR6-04) AND REZONING (Z-13-04) REQUESTS OF VESTAR CALIFORNIAXXVI11, LLC, ET AL. (Page 2) The Weston Ranch Towne Center project initially proposed a 232,000 square foot Wal- Mart Supercenter and a 134,720 square foot major retail building on the same parcel within the overall shopping center. The original project included other retail stores for a total maximum floor area of 710,000 square feet on a 54 -acre site. However, on August 14, 2007, ft City Council passed an ordinance to prohibit retail stores larger than 100,000 square feet with 10 percent or more of the floor space for the sale of groceries. Subsequently, the applicant revised the project to comply with the ordinance. The revised project reduces the floor area of the proposed Wal-Mart store to 99,996 square feet and removes the second large major retail store (134,720 square feet), so that the floor area of the shopping center will not exceed 481,000 maximum square feet at build -out. Background At its regular meeting of October 23, 2008, the City Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the requests of Vestar Califomia xXVIII, LLC, ET AL for a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR5-04) and adoption of the related California Environmental Qualii Act "Findinos, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Rrogram for the Weston Ranch Towne Carder ftl ", Rezoning (Z-13.04), Tentative Map (TM34-06), Vesting Tentative Map (VTM11-08), and Use Permit (UP89-04), to allow the construction of a regional shopping center and Variance (V-1-08) for property located on the west side of Manthey Road between Henry Long Boulevard and French Camp Road. The environmental document and Rezoning require final approval by the City Council. Accordingly, a public hearing has been scheduled for consideration and determination by the City Council, Council action is not required for the Tentative Map, Vesting Tentative Map, Use Permit and Variance, as there was no appeal filed. Present Situation Environmental Clearance (FE I R5.04) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR544) for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Project was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and City Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. in addition, the mitigation monitoringlreporting provisionsand related Cal Komia Environmental QualityActfindings are included in the related "Findings, Mitigation Mon Rodna/ReAortinc Program for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Prolect" (Caldomla Environmental Quality Act Findings). The City Council must adopt all December2,2008 FEIR5-04) AND applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR5.04) and the related California Environmental Quality Act Findings in conjunction with approval of any related discretionary authorizations. Rezoning (Z-13-04) The rezoning request would rezone a ±45 -acre project site from RL (Residential, Low Density) to CL (Commercial, Large -Scale) to allow construction of a regional shopping center. Tentative Map (TM34-06), Vesting Tentative Maa (VTM11-08), Use PermitUP( 89-04) and Variance (V-1-08) As noted above, the Planning Commission also considered and approved the related discretionary applications for the project site, subject to the City Council's approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Rezoning applications. Since these applications were not appealed to the City Council, these exhibits are being transmitted for informational purposes only. Information related to the above -noted environmental clearance and discretionary applications for the project is provided in the staff report to the Planning Commission, attached as Exhibits 1 through 16. PUBLIC HEA DISCUSSION Following staffs presentation to the Planning Commission on October 23, 2008, the applicant and a representativefrom Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. spoke in favor of the request. The applicant provided a brief chronology of the project and explained the reasons why the project took six years to process. He indicated that the project was delayed because of the entitlement requirements, change in ownership and the "Big Box" ordinance that was adopted by the City, which resulted in revisions to the project, The size of the Wal-Mart store was reduced to comply with the new ordinance. He stated that several community meetings were held to receive input from area residents regarding the types of businesses they would like in the retail shopping center. Further, he stated that development of the regional shopping centerwin providejob opportunKles for local residents and would generate tax revenue for the City. The applicant met with staff at the San Joaquin Regional Transit District and discussed ways to design and integrate public transit stops within the shopping center to provide easy access for the public. Commercial building design will comply with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards including energy-efficient heating, ventilation, lighting and air conditioning, water -efficient irrigation systems and devices, ride sharing programs and the design of bicycle enhancing infrastructure connecting to an existing 271 December2,2008 PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR6-04) AND REZONING (Z-13-04) REQUESTS OF VESTAR CALIFORNIAXXVIII, LLC. ET AL. (Page 4) bikeway system within the community. The applicant stated that this Wal-Mart store also would have a budgetfor community giving and provide charitable opportunities for community non-profit organizations particularly in the south Stockton area. Several Planning Commissioners expressed concern regarding security issues once the shopping center commenced operation and directed staff to prepare a condition regarding a security plan as part of approval of the Use Permit (see security condition No. 31 of U P8" listed below). Area residents spoke in support of the project. They indicated that development of ft shopping centerwould benefitsouth Stockton residents. There was nothing in this area and they were in need of a shopping center. When the shopping center begins operation, south Stockton residents would no longer need to drive to shop in Lathrop. Tracy, or the Eight Mile Road and North Hammer Lane areas. Further, the retail stores would provide employment opportunities for the local residents and generate more tax revenue for the City. The area residents stated that allowing the shopping center in Weston Ranch would bring new residents to the area and keep the existing ones from leaving. A former Wal-Mart employee spoke in opposition to the project. He expressed concern about the future security problems in the shopping center. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Following the public hearing and its deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7 to 0) to recommend that the City Council approve the following actions based on the findings, as contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibits 1 through 16): 1) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR4-05) and adopt the CEQA Findinas. Statement of Overridina Consideration and Mitiaation 2) Rezoning request (Z-13-04). In addition, the Planning Commission approved the related Tentative Map, Vesting Tentative Map, Use Permit and Variance, based on the findings and subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report, as modified by the Planning Commission, for Tentative Map (TM34-08), Vesting Tentative Map (VTM11-08) and Use Permit (UP89-04): 272 December2, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(FEIR5-04) AND REZONING (Z-13-04) REQUESTS OF VESTAR CALFORNIA XXVIII, LLC. ET AL (Page 5) FINANCIAL SUMMARY There Is no financial impactto the City's departments from this action. PUBLIC rlFll Notice in the local newspaper at least one time, ten days priorto the public hearing and notice to owners of record as shown on the last equalized tax rol and addresses within 300 feet of the site, at least ten days prior to the public hearing (Stockton Municipal Code Section 16-420). VOTES REQUIRED Fourvotes of the C i Council are necessaryto approve the noted requests. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED BY MI HAEL NIBL C ECRETARY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION J. GORDON PALMER, JR. CITY MANAGER MMN:JL:fw ::ODMAIORPWISE%COS.CDD.CDD_Llbrary:71978.1 273 EXHIBIT C Envisioning a Sustainable T-uture Lee Scott announces goals for energy efficiency and supply chain China Sustainability HES Opens Let the Contest Begin! Two -lay meeting held Most energy efficient U.S. First Sustainable Business Plan in Shenzhen retail store opens its doors competition is April 18 Opens 0 EM Energy Efficient U.S. Retail Store In March 2008, Wal-Mart Styes, Inc. opened its HES prototype in The HE.Sstore features advancements inheating, cooling, LasVegas, Nev. The HE5 is a western climate-specificstorethat is up refrigerationandIightingtoconserve upto45percent more energy to 45 percent more energy efficientth an the baseline Supercenter. than the baselineWal-Mart Supercenter and reduces refrigerantuse The store is partof Wal -Marts h ig h efficiency series of HE.1, HF -2 by 90 percent. Thesetechnologiesinclude: and HES prototypesthat incorporate manyyears of research, experiments, partnershipsand pilots, and will ultimately become Wal-Mart'sstoresofthe future. Building upon leamingsfrom the HEI and HF -2 stores that Wal-Mart opened in 2007 and 2008 respectively, the HE5 beginsa new series of prototypesdesigned for specific climates.The HES is western climate -specific, meaningthe efficiency gains are made possible by innovationsdesigned for the unique conditions of the region. Specifically, the HES includes new evaporativecooling and radiantfloori ngtechnologies that together provide a cool, comfortable shopping environment while using less energy. Additionally, the stores include aI I of the industry-leading technologiescurrently being installed i n new Wal-Mart Supercenters, such as white roofs, daylight harvesting systems, light-emittingdiodes(LEDs) ingrocerycasesand highlyefficient bathroom fixtu res. Given the climate -specific nature of the HF -5 store, this prototype will only be built in regions where its innovations can providethe greatest benefit. Additionally, because most cfthe pioneering technologies are housed on the roof a n d withi n the walls, floor and ceiling of the building, the HES store will look and feel much like typical Wal-Mart Supercenter. Wal-Mart is working to stay on the leading edge of sustainable building practicesand is comm ittedto openly sharing its leamings with the retail industry and the world. Increasingthe efficiency of i is stores isjust one moreway Wal-Mart is movingtoward its goal to open a viable prototype that i s 25 to 30 percent more efficient by2009, Indirect EvaporativeCooling: The new indirect evaporative cooling system cools water naturally by pumping itthrough roof-mountedtowers and then running the cold water underneath the retail floor to cool the shopping area. Radiant Flooring: Most retail buildings use heating, ventilating and air conditioning(HVAC) units locatedthroughoutthe storeto cool the ambient air. With Wal -Marts radiantfloor system, coldwater is circulated underneath the sales floor, coolingthe ambient air dosestto customers as itfloats upwards. The radiantfloor is much more efficient than a conventional air-cooled system and significantly reduces maintenance costs. continued to page 8. _ March 2008 Update ' '�'i d 7 Wal-Mart Opens Its Most Energy Efficient HE Retail Store continued from page 9... Integrated water-sourceformatrefrigerationsyslem: All of Wal -Mart's high-efficiencystores contain 100 percent integrated, water -source format heating, cooling and refrigerationsystems that reclaim waste energy from the refrigeration u nits. This, as with the HE2projects, utilizesa medium temperature, secondary loop system driven by modu lar ch il ler concept th at both improves overall system effrciency and reduces the refrigerant charge by 90 percent. LEDmotion-sensing case lighting: All of Wal -Mares high efficiencystores contain motion-activatedsensors in IM lighted cages, illuminating merchandiseas customers approach and conserving energy when shoppers are not nearby. LEDs with motion sensors use 70 percent less energy than industry standard fluorescent bulbs and can lower a Supercenter'soverall energy use by approximatelythree percent. The total energy savings for LID lightingwith motion sensors is more than 120,00okWh peryear, enough energy to power 11.5 singlefamily homes (11,020 kWh average annual usage)for an entire year. Water conservation 1n restrooms: Restroom sinks in newly constructedWal-Mart stores contain sensor -activated 1/2 gallon per minute highefficiency faucets, reducingwaterusageby78percent comparedto currently mandated 1992 EPA standards. I n newly constructed stores and sant clubs, Wai-Mart also installs high efficiency urinalsthat yield an 87 percent reduction in water usage and low-flowtoiletsthat yield a 20 percent reduction inwater usage. Water to rbines are also built into each faucet and similar turbines are inthe automatictoi let flush valves. During use water flowing through the turbines generates the electricity neededto operatethe sensors. Miiarch 2008 Update 8 WaMart Stores, Inc. - HaMartIntroduces Its MEt Energy Efficient U.S.FeWl Store Page 1 of 1 WP&*FAAff a Wal-Mart Introduces Its Most Energy Efficient U.S. Retail Store Latest prototype is expected to save up to 45 percent more energy than the baseline Wal-Mart Supercenter Las Vegas, Nev., March 18,2008 —Today, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. introduced its most energy efficientU.S. store —the BE.: prototype—that will use up to 45 percent less energy than the baseline Supercenter. Building upon leamingsfrom previous high efficiency stores Wal-Mart opened in 2007 and 2008, the HE.5 begins anew series of prototypes designed for specific climates. This facility is western climate -specific, meaningthe efficiency gains are made possibleby innovations designed for the conditions of the region. 'Wal-Mart is piloting new technologies, driving innovation and leveraging advances in building design to better align our stores with the communitieswe sere," said Charles Zimmerman, Wal-Martvice president of Prototype and New Format Development. "We are committed to openly sharing our leamings with the retail industry and the world because being more energy efficient is something everyone can benefit from" The HE5 store features advancements in heating, cooling. refrigeration and lighting to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the store takes the integrated water -source format systemthat Wal-Mart piloted in its successful high efficiency stores and adapts it to the unique local climate by adding evaporative cooling and radiant flooring technologies. The new HE.5 system reducesthe temperature of water naturally by pumping it through roof-mounte( cooling towers then runs the cold water undemeaththe retail floor to cool the shopping area. Together, the systems provide a comfortable shopping environmentwhile using less energy. "The Western Cooling Efficiency Center at the University of California. Davis, applauds Wal -Mart's cooling system design k the new Las Vegas store," said Richard Boume, WCEC associate director. 'We believe this i s the most efficient cooling system implemented in a major retail facility. This project recognizesthe very significant opportunity to integrate advanced natural coolingfeatures in dry climates, thereby reducingthe needto build new peak powergenerating plants." Giventhe climate -specific nature cfthe HE.5 store,this prototypewill only be built in regionswhere its innovationswill providethe greatest benefit. Wal -Mart's highefficiency series of HE.I, HE.2 and HE.5 stores build upon manyyears of research, experiments, partnerships and pilots, and will ultimately help Wal-Mart reach its goal to design and open a viable store prototypethat is 25-30 percent more energy efficient by 2009. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart discount stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club locations it the United States. The Company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, EI Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. The Company's securities are listed on the Ne, York Stock Exchange under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartstores.com and www,walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com and www.samsdub.com. http://www.mkat-tstozes.ccm/PrintCmtemt.aspOid=:836 4/3/2008 EXHIBITD Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart to Open Second Generation High -Efficiency Store Page 1 of 1 Wal-Mart to Open Second Generation Ug h -Efficiency Store Retailer Unveils First of Four Stores That Use 25 Percent Less Energyand Significantly Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bentonville, Ark. January 15,2008 —Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) today announced the opening of its second generation of High-Efficiencystores (HE.2) that will use 25 percent less energy than the baseline Wal-Mart Supercenter. The first store will open in Romeoville, III., on January 23. The store combines what the company has learned from its successful first generation High -Efficiency stores (HE. 1) with new state-of-the-arttechnologies. In addition to saving energy the new stores will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by lowering refrigerant by 90 percent. Leslie Dach, Wal -Marts executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations, made the announcement at the National Retail Federation's 97th Annual Convention& Expo in New York City. "These stores are another solid step toward achieving our environmental commitments," said Dach. 'We will continue to fine new ways to build stores that have a reduced impact on the environment and ultimately reach a day when every new store is 25-30 percent more energy efficient than it was in 2005." The improvement i n energy efficiency comes from a new secondary refrigeration loop combined with an advanced water - source heating, cooling and refrigeration system. The technology was tested in Wal -Mart's ExperimentalStorps and uses a non -refrigerant -based solution to cool refrigerator and freezer cases, resulting in a 90 percent reduction in refrigerant. The HE.2 stores represent the first time secondary loop technology has been paired with a water -source heating, cooling and refrigeration system in the United States. 'We've learned a lot since we opened our first HE,1 store one year ago and we are excited to put what have learned into practice with the HE.2,' said Charles Zimmerrnan, vice president of prototype and new format development at Wal-Mart. "The secondary loop system is ideal because it not only makes the store more efficient, but also allows us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a perfect example of how Wal -Mart's culture of encouraging learning and driving innovation often yields additional environmental paybacks that can benefitthe entire retail industry." The HE.2 series will incorporate several learningsfrom the HE.I stores and new technological advances, including white roofs, low -flow bathroom faucets, LED lights and an advanced daylight harvesting system. For more detailed, technical inforrnation, please visit www.walmartfacts.com. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Wal -Marl Stores, Inc, operates Wal-Mart discount stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club locations it the United States. The Company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, EI Salvador. Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. The Company's securities are listed on the Ne, York Stock Exchange underthe symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartstores.com and www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmartcom and www.samsdub.com. http: //wah artstozw . ccWPrintCcnixmt. agm0i&786 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Garland Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Page l o f4 WAL* 1AU0 Garland Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Innovative energy-efficientstore anchors neighborhood revitalization GARLAND, Texas, May 1, 2008— Distinctive elements and special features abound throughout the new Wal-Mart Supercenter opening May 7 in Garland. Customers at the newly relocated store will find a merchandise mix created with their preferences in mind, including family-oriented departments, bold colors and popular foods. The store is also builtto minimize its impact on the environment as the latest of Wal -Mart's High-Efficiencystores to open. Located at 1801 Marketplace Dr., the store anchors the 48 -acre Centerville Marketplace West shopping district nearthe intersections of LBJ Freeway/Interstate 635, Northwest Highway and Saturn Road. The city of Garland spearheaded the effort to replace a dilapidated apartment complex and other properties and then attract new development. The store is part of a neighborhood revitalization effort that brings new energy to a formerly declining area. Local officials and community leaders will join Wal-Mart representatives to celebrate the store's opening with a 7:30 a.m. ribbon-cuttingceremony May 7, followed by an all -day celebration. "It's been wonderful to see this area revitalized and experiencethe enthusiasm surrounding our opening," said Store Manager Daryl Scoggins. He was born and raised in Garland, graduatingfrom Garland High School in 1984. He chose to return to the area to manage the new Supercenter. "I am so excited about coming home to Garland," he said. "The city of Garland acted on its vision to replace blighted properties with a center bustling with retail, restaurants and other businesses I'm proud to be a part of it." The Garland store is the latest High -Efficiency Wal-Mart Supercenter to open. The HE.2 store is designed to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use 25 percent less energy than a typical Wal-Mart Supercenter. By incorporating some of the most innovative products in building today, the HE.2 prototype uses many of the energy improvements from the first generation High -Efficiency (HE.I) stores, such as the one in nearby Highland Village. HE.2 stores feature industry-leading advancements such as integrated heating. cooling and refrigeration systems, and lighting innovationsto conserve energy. (Editors' Note: See page four for more information on High -Efficiency stores.) Store Designed for Local Tastes Since its original opening in 1987, the Garland store has focused on sewing the needs of the nearby community. With its relocation, the 195,912 -square -foot store features a full line of groceries and several new time -saving features and services Wal-Mart paid attention to the shopping patterns and preferences of its customers and designedthe store to reflect the loco community. As a result, the store will make fresh corn and flour tortillas and chips daily. The deli will also offer fresh-baked bolillo and pandulce. and the produce department will include an expanded selection of bananas, plantains, chilies and spices. Customers can pick up bulk packages of specially marinated meat, rice and beans. Near the entrance, shoppers wii find a La Michajuice bar and a special shop with merchandise for the latest holiday or upcoming sporting event. Customerswill enjoy shopping with their families throughout the store, induding its new youth -oriented departmentthat displays children's furniture, bedding and home decor together. Bold colors, popular brands and the latest fashions fill the store's apparel and homed6cor sections. The store also has expanded its selection of children's and infant apparel and accessories. In addition to the latest electronics, the store offers a wide variety of Span ish-languagemusic, movies, games and other entertainment choices. The new Supercenterwill have a Wal-Mart MoneyCenter to assist customers who are outside of mainstream banking with http://walmartstores.com/PrintContent.aspx?id=8253 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Garland Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Page 2 of 4 convenient access to low-cost money services, including check cashing, money orders, bill payment and money transfers. For added convenience. there will be a vision center, a pharmacywith two drive-through lanes, a digital photo processing center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. Leased areas and services include a SmartStyle Family Hair Care salon, DaVi Nails salon. a Subway restaurantand a branch of First Convenience Bank. Commitmentto Community Continueswith $18,000 in Grants As part of Wal -Mart's commitmentto the communities in which they operate, the newly relocated store is continuing its support of the area by contributing $18,000 to local charitable organizations. The Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club will receive a $5,000 contribution to help with its after-school programs. Garland Summer Musicals will receive a $2.500 grant t underwrite scholarships and youth -oriented productions. Garland High School will receive a $2,500 grant to upgrade computers used in its classrooms. Other grants will provide support to the families of police officers and fire fighters who have died in the line of duty and help members of the militarywho have suffered spinal cord injuries. "in addition to cash contributions, we've supported these agencies and other community charitable efforts for years by hosting fund-raisers, providing volunteers, and giving in-kind merchandise donations," Scoggins said. 'We think of them as our community partners and consider it a privilege to support the good work they do." Wal-Mart Provides Local Jobs The store plans to employ approximately 650 associates upon opening. Due to its relocation,the Supercenter has added more than 175jobs. "Many associatesjoined because they know they have the opportunity for a long-lasting career at Wal-Mart." Scoggins said Like three-fourths of Wal-Mart store management, Scoggins started his own career with the company as an hourly associate. Hejoined the company in 1994, gathering carts and stocking shelves at a store in Benton, Ark. He is one of 52 o the store's associates who have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years. Ribbon -cutting Celebration7:30 am, May 7 Community and business leaderswill join Wal-Mart associates for a brief ribbon -cutting ceremony at 7:30 a.m., Wednesday May 7, and doors to the new store will open at 8 a,m. Throughout the day, activitieswill include numerous product samples character appearances and giveaways. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Every week, millions of customers visit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club locations across America or log on to its online store at www.walmartcom. The company and its Foundation are committed to a philosophy of giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is proud to support the causes that are importantto customers and associates right in their own neighborhoods, and last year gave more than $296 million to local communities in the United States. To learn more, visit www.walmartstores.com, or www.walmarffbundabon.org. EDITOR'S NOTES • An invitation -only open house for VIPs, Wal-Mart associates and their families is scheduled for Saturday, May 3, from 6to 8 p.m. Previewtours will be provided and checks will be presentedto representativesfrom community organizations. Reporters and photographersare welcome. • Daryl Scoggins, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviewsand arrange for photo opportunities or tours. He can be reached at 972-278-8077. STORE FACT SHEET Garland Wal-Mart Supercenter Store facts • Location: 1801 Marketplace Dr., Garland, Texas • Originally opened in 1987 at 3159 Garland Ave. http: //wa]martstores . can/PrintOmterispx?id=825 3 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - G m3and Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Page 3 of 4 • 195.912 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • Store opens at 8 a.m., Wednesday, May 7, after a 7:30 a.m. ribbon -cutting ceremony • Store manager: Daryl Scoggins Store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products, fresh produce, beer and wine section. • Merchandise departments include apparel and accessories, finejewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids and a full line of electronics. • Convenience services include a money center, vision center, digital photo processing center, Wal-Mart Connect Center and a pharmacywith two drive-through lanes. • Leased areas and services include a La Michajuice bar, SmartStyte Family Hair Salon, DaVi Nail salon, a Subway restaurant and a branch of First Convenience Bank. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • Twenty full-serviceand 10 express check-out lanes Charitable giving $18,000 in charitable contributions to eight area organizations • City of Garland Parks and Recreation Department • Garland Civic Theatre • Garland High School • Garland Summer Musicals • Guns N Hoses Foundation o Paralyzed Veterans of America • The Achievement Center of Texas • The Salvation Army Boys and Giris Club Employment • The Supercenter plans to employ approximately 650 associates upon its opening. Due to its relocation, the store has added more than 175 associates. • Fifty-two of the store's associates have worked for Wal-Martfor more than 10 years. • Store Manager Daryl Scoggins was born and raised in Garland. He started his Wal-Mart career in 1994 as an hourly associate, working as a cart pusher at a store in Benton, Ark. • The averagewage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in Texas is approximately $10.55 per hour.* • Wal-Mart benefits—available to eligible full- and part-time associates — include healthcare insurancewith no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, stor( discount cards, company performance-based bonuses, stock purchase program and life insurance. * Average wage taken April 2008. See www. wa/martstores.comfordetails. HIGH -EFFICIENCY STORE INFORMATION Garland Wal-Mart Supercenter The Garland, Texas, store is the fourth Wal-Mart Supercenter classified as an HE.2 energy-efficient prototype. The stores are located in a variety cE climate zones to evaluate hoar the systems perform and expected to use 20 percent less energy than a typical Supercenter. The stores feature i nd ustry-lead i ng advancements such as integrated heating, cooling and refrigeration systems, and lighting innovationsto conserve energy. In July 2005, Wal-Mart opened the first of its experimental stores in nearby McKinney, Texas, followed by the opening of a similar store in Aurora, Colo., in November 2005, with the hope that successful experiments could someday be incorporate( into new store prototypes. The Garland High -Efficiency store brings many of these experiments to life. httpY/walmartstores.com/PrintContent.aspx?id=8253 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Garland Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Page 4 of • To achieve a 25 percent overall energy reduction, the Garland store uses a 100 percent integrated water -source format heating, cooling and refrigerationsystem, where water is hamessedto heat and cool the building. • The store also introducesa numberof new and improved technologies, such as a state-of-the-art secondary loop refrigeration system, to gain a 5 percent improvement in energy efficiency over an H E.I store. This improvement comes from a streamlined design of the water -source heating, cooling and refrigerationsystem, coupled with the new secondary refrigeration loop. This is the first time secondary loop technology has been pairedwith a water -source system. Additional Energy -Efficient Store components include: • Motion -activated light -emitting diodes (LEDs) in refrigerated and freezer cases, plus additional glass doors on deli and dairy cases • Optimized pump packagethat is 50 percentsmaller than the HE.I store and uses even less copper piping • Industry-leading daylight harvestingtechnology • Reflectivewhite membrane roof • Recycled construction materialssuch as fly -ash, slag, integrally colored concrete floors, and plastic baseboards and chair rails • A state-of-the-art M unters Dehumidification system is expectedto increase overall store energy-efficiencyby roughlytwo percent. .Restroom sinks use sensor -activated, low-flowfaucets. The low-flowfaucets reduce water flow by 84 percent, while the sensors save approximately20 percent in water usage over similar, manually -operated systems. In 2007, Wal-Mart opened a series of HE.1 stores in Kansas City, Mo.; Rockton, III.; and Highland Village, Texas. In Januar 2008, the first HE.2 prototype store opened in Romeoville, III. Others have since opened in Bemalillo, N.M., and Wichita, Kan. Wal-Mart is now introducing its next generation of energy-efficient U.S. stores, the HE.5 prototype. The first HE.5 prototype opened in Las Vegas in March 2008.. These stores use up to 45 percent less energy than the baseline Supercenter. Building upon learnings from previous high efficiency stores Wal-Mart opened in 2007 and 2008, the HE.5 begins new series of prototypes designed for specific climates. The retailer's high efficiency series of HE.I, HE.2 and HE.5 stores build upon many years of research, experiments, partnershipsand pilots, and will ultimately help Wal-Mart reach its goal to design and open a viable store prototypethat is 25-30 percent more energy efficient by 2009. Wal-Mart customers are increasingly becoming familiar with the company's energy-saving innovationsas they are introduced in stores opening across the country. Many new stores now feature daylight -harvesting systems that minimize electricity usage during periodsof bright sunlight, motion sensor -driven LED refrigerated and freezer case lighting and polished concretefloors that reducethe need for harsh chemical cleaning products. http://wahnarWores.com/PrintContent.aspx?id=8253 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern Iltino ... Pagel of 4 LY/ J V JI F a Wal-Mart Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern Illinois, Usini 20 Percent Less Energy See "Related Resources" below to download the HEA press kit and high resolution images Newprototype to test conditions incoo/er climate; Supercenterto bring economic benefits Rockton, III., March 14, 2007 — Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. today announced the opening today of b second High -Efficiency Wal-Mart Supercenter in Rockton,lli., expected to use 20 percent less energy than a typical Supercenter. The High - Efficiency Supercenter is the second of four to open this year, located in a variety of climate zones to evaluate how the systems perform. The store features industry-leading advancements such as integrated heating, cooling and refrigeration systems, and lighting innovationsto Conserve energy. Wal-Mart opened its first High -Efficiency store in January in Kansas City, Mo. "At Wal-Mart, being a good business and a good steward of the environment go hand-in-hand," said Charles Zimmerman, vice president ofPrototype and New Format Design. 'This series of higher -efficiency stores is an important step toward reaching one of our environmental goals -- designing and opening a prototypethat is 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2009. By incorporatingthese technologies into a working store, we are demonstratingthat more efficient store designs can save energy, lower utility costs and reduce emissions. Those are savings that we can pass along to our customers." In 2005, Wal-Mart opened two experimental stores in McKinney, Texas, and Aurora, Colo„ with the hopethat successful experiments could someday be incorporated into new store prototypes. The Rockton High -Efficiency store brings many of these experiments to life. • To achieve a 20 percent overall energy reduction, the Rockton store uses a 100 percent integratedwater-source format heating, cooling and refrigeration system, where water is harnessed to heat and cool the building • Energy-saving motion-activatedlight-emitting diodes (LEDs) in refrigeratorand freezer cases are expected to create a two to three percent energy reduction. • A state-of-the-artMunters Dehumidification system is expected to increaseoverall store energy -efficiency by roughl 2 percent • Many floors are made of integrally colored concrete instead of carpet or tile, reducing the need for certain harsh chemical cleaning products • All baseboards and chair rails are made of recycled plastic • Restroom sinks use sensor -activated, low-flowfaucets. The low -flow faucets reduce water flow by 84 percent, while the sensors save approximately 20 percent in water usage over similar, manually -operated systems "The new heating, cooling and refrigeration systems are fully integrated so that 100 percent of the excess refrigerantheat ic pumped back into the HVAC," said Jim McClendon, Wal-Mart Chief Mechanical Engineer.'That means heat which would have been released into the air is reclaimed and converted into usable energy. We are actively sharing this technology and other learningsfrom our High -Efficiency stores with the entire commercial industry, including our competitors." Wal-Mart is now installing motion sensor -driven LED refrigerated and freezer case lighting in its new stores, the first commercial LED installationof this magnitude in U.S. retail. LED lights have a longer life span than fluorescent bulbs, produce less heat and use significantly less energy than typical grocery case lighting. In the High -Efficiency stores, LED http://walmartstores.com/PrintContent.aspx?id=6341 611912008 Wdl-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wa-Mrt Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern I11ino ... Page 2 of 4 lights have been installed in freezer and refrigerated cases, and doors have been added to cases in the deli and dairy sections. To save energy, the motion sensor -driven lights in these cases automatically tum off when not in use for a few seconds, then quickly turn back on when a customer approaches. Many environmentally beneficial features of the store are nearly indiscernible to customers and associates. For example, th daylight harvesting system uses skylights to refract daylight throughoutthe store and light sensors to monitor the amount of natural light available. During periods of higher natural daylight, the system dims or turns off the store lights, thereby reducing energy use. Although the amount of artificial lightvaries, the state-of-the-art system makes the lighting changes virtually seamless. 'We are excited to open this new High-EfficiencySupercenter, bringing reliable. comfortable, convenient service to the Rockton community," said Store ManagerAlicia Lawrence. "Our new store featuresthe latest in energy-savingtechnologiw and Wal -Mart's new interiordesign and most importantly providesthe community with the continued value of every day low price that brings them through our doors." New Interior Designs and Layout add to One -Stop Shopping Convenience The Rockton Supercenter interior features earth tones, wide aisles and concrete flooring for environmentallyfriendly maintenance. New signage and lower shelves help customers quickly locate their selections in a large format store. A large home organization departmentfeatures the sleek new line of exclusive SELECT edition® GE small appliances. The home department also contains a large infant section complete with a selection of baby cribs, youth furniture and infant car seats. Wal -Mart's newly expanded electronics department offers the latest DVD players, music and other electronics, including a wall display of top brands in plasma and H D N. As a Supercenter, the store also contains a full line of grocery items, including bakery, delicatessen, meat, dairy, frozen foods, fresh produce and organic selections, as well as a complete liquor department. The store has a family apparel department highlighting Wal -Mart's new GeorgeQ line, organic Baby George clothing, health and beauty aids, household needs, toys, an expanded lawn and garden center, jewelry and shoes. For added convenience, the Supercenter has a Tire & Lube Express, a vision center, a pharrnacywith two drive-through lanes, a one-hour photo lab, a family fun center, and a Wal-Mart Connect Center, Additional leased space and services include a Regal Nails Salon. a Cost Cutters Hair Salon, a Subway restaurant, and a branch of Members Alliance Credit Union. The store will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week with 18full-service and eight express check out lanes. Morethan 1,000 applications for400 newjobs According to store manager Alicia Lawrence, the store has received more than 1,000 applications for the 400 new positions planned at the store. W e have had many people interested in working at the store, and Ithink its becausethey see the benefits and career opportunities Wal-Mart has provided for many of their friends and neighbors in the state," says Lawrence. Lawrence, like more than 75 percent of Wal -Mart's store managers, started as an hourly associate in menswearsales in Ottawa. Ten of the Rockton store's associates haveworked for Wal-Martfor morethan 10years. As of February2007, Wal-Mart employed 45,758 associates in the state of Illinois. Indudingthe newest Wal-Mart Supercenter in Rockton, the company currently owns and operates the following facilities i n the state: Supercenters: 59 o Discount Stores: 78 • Sam's Clubs: 28 • Distribution Centers: 4 $25,500 in Grantsto Local Organizations http: //wOm mtstores.=iVpdntCcntmt.agm0i&6M 6/19/2008 kVid-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern IDino... Page 3 of 4 According to Lawrence, as part of the new store's commitmentto the community, the Rockton Wal-Mart Supercenterwill announce $25,500 in donations to local organizations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program. Like all Wal-Mart stores, the Rockton Wal-Martwill provide grant dollars throughout the year to help its neighborhood organizations. (Editors note: For a complete list of grant recipients, please seethe Fact Sheet, attached. Area organizations interested in learning more about funding from Wal-Mart or are interested in raising money at Wal-Mart stores can contact the store for details, or go to www.walmartfoundation.org. Grand Opening Celebration The grand opening ceremony begins at 7 a.m. with area dignitaries and local representatives present to share in the community celebration on March 14. Additional grand opening activities planned throughout the day include product samples, giveaways and character appearances. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Every week, more than 127 million customersvisit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club locations across America or log on to its online store at www.walmart.com. The company and its Foundation are committed to a philosophy of giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is proud to support the causes that are important to customers and associates right in their own neighborhoods, and last year gave more than $245 million to local communities in the United States. To learn more, visit www.walmartfacts.com, www.walmartstores.com, or www.walmarffoundabon.org. EDITOR'S NOTES • Media is welcome to attend the preview night for VIPs, Wal-Martassociates and their families before the store opens, scheduled for Mon., March 12, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. • Preview tours will be provided. Video and photography will be allowed, as well as on Grand Opening day. Please contact Wal-Mart (800)331-0085 ifplanning to attend so we can add you to the guest list. FACT SHEET Rockton Wal-Mart Supercenter Store Fast Facts o Location: 4781 E. Rockton Rd., Rockton, III. 0 205,147 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • 7 a.m. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, March 14; doors open at 7:15 a.m. • Second High Efficiency, Energy -Saving store to use 20% less energy o Store manager:Alicia Lawrence (See press kit at at the bottom of this release for details on energy efficiency areas.) Basic Store Features • General merchandisedepartments including family apparel with an expanded infant section, a household organization department, health and beauty aids, household needs, expanded electronics department, toys and crafts, lawn and garden supplies, jewelry and shoes o Other special features: Tire & Lube Express, a vision center, a pharmacywith two drive-through lanes, a one-hour photo lab, a Regal Nails Salon, a Cost Cutters Hair Salon, Subway restaurant, a Wal-Mart Connect Center, a Family Fun Center, a branch of Members Alliance Credit Union and a complete liquor department o Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week http://walmartstoxis.ocm/PrintOmtent.aspOid=634 6/19/2008 W61 -Mart Stores, Inc. - Gift Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern I l lino ... Page 4 of 4 Employment 0 400 planned newjobs, more than 1,000 applicants o The average wage at Wal-Martfor full-time hourly associates in Illinois is $10.91 per hour.* o Lawrence, like 76 percent of other store managers, started as an hourly associate. Her firstjob was as a menswear sales associate in Ottawa. o Wal-Mart benefits — available to fuIl- and part-time associates — include healthcare insurancewith no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. *Average wagetakenDecember2006. See www.walmartfacts.com fordetails. Charitable Giving $25,500 in charitable contributionsto several area organizations: o American Legion#0332 Walter Graham Post o City of Rockton o City of Rockton Fire Department o City of Rockton Police Department o C i of Rockton-TalcottFree PublicLibrary o City of Roscoe Parks Department o Goldie B. Floberg Center for Children o Harlem Roscoe Fire Protection District • Hononegah Community High School o Macktown A. Living History Education Center o Oldstone Church Food Pantry o RocktonChamber of Commerce o Rockton Lions Club Charities o Roscoe Chamber of Commerce o Stateline FamilyYMCA of Beloit, Inc. Click here to learn mme about Wal-Mart in Illinois http: //wa martstores . coWPrintC,cntent. asW ?id=6M 6/19/2008 Val -Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart to Open First High -Efficiency Store; SupercenterExpe... Page 1 of 4 i A � Wal-Mart to Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expected to Use 20 Percent Less Energy Wal-MartExtends Environmental Efforts to Kansas City— Donates $110,000in In -Kind and Cash Contributions to Local Community *Attention Journalists* See "Related Resources" for downloadable press kit and high resolution images of the Kansas City High -Efficient Supercenter Attention N stations: Broadcastquallty video availablefor download Bentonville, Ark., Jan. 18, 2007 — Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. announces it will open tomorrow in Kansas City, Mo. the first in a series of High -Efficiency stores that will use 20 percent less energy than a typical Supercenter. In addition to the cutting- edge technologies already found in Wal-Mart stores, the new High-Efficiencystores will integrate industry-leading heating, cooling and refrigeration systems to conserve energy. High-Efficiencystores will help the retailer move one step closer to achieving its environmental goals, which include using less energy and producing less waste. "Just over a year ago, our CEO Lee Scott challenged our associatesto open a store that was 25 to 30 percent more efficier by 2009." said John Menzer, vice chairman, Wal-Mart Stores. 'The Kansas City High-Efficiencystore is the first of its kind, and shows Wal-Mart is capable of operating stores, clubs and distribution centers in a way that saves energy, lowers utility costs, reduces emissions, and above all. provides a better shopping experience for our customers." In 2005, Wal-Mart opened two experimental stores in McKinney, Texas, and Aurora. Colo., to test several different environmentallyfriendly technologies, rangingfrom wind powerto pervious pavement, from waterless urinalsto light - emitting diodes. The aim was to experimentwith innovative technologies, with the intentionthat they could some day be incorporated into a store prototype. The Kansas City High -Efficiency store is the first store to bring some of these experimentsfrom the preliminary testing phase to a practical trial phase. Wal-Mart plans to open the next High -Efficiency store in Rockton, III., this spring. "We are learning a tremendous amount from our experimental stores." said EricZom, president, Wal-Mart Realty. "Wal -Mai stores are already some of the most energy-efficient in the retail industry, but we want to take efficiency even further. This new Supercenter is where we really get to put what we've learned into practice, and we're excited to reach a 20 percent energy reduction so quickly." To achieve the 20 percent energy reduction at the new Kansas City High-Efficiencystore, the companywill target two main energy -consuming units: the heating and air conditioning system (HVAC), and the refrigerationsystem. With the installation of special equipment, such as a water source heat pump and cooling towers, hot and cold water can be hamessedto drive new levels of efficiency. Specifically, the new HVAC and more efficient refrigeration systems are fully integrated so that 100 percent of the heat rejected by the refrigeration system is reclaimed intothe HVAC. The reclaimed heat is then converted into usable energy. By incorporating a loop -piping design, the advanced refrigeration system also reduces the amount of installed copper and the total refrigerant charge required. "For years, retailers have used air cooled equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration," Vice President of Prototypeand New Format Design ChariesZimmerman said. "In recognizingthat water has four times the heat carrying capacity of air, we realized it would be much more efficient as a conductor of energy in our heating, cooling and refrigeration systems. In this http: //walmartstoxim . cm-VRdnt Cbntent. aspPic1=03 611912008 Wal -.Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mm:tto Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expe... Page 2 of 4 High -Efficiency store, we're putting that to the test by utilizingour on-site resources to full capacity before applying secondary power sources." Other energy-saving technologies in the High -Efficiency store include the installation of ultra -efficient case fans, glass door,, on medium temperature grocery cases, RollSeal® quick response doors to seal air in areas such as the Garden Center, an a top-of-the-line dehumidification system, The store will also have a daylight harvesting system, which uses skylights to refract daylightthroughout the store and light sensors to monitor the amount of natural light available. During periods of higher natural daylight, the system then dims or turns off the store lights when they aren't needed, thereby reducing energy usage. Like many other Wal-Mart stores opening this month, the Kansas City Supercenteralso features GE's energy-savinglight- emitting diode (LED) refrigerated case lighting. LEDs have a longer life span than fluorescent bulbs, produce less heat and use significantly less energy than typical grocery case lighting. In the High -Efficiency store, motion sensor -driven LED lights have been installed in all freezer and medium -temperature refrigerated cases. When not in use for a few seconds, the light: in these cases automaticallyturn off, and quickly turn back on when a customer approaches. This direct learning from the Aurora and McKinney experimental stores is expected to add a 2 to 3 percent energy reduction, and will be rolled -out in ne% Wal-Mart stores, Supercenters. Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Clubs beginning this month. 'We're very excited to launch this High-Efficiencyconcept in Kansas City, where our residentsand local business leaders have shown that the environment is a key priority for them," said Dan Steele, Wal-Mart store manager. `Though most of the energy-saving technologies here are not visible to the public, we've added new signage to show our customers how these systems can help save money and keep our prices low." Lighting the Way for Energy Savings in Kansas City In additionto the focus on energy-efficient stores, Wal-Mart is committed to selling productsthat sustain our resources and our environment. As part of this store's grand opening events, Wal-Mart announces a partnershipwith Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes to support the csty!s'A Million Lights Campaign." With its donation of 21,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), Wal-Mart will aid the city's campaign to distribute CFLs to low-income and senior citizen households in Kansas City Mo. The Wal-Mart gifl will also help the city reach its goal to change one million incandescent bulbs to energy-saving CFLs by October 2007. This in-kind donation of more than $53,000 brings this store's total grand opening donationsto local charities and organizations — such as the Kansas City Weatherization Improvement Project, Bridging the Gap, and the Boy! Club of Greater Kansas City —to $110,000. About Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Every week, more than 127 million customers visit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets. and Sam's Club locations across America. The company and its Foundationare committed to a philosophy of giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is proud to support the causes that are importantto customers and associates right in their own neighborhoods, and last year gave more than $245 million to local United States communities. To learn more, visit www.walmartfacts.com, www.walmart.com, orwww.walmarfoundation.org. FACT SHEET Kansas City Wal-MartSupercenter Store fast facts o Location: 11601 E. U.S. 40 Highway, Kansas City, Mo. 197,000-square-footWal-Mart Supercenter • VIP Preview night Thursday, Jan. 18.6 p.m. o Grand opening ceremony Friday, Jan 19; 7:30 a.m. followed by store opening at 8 a.m. o Store manager: Dan Steele Other Store features http: //raalmn tstcxes . oanVPrintOmtent. agmOid#2 3 6/19/2008 Ula -Mart Stores, Inc. - Vbl+brtto Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expe ... Page 3 of 4 a Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products, fresh produce, full line of beer, wine and liquor, apparel and accessories, toys, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids. electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, Subway restaurant, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, SmartStyle hair salon, Wal-Mart Connect Center, Kansas City Chiefs and Royals sport shop and a UM8 branch. o Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. • Nineteen full-service and 12 express check-out lanes. Employment a More than 1,200 applications. Store plans to employ 480 associates. a Thirty-two of the Kansas City store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years • The national average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates is approximately$10.1 1 per hour.* a Wal-Mart benefits — available to full- and part-time associates — include healthcare insurancewith no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart associates are eligible for health care benefits. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. * Average wage taken December 2005. See www, walmartfacts,com for details. For more information • Store manager: Dan Steele, (816) 313-1183 • Wal-Mart information online: www,walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com Charitable Giving Fast Facts Kansas City Supercenter Donates over$110,000 in In -Kind and Cash Contributions to Local Community • $53,000 in product donations of 21,000 CFL light bulbs for "A Million Lights" Campaign; City will distribute 21,000 energy-efficient light bulbs to low-incomeand senior citizen households in Kansas City, Mo. • $10,000 donation to the Home Weatherization Division of the KansasCity Neighborhood and Community Services • $10,000 donation to Bridging the Gap to support various environmental programs and community organizations "A MiIIionLights" Campaign —MaEthan $53,000 Inin-kind I ig ht bulb donations Wal-Mart is pleased to partner in the Kansas City, Missouri's "A Million Lights" campaign — an effort to replace one million light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs to save the region over $2 million in energy costs by October 2007. Compac fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs) consume 70 percent less energy than standard incandescentbulbs and last up to 10 times longer. Each CFL can save about $30 over the life of the bulb and keep as much as 450 pounds of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. Wal -Mart's donation of 21,000 CFLs, worth more than $53,000, will have far-reaching impacts in the city's effort to distribute energy-efficient light bulbs to low-income and senior citizen households in Kansas City, Mo. Kansas City Weatherization Improvement Project- $10,000 cash contribution In 1977, the Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources establishedthe Low -Income Weatherization Assistance Program, (LIWAP) and since the program's inception more than 140,000 homes have been weatherized. The program operates year. round and service providersof the program examine furnaces and ductwork, performwindow and door repairs, and target general heat loss areas with caulking and weather-stripping,The Home Weatherization program income guidelines are set at 150 percentof povertyand arefunded through several incomesources. The Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources and the Federal Department of Energy serve as the largest source of funds. The program is also funded through utility providers including Kansas City Power& Light and Missouri Gas Energy. http: //walmartstares.cmVPrint 0xA entspx?id=6213 6/19/2008 TnBl+19rt Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart to Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter>xpe... Page 4 of 4 Bridgingthe Gap – $10,000 cash contribution In 1991, Bridging the Gap opened Kansas City's first volunteer recycling center. A year later, the group formed a 501(3)(c) organization with the missionto encourage an understanding of local and global interconnectednessthrough education ane action. Today, Bridgingthe Gap operates as an organizing hub for numerous environmental projects—from waste prevention to environmental education, from recycling to picking up litter and keeping Kansas City beautiful. The organization works closely with business, schools, governments and the community to encourage local partnerships and support sustainable decision making. Additional Charitable Outreach – $37,500in charitable contributions are directed to 15 area organizations o Greater Kansas City Foundationfor Citizens with Disabilities a Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission o Special Olympics Missouri a City of Kansas City Police Department a Blue Hills Community Services Corporation • City of Independence Fire Department o Gillis Center Inc. o Kansas City Community Gardens • Raytown Fire Department District o Sickle Cell DiseaseAssociations of America – Kansas City Chapter 2301 o Vietnam Veterans of America o Boys Club of Greater Kansas City o PoliceAthletic League of Kansas City • American Cancer Society o City of Kansas City Police Department -Tactical Response Team For more information a Waf-Mart information online: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com a Kansas City Neighborhoodand Community Services Department. Robert Jackson, director o Home Weatherization Division: (816) 513-3025 http://www.kcmo.org/neigh.nsftweb/weather main?opendocument http:1/walmartsbxw.oan/PrinbContmt.wp Oid=6213 6/1912008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Sustainable Buildings IS Home About Us Facts & News Health & Wellness Careers Home> Sustainability> Climate& Energy> Sustainable Buildings Sustainability Sustainable Value Networks Sustainability Newsletter Sustainability Progress Report Climate & Energy Sustainable ou idirlm Trucking Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions Zero Waste Reusable Bags Kids Recycling Challenge Products Paper Products Seafood Organics Locally Grown Products Wal-Mart Pieces Packaging Reduction Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs Ethical Sourcing Communities Store Siting Economiclmpacts Acres for America Associates Healthcare Compensation Sustainable Buildings Page 1 o f2 Community & Giving Diversitj Our experimental stores were builtto help us reach our three long-term environmental goal: • To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy • To create zero waste • To sell products that sustain our resources and the environment We are also committed to designing a store prototype that is 25-30 percent more efficient b� and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in existing stores by 20 percent by 2012. Our experimental stores We have two stores, one in McKinney, Texas, and one in Aurora, Colorado, that show howworking together can help solve issues. Engineers, architects, scientists, contractors, landscape designers, and owners created functional facilities that save energy, conserve natural resources and reduce pollution. They also created a more pleasant shopping experiencefor our customer and a healthier work environment for our associates. These stores are living laboratories Solar panels on our McKinney, Ti experimental store At these stores, we test new technologies and products that we can potentially incorporate i of our stores. Some tested technologies from our experimental stores — like LED lighting — already making their way into stores across the country —at Wal-Mart stores and the facilit our competitors. Our high -efficiency stores In 2007, we opened three High Efficiency stores, called HE.1s, that use 20 percent less ene than a typical Supercenter. Located in Kansas City, Missouri, Rockton Illinois, and Highland Village, Texas, these stores were constructed using recycled building materials and energy• lighting methods. They operate using an environmentally -friendly, 100 percent integratedw< source heating, c coling and refrigeration system. Otherfeatures of the HE.1 stores include reflective white roofs, low -flow bathroom faucets, motion -sensing LED lights and an advance daylight harvesting system. Our ultra high -efficiency store In January 2008, we opened the first of four next generation High Efficiency stores (HE -2s) http: //walmartstares. ocuVSmtainabMty/7776. aspv. 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Sustainable Buildings Page 2 of 2 Sustainable building design focuse reducing energy use, utilizing wind/solar/skylights/LED lighting/cA technologies, al I to create up to a reduction in overall usage. > Next FeaturedVideo > See all videos Romeoville, Illinois. The store builds upon what we learnedfrom the HEA and experimental by incorporatinga secondary loop refrigeration system. In combinationwith otherenergy-sai and environmental lyfriendly building aspects, this technology allows the store to be 25 pera more energy efficient than the 2005 baseline, and reduce refrigerant use by 90 percent. Solar Power We are also experimentingwith solar power. fi 2007. we announced a solar power pilot in 2 locations throughout California and Hawaii. When fully implemented, the aggregate purchas be one of the top 10 largest -ever solar power purchases in the United States. Email A Print G`' ,. Font Size (,*) Add to My Content et Share E Shop At Walmart.com I Shop At Samsclub.com 1 IntemationalOperations I Video Center I Product Recalls 1 Other Sites I Re r http://wabattstores.ality/7T16.aspc 6/19/2008 EXHIBIT E As published in Real Property Law Reporter, September 2007 Analyzing Climate Change Under CEQA in a Climate of Uncertainty Arthur Friedman, Judy Davidoff, and Miriam Montesinos Introduction California has long been recognized as a leader in envi- ronmental protection. In 1970, the legislature enacted the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) (Pub Res C §§21000-21178), which mandates that gov- ernmental agencies at all levels identify potentially sig- nificant environmental effects, and implement feasible mitigation measures or alternatives, before approving a project. Pub Res C 521002. CEQA requires that public agencies prepare a comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) to analyze projects that may cause significant environmental effects. California courts have described the EIR's role "as an environmental alarm bell whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." Countyof Inyo v Yorty (1973) 32 CA3d 795,810,108 CR 377. Yet, in the 37 years since its enactment, CEQA has not served its function as the "environmentat alarm bell" on the issue of climate change. California's awareness and growing concern about this issue, which many describe as the single most important environmental issue of this and future generations, has developed outsidethe context of CEQA, largely in responseto pri- vate action and other legislative initiatives spanning approximately 20 years. Consequently, there is no California appellate case law applying CEQA's require- mentsto the issue of climate change. But in the words of Bob Dylan, 'The times they are a-changin'." Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & S C §§38500-38599), at least two CEQA lawsuits have been filed challengingthe respective agencys allegedfailure to consider a project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and effects on climate change. Last December, the Centerfor Biological Diversityfiled a challengeto the City of Banning's approval of a 1500 -home develop- ment. On April 13, 2007, California Attorney General (AG) Jerry Brown, on behalf of the state, filed a lawsuit against San Bernardino County's update to its General Plan. (Aswe go to press, the Attorney General and San Bernardino County have settled the suit, with the coun- ty agreeing to incorporate greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan into its General Plan, including specif- ic reduction target and mitigation measures. See http://www,sbcounty.gov/pressreIeases/docs/ 1877AGlawsuitsettlementrelease8-21-07.pdf) The AG has also submitted CEQA comment letters chal- lenging several projects throughout the state based on the project EIR's alleged failure to analyze climate change impacts, including: • The San Diego General Plan; • The Yuba Highlands Project; • The Kern County Regional Transportation Plan; • The Merced County Regional Transportation Plan; • The San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Plan; and • The ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Expansion Project. The sudden proliferation of CEQA challenges on the issue of climate change recently prompted the Since the California legislature's enactment in California Chamber of Commerce, along with several September 2006 of AB 32, the California Global prominent California companies and labor unions, to This material is reproducedfrom Real Property Law Reporter, September 2007, copyright 2007 by the Regents of the University of California. Reproducedwith permission of Continuing Education of the Bar- California. (For information about CEB publications, telephone toll free 1-800-CEB-3444 or visit our Web site, CEB.com)." jointly submit a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate President pro tem Don Perata, and Speaker Fabian Nunez requesting legislation clarifying that "CEQA is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing climate change concerns." Their June 21,2007, letter warns: "The potential for harm if these [CEQA] chal- lenges are allowed to continue is staggering." (The letter can be found at www.pcl.org/newsroom/ CEQAClimateChangeLetter.pdf.) The industry group's letter sparked a flurry of letters in response to the Governor from environmental groups asserting that CEQA is a vitally important legal instrument to accomplish the state's goal of reducing GHG emis- sions. Given California's political and actual climate today, there is a growing consensus among CEQA practition- ers that in at least some, if not most, circumstances, even in the absence of an express statutory require- ment to do s4 governmental agencies will expand the traditional scope of their environmental review under CEQAto considera project's GHG emissionsand poten- tial climate change impacts. This article discusses the regulatory background lead- ing to California's focus on the issue of climate change. It then discusses some of the unique challenges pre- sented by environmental review under CEQA of a pro- ject's potential effects on climate change. Finally, it dis- cusses alternative approachesto such CEQA review. California's Actions to Address Climate Change -Warming Up to the Threat of Warming In 1988, the California legislature enacted AB 4420, which, among other things, directed the California Energy Commission (CEC), in consultation with California's Air Resources Board (GARB) and other agencies, to study the implications of global warming on California's environment, economy, and water sup- ply. Executive Order 5-3-05 and the Climate Action Team In June 2005, the Governor signed Executive Order S- 3-05, which called for a reduction in GHG emissionsto 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80 -percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. (Executive Order 5-3-05 can be found at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/ climate-action-team/index.html.) The Executive Order also directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to lead an effort to evaluate the impacts of climate change on California and to recommend measures in response. The Secretaryof Cal/EPA thereafter createdthe Climate Action Team (CAT). The CAT includes representatives from the GARB, Business, Transportation & Housing Agency, Department of Food & Agriculture, CEC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Department of Water Resources, and the Public Utilities Commission. The CAT released its 107 -page report to the Governor in March 2006. (The report can be found on the CAT website at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/ climate_action_team/index.htmi.) The CAT report states that "during the 20th century, we have observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pol- lutantsthat is attributable to human activities." Report at 6. The report continues that "[t]he climate change we are seeing today ... differs from previous climate change in both its rate and its magnitude." Report at 6-7. The report states further that "[cjontinued climate change would have widespread impacts on California's economy, ecosystems, and the health of its citizens." Report at 37. Finally, the report identifies several GHG emission reduction strategies, most of which are not applicable to land use development. The recommendations relat- ing to land use include (Report at 39-65): • Planting trees in urban and suburban areas; • Implementation of energy efficient water and waste- water operations; • Implementation of building energy efficiency stan- dards; • Implementationof energy efficient cement manufac- turing techniques; • Implementation of strategies that integrate trans- portation and land -use decisions (e.g., encouraging jobs/housing proximity, transit -oriented development, and high-density residential/commercial development along transit corridors); • Implementation of Green Building Initiatives compa- rableto the Governor's Green Building Executive Order, 5-20-04, which sets forth specific actions state agencies are to take with state-owned and leased buildings; and • Increased use of solar and other noncarbon sources of energy. California's Global Warming SolutionsAct of 2006 The CAT's findings provided additional impetus for the legislature to enact landmark legislation aimed at addressing global warming. In September 2006, Govemor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires CARB, the state agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to determine by January 1, 2006, what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalentto that level, to be achieved by 2020. Health & S C 938561. Assembly Bill 32 includes a declaration by the legisla- ture that "[gjlobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California." Health & 5 C §38501(a). Section 38501(a) further states that the potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction inthe quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpadc, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious dis- eases, asthma, and other human related problems. Although the CARB has primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions under AB 32, the Act further directs that "Nothing in this division shall relieve any stateentityof its legal obligations tocomplywith exist- ing law or regulation." Health & S C §38598(b). The AG and various environmental organizations have asserted that AB 32 implicitly has imposed a mandato- ry duty on governmental agencies to analyze under CECA a project's potential effects on climate change. This viewpoint gained momentum on April 27, 2007, with the Association of Environmental Professionals' (AEP) publication of its Draft White Paper on Global Climate Change (found at httpJ/www.califaep.org/cli- mate%20change/default.h1trnI). The AEP is a statewide group with over 1600 memberswhose primary focus is the preparation of CMA compliance documents. AEP's Draft White Paperstates (at 8): When the legislative findings about the threats to the environment and the absence of relief from other laws are considered together, AB 32 creates compelling statutory basis for addressing signifi- cant adverse effects of GCC [Global Climate Change] in CEGA compliance. Advocates of the AG's viewpoint contend further that CECA is a critically important legal instrument for achieving the CHS reductions mandated by AB 32 given the severity of existing GHG levels and current trends. According to the CEC's December 2006 report on the "Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks" (found at http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/ display0neReport.php?pubNum=CEC-600-2006-013- SF), California is the second largest contributor of G -G emissions in the United States (behind Texas), and the 16th largest in the world. CEC Report at 17. The major source of GHG emissions in California is transportation, contributing 41 percent, followed by electricity, con- tributing 22 percent. CEC Report at 8. The CEC report concurs with the CAT that urgent action is needed to reverse the trend of increasing GHG emissions. CEC's report states (at 8): California's GHG emissions are large and growing as a result of population and economic growth and other factors. From 1990 to 2004 total gross GHG emissions rose 14.3 percent; they are expect- ed to continue to increase in the future under "business -as -usual" unless California implements programsto reduce emissions. On an optimistic note, however, the CEC report states that while California's economy grew 83 per- cent between 1990 and 2004, its GHG emissions increased more slowly, at 12 percent, thus demon- strating "the potential for uncoupling economic trends from GHG emissions trends." CEC Report at 1. The state's ongoing ability to uncouple economic growth from GHG emissions, according to the CEC, is largely dependent on its commitment to imple- menting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other GHG emission reduction measures. CEC Report at i. Advocates of the AGs viewpoint contend that CEQA is perhaps the best mechanism to ensure that GHG emission reduction measures are incorporated into future projects. The CEC's warning against proceeding with "business as usual" is echoed in the AGs recent CEOA comment letters. As an example, the AGs June 11,2007, letterto the City of San Diego regarding its proposed general plan states (at 7): 'The impacts of global warming are potentially catastrophic and we cannot proceed with 'business as usual' even though some of the required changes may encounter public opposition." (The letter can be found at http://www.sandiego.gov/ cityattor- ney/reporWpdf/sag 1070706.pdf.) The growing consensus favoring CEQA analysis of cli- mate change impacts, however, has far outpaced any consensus on how to conduct this analysis during the interim period before the CARB provides regulatory guidance. From "Business -as -Usual" to "Ad -Hoc" Rules GHG emissions into the atmosphere are not by them- selves an adverse environmental effect. The increased concentrations of GHG emissions, resulting in global climate change and its associated consequences, pro- duce adverse environmental impacts. Although it is possible to generally estimate a project's incremental contribution of GHG emissions into the atmosphere, there is no recognized methodology for determining how an individual project's relativelysmall incremental contribution might translate into physical effects on the environment—particularlygiven the global nature of the problem. Among other issues, there is ongoing debate among CEQA practitioners regarding how best to determine: • A project's environmental effects, if any, on global cli- mate change; • The threshold for finding that a project's incremental climate change effects rise to the level of a "cumula- tively considerable" impact; and • If the project's climate change effects are cumulative- ly considerable, what feasible alternatives or mitiga- tion measures, if any, can "substantially lessen" the project's effects. Determining the Project's Effects on the Physical Environment Among the first steps in the environmental analysis under CEQA is a determination of what physical changes to the environment, if any, will be caused by the project. Baird v County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 CA4th 1464, 38 CR2d 93. Lead agencies are required under CEQA to consider direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that may be caused by the project. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064(d). An indirect physi- cal change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact; a change that is specu- lative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foresee- able. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064(d)(3). There is no established methodology for determining the impacts of a land use plan or an individual project on global climate change. The 2005 report prepared by the National Research Council, a branch ofthe National Academy of Science, entitled "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties," concluded that "themecha- nisms involved in land -atmosphere interactionsare not well understood, let alone represented in climate mod- els." The determination of a project's effect on the physical environment resulting from climate change is further complicated by the fact that GHG emissions, unlike other air quality impacts that are linked to a localized area or region, are by definition a global issue, requiring analysis on a global scale. Consequently, CEQA analysis of a project's effect on The analysis of a project's effect on the environment global climate change involves unique challenges. begins with an inventory of each potential source of GFiG emissions fairly attributed to the project. CEQA defines the term "project" broadly to encompass the "wholeof an action, which hasa potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(a), Courts have held that under this broad definition, the envi- ronmental analysis should encompass not only air- borne emissions associated with project construction and operations, but also mobile emissions related to transportation to and from the project. Kings County Farm Bureau v City of Hanford (1990) 221 CA3d 692, 716, 270 CR 650. The latter source is a subject of some controversy. In many cases, a project will not cause "new" vehicle GFiG emissions sources from a global perspective, but rather merelycausesthe movementof existing vehicle emission sources from one location to another. I n Natural Resources Defense Council v Reclamation Bd. (Sacramento Super Ct, Apr. 27, 2007, No. 06CS01228), the court rejected petitioner's claim that recent global warming legislation constituted new information trig- gering the need for "supplemental" environmental review under CEQA, in part because the causal link between the specific project and climate change was not established. The court stated: As the projected effects of climate change become clearer and can be relatedto specific sites, there is little doubt that those effects will have to be fac- tored into the analysis of many projects under CEOA The court's holding suggests that a lead agencys obliga- tion to disclose a project's incremental impact on cli- mate change may grow as science advances. See Bogdan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. CEQA Catches Up With Science, Celebrities, and Product Placement; 16 California Land Use L & Policy Rep 245 (June 2007). During this interim period, lead agencies may conclude that a determination regarding the project's impact on climate change is too specula- tive. Bogdan, supra. Title 14 Cal Code Regs §15145 authorizes such a conclusion, stating that TIf, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a par- ticular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discus- sion of the impact." Under CEQXs "rule of reason," an EIR is required to evaluate impacts to the extent it is "reasonably feasible" to do so. 14 Cal Code Regs 015151; San Francisco Ecology Ctr. v City & County of San Francisco (1975) 48 CA3d 584, 122 CR 100. While CEQA requires lead agencies to make a good faith effort to disclose what they reasonablycan, it "does not demand what is not realistically possible." Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Comm. vBoard of 71rustees(1979) 89 CA3d 274,286,152 CR 585. Determining Thresholds of Significance CEQA compels public agencies to refrain from approv- ing projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. Pub Res C 021002; Sierra Club v State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 C4th 1215, 1233, 32 CR2d 19. The determination of what constitutes a "significant" impact is important under CEQA because mitigation measures are not required for effects not found to be significant. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15126.4(a)(3). The AG has argued that anticipated GFiG emissions of proposed projects wi I I cause significant environmental effects under a "cumulative impacts" analysis. A cumu- lative impact consists of an impactcreated as a resultof the combination of the project evaluated together with other projects causing related impacts. 14 Cal Code Regs §§15130(a)(1), 15355. Cumulative impact analysis involves a two-step process. The lead agency first determines whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projectswould be cumulativelysignificant. If the answer isyes, the second question is whether "the proposed project's incremen- tal effects are cumulatively considerable." Communities for a Better Env't v California Resources Agency (2002) 103 CA4th 98, 120, 126 CR2d 441; Thomas, Moose, M a n I ey, Guide to CEQA 468 (11 t h ed Solano Press 2006). The AG has asserted that because the state is commit- ted by AB 32 to a 25 -percent decrease in GFiG emis- sions, any project that produces increases in GFiG emis- sions could bean obstacleto complyingwith AB 32 and thus should be considered a significant cumulative impact. The PG argues further that this approach is consistent with 14 Cal Code Regs 515387, App G (Environmental Checklist Form), which lists as a factor (in determining whether an air quality impact is signif- icant) consideration of whether the project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of applicable air quality plans. The logical extension of this argument, however, i s that virtually a I I projectswiII require prepa- ration of an EIR rather than a negative declaration, as the slightest incremental contribution cf GHG emis- sions may cause significant environmental impacts. There is minimal guidance under CEQA regarding what constitutes a cumulatively considerable impact. Courts have held that the addition of "one molecule" is not cumulatively considerable. Communities for a Better Env% supra. On the other hand, "the greater the exist- ing environmental problems are, the lower the thresh- old should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant." Communities for a Better Env% supra. The determination of whether an incremental increase in airborne contaminants greater than one molecule constitutes a cumulatively consider- able impact ultimately must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are currently no published thresholds for signifi- cance for measuring a project's impact on climate change. CAFU is expected to provide regulatory guid- ance regarding standards of significance in January 2008. During this interim period, agencies may con- clude that any determination of significance would be speculative "and terminate discussion of the impact." 14 Cal Code Regs 015145; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v Regents of Univ. of Cal, (1993) 6 C4th 1112, 1137, 26 CR2d 231 (upholding EIR's conclusion that potential cumulative impacts of toxic air emissions are too speculative for evaluation). The PG rejects such determinations by lead agencies. As an example, the PG13 comment letterto the Contra Costa County Planning Commission regarding. the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Expansion Project states: Bir declining to determine that GHG emissions from the projects could have a cumulatively con- siderable impact on global warming, the County has attempted to avoid CEQA's requirement to adopt all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the project's global warming impacts. This substantially undercuts "the funda- mental purpose of CEQA which is to ensure that environmental considerations play a significant role in govemmental decision making." The PG has asserted that even if no regulatory agency has established a threshold by which to measure the significance of a single project's GHG emissions, lead agencies are obligated under CEQA to make their own determinations of significance. 14 Cal Code Regs §15064.7(a). ("Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.") Critics of the PG13 position counterthat while agencies have considerable discretion in determining thresholds of Significance, their determination should be based, to the extent passible, on scientific and factual data, which are lacking prior to CARE's issuance of regulato- ry standards. See 14 Cal Code Regs §15064(b). Additionally, an agenciVs determinations must be sup- ported by "substantial evidence." Pub Res C §21080(c)(1). CEQA defines "substantial evidence" as facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15384(b). The ACs critics additionally warn that, absent reliance on regulatory guidance from the CARE through the PB 32 process, rules regarding how climate change impacts are to be evaluated will likely be developed on an ad hoc basis, increasing the risk that mitigation resources will be misallocated. Determining Feasible Mitigation Measures CEQA requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise significant adverse environmental effects of proposed projects. Pub Fps C 521002. Mitigation meas- ures should becapable of avoiding or substantially less- ening the project's environmental impacts. 14 Cal Code Regs §15370. Additionally, to survive constitutional scrutiny, mitigation measures must be "roughly propor- tional" to the impacts of the project. 14 Cal Code Regs §1 5126.4(a)(4)(B). Project modification is not required when it is infeasi- ble or the responsibility for mitigation lies with some other agency. 14 Cal Code Regs §15091(a), (b). "Feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." Pub Res C 021061.1. 1 n uses in which significant impacts are not at least "substan- tially lessened," the agency may nevertheless approve the project if it first adopts a "statement of overriding considerations" setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's benefits rendered acceptable its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 14Cal Code Regs §§15043(b), 15093. The AG has asserted that lead agencies must make project approvals contingent on the implementation and enforcement of mandatory mitigation measuresto reduce GHG emissions, which, depending on the nature of the project (i.e., p)an-level or site-specific), may include, but are not limited to, the following: hansportation • Coordinate controlled intersections so that traffic passes more efficiently through congested areas. Where signals are installed, require the use of Light Emitting Diode (LM) traffic lights. • Set specific limits on idling time for commercialvehi- des, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Require construction vehicles to use retrofit emission control devices, such as diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters verified bythe CARB. • Promote ride sharing programs, e,g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for high -occu- pancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to accommodate vans used for ride -sharing, and designat- ing adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas. • Create car -sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing parking spacesfor the car -share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation. • Require clean alternative fuels and electric vehicles. • Develop the necessary infrastructure to encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles, e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations. • Increasethe cost of driving and parking private vehi- des by imposing tolls, parking fees, and residential parking permit limits. • Develop transportation policies that give funding preferenceto publictransit. • Design regional transportation center where public transportation of various modes intersect. Encourage the use of public transit syslems; by enhancing safety and cleanliness on vehicles and i n and around stations. ■Assess transportation impact fees on new develop- ment in order to facilitate and increase public transit service. • Provide shuttle service to public transit. • Offer public transit incentives. • Incorporate bicycle lanes into street syslems; in regional transportation plans, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Create bicycle lanesand walking pathsdirected to the location of schools and other logical points of destina- tion and provide adequate bicycle parking. • Require commercial projects to include facilities on- site t o encourage employees to bicycle cr walk to worts. • Provide public education and publicity about public transportation services. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy • Require energy efficient design for buildings. This may include strengthening local building codes for new construction and renovation to require a higher level of energy efficiency. • Adopt a "Green Building Program"to promote green building standards. • Fund and schedule energy efficiency "tune-ups" of existing buildings by checking, repairing, and readjust- ing heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, hot water equipment, insulation, and weatherization. (Facilitating or funding the improvement of energy efficiency in existing buildings could offset in part the global warming impacts of new development.) • Provide individualized energy management services for large energy users. • Require the use of energy efficient appliances and office equipment. • Fund incentives and technical assistance for lighting efficiency. • Require that projects use efficient lighting. (Fluorescent lighting uses approximately 75 percent less energy than incandescent lighting to deliver the same amount of light.) • Require measures that reduce the amount of water sent to the sewer system. (Implementing this measure means less water hasto be treated and pumpedto the end user, thereby saving energy.) • Incorporate on-site renewable energy production (through, e.g., participation in the California Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership). Require project proponents to install solar panels, water reuse systems, and/or other systems to capture energy sources that would otherwise be wasted. • Streamline permitting and provide public informa- tion to facilitate accelerated construction of solar and wind power. • Fund incentivesto encourage the use of energy effi- cient equipment and vehicles. • Provide public education and publicity about energy efficiency programs and incentives. Land Use Measures • Encourage mixed-use and highdensity development to reduce vehicle trips, promote alternatives to vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. (A city or county could promote "smart" devel- opment by reducing developer fees or granting prop- erty tax credits for qualifying projects.) • Discourage "leapfrog" development. Enact ordi- nances and programs to limit sprawl. • Incorporate public transit into projectdesign. • Require measures that take advantage of shade, pre- vailing winds, landscaping, and sun screens to reduce energy use. • Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees and require the planting of replacement trees for those removed in construction. • Impose measures to address the "urban heat island" effect by, e.g., requiring light-colored and reflective roofing materials and paint; light-colored roads and parking lots; shade trees in parking lots; and shade trees on the south and west sides of new or renovated buildings. • Facilitate "brownfield" development. (Brownfields are more likelyto be located near existing publictrans- portation and jobs.) • Require pedestrian -only streets and plazas within developments, and destinations that may be reached conveniently by pub Iictransportation, walking, or bicy- cling. Solid Waste Measures • Require projects to reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. • Implement or expand city- or county -wide recycling and composting programsfor residentsand businesses. • Increaseareas served by recycling programs. • Extend the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling). • Establish methane recovery in local landfills and wastewater treatment plants to generate electricity. • Provide public education and publicity about recy- cling services. See Office of the California Attorney General, Global Warming Mitigation Measures (http://ag.ca.gov/ newsalerts/ release.php?id=1433&). The AEP similarly recommends in its draft white paper that lead agencies require the implementation of all feasible and applicable emission reduction strategies contained in the CAT Report or a locally applicable GI -IG reduction plan if one has been adopted. The AEP concludes that compliance with such strategies would likely support a conclusion that the projectwould have a lessthan significant impacton global climate change. AEP DraftWhite Paper at 12-13. Critics of this approach note that many of the CAT strategies are not applicable to land use projects. Moreover, while the GI -IG emission reduction strategies identified in the CAT Report are quantified statewide, there is no recognized basis for quantifying the CAT's strategies on a project -by -project basis. Thus, there is no recognized way of quantifying whether the imple- mentation of GHG emission reduction strategies avoids or substantially lessens a specific project's otherwise cumulatively considerable global climate change effects. Thus, when an agency concludes that a pro- ject's GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable, in the absence of irrefutable evidence that the required mitigation measures avoid or substantially lessen those impacts, lead agencies are well advised, in the exercise of caution, to adopt a statement of overriding consid- erations in support of the project. Alternative Approaches to CEQA Analysis of Climate Change Impacts CEQA documents may address GHG emissions and a project's potential impacts on climate change by using one of the following approaches: • Limited discussion of the issue followed by a finding that the impact is too speculativefor evaluation; • A "qualitative" analysis that discusses the issue in more detail, but ultimately concludesthat one or more elements of the analysis are too speculativefor deter- mination; or • A "quantitative" analysis that makes determinations regardingthe project3 anticipated GHC emissions, find- ingsofsignficance, andthe adequacyof feasible mitiga- tion measures. The following checklists summarize some of the funda- mental components to these varying approaches: Alternative I—Findings of Infeasibilityor Speculation • A discussion of the scientific knowledge regarding cli- mate change. • A discussion of the regulatory setting pertaining to climate change at the international, national, state, and, if applicable, regional and local levels. • A discussion of the GHG emission reduction measures incorporated into the project. • A discussion of the distinction between direct and cumulative impacts. • A discussion of the various methodologies that are available to assess the project's anticipated GHG emis- sions and/or thresholds of significance. • A finding that there are no accepted methodologies or standards for measuring the project's anticipated GHG emissions and/or determining a threshold of sig- nificance. • A finding that, after thorough investigation, the potential impact is too speculative for evaluation under 14 Cal Code Regs 0015145 and 15151. Alternative 2-A QualitativeAnalysis • A discussion of the scientific knowledge regardingcli- mate change. • A discussion of the regulatory setting pertaining to climate change at the international, national, state, and (if applicable) regional and local levels. • A discussion of the project's anticipated GHG emis- sions considering the project as a whole. • A discussion of the distinction between direct and cumulative impacts. • A discussion of the various methodologies that are available to assess the thresholds of significance. • A determination that a threshold for significance is too speculative. • A discussion of the project's proposed GHG emission reduction measures. • A recommendation that the project implement as mitigation measures the feasible recommendations from the CAT Report or other local GHG emission reduction plan. • A finding that, based on the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures recommended by the CAT or some other applicable plan, the project's cumulative impacts would likely be lessthan significant. Alternative 3-A QuantitativeAnalysis • A discussion of the scientific knowledge regarding cli- mate change. • A discussion of the regulatory setting pertaining to climate change at the international, national, state, and (if applicable) regional and local levels. • A discussion of the project's anticipated GHG emis- sions considering the project as a whole. • A discussion of the distinction between direct and cumulative impacts. • A discussion of the adopted threshold for significance (i.e., consistency with the GHG emission reduction requirements of AB M. • A discussion of the project's proposed GHG emission reduction measures. • If there is a finding that the proposed project's GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable under the adopted threshold of significance, a discussion of all feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or sub- stantially lessen the impacts. • A finding that, with the implementation of the pro- posed mitigation measures, the cumulatively consider- able impacts would be substantially lessened; or, alter- natively, a finding that the project, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts that would necessitate the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the proj- ect. Conclusion Sinoethe legislature's enactment last fall of the Global Warming Solutions Act, the times are indeed "a- changin"' with respect to the requirements for envi- ronmental analysis of climate change impacts under CKA Until CNFU provides some guidance regarding baseline conditions for GHG emissions and standards for significance, CEQA practitioners will continue to grapple with a climate of uncertainty. The words of Bob Dylan, which today seers eerily prophetic, are a fit- ting conclusion: C n -e gather'round people wherever you roam And admit that the waters around you have grown And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, For the times they are a-changin'. About the Authors Arthur J. Friedman is a partner in the Real Estate, Land lbs Natural Resources and Environmental practice group at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in San Francisco. Mr. Friedman litigates real estate, land use and various commercial matters. He also has significant experience practic- ing before the California Courts of Appeal, which resulted in a number of published decisions concerning the interpretation of CECA and the Subdivision Map Act. He also leadsthe land use litigation subcommitteefor the firm's Global Climate Change practice group. Judy V. Davidoff is a partner in the Real Estate, Land UR Natural Resources and Environmental practice group at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in San Francisco. Ms. Davidoff focuses on state and federal land use and environmental matters, including GEQA(NEPA compliance, nat- ural resources, air and water law, public trust and coastal matters, endan- gered species, cultural and historic resources, initiatives and referendums, public land permitting, and administrative proceedings and litigation. Miriam Montesinos is an associate in the Real Estate, Land ft Natural Resources and Environmental practice group at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter& Hampton LLP in San Francisco. Ms. Montesinos' practice emphasizes land use and environmental matters, including obtain- ing development entitlements, compliancewith CEQA and administrative proceedings and litigation. EXHIBIT F Wal-MartFacts _El Centro Wa+trt Supercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening CelebrationTuesday, J... Page I of 4 Shop Careers W. 9/6/2007 16 -Year Relationship Between Wal-Mart and Arizona BusinessGrows, Thrives .. ... ... Featured Topics ................. %'.EcDnomi®pportunities .......... ....... ._._..._._....._....�.. _. _. _ Employmentand Diversity a Merchandising�y _s Health Care _ a Financial Resultsm-~s- _ i. Store Openings a Charitable GWing a 'More... 0 Wal-Mart Media Center ................................ ........................... C�7 Company Overview .......... ...... ........... .._.._-. _...._................ Gl Community Benefits ....... ......... __......._... ......... f3 Wal-Mart on the Web EI Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening Celebration Tuesday, Jan. 31 El Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening Celebration Tuesday, Jan. 31 Store's impact seen in 400 newjobs and $14,000 In charitable donations EL CENTRO, Calif., Jan. 20, 2006 - Creating400 newjobs and focusing oncharltable support and every day low prices, the newly relocated Wal-Mart Supercenter in EI Centro will open to the publicon Friday, Jan. 27, at 7 am, and celebrate its grand opening at 7:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 31. The store is located at 2150 K Waterman Ave. Store features Originally opened in 1990 at 2050 Imperial Ave., the newly relocated store has gained more than 113,630 additional square feet. According to Store ManagerAngel Sanchez, the new 207,000 -square -foot Wal - Matt Supercenter now features a full line of groceries as well as a bakery, a delicatessen, a frozen food section and meat, dairy and fresh produce sections. The store has 36 general merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics. I t will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include 12 full-service, 14 express and four self check-out lanes. Other store features include: a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's, a Family fun center, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon and a Regal nail salon. I n addition, the store will have a Wal-Mart Connect Centerfor wireless phone sales. Grand opening activities - Tuesday, Jan. 31 The Southwest High School marching band will perform the national anthem and representatives of the State Veterans of Foreign Wars will present the colors at the grand opening ceremony. Membersfrom the EI Centro Chamber of Commercewlli cut the ribbon to the new store. In addition, EI Centro Mayor Cedalia Sanders will speak at the ceremony. She also attended the 1990 grand opening ceremony of the original EI Centro Wal -Matt. Sanchez and Wal-Mart associates will be present Sanders with an enlarged picture of her speaking at the grand opening event nearly 16 years ago. Employment The store will employ approximately 720 associates, whkh includes 400 jobs created by {t relocation. More than 3,000 people applied for fobs at the new store, according to Sanchez. The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is$10.50 per hour.* "The large number of applicants for this new store doesn't surprise meat all," said Sanchez. "Great career opportunities, fantastic benefits and lasting friendships arejust a few of the positive aspects of becoming a Wal-Mart associate." Sanchez started as an hourly associate in 1992 at the EI Centro store as a cashier. Seventy-seven of the EI Centro store's assodates have v uW for Wal-Mattfor more than 10 years, added5anchez. charitable Gluing Upon Its opening, the store will announce$14,988 In donations through Wal-Matfs Good Works community Involvement program to a number of organizations, The store will also have a budget to give donations away locally throughout ti'ieyear. Organizations interested in receiving funding can contact the store lbr details. Groups receiving donations upon the strse's opening Include: • Boys and Girls Cub • Catholic Charities: a Community Service Ministry of the Diocese • Central Union High School • (1iy of EI Centro Fire Department • City of EI Centro Parks and Recreation Department http://www.waktartfacts.comlarticies/ 179aaspx 9/15/2007 W dl- vumt rads - m t-mitIU W al-1VldfL 0upul'uumul' vpoiis t'11Udy.- V1d11U VIMIM1g %-VIVUlaLIVit i uwuay, r... a ar,%, Z. vi - • City of El Centro Police Department • EI Centro Kiwanis Club Foundation • EI Centro Polke Athletic League • Hidalgo Elementary school • Imperial County Sheriffs Department • Imperial Valley Association for the Retarded • Southwest High School Band • United Way of Imperial County • Volunteers of America Inc. • Washington Elementary School I n 2004, Wal-Mart Stores and SAMS CLUB gave $8,625,303to local causes and organizatlonsin the communities they serve in the state of California, I n addition, many charities and organizations received in-kind donations and additionalfunds raised through stores, CLUBS and distribution centers in the amount of $3,201,084,for a grand total of $11,826,387contributedthrough Wal -Mart's presence across the state. Wal-Mart in California EDITORS NOTE: See www.walmartfacts.com for more information about Wal-Mart in California. f As of December 2005, Wal-Mart employed 73,787 associates and owned and operated the following facilities i n the state of California as of October 2005: • Supercenters: 7 • Discount Stores: 150 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 In 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9million in sales taxes and paid morethan $99.7 million in state and local taxes. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Ion, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WIV117. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartlacts.com for more Informationabout Wal-Mart in California. As of December 2005, Wal-Mart employed 73,787 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California as of October 2005: • Supercenters; 7 • Discount Stores: 150 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 n 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid morethan $99.7 million in state and localtaxes. About Waf-Matt Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB locations in the Untted States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WW.. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com. EDITOR'S NOTES • Wal-Mart store employees are called asscdates. • Angel Sanchez, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or preview tours. He can be contacted at 760-353-2512 (new store) or 760-337-1600(old store). http://www.wahmrtfacts.conVarticles/1795.aspot 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - El Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening Celebration Tuesday, J... Page 3 of 4 * Average wage taken yearly (December 2005). See www.walmartfacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET fl Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New Location: 2150 K Waterman Ave., EI Centro, Calif. • Originally opened in 1990 at 2050 Imperial Ave. • 207,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 113,630squarefeet • Store opening Friday, Jan. 27, at 7 a.m., Grand Opening eventTuesday, Jan. 31, at 7:30 a,m, • Store manager: Angel Sanchez Storefeatures • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, finejewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, McDonald's restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon, Regal nail salon, family fun center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 12 full-service, 14 express and four self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment is 720, including 400 new jobs; 3,000 applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates i n California is $10.50 per hour.' • Store ManagerAngel Sanchez started as an hourly associate I n 1992 as a cashier at the E i Centro store. * Average wage taken December 2005. See www.walmartfacts-com for more details. FACT SHEET EI Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter Store fast facts • New Location: 2150 N. Waterman Ave., EI Centro, Calif. • Originally opened in 1990 at 2050 Imperial Ave. • 207,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 113,630 square feet • Store opening Friday, Jan. 27, at 7 am; Grand Opening event Tuesday, Jan. 31, at 7:30 a.m. • Store manager: Angel Sanchez store features • FullUne of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, Rnejewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, McDonald's restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon, Regal nail salon, family fun center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 12 full-service, 14 express and four self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment is 720, including 400 newjobs; 3,000 applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California Is $10.50 per hour.* • Store ManagerAngel Sanchez started as an hourly associate i n 1992 as a cashier at the EI Centro store. *Average wage taken December 2005. See www.walmadfacts.com for details. Charitable giving $14,988 in charitable contributions to 15 area organizations o Boys and Girls Club o Catholic th3 ties: a Community Service Ministry of the Diocese o Central Union High School o City of EI Centro Fire Department http://www.walmartfacts.com/articies/1795.aspx 9/15/2007 ..O,-tvaa►L rttt:tb - Jri ..entrO W at-lvlart supercenter opens rr ctay; urana vpening Celebration Tuesday, J.., Page 4 of 4 o City of El Centro Parks and Recreation Department o City of EI Centro Police Oepartment o EI Centro Klwanis Club Foundation o EI Centro Police Athletic League o Hidalgo Elementary School o Imperial County Sheriffs Department o Imperial Valley Association for the Retarded o SouthwestHigh School Band o United Way of Imperial County o Volunteers of America Inc. o Washington Elementary School a back to top ,... ,,..�.:.:..... :. .. s•.., •.;.,.:.:tea z y' 3- Security & Privacy j- Terms of Use ), Contact Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback hnp://www.wahnartfacts.com/articles/1795.aspx 9/15/2007 M&fsrt Facts - GU3ry Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Page 1 o f4 Shop Careers 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest CJ Featured Topics ~ ---_--..—.----- _--:-:-- WGilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening • Economic Opportunities _ _"•" " "`�"''`'�`'"`'' I!, Employmentand Diversity r Merchandising Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening lth " 1th= Car.e :.. . ". First Supercenter in the Bay Area offers groceriesand traditional retail a Hea a Financial Results GILROY, Calif., Sept. 22, 2005 - Creating 450 newjobs and focusing on charitable support and every s• Store Openings day low prices, the new Wal-Mart Supercenter i n Gilroy - the first Supercenter i n the Bay Area -- will a Charitable Giving celebrate Its grand opening at 7 a.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 28. Doors will opento shoppers at 7:30 a.m, jr,;-`Mom""A' -""" --- ",--"",=""'"-` '° i The store is located at 7150 Camino Arroyo. Store features Originally opened as a traditional Wal-Mart Store in 1993 at 7900 Arroyo Circle, the newly relocated store has gained more than 93,613additional square feet. According to Store Manager Ken Higgins, the neer 219,570-squawfoot Wal-Mart Supercenter now features 36 general merchandise departments including F1 Wal-Mart Media Center apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of Utl Company Overview electronics. I n addition, the store offers a bakery, a delicatessen, a frozen food section and meat, dairy .... ...... .,_ and fresh produce sections. It will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will (+� Community Benefits include 30 full-service, eight express and three self check-out lanes. (a i Wal-Mart on the Web Other store features include: a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's restaurant, a portrait studio, a one- - G �F hour photo lab, a vision center, a harms p pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon and a Regal Nail Salon. I n addition, �%� the store will have a Wal-Mart Connect Center for cellular phone sales and a Hearing Aid Center. Grand opening activities The 7 a.m. grand opening ceremonywill begin with Rose ManeArbizu, a Wal-Mart associate, performing the national anthem, Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars will presentthe colors, and Higgins will State cut the ribbonto the new store. I n addition, there will be costumed character appearances, product samples and give-aways during the grand opening celebration. 1 Employment A I II la III The store will employ approximately 650 associates, which Indudes450 newjobs created by the relocation. Two -hundred associates from the original Store have relocated to work at the new Supercenter. More than 1,500 people applied for jobs at the new store, most of which will be full-time, according to Higgins, The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in the Bay Area is rAdwalle ' $10.82 per hour." 'We were thrilled with the large pool of applicantswe had for ourjobs," said Higgins. "It makes me proud to work for this company where there truly are unlimited opportunities.' More than 20 of the Gilroy store's aOodates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, added Higgins. Charitable giving Upon its opening, the store will announce $18,000 In donations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community Involvementprogram to a number of organizations. The store will also have a budget to give donations away locallythroughoutthe year. Organizations interested in receiving funding can contactthe store for details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening include: • City of Gilroy Fire Department • City of Gilroy Police Department • City Team Ministries(Back To School Clothing Program) • Gilroy High School • GUSD Middle School PerformingArts Program • National ExchangeClub • Ronald McDonald House at Stanford • St. Joseph's Family Center • United Way of Silicon Valley More donationswill be announced during the grand opening event. http://www.walmartfacts.com/artioles/1954.aspx' 9/15/2007' waii-mart races - vuroy waI-mart supercenter %_=prates vrana vpemng rage L of 9 I n 2004, Wal-Mart Stores and SAMS CLUB gave $8,625,303 to local causes and organizations i n the communitiesthey serve In the state of California. I n addition, many charities and organizations received in-kind donations and additional funds raised through stores, CLUBS and distribution centers in the amount of $3,201,084, for a grand total of $11,826,387 contributed through Wal -Mart's presence across the state. Wal-Mart in California EDITOR'S NOTE: See www.walmartfacts.com for more information about Wal -Matt in California. As of August 2005, Wal-Mart employed 66,582 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters; 5 • Discount Stores: 149 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 I n 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalfof the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid morethan $99.7 million in state and localtaxes. Wal-Mart benefits Wal-Mart benefits - available to full- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurancewith no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAM'S CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www,walmartfacts.com for more information about Wal-Mart in California. As of August 2005, Wal-Mart employed 66,582 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 5 • Discount Stores: 149 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 n 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalfof the state of California more than $719.9 millionin sales taxes and paid more than $99.7 million in stabs and local taxes. Wal-Mart benefits Wal -Matt benefits - availableto full- and part-time assodates - Include healthcare• Insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premlums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributesor not, store discount cards, performance-basedbonuses, discountedstock purchase program and life insurance. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB lomtlons intheUnitedStates. Intemationally, the company operates In Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartTacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com. EDITOR'S NOTES • Wal -Matt store employees are called associates. • Ken Higgins, stare manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or preview tours. He can be contacted at 408/848-8161. • A special Invitation-oniyopen house for VIPs, Wal-Mart assodates and their families is scheduled for Monday, Sept. 26, at 6:30 p.m. Preview tours will be provided. Checks will be presented to http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1954.aspx 9/15/2007 NfL-MartFacts - Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Ck2irrl Opening Page 3 of 4 representatives of the community organizations this evening. *Average wages taken yearly (October 2004). See www.walmartfacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New location as a Supercenter: 7150 Camino Arroyo, Gilroy, Calif. • Originallyopenbd as a Discount Store in 1993 at 7900 Arroyo Circle • 219,570 -square -foot Wal -Marl Supercenter, gaining an additional 93,613 square feet • Store opening 7:30 a.m., Wednesday, Sept. 28; 7 a.m. grand opening ceremony • Slane manager. Ken Higgins Store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon, a Regal Nail Salon, a Hearing Aid Center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 30 full-service, eight express and three self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment is 650, including 450 new jobs; 1,500 applicants • Majorityofjobs arefull-time • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in the Bay Area is $10.82 per hour.* • Wal-Mart benefits - available to full- ant part-time associates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal -Marl also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributesor not, store discountcards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. • Approximately 76 percentof Wal-Mart store managers started as hourly associates. * Average wage taken October 2004. See www.walmartfacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New location as a Supercenter: 7150 Camino Arroyo, Gilroy, Calif. • Originally opened as a Discount Store In 1993 at 7900 Arroyo Circle • 219,570 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 93,613 square feet • Store opening 7:30 a.m., Wednesday, Sept. 28; 7 a.m. grand opening ceremony • Store manager. Ken Higgins Store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, dell foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy produclsand fresh produce, a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonakfs, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon, a Regal Nail Salon, a Hearing Aid Centerand a Wal-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 30 full-service, eight express and three self check-out lanes Employment • Total employments 650, including 450 newjobs; 1,500 applicants • Majority ofjobs are full-time • The average wage at Wal-Martfor full-time hourly associates in the Bay Area is $10.82 per hour.* • Wal-Mart beneflts - available to full- and part-time associates - include healthcare Insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discountcards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. • Approximately 76 percent of Wal-Mart store managers started as hourly associates. *Average wage taken October 2004. See wvvw.walmartfacts.com for details. http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1954.aspx 9/15/2007 wa!-mart racts - Uilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Urand Opening Page 4 of 4 UTI Charitable giving • $18,000 in charitable contributions to nine area organizations: o City of Gilroy Fire Department o City of Gilroy Police Department o City Team Ministries (Back To School Clothing Program) o Gilroy High School o GUSD Middle School Performing Arts Program o National Exchange Club o Ronald McDonald House at Stanford o St. Joseph's Family Center o United Way of Silicon Valley 3. back to top > Security & Privacy 3, Terms of Use 3, Contact Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback ittp://www.walmartfacts.conVarticles/1954.aspx, 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening i QAC r Shop r i 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest .;_ Featured Topics Economic Opportunities ........................ ........ X.EmployrRpotand. Diversity . . .. r Merchandising s Health Care Financial Results .:-1 : �haGitable,Givi,ng„-..:..:....�:.,•..Y.......,: a More.. . Waf-Mart Media Center .......................................................................... F] Company Overview .................................. .._.............. . Community Benefits ...................................................... Cl Wal-Mart on the Web Page 1 of 3 Careers Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Store's impactseen in 300 newjobs and $17,0001n charitable donations YUBA CITY, Calif,, Jan. 24, 2006 - Creating 300 newjobs and focusing on charitable support and every day low prices, the newly relocated Wal-Mart Supercenter in Yuba City will celebrate its grand opening at 7:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 31. Doors will open at 8 a.m. The store is located at 1150 Harter Road. Storefeatures Originally opened in 1990 at 935 Tharp Road, the newly relocated store has gained more than 78,829 additional square feet. According to Store Manager Paul Kovacs, the new 204,000 Wal-Mart Supercenter now features a full line of groceries as well as a bakery, a delicatessen, a frozen food section and meat, dairy and fresh produce sections. The store has 36 general merchandise departments Including apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics. I t will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include 22 full- service, six express and four self check-out lanes. Other store features include: a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's restaurant, a portrait studio, a one- hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy and a Hair Works hair salon: I n addition, the store will have a Tri -County Bank branch and a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. Employment The store will employ approximately 630 associates, which includes 300 jobs created by the relocation. State More than 1,000people applied for jobs at the new store. The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time L _.._._...__- hourly associates i n California is $10.50 per hour. * "The large numberof applicantsfor this new store doesn't surprise me at all,” said Kovacs. "Great career opportunities, fantastic benefits and lasting friendships arejust a few of the positive aspects of becoming a Wal-Mart associate." Kovaa started as an hourly associate in 1995 at a store in Mobile, Ala., as a truck unloader. Forty-fiveof the Yuba City store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, added Kovaa. Charitablegiying Upontts opening, the store will announce $17,000in donations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community Involvementprogramto a number of organizations. The store will also have a budgetto give donations away locally throughout the year. Organizations Interestedin receiving funding can contact the store for details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening include: • City of Yuba City Fire Department • City of Yuba C11y Police Department • Kiwanis International • Ronald McDonald House • Rotary International • United Way In 2004, Waf-Mart Stores and SAMS CLUB gave $8,625,303to local causes and organizationsin the communities they serve in the state of California. I n addition, many charities and organizations received in-kind donations and additionalfunds raised through stores, CLUBS and distribution centers in the amount of $3,201,084, for a grand total of $11,826,387 contributed through Wal -Mart's presence across the state. Wal-Mart in California EDITOR'S NOTE: See www.walmartfacts.com for more Information about Wal-Mart in California. www.walrnartfaGts.com for more information about Wal -Matt in California. http://www.wahnartfacts.com/artictedl75Saspx 911512007 WAW[art Facts - Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Page 2 of3 As of December 2005, Wal-Mart employed 73,787 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California as of October 2005: • Supercenters: 7 • Discount Stores: 150 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 In 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid morethan $99.7 million in stateand localtaxes. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol VUVIT. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com, Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com, EDITOR'S NOTES • Wal-Mart store employees are called associates. • Paul Kovacs, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunitiesor preview touts. He can be contacted at 530-751-0130. *Average wage taken yearly (December ZOOS). See www.walmartfacts.com for more details. www.walmaftfacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New Location: 1150Harter Road, Yuba City, Call. • Originally opened In 1990 at 935 Tharp Road • 204,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 78,829 square feet • Store opening 8 a.m., Tuesday, Jan. 31; 7:30 a.m. grand opening ceremony • Store manager: Paul Kovacs Store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, finejewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, McDonald's restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon, Tri -County Bank branch and a Wal-Mart Connect Center. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 22 full-service, six express and four self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment is 630, including 300 new jobs; 1,000applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour.* • Kovacs started as an hourly associate in 1995at a store In Mobile, Ala., as a truck unloader. * Average wage taken December 2005. See www.walmartfacts.com for details. www.walmartfacts.com for details. Charitable giving • $17,000 in charitable contributionsto six area organizations o City of Yuba City Fire Department o City of Yuba City Police Department o Kiwanis International o Ronald McDonald House o Rotary International o United Way .i4://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1755.aspx 9/15/2007 MaMmt Facts - Yuba City HEMart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Page 3 of 3 3. back to top i, Security &Privacy i, Terms c(Use 3, Contact ... . . ................ I ....................... ..... ........ ... ...... . .., ....... .. ..... .......... ........... Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback kq:/Iwvvw.walmartfacts.comlarficies/1755.aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts _TnBl+brt Supercenterin Beaumont Celebratesi3mrrl Opening as 2000th Supercenter... Page 1 of 4 Featured Topics s EconomicOpportunities r. Employment and Diversity a Merchandising > Health Care W Financial Results s Store Openings Charitable Giving More... ......... ........... . n Wal-Mart Media Center _ - �.+.. Company Overview (+; Community Benefits 01 Wal-Mart on the Web ow Shop 9 /132007 / Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest Careers Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont Celebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Supercenter Nationwide; Offers New Wal-Mart Features @]:IAUMONT, Calif., March 22,2006 — The grand opening of the new Wal-Mart Supenenter in aumont, Calif., today is a milestone for the U.S. company, marking 2,000 Wal-Mart Supenenten officially open across the country. Before the store opened its doors today, it held a pre -opening celebration, Saturday, March 18 to thank customers, associates and suppliers for their patronage and partnership. "We are very excited to be a growing part of the California community," said Henry Jordan, California regional general manager, Wal-Mart. "We are creating newjobs and helping working families to save money, and that's worth celebratingwith Californians who have continued to be a part of that effort." Ryan Cabrera Hits the Wal-Mart Stage Hundreds of residentsturned out for the store's community event, which included a live concert from rising recording artist Ryan Cabrera to kick-off the week's festivities. Surrounded by tents, booths and Inflatables, participants were able to freely join in festivities surrounding the stage, as well as show their support for America's Second Harvest Food Bank, which held a silent auction of autographed music items from well-known artists such as Alabama, George Straight and Lonestar. Beaumont Wal-Mart Supercenter Features Located at 1540 E. Second St., the new 216,000 -square -foot store boasts many of the latest merchandise features coming to Wal-Mart Supercenters across the U.S. , including wider aisles, concrete and hardwood floors throughout the store, an expanded Garden Center, and its popular exclusive apparel line State 01 George©, The new Su percenter also includes an expanded selection of organic food items in its grocery. ........... I n addition, customerswill find new features In the electronics section that showcase the latest in computers, IPods and hi -definition televisions and a do -It -yourself paint center. The new 24-hour Supercenteroffers a one-stop shopping experience for customers, includinga bakery, delicatessen, frozen food section and meat, dairy and fresh produce sections and 36 general merchandise departments which Include apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, toys, automotiveand healthand beautyaids. Other store features Include aTire & Lube Express, a Subway restaurant, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon, and a Banco Popular community bank branch. More Then 3,400 Applicants for 600 New Jobs The store will employ approximately 600 associates, most of which will be full-time. Morethan 3,400 people applied for jobs at the new store, according to Store Manager Rodney Colyott. "The large number of applicants for this new st=e doesn't surprise meat all," said Colyott. "Great career opportunities, fantastic benefits and lasting friendships arejust a few of the positive aspects of becoming a Wal-Mart associate," Some of the Beaumontstore's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for morethan 10 years, added Colyott. The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour." $34,000 in Additional Charitable Support The store also announced $34,000 In direct grant donations to local organizations as a partof Wal -Hart's Good Works community Involvement program. The BeaumontUbrary District received$5,000 to provide repairsand renovationto an elevatorand the upperlevel of its building; the Second Harvest Food Bank of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties also received $5,000; and Child Help USA, which serves abused end neglected children, received a $5,250 grant. Othergroups receiving donations in celebration of the grand opening include: o American Cancer SJaet3i o Veterans of Foreign Wars ttp//www.walmarffacts.com/articles/1695-aspx 9/15/2007 Wa+lxtFacts - Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont Celebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Supercenter ... Page 2 of 4 o Renu Hope Foundation o City of Riverside Fire Department Explorer Post 566 o City of Beaumont Police Department Citizen Volunteer Patrol Program o Carol's Kitchen Food Pantry As with any Wal-Mart store, organizations can contact their local Wal-Mart to inquire about local grant opportunities to raise dollars outside stow locations throughoutthe year. Wal-Mart Economic I m pact in California EDITORS NOTE: See www.walmarffacts.com for the latest information about wal-Martin California. As of January 15,2006, Wal-Mart employed 70,412 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 13 • Oiscount Stores: 146 • SAMS CLUBS: 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 In 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid morethan $99.7 million in state and local taxes. Wal-Mart benefits - availableto full- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart offers a choice of as many as 18 health plans that cost as little as $1 la month in some areas. Both full and part-time Wal-Mart associates are eligible for healthcare benefits. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CUJB locations i n the United States. Internationally, the company operates i n Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. Mae information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com for the latest Information about Wal -Martin 01111ornia. As of January 15, 2006, Wal-Mart employed 70,412 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters; 13 • Discount Stores: 146 • SAMS CLUBS: 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 1 n 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalfof the state of Caiifomia more than $719.9 mllllon in sales taxes and paid moreUthan $99.7 million in state and local taxes. Wal-Mart benefits - available tD full- and part-time associates - Include healthcare insurance With no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart offers a choice of as many as 18 health plans that cost as little as $11 a month in some areas. Both full and part-time Wal -Matt associates are eligible for health care benefits. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAM'S CLUB locations in the United Stems. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. More Information about Wal - Matt can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com. *Average wage taken yearly (December 2005). gee www. wntmartfacto.corn for more details. www.walmartfacts.com, for more details. http: //www.mhErtfacts. cmi/articlw/1695spx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont Ceiebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Supercenter ... Page 3 of 4 FACT SHEET Beaumont Wal-Mart Supercenter Storefast facts • Location: 1540 E. Second St,, Beaumont, Calif. • 2,000th Wal-Mart Supercenter to open • 216,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • Store opening Wednesday, March 22, at 8 a.m.; 7:30 a.m. grand opening celebration • Store manager: Rodney Colyott Charitable givingtotals $34,000 in grants • $5,000 charitable donationto Second Harvest Food Bank of Riversideand San Bernardino Counties • $5,000 charitable donation tio the Beaumont Library District for elevator repairs and upper level building renovation • $5,250 donation to Child Help USA serving abused and neglected children • $15,000 In charitable contributions to six other area organizations o American Cancer Society o Veterans of Foreign Wars o Renu Hope Foundation o City of Riverside Fire Department Explorer o City of Beaumont Police Department Citizen Volunteer Patrol Program o Carol's Kitchen Food Pantry Employment • 600 newjobs; 3,400 applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour.* • Approximately 76 percentof Wal-Mart store managers started as hourly associates. * Average wage taken December 2005. See www.waimartfacts.com for details. Store features • Wider aisles, a new home trends display, concrete and hardwoodfioors throughout the store, and an expanded selection of organic food items in its grocery line. I n addition, customers will find new features In Its electronics section that showcase the latest in computers, iPods and hi -definition televisions. Overall, the store contains a full line of groceries, bakerygoods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of ekctronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, Subway restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Workp hair salon and a Banco Popularcommunity bank branch. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 18 full-service, 10 express and four self check-out lanes Fbr more information • Store manager: Rodney Colyoft, 951-845-1529 • Media contact: Amy ]uaristi, 310-633-9428, www.walmartfacts.com for details. Storefeatures • Wider aisles, a new home trends display, concrete and hardwood floors throughoutthe store, and an expanded selectionof organicfood items Inns grocery line. in addition, customers will find new features In Its electronics section that showcase the latest in computers, (Pods and hi -definition televisions. Overall, the store contains a fiaIl line of groceries, bakery goods, dell foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, Subway restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon and a Banco Popuiarcommunity bank branch. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 18 full-service, 10 express and four self check-out lanes For more inforniation • Store manager: Rodney Colyoft, 951-845-1529 • Media Contact: Amy Juaristi, 310-633-9428, ajuaristi@HillandKnowlton.com • Wal-Mart Home Office spokesperson: Melissa O'Brien, Wal-Mart corporate communications, 479-273- 4314, option 1, melissa.obrien@wai-mart.com • Wal-Mart information online: www.walmarifacts.corn; merchandise sales: www.wairnartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1695.aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Vbl-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont Celebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Supercenter ... Page 4 of 4 s back to top Security &Privacy Terms of Use ? Contact .. . . ........................................................................ ..... _.. __..............._ .... ... Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback http:/Iwvw. walmartfacts.com/articies/1695.aspx 9/15/2007 wal-mart racts - wal-Mart opens aecona LOcal Supercenter I hIS Month rage t of o 4,•i;,.:.,.,.-: Shop Careers 71 ,.a.> •: • , , -F 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest E) Featured Topics „-"- Wal-Mart O ens Second Local Supercenter This Month ..EconomicOpportunities _ __......._....... ................ i Employment and Diversity Store benefits local suppliers; Wal-Mart contributes#46,000 to local groups a Merchandising a Health Care HANFORD, Calif, May 17, 2006 - The newly relocated Wal-Mart in Hanford will celebrate its grand a�IRes,� opening as a Supercenteron Wednesday, May 17, with a focus on supporting the local community. The """'""s grand opening of the new store, second closest to Fresno, adds an additional $46,000 in donations to local a Store Openings i a Charitable Giving M organizations through grants and associate contributions at Wal-Mart. The grand opening ceremony starts at ••-�•-. •••� • •2 ••�. • ••.•-r•••• 7.30 am., and doors open at 8 a,m. The store's new location is 250 S. 12th St. x More.. "We recognize the value of being able to provide our customers with locally produced products," said Andrei. "Duringthe last 15years, we have been proud of our collaborative partnerships wtth our suppliers and this grand opening marks iiia continuationof our commitment." There are more than 50 suppliers servicing Wal- Mart in the Fresno area. n 2005, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spent $20 billion for merchandise and services with suppliers in the state of California. As a result of Wal -Mart's relationship with these suppliers, Wal-Mart supports 248,000 supplier jobs In the state. Morethan $46,000 in Total Donations to Help Area Organizations An additional $25,000 was providedthrough Wal-Martfor this particular store opening, in lightof matching grants contributed throughthe efforts of Wal-Mart associatesin California through Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program. In addition, the store is providing $21,000 in grants, totaling $46,000 to local organizations this week. As with all Wal-Mart stores, the Hanford Wal-Mart Supercenter will have a budgetto support community organizations throughout the year. Organizations Interested In receiving funding or learning about matching grants can contactthe storefor details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening Include: • Big Brothers Big Sisters Foundation • Church of the Savior"Hanford Soup Kitchen" http: //www. waiirelrtfacts.omi/articles/159&px 9/15/2007 Originally opened in 1991 at 1750 W. Lacy, the relocated Wal-Mart Supercenter has added 84,860 square feet. According to Store ManagerCornel Andrei, the new 209,860 -square -foot Supercenter now features a full line of grocery items, including a new bakery, a delicatessen, meat, dairy and fresh produce sections as well as a full liquor department and a frozen food section. ED Wal-Mart Media Center 111 Boasting many of the latest store features introduced by most new Wal-Mart stores this year including wider Company Overview aisles as well as concrete and wood floors, the Hanford Supercenter offers customers 36 general community Benefits merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health - - and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics. I t wi I I be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a Wal-Mart on the Web week and will include 22 full-serviceand 10 express check-out lanes. i Other store features include a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's, a family fun center, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a portrait studio, a Regal Nails salon, a Hair Works hair salon, a Kerry's Medical Center as well as a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. Stale Fifteen Year Partnership with Community Suppliers With its vision to be the "storeof the community," the Hanford Wal-Mart Supercenter also will feature products throughout the st=efrom local Fresno -area and California suppliers including Rain Creek Baking �� I Company Inc., Pappys Meat Company and La Tapatia Tortilleria Inc. Customers visiting the store during the + : U !� UUUU grand opening celebration will be able to sample chocolate milk and orange juice from Berkley Fanns and quesadillasand cheesefrom Maquez Brothers' El Mexicano. "We recognize the value of being able to provide our customers with locally produced products," said Andrei. "Duringthe last 15years, we have been proud of our collaborative partnerships wtth our suppliers and this grand opening marks iiia continuationof our commitment." There are more than 50 suppliers servicing Wal- Mart in the Fresno area. n 2005, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spent $20 billion for merchandise and services with suppliers in the state of California. As a result of Wal -Mart's relationship with these suppliers, Wal-Mart supports 248,000 supplier jobs In the state. Morethan $46,000 in Total Donations to Help Area Organizations An additional $25,000 was providedthrough Wal-Martfor this particular store opening, in lightof matching grants contributed throughthe efforts of Wal-Mart associatesin California through Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program. In addition, the store is providing $21,000 in grants, totaling $46,000 to local organizations this week. As with all Wal-Mart stores, the Hanford Wal-Mart Supercenter will have a budgetto support community organizations throughout the year. Organizations Interested In receiving funding or learning about matching grants can contactthe storefor details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening Include: • Big Brothers Big Sisters Foundation • Church of the Savior"Hanford Soup Kitchen" http: //www. waiirelrtfacts.omi/articles/159&px 9/15/2007 Ha+kxt Facts - MIM tCloem Second Local Supercenter This Monfh Page 2 of 4 • City of Hanford Fire Department • City of Hanford • C i of Hanford Police Department • City of Hanford Recreation Department • Corcoran Emergency Aid • Hanford Conference and Visitor Agency • Kings Ca Commission on Aging • United Cerebral Palsy Association • Visalia YMCA Grand Opening Celebration Details Associate Raesanne Smith will performthe national anthem and members of the Lemoore Naval Air Station Color Guard wlll presentthe colors during the 7:30 a,m. grand opening ceremony. Eighteen associates, whc have worked at the Hanford store since its original grand opening in 1991, will cut the ribbon to the neer store. Hanford City ManagerJan Reynolds, Hanford Fire ChiefTimothy Ieronimo, Chief of Police Carlos Metas, members of the Hanford Visitors Center and the Hanford City Council, along with other local dignitaries, will attend the ceremony. Numerous activities are scheduled for the grand opening event including an autograph signing and appearance by Ultimate Fighter Chuck Uddel, a NASCAR simulator and character appearances by Chester Cheetah, the Coca-Cola Polar Bear and the McDonald's Hamburgler. Product samples from Frito Lay, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Pepperidge Farm and Nabisco will be available as well as several give-aways. 275 New Jobs More than 3,500 people applied for the 275 new positions available, bringing the total number employed to 600 associates at the store. The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour." 'We were thrilled with the opportunity to provide additional jobs i n our community," said Andrei. "Our associates are proud to serve our customers and look forward to strengthening our great relationshipwith the city of Hanford." Andrei started as an hourly associate i n 1992 as a toy department sales associate in Fresno. Fifty-five of the Hanford store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, and 18 associates have been employed at the store since the original grand opening, added Andrei. Wal-Mart in California EDITORS NOTE: See www. walmanYacts.comfor mom information about Wal -Martin California. As of March 2006, Wal-Mart employed 69,221 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 14 • Discount Stones: 146 • SAMS CLUBS: 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 n 2005, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $783.4 million in sales taxes and paid morethan $139.7 million instate and localtaxes. About Wal-Mart stores Wal-Mart Stores Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SNVIS CLUB locations In the United States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexioo, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol VMAT. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com. EDITORS NOTES • An Invitation -only open house for VIPs, Wal -Matt associatesand theirfamilies is scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, from 7p.m. until p.m. Preview tours will beproNded. Checks will be presented to representatives of the community organizations this evening. • Wal-Martstoreemployeesarecalled associates. hq://www.walmutfacts.wrn/articles/1592.aspx 9/1512007 w al -Mart racts - Wai-Mart Opens Second Local Supercenter This Ntrth Page 3 of 4 • CornelAndrei, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or preview tours. He can be contacted at 559-589-6701. Statements and quotes on behalf of Wal-Mart should not be obtained From o r attributed to agency employees. *Average wages taken yearly (December 2005). See www. walmartfacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET Hanford Wal-MartSupercenter Store Fast Facts • Location: 250 S 12th5t., Hanford, Calif. • 209,860 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter; gained additional 84,860 square feet 7:30 a.m. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, May 17; store opening 8 a.m. • Store manager: Cornel Andrei Store Features Features 36 general merchandise departmentsincluding apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, McDonald's, one- hour photo lab, Regal Nail salon, Hair Works hair salon, portrait studio, vision center, pharmacy, Family fun center, Kerry's Medical Center, Wal-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 22 Full-service, 10 express check-out lanes Employment 275 newjobs; 600 total associates; 3,500 applicants The average wage at Wai-Mart for full-time hourly associates i n California is $10.50 per hour.* Wal-Mart benefits -available to full- and part-time associates -include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. Store Manager Cornel Andrei started as an hourly associate in 1992 at a store in Fresno as a toy sales associate. *Average wage taken December 2005. See www. walmartfacts. com for details. Charitable Giving * $46,000 in total charitable contributions to 11 area organitatlons, including: Big Brothers Big Sisters Foundation * Church of the Savior"Hanford Soup Kitchen" * Ci#y of Hanford Fire Department * Qty of Hanford * City of Hanford Police Department * City of HanfotdRecmation Department * Corcoran EmergencyAld * Hanford Conference and Visitor Agencyo Kings Co. Commission on Aging * United Cerebral Palsy Association * Visalia YMCA For More'Information • Store manager. Cornel Andrei, 559-589-6701 • Wal-Mart Informationonline: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com ittp://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/ 1592. a s p — 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Wal-Mart C pem Second Local Supercenter This Month Page 4 of 4 3, back to top > Security& Privacy 3- Terms of Use )� Contact Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback ittp://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/ 1592.aspx 911512007 TV al -Malt 1 a%,LJ - VV tU-1vLdLL %JpUllb l,1VSWL OUPOLI. GULGl LV adUlatiLU11LV f 46 1 VL Y D a Shop Careers Oji ` .... ;:>..!i ? , 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest (. Featured Topics Wal-Mart Opens Closest Supercenter to Sacramento s Economic Opportunities z- Employment and Diversity "Holy Cowiit's Grand Opening!" Celebrates Lowi DairyProducers, Area Suppliers and 655New _ .. a Merchandising Jobs t Health Care a Financial Results ANTELOPE, Calif., May 17, 2006 —The more than 655 associates at the Wal-Mart Supercenter opening " 3t' Store Openings i this Wednesday, May 17, In Antelope are moo-ving product into position and gearing up for the excitement x° ^ - ,<.: of their grand opening. Celebrating the store's support of local businesses and dairy products, "Holy Cow" Charitable Giving will be evident theme of this grand opening, complete with glve-aways and costume cow characters! The f More... ceremony begins just after sunrise at 7:30 am, and the doors open to the public at 8 a:m. The store is located at 5821 Antelope N. Road. Wal-Mart has more than 12 stores in the Sacramento metro -area, but this will be the closest Supercenterto _...........^..........^ the city center. ft Wal-Mart Media Center Local Economic ImpactAlready Evident lis Company Overview According to Store Manager Marvin Raps, the store will bring 655 newjobs to the area, which is above r Community Benefits average for anew Wal-Mart store. The Antelope Supercenter holds more than 207, 000 square feet of general merchandise and grocery departments. C'•:; Wal-Mart on the Web 'We know that residents have been anticipating this opening, and our associates have worked hard to impress the community with a terrific new store," said Store Manager Marvin Raps. "While all Wal-Mart stores feature products from local suppliers, we really wanted to emphasize how important area suppliers are to this Supercenter. VAb want customers to know that they are supporting California businesses while they shop at our store." state --------- - -- - - Local California suppliers will be a large part of the celebration, from Berkeley Farmsto Crystal dairy products: Because it goes great with milk, an Oreo cookie stacking contest by Nabisco will be just one of the fun activities for customers of all ages. Free local and dairy -themed product samples, inflatables, character appearances and other activities will also be at the event. Berkeley Farms out of the Bay -Area will have their "chug mobile" on the scene handing out more than 2,000 samples of chocolate milk and orange juice, hard to miss next to their 15 -foot inflatable"Kool Cann." "We're proud to be a suppller of many businesses i n this area and are excited to see our relationship continueto grow with Wal-Mart, as this Is our 75th Wal-Mart store to service," said Berkeley Farms General Manager Mike Lasky, "It has been a pleasureworking with the managementteam for many weeks to pull together a fun eventfor Sacramentothat really celebrates with thecommunity:" "Holy Cow" Is a cleaning product started by area business owners Bob and Joni Hilton in Rocklin and will be among the sampling of local business productsat the grand opening. The product is currently sold in 125 Wal-Mart stores across the state. "We're excited to be working with the store on this grand opening," said Bob Hilton. "Its a fun way to bring local businesses together, and we think the'Holy Cant theme is, of course, quite clever!" There are more than 130 suppliers to Wal-Mart basedjust Inthe Sacramentoarea, so the Impact Indirectly through the retailer has been growing even before the arrival of this new Supercenter. In its last fiscalyear, Wal-Mart spent more than $20 billion with suppliers located in the state of California, indirectly supporting morethan 248,000jobs with these California businesses. One -Stop Shopping Conveniences and New Features Boasting many of the latest store features being introduced by new Wal-Mart stores this year including wider aisles and concrete and wood floors, the Supercenter offers 36 general merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics: The store also has a full -line of grocery items, Including a bakery, a delicatessen, meat, http://www.wahmrtfacts.cmVarticles/157&px 9/15/2007 W a I - M a rt Facts - Wal -Matt Opens Closest Supercenterto Sacramento Page 2 of 4 dairy and fresh produce sections and a frozen food section. i t will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include 22 full-service and 12 express check-out lanes. Other convenience services include a Tire & Lube Express, a pharmacy, a vision center, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a McDonald's, a Hair Works hair salon, a branch of Tri -County Bank and a Wal-Mart Connect Centerfor cellular phone sales. $29,000 Donated to HelpArea Organizations With the goal of giving back locally, the new Antelope Wal-Mart Supercenterwill provide donations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program in celebration of their grand opening, announcing $29,000 in donations to supportlocal community initiatives, "Asthe newest partner in the Antelope community, we have a.responsibility and a desire to help make a positive impact," said Raps. The store will also have a budget to give donations away locally throughout the year. Organizations interested i n receiving funding can contactthe store for details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening include: • American Cancer Society • Citrus Heights Elementary School • Citrus Heights Women's Center • Rio Linda Union School District • Rotary International • Sacramento County Metropolitan Fire District • Sacramento County Sheriffs Department • Sacramento Medical Foundation • Sacramento Public Library Foundation • Veterans of Foreign Wars Additional Grand Opening Celebration Details Sacramento Metro Fire Department Chaplain Ward Cockerton will lead the invocationat the 7:30 a.m. grand opening ceremony. Assistant ManagerAmy Felton and her daughter Emily Kraus will perform the national anthem and Keith Weber of the Antelope Chamberof Commerce will cut the ribbon to the new store. Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars will present the colors. Other activities planned during the grand opening event include performance by Center High School band member Duane Anderson as well as productsamples, character appearances and giveaways. Wal -Martin California As of March 2006, Wal-Mart employed 69,221 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 14 • Discount Stores: 146 • SAM CLUBS.' 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 In 2005, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California morethan $783.4 million in sales taxes and paid more than $139.7 million in state and local taxes. EDITOR'S NOTE: See www. wa/martfacts.com for more information about Wal-Mart in Caliiomia. Abort Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SM/1S CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates i n Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WVIT. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walma, tfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com. EDITORSNOES • An Invitatfon-only open house for VIPs, Wal-Mart associates and theirfamilles is scheduled forMonday, May 15, from6p.m. until8p.m. Previewtourswi/lbeprov/ded, Checks willbe presented to hftp://www.walmaxtfacts.com/ardelestl 575.aspx 9/15/2007 WtU-Man racts- wa-avian opens t-iosest supercenter to Sacramento rage.3 or 4 representativesof the community organizations this evening. Reporters and photographers are welcome. • Wal-Mart store employees are called associates. • Marvin Raps, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunitiesor preview tours. He can be contacted at 916-729-6162. *Average wages taken yearly (DeGember2005). Sae www. walmarffacts.com For more details. FACTSHEET Antelope Wal-Mart Supercenter store Fast Facts • Location: 5821 Antelope N. Road, Antelope, Calif. • 207,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • 7:30 am. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, May 17; store opening 8 a.m. • Store manager: Marvin Raps Store Features • Features 36 general merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, finejewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, pharmacy, vision center, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, McDonald's, Hair Works hair salon, Tri -County Bank branch, Wal-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 22 full-service, 12 express check-out lanes Employment • 655 newjobs; morethan 1,100 applicants The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour.` • Approximately 76 percent of Wal-Mart store managers started as hourly associates. • Wal-Mart benefits —available to full- and part-time associates —include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Martoffers a choice of as many as 18 health plans that cost as little as $11 a month in some areas, Both full and part-time Wal-Mart associates are eligible for healthcare benefits. Wal- Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributesor not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. *Average wage taken December2005. See www. walmartfacts.com for details. Charitable Giving • $29,000 i n charitable contributionsto 10 area organizations, including: * American Cancer Society * Citrus Heights Elementary School * Citrus Heights Women's Center RioUnda Union School District * Rotary International * Sacramento County Metropolitan Flre District * Sacramento County Sheriffs Department * Sacramento Medical Foundation * Sacramento PublicUbrary Foundation * Veterans of Foreign Wars For More Information • Store manager: Marvin Raps, 916-729-6162 • Wal-Mart information online: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com http: //www.wallnartfacts. wn/artides/15755a s p - 9/15/2007 Walt Pacts - Wal-Mart Opens Closest Supercenter to Sacramento Page 4 of 4 j� backto top NEW > Security & Privacy Terms of Use Contact ........ _. _ ............. ..... .... ......... Web services by Rockfish Interactive Website Feedback httpJ/www.walmartfacts.comlarticles/1575.aspx 9/15/2007 VV al-1V141L 1'MAb - VY ObI Jd%;Idl11G11LV &3U1JVLL,GlltVl %_d LGlb LU %-U1LUL ally LJlVG1bG %-V111111U11L1y El Featured Topics s Economic Opportunities x Employmentand Diversity .. ........ a Merchandising :r .He-ith Care . a Flna6dal"Results ....................... s Store Openings Charitabie Giving . ,..,.,.................. ..... ......... ....... a More... !±l -Wal-Mart Media Center (. Company Overview %r. Community Benefits ±; Wal-Mart on t he Web Shop 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest r dr,c 1 Ul J Careers West Sacramento Supercenter Caters to Culturally Diverse Community Store provides 650 new jobs; supports teens and education with $28,000 in initial community don8tions WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 5 2007 - California's largest Wal-Mart Supercenterwill bring more than new shopping opportunities to the residents of West Sacramento. At the Wednesday, June 13, grand opening ceremony, community members can also celebrate the estimated 650 newjobs planned for the store. The Supercenter merchandise will reflect the diverse shopping needs of area residents, as the floor plan will include expanded shelf space for Hispanic, Asian and Eastern European food sections. During the grand opening festivities, associates of the West sacramento Supercenter along with local dignitaries will share what the store means to community, including an initial $28,000 in donations to local organizations with several large grants given to help support local teenagers and education. The grand opening ceremony begins at 7:30 a.m. and doors open at 8 a.m. The store is located 755 River Point Court near the intersection of Interstate 80 at Reed Ave. Job Impact in California According to Store Manager David Pressly, the new Supercenter has received a great response from area residents who have applied and has received nearly 2,400 applications. 'We were pleased with the number of applications we have received," Pressly said. "Our associates are excited to serve our customers and vee are happy to offer our associates good jobs and opportunities to advance." Seventy-six percentof store managers began their careers as hourly associates. Twelve associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, added Pressly. State The average wage for full-time hourly associates at Wal-Mart in California is $10.77 per hour." As of April ' - 2007, Wal-Mart employed 71,023 associates in the state of California. Including the newest Wal-Mart Supercenter In West Sacramento, the company currently owns and operatesthe following facilities in the state: • Supercenters; 24 • Discount Stores: 144 • Sam's Clubs: 37 • Distribution Centers: 9 Store Debuts Latestin Wal-Mart Features The 237,000 square -foot West Sacramento Supercenter was artfully designed with a modem, unique exterior. Created from a combination of stainless steel and "wooden -look" concrete planks, the fapde features towers, steel sculptures over entrance walkways and extensive landscaping with an abundance of newly planted txees. As a store of the community, approximately 20 languages are spoken by store associates, there is navigational signage to guide shoppers easily through the merchandise departments and expanded shelf space for Eastern European, Hispanic and Asian food offerings throughout the store. For one-stop shopping convenience, the West Sacramento Wal-Mart Supercenter has nearly 80,000 square feet devoted to grocery items, including a bakery, a delicatessen, meat, dairy and fresh produce sections, an assortment of organic selections, and a frozen food section. I n addition, shoppers will find an expanded electronics department stocked with the latest MP3 players, DVD players and other popular items such as high-definitlon and plasma televisions. Family apparel departments will offer Wal -Mart's popularGeorge© clothing line and shoppers will also enjoy the wide selection of health and beauty aids, household needs, toys, fine jewelry, shoes and an expanded lawn and garden center. Customers will also appreciate the Supercenter's wide aisles, low shelving displays, concrete flooring for environmentally -friendly, maintenance, energy-efficientfreezer and refrigerator dairy cases that keep foods colder and use less energy, LED lighting, daylight harvestingsky-lights. In addition to Wal -Mart's many http://ww.walmartfacts.aadal tides/5096.aspic 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - West Sacramento Supercenter Caters to Cultu -ABy Diverse Community Page 2 of 3 products and services, customers will enjoy the convenience of the store's shopping hours -the new Supercenter will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include 27 full-service check-out lanes, of which eight are express. Otte store features Include a Tire & Lube Express, a vision center, a pharmacy, a one-hour photo lab and a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. Additional leased space and services include a DaVi nail salon, a Hair Works hair salon, a Blimpie restaurant, a branch of Tri Counties bank. A Commitmentto Community -$28,000 in Initial Grants to Support Local Organizations With the goal of giving back locally, the West Sacramento Wal-Mart Supercenter will announce a total of $28,000 in donations through Wal -Mart's community involvementprogramto a numberof organizations, Pressly says that as part of the grand opening celebration, a special $10,000 grant will be given to the Collings Sacramento Teen Center, which will use the donation to help with its graduation night festivities as well as to help fund the creation of a virtual reality database that teaches students life and financial skills. In addition, an $8,000 grant will be given to the Washington Unified School District which plans to create two recreational rooms In the localjunior high schools. "As the newest memberof the West Sacramento community, we are proud to provide financial support to organizations that are making a positive difference," said Pressly. (Editors note: For a complete list of grant recipients, please see page 3 of this release.) Like ail Wal-Mart stores, the West Sacramento Supercenterwill provide grant dollars throughout the year to help local groups. Organizations interested in learning more about receiving funding from Wal-Mart or fundraising at Wal-Mart can contact the store for details or go to www.waimartfoundation.org. Grand Opening Celebration Details Local dignitaries including members of the City Council will attend the 7:30 a.m. grand opening ceremony. Store associates will perform the national anthem during the event and Chamber of Commerce representativeswili cut the ribbon to the new Supercenter. Other activities for the grand opening include product samples and giveaways. About Wal-Mart Stores Every week, more than 127 million customers visit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club locations across America or log onto its online store at www,walmart.com. The company and its Foundation are committed to a philosophy of giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is proud to support the causes that are important to customers and associates right in their own neighborhoods, and last year gave more than $270 million tro toot communities in the United States. To learn more, visit www.walmartfacts.com, www,walmartstores.com, or www.watmartfoundaHon.org. EDITOR'S NOTES • A spedal Invitation-onlyopen house for VIPs, Wal-Mart associates and their families is scheduled for Monday, June 11, From 6-8p,m, Preview tours will be provided. Reporters and photographersare welcome. FACT SHEET West Sacramento Wal-Mart Supercenter Store Fast Facts • Location: 755 River Point Court, West Sacramento, Calif. • 237,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • 7:30 a, m. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, June 13; doors open at 8 a. m, • Store manager: David Pressly Store Features • General merchandise departments include family apparel with an expanded infant section, a household organization department, health and beauty aids, household needs, expanded electronics department, toys, jewelry and shoes. Other special features: Tire & Lube Express, a vision center, a pharmacy, a one. -hour photo lab and a Wal-Mart Connect Centerfor wireless phone sales. Additional leased space and services Include a Quick Health Clinic, DaVI nail salon, a Hair Works hair salon, a Blimple restaurant, a branchof Tri Counties bank. http://www.walmartfacts.codartidw/9096.aspx 9/15/2007 VV41-1V14L4 1*4%;tb - VVGbt 041.3 111G11W JUPCIUVIRUL %-UtrLb W k ULLU1'd11Y LJ1VG1bC %-VILU1LUIllty ragc i UL i • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • Nineteen full-service, eight express check-out lanes Employment • 650 total associates, 2,400 applications The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.77 per hour.* • Wal-Mart benefits -available to eligible full- and part-time associates -include healthcare Insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributesor not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. *Average wage taken December 2006. -%a www.walmartfacts.com Far details. Charitable Giving $28,000 In charitable contributionsto six area organizations: • Collings West SacramentoTeen Center- Campus Life Connection • Explorit Science Center • Friends of Meals on Wheels • Washington Unified Public Schooi District • West Sacramento Friends of the Library • West Sacramento Historical Society For More Information • David Pressly, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or preview tours, He can be contacted at 916-373-2200, • Wal-Mart information online: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com a back to top a Security & Privacy > Terms of Use I Contact Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/5096.aspx 9/15/2007 EXHIBIT G , Printable Version Page Iof2 Wal-Mart eyes new store site in Galt By ChrisNichols News -Sentinel Staff' Writer The city may have found its first test case for its proposed "big box ordinance": Walt. The retail giant applied last week to build a 132,000 square -foot store at Twin Cities Road and Fermoy Way. It's the second Galt site Wal-Mart has eyed in the past two years. They had previously looked at a spot near Boessow Road and Highway 99. Community Development Director Curt Campion said Thursday night any big box rules —if eventually approved by the Citi Council — will likely apply to Wal -Mart's new application. "I believe it will," he said during a break at the Galt Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners delayed their review of the proposed ordinance, which would ban stores larger than 140,000 square feet that include more than 10 percent of their retail space to non-taxable goods. The proposed rules would require stores from 100,000 to 139,999 square feet to obtain a conditional use permit. Studies on the project's effect on crime, urban decay, the economy and its general compatibility within a neighborhood would be required before a vote on the permit. Commissioners wanted more time for themselves and the public to review the rules, They'll consider them again at their Sept. 27 meeting at 9 a.m. The City Council will vote on the ordinance later this fall. Commissioners and several members of the public were mixed on whether to limit future big box sboaas. For Donna Healey, having a Wal-Mart nearby would be a big help. "I think with the right planning, it could be a very big benefit to the community," said Healey, a Galt resident and mother of two young daughters, Galt's proposed big box rules at a glance - Would ban stores larger than 140,000 square feet that include more than 10 percent of their retail space to non- taxable goods. • Would require stores from 100,000to 139,999 square feet to obtain a conditional use permit. Studies on the project's effect on crime, urban decay, the economy and its general compatibility tdthin a neighborhood would be required before She added that it's difficult driving out of tam every time she needs a new pair of socks for her lids. "We take all of us money somewhere else, except for groceries," she added, W31&fttspokesman Aaron Rios told commissioners the s mewould create http://www.lodinews.conVarticies/2007/09/14/news/1 wal-mart_070914,prt 9/14/2007 Printable Version Page 2 of 2 a vote on the permit. 450 jobs, at an average wage of $11.30 Source: City cf Galt per hour. He noted workers would be eligible for benefits, bonuses, vacation time, childcare discounts and other perks. "These are greatjobs," he added. Commissioner Eugene Davenport, who has previously formed a committee to stop big box stores, said Galt isn't prepared for this kind of retail growth. "Those roads are not ready for this and the community is not ready for this,"he said. He said Galt retail stems should be limited to less than 100,000 square feet. Commissioner Lori Heuer said she realizes many residents want big box stores, but also feels they should be evaluated carefully. "I think we do need to look at the effect retail establishments have," she said. http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/1 wal-mart 070914.prt 9/14/2007 i 6*4 is I 1 00118 is I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CENTER 11 MIXED-USE PROJECT 2006051146 VOLUME I Glendale RedevelopmentAgency 633 East Broadway, Room 201 Glendale, California 91206-4387 Impact Sciences, Inc. 803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite A Camarillo, California 93012 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CITY CENTER II MIXED-USE PROJECT Sch#2006051146 Volume I Prepared for: Glendale Redevelopment Agency 6331gst Broadway, Room 201 GIendale, California 91206-4387 Prepared by: ']Impact sca,a m, Inc. 803 Camarillo Sodrigs Road, Suite A Camarillo, California93012 September2007 TABLE CF CONTENTS Section Page VOLUMEI 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1.0-1 2.0 SUMMARY...............................-............................................................................................................2.0-1 3.0 PROJECIDESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................... 3.0-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EWACT ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 4.0-1 4.1 Land Uge and P1anni ng............................................................... 4.2 Population and Housing................................................................ ............................... ............ 4.2-1 4.3 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.4 Traffic, Circulation and Parldng............................................................................................... 4.41 4.5 Air Quality..............................................................._.................................................................. 4.5-1 4.6 Noise............................................................................................................................................. 4.61 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................. 4.8-1 4.9 Public Services............................................................................................................................. 4.9.1 4.9.1 HreProtectionandEmergency Medical Services ................................................4.9.11 4.9.2 Police Protection......................................................................................................... 4.9.2-1 4.9.3 Schools............................................................... -........................................................ 4.9.3.1 4.10 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.1 Water Service............................................................... --------------------- 4.10.1-1 4.10.2 Sewer ........... ............ .................................................................................................. 010.2-1 4.10.3 Solid Waste................................................................................................................4.10.3-1 4.11 Recreation............................................................................................. .4.11-1 5.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ._.__.__._____.__.__.____. 5.0-1 6.0 GROWTHIIWUCEMEN'T................ _......................... _..................... _.......... 6.0.1 7.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................... ...... .................. _.............................. _...... 7.0.1 8.0 LIST 0 F EIR PREPARERS.................................................................................................................... 8.0.1 9.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ... _......... _.._......... _.._......... _.._......... _.._......... _..... 9.0.1 Impact Seienae, Inc. i City Center If MOO- Project Draft EIR "M September 2007 4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the potential population and housing impacts cf the Project on the City of Glendale. Information used in this section was obtained from the Southern California Association d' Governments (SCAG). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING As discussed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, the Chy cf Glendale is located within the pianning area cf SCAG, the lead planning agency for the Southern California region. SCAG consists cf local governments from Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties. To facilitate regional planning efforts, the planning area of SCAG is further divided into 13 subregions. Glendale is located in the Arroyo-Verdugo Subregion, which also includes the cities of Burbank, La Canada-Flintridge, and the unincorporated communities of La Crescenta and Montrose. One of SCAG's primary functions is to forecast population, housing, and employment growth for each region, subregion, and city. The latest forecast was completed in 2004 as part cf the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. As indicated in Table 4.2-1, SCAG Demographic Projections, both the Arroyo-Verdugo Subregion and the City cf Glendale are predicted to undergo sustained growth through the year 2030, Population in the subregion is predicted to increase by 62,L30 persons, while the housing stock is projected to increase by 23,109 writs. Employment opportunities are also predicted to increase by 69,389 jobs. The City is predicted to increase by 26,908 persons, while the housing stock is projected to increase by 9,598 units, Employment opportunities are also predicted to increase by 27,577 jobs. impart Sdmm, Inc. 4.2-1 My Center It Mixed -Un Proled Or* EIR 64901 Septem6 ?007 Table 4.2-1 SCAG Demographic Projections Anroyo-Verdugo Subregion Population - 335,438 352,677 360,042 369,816 379,461 388,706 397,568 62,130 (19%) Housing 177,481 129,327 13,3,127 137,454 141,860 146,230 150,590 23,109 (18%) Employment 210,848 203,652 222,135 235,640 248,534 26D,336 271,737 69,389 (34%) City of Glendale Population 195,781 204,435 207,122 211,220 215,207 219,028 222,689 26,908 (14%) Housing 71,806 72,(W 74,095 75,896 77,738 79,569 81,404 9,568 (13%) Employment 85,715 86,136 90,471 96,573 102,469 108,004 113,242 71,527 (32%) Source: SouthernCalifn»tia Associationof Governments, Regional Transportation Plan, Apri12004. impart Sdmm, Inc. 4.2-1 My Center It Mixed -Un Proled Or* EIR 64901 Septem6 ?007 4.2 Population and Housing REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A number cf goals and policies set forth by Glendale's General Plan relate to population and housing growth. An analysis cf the consistency ofthese applicable goals and policies with the Project is provided in Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning. As discussed in Section 4.1, the Project does not conflict wLlh applicable General Plan goals and policies related to population and housing growth. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to population and housing are contained in the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Impacts related to population and housing are considered significant ifthe project would: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). • Displace substantial numbers cf existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (issue is addressed within Appendix 1.0(a) cf this Draft EIR), • Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (issue is addressed within Appendix 1.0(a) of this Draft EIR). Impact Analysis Each applicable threshold of significance is listed below followed by analysis of the significance of any potential impacts and the identification of mitigation natures that would lessen or avoid potential impacts. Finally, the significance of potential impacts after implementation of a I I identified mitigation nessures is presented. 771reshou. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new hams and businesses) or inli.recdy (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure) . Impact Analysis: As proposed, the Project would include 184 residential units, a 172 -room hotel, and 4,089 square feet of nail conmercial space. Based on a mbr cf 67 one -bedroom and 117 two-bedroom units and an average household size of 1.5 persons per one -bedroom unit and 25 persons per two- b9ad Sditm, Inc. 4.2-2 City Cents If Mixed -We Pmjat nr* EIR 849-01 seytemkr 2007 4.2 Populationand Housing bedroom units, the residential component of the Project would most likely generate approximately 393 residents (67units x 1.5 persons per household + 117 units x 25 persons per household). Based on 3.0 employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial space and 0.8 employees for every hotel room, the direct employment growth of the Project would be 150 employees (4,089square feet x 3.0 employees/1,000 square feet + 172 hotel rooms x 0.8 employees). Applying a 24 percent ratio (which is the percent cf existing employee that work and reside in the City of Glendale)? the employment positions would result in 36 of these new employees residing in the City of Glendale. If it is conservatively assumed that each of the new employees foxes a single household in the City, these households could indirectly add approximately 101 additional residents to the Chy (36 households x 2.8 persons per household)3. Overall, the increase in population of 393 people that would be associated with the proposed residential units and the possible additional increase in population of 101 people associated with employment opportunities provided by the Project would result in a total population increase of 494 new residents to the City. When the population increase from the Project is added to the 2007 Arroyo-Verdugo Subregional population of 355,623,the resulting population for the year 2010 is approximately 356,234 persons. In addition, when housing and employment estimates associated with development of the Project are added to 2007 Arroyo-Verdugo Subregional housing and employment figures, the resulting housing and employment figures are 131,134 housing units and 211,054 jobs. All of these demographic increases are well within 2010 Arroyo-Verdugo Subregional projections. The 2007 State Department cf Finance January population estimate for Glendale is 207,1574 When the estimated population increase from the Project is added to the January 2007 population estimate for the City of Glendale, the resulting total population for the City is 2U7,763 residents. In addition, when the ' Population generation rates for unts were provided by the applicant and represent a more conservative population estimate thanif generationrates were used from the GlendaleDmarrbam Specific Plan, 2 The Project would generate 134 employment positions. Based on the existing residence characteristics of the work force in Glendale, it is estimated that approximately one-quarter cf these employees could relocate to Glendale. Travel time -to -work data collected by the 2040 U.S. Census indicates that approximately 21,800 workers in Glendale aged 16 and over commute less than 15 mimtes to their places cf employment or work fmn home. It can be assumed that the workers are employed within the City ]fats, since it would conceivably take longer than 15 minutes to commute to jobs located outside Glendale. In 2000, the City of Glendale had 91,000 employees based on the number cf resident and non-resident employees reported to the State of California Employment Development Division by firms located in Glendale. In 2000, therefore, approximately 21,800 of the 91,000 employees working in Glendale resided in the Clty7, which equates to approximately24 percent cf the worker population. 3 Based on average City widehouseholdpopulationrateper unit fromMifomiaStateDepartmentcfFuence,E5 City/County Population and Hous: ngEstiaebes, January 1, 2007, May 2007, 4 Based on average Citywide household population rate per unit from California State Department cf Fm arae, E-5 Gty/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2007, May 2007, fmpad Sdexm, Imr. 4.2-3 City0mler H A&Mdllseftied Drat! E(R 84901 Septemba 2007 4.2 Population and Housing Project's housing and employment increases are added to the 2007 SCAG housing and employment projections for the City of Glendale, the resulting housing and employment figures are 73,497 housing units and 87,879 jobs. While the housing and employment estimates are well within SCAG 2010 projections of 74,0915 housing units and 90,471 jobs for the City of Glendale, the population figure exceeds the SCAG 2010populationprojection of XR,lW persons. Despite exceeding the SCAG projection, the population increase associated with the Project is not considered substantial, as the increase would amount to less than a 1 percent increase in population growth. hi addition, the population growth and related demand on public services associated with the Project have been assessed in Section 4.9, Public Services, cf this EIR. In tins manner, the projected population increase already has been assessed and the increase in population is not considered substantial. Importantly, the growth associated with the Project is also amounted for in the Downtown Specific Plan (adopted November 20067. To ensure consistencybetween the Downtown Specific Plan and the City of Glendale General Plan, the General Plan would be amended to include new population projections as part of the proposed adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. The City will now submit the new growth projections to SCAG for incorporation into its new population projections, resulting in revisions to the RTP, which is to be updated in 2007. In other words, the demographic projections contained within the RTP are based on a "bottom-up" approach in which local agencies generate the projections that provide the basic framework for SCAG analysis. The Project's population generation would be consistent with the City's General Plan, upon which the SCAG population forecast is based. Therefore, after demographic projections are updated, the Project would be even further below future SCAG projections. As a result, impacts associated with population growth would be less than significant. Level of Signifficattce Before Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Iew t m significant. Cumulative Impacts The followingcumulative analysis evaluates the impact of the Project and related projects on population in the City of Glendale. The applicable threshold is listed below in bold, followed by an analysis of the cumulative impact ofthe Project and related projects and their potential significance. Impact Sdenw, Inc. 4.2-4 City Cmkr R M W-Uac Pr*ct Draft EIR 849-01 SVkfftW 2007 4.2 Population and Housing Threshold: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). Impact Analysis; Related projects would result in development of an additional 2,641 residential units consisting of one, two, and three bedroom units. Based on an average Citywide household size CC 2.8 persons,5 these units would directly add, 7,395 people to the population of City of Glendale. Related projects would also generate 4,507 employment positions. The number of employment positions generated by related projects is listed in Table 4,2-2, Employment Generation of Citywide Projects. The Project, together with related projects, would directly add 7,788people to the population of the City. The Project and related projects would also generate 4,657 employmentpositions. Applying a 24 percent ratio (which i s the percent of existing employee that work and reside in the City of Glendale), the employment positions would result in 1,118 of these new employees residing in Glendale. If it is conservatively assumed that each of the new employees forms a single household in the City, these households could indirectly add approximately 3,130 additional residents to the City (1,118households x 2.8 persons per household). Overall, the increase in population of 7,788 people that would be associated with the proposed residential units and related projects and the possible additional increase in population of 3,130 people associated with employment opportunities provided by the Project and related projects would result in a total population increase of 10,918 new residents to the City. Table 41-2 Employment Generation of Citywide Projects Retail 631,649sf 3.0 Employees/ksf 1,m Office 349,146sf 4.44 Employees/ksf 11550 Hotel 870rooins 0.8 Employees/room 696 Banquet Hall 5515008f 2.02 Employees/ksf 111 cinema 70,OWof 2.8 Employees/ksf 140 Mdrso 38,900 sf 2.01 Employees/ksf 78 7.rdustrlal 5,308 sf 30 Bmployees/ksf 16 Carnamity Center 10,600 sf 2.8 Employeesksf 21 metal 4,507 Source. Impact Sciences, Inc. Employment Factors based on based on Souti►emUffornia Association cfGooernments' ForecastandLos Angeles Centra! Business District Database. ' GeneM/Employment Factor of a squarefab ksf s thousand/kiio square feet 5 California State Departmentcf Pinnae, E-5 Qty/County Pgmatimand Housing Estimates, January 1,2007, May 2007, Impad Sciences, Inc. 4.2-55 City Center U Mizat-use Project haft E(R 849-01 September 2007 4.2 Population and Housing According to SCAG's regional growth forecasts, Glendale's population is projected to increase by approximately 1,650between 2007 and 2010. The ffiject, together with related projects, could increase the City's population by approximately 10,918 residents. The population growth associated with the Project and related projects is considered substantial, as the amount cf growth projected for the City would be exceeded, and is considered to be significant. To ensure consistency between the related projects and the General Plan, the General Plan would be amended to include newly proposed population projections. After the General Plan is amended, new growth projections would be formulated by the City and submitted to SCAG for incorporation into new population projections. This would result in revisions to the RTP, which is to be updated in 2007. In other words, the demographic projections contained within the RTP are based on a "bottom-up" approach in which local agencies generate the projections that provide the basic framework for SCAG analysis. In this manner, the related project and the Project's population projections would eventually be consistent with the City's General Plan, upon which the SCAG population forecast is based. In the interim, the Project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable and result in a significantimpact due to increasing growth over the SCAG projections. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation exists. Level d' Significance ufter Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. 10"d Scknm, Inc. 4.26 My Ctnta If M ud4Jw Pr*d W Efit "9-0I $Wb n*a 2007 EXHIBIT I L;k T, .11 A. OR SCH #89020206. I CIq of.-Lodl nom. Draft EnvifthwentAlmowd Report Prepared far. 221 %of Lodi ft6 Street LodL CA 9SZ41-1910 209/333-6711 Contact: James B. Schroeder Prepared by Jones, & Stokes M a t e s, Inc. 1725 - 23rd Str-'66t, Shite 100 SacminenM CA 95816 916/444-1638 Contact: Debia D. Lob Mth contributions from: I Laurence Mintier & Associates TAM Pepper Associates April 1990 i M PROPOSES :ENE , P (2007): %MPAC rS Alti b NIT17CsA,�'`iON MEASURES Water Supply Increased GrolandWater Pumping and Overdraft lm a� Development providO forby the Proposed GP would create demand for approximately 7.8 MOD cf municipal water, or about 67 percent more than current usage. Currently, the City of Lodi uses groundwater as a municipal supply. Because overdraft of the aquifer already oxime in the QP area (resulting in lowering the water table at a rate of between 04 and 1.75 feet per year), it is unlNety that future water demands can be met without increased overdraft and saltwater ir�.isim, unless projected growth occurs in agricultural areas where groundwater pumping is occurring at a rate greater than that required for domestic use. Domestic water demand, however, is estimated to exceed agricultural uses by 2.5 fines based on daily evapotranspiration rates (University of California Cooperattva Extension 1987) and crop coefficients (University cf Ca]ifaniia Agri cultural Bx: ri-m e n t Statim 1985) for grapes. It was assumed that grapes are currently grown on 100 perc*nt cfthe agrieulturalland to be developed; thispercentage is overstated, but was used to account for leaks in the irrigation system, leaching if required, and variations in crop management. Based on these assuapd=,the crop water demand was calculated to equal 2636 inches per year per crop and total water demand was calculated to equal 1,115 million gallons per year. Projected municipal demand is estimated at 2,847 million gall= per year or x,33 bees the agricultural demand The 1978 Califorr� a Water Atlas contains data indicating that the water demand Ltan grapes is 35 acre-feet per acre. Based on these data, the crop water demand was calculated to equal 42 inches per year per crop, and total water demand was calculated to equal 1,733 million gallons per year. Projectednurdckeldemand isestimated at1.61times the agricultural demand, ' The following pcdJH s from the Proposed GP Conservation Element reduce the impacts cf an inadequate water supply, but not to less than significant: o Policy AA The Chy shall explore the potential developmentof surface water sources to augment the City's groundwater supply. ' o Policy A-7, as identified above. o Policy El: The City shall require water conservation in both C by operations and private development to minimize the need for the development of new water sources and facilities. o Policy B-2: The City shall meter all new residential developments. o Policy $-3: The City shall develop a program for metering all existing ' residential uses. 12-3 fJ o Policy 13-4: The City shall require water -conserving landscapingpraetioss in City pr�,jccts and private developments, such as the use of drought -tolerant plants acid irrigation techniques. o Implementation Program 3: The City shall explore the potential use of surface water to augment the City's water stpply. o Implementation Program R The Chi shall adopt a resolution establishing a prdgrarii for rne6aztr3 all new residential uses. o Implementation Program 6 The Chi shall evaluate the feasibility of retrofitting e d.stixg residential uses with water meters. ' This impact is coraidered to be significantly adverse. Mitigation Measures o The City should add the following policy to the Proposed GP Policy Dbwment: ' The Cityshall provide foran adequate bigh-quality water supplyprior to approving future development. Implementationof this measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. Water Quality Establishmentof Mechanisms to Partially Redace the Potential for SurfaceWater Quality Deoradaition Caused by theresisM Rttrnoff, EffluentDischarge, and RecreationalUse of Lodi Lake and the 11'i'o dOmne Riper Impact. Surface water quality could be degraded by increased urban n= f, ' increased disch a of treated effluent, and increased recreational use of Lodi Lake and the Mokelumne Riser. 1 The paving of l€tnnd surfaces as provided for by the development allowed under the Proposed GP wbtild Increase urban runoff to the Mokelumne River and the WID Canal. Urban runoff is mrtnally contaminated with hydrocarbons (oil, gasoline diesel), heavy metals (head, aa:dtnlura, nickel), fertilizers, and other inorganic and organic chemicals. Taqxwir X increases in sediment load would also occur as a result of erosion related to construction. The increased population levels provided for by the Proposed GP would increase discharge of s eflp M7 ire$ted effluent from the White Slough Water Ebllutim Control Facility to Dredger Cit, a tributary tro White Slough and the San Joaquin Delta. 12-4 r City shall also monitor the presence cf pollutants and other variables that harm to f&, in the could cause wildlife, and plant species lviokelumne River and Lodi Lake The City shall participate in implementing remedial aeticn as feasible. See also Chapter 14, 'BiologicalFesc moes," since this same measure is addressed in this chapter also. Implementation cf these measures would reduce this impact to less than Minor Reduction in Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Practices , InFect--• Development of the GP area with urbanized uses would reduce oontamfnation of groundwater by acmculbxal practices, The agricultural practice cf lean 4 is the cage of tram► of the groundwater quality problems in Lodi, Leaching is the ' process of applyin"imq rn water to wash accumulated salts frnn the root zone, As a result of leachfA& large quantities of nitrate (fertilizer) and organic chemicals (such as DB(.P, a pesticide) also have to be washed firm the root zone contaminating the aquifers that are the so%3rce of Lodi's municipal water supply. Conversion of agricultural lands in the CP area to urban uses would decrease leaching of these contaminants to the aquifer. Although urban and industrial pdUutim may introduce different contaminants to the sails, the greatly reduced infiltration rates would eliminate a major source of groundwater degradation in the OF area On a regional context, this reduction is relatively small since the amount of land being converted is minor compared to the surrounding agricultural Iand. mus may be considered a net-beneficial impact. Mitigatin hieasures o None are required. Potential for Increased Saltwater Intrusion Impact. The overdraft of gou.ndwater h&A caused the infiltration cf saltwater from th the San Joaquinita. A hbouo salt-cati�ita dnatod groundwater is not present in e GP area, it can be kul'd a W m lcs west, CurrerWy. the C City relies on groundwater for municipal supply. Increases in municipal demand caused by development allowed under , the Proposed GP. would cause continued overdraft. Continued overdraft of groundwater resulting in saltwater intrusion is a significant adverse impact. The following polides fmm the Proposed GP Conservation Element reduce the Impacts to groundwater quality, but not to less than significant: o Policies A4, A-7, B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4, as identified above o Policy A 5: The Cityshall regularly monitor water quality in municipal wells for evidence of contaminatiloR from OBCF, saltwater intrusion, and other toxic substancesthat could pose a health hazard to the domesticwater supply. 12-6 t o Policy A-6: The City shall close or treat municipal wells that exceed the acti�cn level for DBC . o hop1m;ntation..hQ� ..am 2 The Cityshall monitor water quality in Citywells for evidence cf Di1CP, saltwater intmidm, and other oontaminants, and take remedial action as necessary. o Implementation Programs 1, 3, 4, S, and 6, as identified above lVi#tigation Measures o The Chy should add the following policy to the Proposed GP ROW Document: ' The City shall provide for an adequate high-quality water supply prior to approving future deelcpmt. Implementation of this measure would reduce dYs impact to less than si:gifieant. No Development Subject to IWYear Flood Hazards lgmc:t. The overeoveruag of soils resulting firm development would reduce infiltration rites; thieteby inereasi% nrioff rates. Increased nmoff and the nearly level topography of the GP area could feud to locaUed flooding. The population prodded for by the Proposed GP would not be subject to the 10a year flood,and some would not be subject to any flooding. ibst areas would be subject to the 500-yeast flood. 'The following policies fmn the Proposed GP Holth and Safety Element would reduce the inVaets of gooding to less than significant: o Policy A-1: The City shall oontirme to participate in the National Flood InsutaneePro and unsure that local regulations arc in full compliance vvlth standik pW by FEMA.p o Policy. A-2: The Chy shall ensure that storm drainage facilities are constructed toserve new development adequate to store runoff generated by a Myear stone. o Policy A-3 The City shall ensure that storm drainage facilities are provided for ail crew develq trent to make certain that all surface nmoffgenerated by the development is adequately handled, a o Policy A-4: Tba City shall evaluate the degree cf flood protection afforded N to currently developed areas compared to standards for new development. 127 EXHIBIT J City of Lodi 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Final Report Prepared b RMC W March, 2006 City of Lod 12005 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter 3 Watersupply FINAL Chapter 3 Water Supply 3.1 Current Water Supply 3.1.1 Background The City currently uses groundwater as its sole source of supply. The City overlies a portion of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin, which is not currently adjudicated. The groundwater in the Lodi area exists under unconfined and semi -confined conditions. The Mehrten Formation is the most pmductiva fresh water -bearing unit. The City is located within the geomorphic province ]mown as the Central Valley, which is divided into the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley is a large, northwestward• trending, asymmetric structural trough that has been filled with several miles of thick sediment (USGS ].986). The City lies within the San Joaquin Hydrologic Basin (DWR, Bulletin 118) which straddles portions of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Sediments of the San Joaquin Valley consist of interlayered gravel, sand, silt, and clay derived from the adjacent mountains and deposited in alluvial - fax, floodplain, flood -basin, lacustrine, and marsh environments. Hydrogeologicunits in the San Joaquin Basin includeboth consolidated rocks and unconsolidated deposits. The consolidated rocks include 1) the Victor Formation, 2) the Laguna Formation, and 3) the Mehrten Formation. The consolidated rocks generally yield small quantities of water to wells except for the Mehrten Formation, which is an important aquifer (DWR) The unconsolidated deposits include) continental deposits, 2) lacustrine and marsh deposits), 3) older alluvium, 4) younger alluvium, and 5) flood -basin deposits. The continental deposits and older alluvium are the main water-yieldingunts in the unconsolidated deposits. Groundwater flow direction is generally toward the south in agreement with the regional groundwater flow gradient but may vary from south-southwestto south-southeast with local gradients likely influenced by pumping form municipal supply wells. Pumping tests on municipal wells indicate that they possess a large capture zone, and thus have a large influence upon groundwater flow. Pumping of municipal supply wells in the City is performed between 100 and 500 feetbelow ground surface (Geomatrix, 2006). DWR has declared that the groundwaterbasin underlying E ssion San Joaquin County is overdrafted, and groundwater levels in the County and the City are genetally decreasing. The groundwater levels also fluctuate over time depending on precipitation, aquifer recharge, arra pumping demands. Groundwater elevations relative to mean sea level (MSL), and the corresponding annual precipitation from 1927 through 2004 are shown in Flgu re 3-1. Overall, the average annual decrease in groundwater levels from 1927 to 2004 has been 0.39 feet per year. Generally, groundwater elevations have decreased with the increase in population and water production. However, annual rainfall also influences groundwater elevation. The groundwater level increase from 1981 to 1984 can be partially attributed to the increase in annual > hNI from 1981 to M. Groundwater elevations for the years 1927 to 1961 were obtained from East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBM D) for the City's 12 square mile arra, Groundwater elevation data fiats 1952 to the present were obtained from the City's Pub I i c Works Department for Well No. 2, one of the oldestproduction wells in the City. March 2006 3.1 Cffi/ofl.odl 2008 Urban WaterMoraserrmt Plan Chapter3 Water Supply FINAL Figure 3-1: Historical GroundwaterElevation ...... . . . ........ --.- . .................... ................... i go 6 no 1956 Im 1975 Im vw ... .... ........................... Source: City of Lodi Public WaHks Department 1776 2006 March 2006 3-2 City ofLodl2005 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter3 Water Supply FINAL 3.1.2 Water Supply Facilities The Utility operates 26 groundwater production wells. The locations of the wells are presented in Fide 3-2 and discussedin further detailbelow. Figure 3.2: Well Locations and Storage Facilities 3.1.3 Current Groundwater Supply The 26 wells that currently provide water to the City have a combined capacity of 35,210 gallons per minute (gpm), cr 50.7 million gallons per day (mgd). The wells operate automatically on water pressure demand and pump directly kft the distribution system. All wells are equipped to provide emergency chlorination as needed Historically, water has not required chlorination. Six wells are equipped with granular activated carbon (GAC) for the removal of dibronnochloropropane (DBCF). Capacity information fortheadstingwellsissummarized in Table 3-1. March 2006 33 City ofl odl 2005 Urban WaterMenapement Plan Chapter3 Water Supply FINAL Table 3.1: Groandwatar Well Capacity 1R i 1,130 I 1.8 2 1. 2............... _...... ., ...... 3RH ... ... _....1 ............._820..._.. _ 820 _.............. 1.2 _ _1960, _.__.1.7 2.8 T 5 ' 1,180 _..........._...__. _ 611 _...._—.._ _ _.. ,580 ._...�. _..._ _ _....._...----•- 2.3 �_.. 7 1,160 _ ...�._._.. 1.7 Soo 1.2 9 ...... ..._........_........._ 900 .......... ..... .._........__..... y1.3 _.__...._._..........._....... 10C 1.300 .... ................ ..... 11R i 1,320 1.9 _._.. 12 �j _ 800 1.2 14 1,670 �I 2.4 ........ _.... ..............p....- ........ 1,500...-_•�.,, 2.2 1.6 ... 17 1,800 2.8 ■r ..._...., ..................... 2.6 19 1,1101.6 ...... .._� 20 ...... :: ._ ..................i... 2.070 _ ....... 3.0 21 2.050 t.........-. 3.0 22' .............�........ ....._. 1A00 I ........ _ 2.0 ......_....._..._...,. ?41p E 20 24 ! 1,420 i _ 2.0 1,580 _.._.._--_.........._............._.� ___. _. . ................. 26 1,370 2.0 1 Tool 35,210 w { oolnotes: Wells equipped with GA gpm F gallons per minute c. mgd - million gallons per day Table 3-2 presents the amounts ofgroundwater extractedby the City between 1970and2004. March 2006 3.4 City afLodl2005UrbanWaterManagement Plan Chapter3 Water SUDDIv FINAL Table 3-2: Historical Groundwater Producdon(Guidebook Table 5r 1970 i 11.462 100% — — 1971 L.— --12,303 14096 1972 —..-- 11,686 100%1971 4 12,204 100% 7974 a 12,002 ... 100% 7.9.7.5.. ;_ 12294 .........................100"./0 ... _. _ .......... 1976 j 13,507 100% 1977 �. 10,578 1978 ! -.100% 77,:4,77 looti 19_79_ -.12.312 1_2.349 - 100% - 1980 -- - 100% — 1981— 12,487 100% 1962 11,560 100% 1983....... 11.53_9 1_00% _ -- 1984 13,-997 C _100% I 1985 14.813 1W$ I 1986----.! 15,080 u 100 /o 1987I 15.304 100% ...................................... 1�__.�._..... - — 1989 ! 14,653 100% 1990 15,387 10091 1881 13,313 �- --100% - -- --..._.....z....._............_ ...._.__._.,..._. _._. 1992 { 13,965 100% 1993 s 14,013 100% 1984 ; 14,301 100% _ 1995 14,390 100% 1998 _ 15,102 100% 1897 1 16.330 1988 _ i_...__ 14,481 100% _ 1999 1 16,5_88 100% 2000 _._...._..16,724 100% --- - 2001_ 17,1 100% 2002 16,641 -- — 100% 15,185 _ 100% 2004 -- 17,011 100% rooms: a. The term "Guidebook X" refers t0 the table is to Guidebook to Assist WaterSupoiers in tAe ArWffatior ofa 2005 Urbmr Water MmWwM Plan by DWL March 2008 3.5 CRY of t.odl 2005 Urban Water Management Man Chapte-O Water Supply FINAL 3.1.4 CLm3ent Surface Water Supply In May 2003, the City entered into an agrternent with Woodbridge Irrigation District (W ID) to purchase 6,000 acre-feet per year (AF O of surface water for a period of 40 years. However, at the time this UWMP teas prepared, the City had rot yet begun using water from this supply. A copy of the City's agreement with WID is included m Appendix D. 3.1.5 Current Recycled Water Supply The City's wastewater dischargeptrmlt requires an agronomic applicationrate. According to discussions with City staid approximately 2,500 AFY of secondarytreated recycled water is currentlyused, primarily fix irrigation in the area surrounding WS WPCF, This represents approximately 35 percent of the total treated wastewater produced at WSWPCF, The Chydischarges the non -irrigation water, treated to Title 22 tertiary standards, to the Delta. The Utility currently lacks the neoessaLy infrastructure to distribute additional recycled water to more of its customers. For a rrore detailed discussion of the City s recycled water supply, as well as the processes by which it is treated, refer to Chapter 8. 3.1.6 WaterDistributlon System The City of Lodi's distribution system consists of a 100,000 gallon elevated storage tank, a i million gallon (MG) storage facility and pumping sbstion, and the piping system. The 1 MG storage to -k, located east of Highway 99 on Thurman Street, stores groundwater from an onsite well to meet peak hour demands and fire flows. The 100,000 gal Ion elevated storage tank is located on Rxth Main Street. The storage facilities and their capacities are presented m Table 3-3. Their locations are shown in Figure 3-2. Table 3-3: Water Storage Feellides Storage Facility Storage Volume, MG Elevated storqe tank 0.10 Ground level storage tank 1.00 Total i 4 in Distribution mains in the City's piping system range from 14 inches to 2 inches m diameter, and the entire distribution system consists of approximately 225 miles of pipe. The City is in the process of replacing the 2 -inch and 3 -inch diametermains as well as other deficient pipes. A summaryof the City's current and planned walm supplies is presented in Table 3.5. 3.2 Future Water Supply 3.2.1 Constraints on Existing Supplies The City's current water supply system is constrained by 1) the pumping capacity of its currently active wells, and 2) a longer-term reduction in supply due to the overdrsRing currentlytaldng place in the City's groundwater basin. Although the declining groundwater basin is a result of groundwater extraction by all groundwater pumpers in the amen, including other cities, agriculture, private well owners, and the City itself, the City plans to reduce its groundwaterpumping in the long term as part of what will have to be a regional effort to stabilize the groundwaterbasin. A copy of the GBA GroundwaterManagement Plan is inoluded in Appendix K March 2NO 34 rs 90024*JQw 9'8 not of za3az'suopookud Alddns zaism paloAoaz;o uotssnostp POP140p atow 2 103 aseazout 0912 11ub u0p2ua2lOaz 103 a1g81}2n2 za32Ma3ssM 3o iunow2 alp 'sas2aiotq uoprindod s,A3tJ aqi se asnaoaq `auto TVAsaseazout a149 me JM M Pa1OAOaz;o innow2 ally 'mOlaq S-£ a[gV.L ul papnjOat Si pue Alddas mom paloA0a1 sa pmnq uaaq suq dJdMSM is Paanpoid zaa2Ma3ssM paid lts'dpmn SITjo sasodmd aqi zod •szauioisno s,Ailtpll aqi of Alddns stip 3o uopnquistp leuoplppv outlino 11!& ;sq; (diKM*g) ueld IM90N zai2M paphold 2 9utdolanaP 3o ssa�ozd aqi tit st Ait� aqy spzepaeis ZZ a[i1 L oa smog zaiemais2m 112 isaA o3 Aitosdeo aienbaps ssq 3JdMSM 'dJdMSM 30 A3tutOtn alp ut palOAoaz st A3y OOS'Z golgM 30 'dJdMSM as jatemaissm 3o AAV OOZ'L Alaiswtxozdde Was; APua 41:) aqi '5'1'£ UMMS ul po9snostp sy Alddng le;eM peloAoea eln;nj 4'Z'£ sagddns „uug,. pwaptsuoo iaA ion ail Aagi sa'janaMoq 'S-£ algey ut papnlout ion an satlddns asagi '.Q1M wog satlddns za3sM ao2lms leuoptppa Sututsigo;o A;Rlglssod atp lutzaptstt00 osls st 1410 aq.L 'Moloq S-£ olgsy ut pmuesazd suopoalozd Alddas aqi ut papnlout st zai2m oos•;.ms paisazi 3o Add 000'9 `alo3alagy'0[OZ azo3aq aomos stgi lupuauwldwt io; suot lupaptsuoO st 1413 ally pautwzaiap uaoq 3aA ion saq iutod uotszantp Oily •zant» auumia)ION OT w0z3 za32M ao2•}ms 3o AaV 000'9103 aim twM ivawaazl2 nox-py 2 caul pmluo 4!D alp £OOZ Agvq ut 'ti• l •£ not oag ut passimtp sy Alddng ze;eM •oe}ang ejn;n j £'Z'£ 'S-£ atgay ut umogs sotiddns teioa aqa o3 sjasay •a ...............� ..... 8 i %68 i %as I %LS X00 s L 000 8.�........�..__._................_......................._..._._..........., .. ___..-. a '86 i 000'86 � 000'SL � 006'LL (L elgel )foogepinJ) Buldwnd le;eMpunoaJ Pe30efcud :4-£ olggl •y-£ olgey ut poauosazd st s=A Ong-Aivama ixou otp zano padamd aq of paioofozd st iegi .imumpunozl,;o iunowe atly •suotie4uaouoo (SQd) spgos ponlosstp 12303 zo/pus Auulles ut salusgo zo 'saasa umuoo;o slanal zo luauianow atp ut saluego 'Mog lai2Mpuna9 3o iunowe 10 notioaztp ut saSumlO 3usOgtults 'uotssazdap 3o soaoo;o tuauadolanap ioadxa IOU scop A3t3 ally uopoelixa za32Mptmoz8 aonpaz 0a 'szaumo 110M aianud put 'amalnopl9 sat zagio lutpnlout `utseq app utgitM szasn za32nnpanoz8 lls;o sizoga *At wad000 aqi no iva8utiuoo st 'zanamoq ylnsoz stay smajoap (Ilvnuuv poduind imampunozl 3o iunow2 aqi se mono t11m uts2q imempunon -• a o alis ou a oafO.W t o uno as o s ... qi 3 q awos i si qi lnogi y &=A -is a �--^- qi .� 3.ta uaaq lou aneq s leas ypnatos nwo aqu q 1 (SOOZ od) znity 112 lwmp aigelten2 zaisMpunozl 3o iunouz2 alp se paumsss ua q a+Aq of +atif; Ne q` seq A" o00'SI 'dWMfl 91t{33o sasodmd otp zo �.. s -aaswos us siOagai aiewlisa plau► aesty ld xlpuaay)up insld iva 2usy�1 MpunouJ utnbeof URS uzaa9eg atla woz; Altzsuzlzd IMP Sutsn pauu411ad (f) xlpueddy cos) suopslnolso oouelsq laasm no ponq tpo l lutezas zajlnba aqi zo3 pmetutisa uaaq seq (Soot 'olloV pus Ilampe81.i.) A" 0001Si Alaiuwtxoldde 3o plaui ajoe y •amine alp ut Butdwnd zaismpunoz8 llezano at aonpaz of su2ld A3l0 aqi 'Alleuoptppy •uoptpuoo gazpzano uiseq zaiempunozl A3unoJ utnb2of usS usmoo aT ai2utnnla dlaq of popwnut 'suoulosd asn angounfuoo pue olmgow igampunozl Sutpnlout 'suaeAud pue saim od;o luawdolanap alp ut ltgiedtopzed sl Ait3 ayi `ySD 3o AOual2 zagtuaw 2 sy po3 mxo Allmumo st 3sgM ump ssal luttpawos st A3tJ aqi of atg2lt2ns Alddns zai2mpunozl lvttmm algsut23sns agi;sT sucaw A3tJ aap lup(pzapun zagnbe alp ut slanal zaiempnnoz8;o outloop lutnupnoo ally Alddng le;empunoil) eln4ad Z•Z•S IVNld Alcicing Aim e l•idego veld auaweeeueyi 1e3eM uegln Booz Ipo-i 3 o Kilo City cfLodl 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter3 Water Supply FINAL Table 3.5: Current and Plarured Water Supplies (Guidebook Table 4) Groundwater', AFY 1 17,300 15,000 1 15,000 { 15,000 l 15,000 1 15,000 WID Surface Water, AFY 6,000 6,000 6,000 1: 6,000 6,000 6,000 Recycled Water ° AFY 7,200 7,700 8,300 8,940 9,630 1 10,380, Totalo,AFYI 30.500 28,704 29,300 29,900 30,600 j 31,400 a Referto Sectio► 322 for more information. b. Based on the amount ofwastewatertruted daring 2004, according to City staff. Ruture recyciai watersupphes are scUmpolatedfrom the 2004 amount. Assumes that the permitted capacityof WSWPCFwi11beincreased as necessary. a Rounded tonearesthundred, 3.2.5 Planned Water Supply Projects At the present time the City does not have approvedplans for any additional medw supply projects. The City has pwtieigated in the Mokclumne River Regional Water Storage and Conjunctive Use (MORE WATER) Feasibility Analysis. The MORE WATER Imo, if approved, would capture unappropriated flows from the Mokelumne River for storage and beneficial use 3.3 Exchange or Transfer Opportunities The City does not currently have any approvedplans to pursue exchange or transfer opportunities. 3.4 Desalinated Water At the present time the City does not foresee any opportunities for the use of desalinated water, which includes ocean water, brackish ocean water, and brackish groundwater, as long-term supplies. 3.5 Wholesale Supplies Since surface water will be purchased fxanNO, WID is considered a wholesale vatm supplierby DWR. As such, the City hasprovided demand projections to WID for the next 25 years. Similarly, the City has received availability projections from WID for the same time period. These demand and availability projections are presented in Table 3.6 and Table 3-7 below. As discussed previously, the City has not yet begun to use this water supply. As stated in the City's contractwith WID, any water not taken by the City during tate first three years of the contract(May 2003 to M a y 2006) may be 'banked" and delivered to the City in subseq>Jemt years, provided WID has sufficientwater available. The banked supply may not exceed 18,000 AF. To d3be, over 16,000 AF of waberhas been banked The City has not made any formal plans at this t *mto use any of its banked v4pty, in addition to the normal 6,000 AFY, for any of the years sbown in the tables bek w. However, the projected supplies and demands shown below may increase if and when the City decides to use its banked supply. The magnitude and availability of banked suppty to be deliveredwill be discussed v h WD at an appropriatetime(s) m the future. March 2008 3.8 City of Lodi 2465 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter3 Water Supply FINAL Table 3.6; Demand Projections for Wholesale Supply Projected Demand Wholesale SLJpJ)lY 2005 : 2010 2015 1 2020 2025 2030 WID Surface Water, AFY o 6,000 ; 6,000 1 6,000 ; 6,000 ; 6,000 a. Subject to change vMh WID and City approval. Although the City may take water deliveries in ex cess of 6,000 AFY firm its "banked "supply, no formal plans to do so have been developed at this time. Table 3-7: Availability Projections from Wholesale Supplier a. Subject tri changewith WI D and Cityapproval. Although the City may take water deliveries in excess of 6,000 AFY from its ' banked"supply, no formal plans to do so have been developedat this time. b. Reliability of WID supply is indicated in the City's contract �4h WID in Appendix D. Wholesale supply reliability is presented in Chapter 6. Although changes in deliverable volumes of water for future hydrologic scenarios have not been formally predicted at this time, Chapter 6 presents the most restrictive possible cases for the future. March2005 3.9 EXHIBIT K AGENDA ITEM E", CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Receive Backgroundlnformatlon on I m plementi ngWood bridge Irrigation District Surface Water Program MEETINGDATE: March 1,2006 PREPARED BY PublicWorks Director RECOMMENDEDACTION: Thatthe City Council receive backgroundinformationon implementingthe surfacewater treatment program utilizingthe Woodbridge IrdgationDistrict(WID) 6,000 acre-feetcontractual allotment. This material is being provided in advance cfthe March 15,2006 Council meeting at which staffwill request preliminaryapprovalsas described. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On several past occasionsthe Council has received information regardingtheacquisitionand usagecf6,000 acre-feet peryear of Mokelumne Riverwaterfrom Woodbridge Irrigation District. In May2003, the City contracted with WID to provide untreated surfacewater to Lodifor 40 years. At the September 21, 2044 Shirtsleeve meeting, the Water Supply Options Reportwas presentedto the Council. & the April 19, 2005 Shirtsleeve meeting, staff again presentedaftematives for implementingthe 6,000 acre-feet peryear surfacewater supply. On April 20, 2005, Councilapprovedhiringaconsultanttofurther study and develop arecommendationfor full implementation of the WID surface water supply. On June 9, 2005, Council was given a copy of the WID Surface Water Implementation Study, On November 1, 2005, Council receiveda presentationfrom the consultant and the recommendationthatthe C i go to a conjunctive use water supply system —one that ut9lizes both g rou ndwater and bsabedsurface water to serve the demands of Lod I's customers. Overthe course of the pastthree years, a numbercf alternatives have been consideredwith the most feasible options being "treat and drink" and "groundwater recharge". Some of the other alternatives sazi5salinclude: 1) injection well recharge, 2) rawwater Irrigation of parksand schools, 3) recharge pondswithin the City limits, 4) rechargeponds using North San Joaquin Water Conservation District facilities, 5) East Bay Municipal Utility District banking, and 6) interimsupplyto Stockton rechargeponds. These alternativeswere ruled out primarily dueto highoosts and regulatoryuncertainties. At the regional level, City cf Lodi has been participatingin severalwater supply acttvfues that will, hopefully, bring additional water supplies to the Cftyand the odieragencles inthe region. Examples includethe Mokelumne RiverWater and Power Authority MORE Project that seeks to capture unappropriatedpeakflows inthe Mokelumne River. Also, Lodi iscollaboraffngwith Stockton EastWater District, North San Joaquin Water Coftservatk>n Districtand WID an a pilot -scale recharge project near Micke Grove Park. North San Joaquin Water Con servation District recently passed a groundwater recharge assessmentfortheir groundwater rechargeand is evaluating multiple sites in its dlstiict, Note thata large partof the City (generalfy, the area east cf Mills Avenue) Is wtthin the Districtand pays thia nominal assessment. APPROVED /�.�-� I BlairKing,tlly Manager J nm doe 20312000 Receive Background lnforrnationon ImplementingSurfaceWaterTreatment Program UtiIWng Woodbridgelnigation District Contractual Ajiotment March 1,2006 Page 2 The recenPy-completed2005 UrbanWater Management Planconciselypresentsthe C i s existing and future water supply vs. demandoutlook (seeExhibRA). As shownonE hlbttA,the safe long termyield d the groundwater basin undedyingthe C i is estimatedat 15,000 acre-feet annually (afa). At present, the City is using 17,300 afa to modthe demandsof existing customers, reflectinga current needfor additional water supply and/or conservation. The UWMP anticipatesthahthrougha combination of consenration (fton-going City-wide installationof water meters isexpectedto conserve approximately2,400 afa uponcompletlon) and adding 6,000 afa of WID bmabadsurfacewater, the City's sustainable water supplywAl meet orexceedthe projectedwater demands up W the year 2029. TheC iCouncilwilIbeasked tosupport staffs recommendationtopursuethe"treatand ddnk" altemative on the basis it isthe "highestand best use"of the WI D water given a numberof factors that are compared below. ,i. The estimated constructionoastfor a surfacewater treatmentfacilityand associatedfacilities is estimatedto beupto $29.5 million. These aostsare inclusivecf site acquisition, surface water diversion piping, ultrafiltration (without pretreatment) using membranetechm4ogy, chlorine disinfection, transmission piping, and storage tanks. This ahemadve does eliminatethe need to construct additional NY& to serve future demands. The constructioncost for a groundwater rechargeprogram isestimatedto be $30,3 million. This assumes a recharge field 88 acres insiaeadjacenttoftWIDcanal at$300,000 per acre, including site improvementsand pipe appurtenances. Construction offive newwells is included inthe estimate. These a-sts are different from other numbersthat have been discussed in the past. A comparison of former and current estimates is provided in Exhibit B: In either scenario, new developmenti s expected to fund the capital improvements. Operatingand maintenancecostsare considerably higherforthe "treat and drW alternative, when comparedto the recharge optk)n. The changeto current rates would bean increase of approximately 15% (very rough esdmate),if the burdenwasshared City-wide. Benefit Criteriato evaluate benefits to the Cityof Lodi and the regionindude; 1)directbenefittothe groundwater resource, 2)1vig-term water quality, 3) sharing the regional burden, and 4) time of use Each isdiscussed below. esenamw me urounawmer Kesourice Intl* context that thewater demandscf exlsON Lodi are matdW by time sa£eyield of d e groundwater resource, the "treatand drink"altemativeeliminates further miningofthegroundwater arid, thereby, mutts inthe highestdirect benefittothe groundwater basincumently serving the City. Groundwater recharge programs have a number of inherent josses including evaporation, uptake by plant r wAaiak and capture within the soil column. These losses can be as high as 30 percent, meaning wvSWCWftSWftG*WSWPft* Wft 2n?IXX Receive Background Informationon Implementing SurfaceWater Treatment Program UUzing Woodbridge IrdgationDistdctContractualAllotment March 1,2006 Page 3 the process is about 70%edfrrt Inaddition, the rechargewater, once it reachesthe groundwater, moves away from the Lodi point of use and toward the centraVeastem-County groundwater depression. A mapof the County groundwatercontours isprovided in Exhibit C Lona -Term Water Quality Lodi has long enjoyed a high quality cf water that is pumped from the ground through wells that are clustered in relativelyclose pmximitytothe Mokelurrme River. Notonly hasthe qualityof water been excellent, butthe yield from eachwell has been relativelyhigh, with an average yield of approximately 1,400gallons per minute. Based upon experienceand water quality informationfor areas southerly and westerly cfthe City, newwells inthese areas are expectedto have highersalinityleveland lower yields. Forthe "treat and drink" alternative, the salinity levels inthe treated surfacewater will be lowerthan levels currently found inthegmundwater. Combining these We sources for potableusewill resultina loweringcf salinity levels in both our ddnkingwater and ourwastewater. This providesa long-term tangible benefitto the City as the State is expected to impose limits on salinity for dischargesto the Delta. Loweringthe salinity of our"source water" will help avoid very costly improvementsto remove salinity at the wastewater end of the use cycle. A groundwater rechargeprogramwill essentially not alter the water quaIity characteristicsof the C i s groundwater resource. The "treatanddrh*" altemativewill result inchlodnationof the entire Citywater system as is required by State regulation. Most inft industryagree that chlodnationrequirementswlll also be imposed upon all groundwater users i n the foreseeablefuture. Sharina the Reaional Burden On a regional basis, the various cities and agencies are oo I la boratively work i ng to enhancethe supply side of the region's groundwater resource. The groundwater basin Lodi shares with other agencies and individual propertyowners is being mined by over 150,000 afa. This results in decliningwater levels in wells, which reducesyle14 increases pumping costs, and impactswade-quality as more saline waters drawn intothe basin, renderingweb unfitfor use. 150,000 afa and more is neededto meetthe goalto reverseand stabilizethis problem. On a conceptual level, the pdncipalstrategiesto achieve this goal Include: 1)securingadditionalsurfacewater resources, 2) elimination or deferral of further groundwater pumping, 3) bankingthrough rediarW cr defenalcf pumping, and 4) regional recharge. The MORE projectwas described above. The Stodcton DeltaWater Supply Project includesa treatment plantthat will begin treating 56,000 afa within three years. Lodrs water treatment plant can begin producing 6.OOOafa dEtreateddrinkingwaherwithin 45 years. A rechargeprogramwould provide somewhat less reomil benefit byvirtue of the losses described above. Time of Use Water demands within the City are highest inthe spring, summer and fall. Conversely, the lowest demands are inthe winter. C rWID water Is available from March 1 through October 15, and this perfectlymatchesour highestdemandperiod. Lodi has secured highqualitysurfacewaterdelivedesthat meld with demands, both inquentify and in time. To store suchhwater in the ground during periodsof peak demands does riot make a lot of sense, J ;waW**SUd"AWdKPMWWn dee VIM= Receive Background Information on ImplementingSurFaceWaterTreatment ProgramUtilizing Woodbridge InigationDistrici ContractualAllotment March 1. 2006 Page 4 As isthe strategy cE many of the regional recharge programs, excess water, that usually becomes available inthe winter months, is divertedto faAow fields for percolation. Oftentimes, this water Is sediment laden and well suitedfor groundwater recharge. The My of Lodi could pursue similar sbzbW by diverting storm drainagewaterto rechargeareas and/or by altering designsfor new developmentsto incorporate rechargefacilities. a72� Ii,771! =. 7•:A At the March 15meeting, staffwiN be requestingMy Council approvalto moveforward with the "treat anddrink" altemativeand thatthe MyCouncii authorizestafftoWlet proposals for PreliminaryWater Treatment Master Planningwork requiredto prepare preliminarydeslgn altemativesand further recommendations. DesignaFtematives could includepartnershipswith otheragenaes. Among the tasks to be done ane: 1. Watershed Assessment 2 Process Evaluationand PilotTesting 3. Altemative Site Evaluations 4 Cost Estimates 5. FinancingAltematives 6. Environmentaland Regulatory Considerations Staff recognizesthat this recommendabon Is notwhatwe antldpated when the WID water purchase agreement was made. Sincethen, a numberoffact= have made groundwaterrechargea less desirablealtemative, Regulatoryrequirementson recharge projects have increased inthe lastfew years and, n-jost recently, water rightsand underground storage permitrequirements are making recharge projects more uncertain inthe boVrun. However, as notedeadier, recharge maybea viable altemative for the irregularpeakfiows asscdatedwith local stomis and high riverrunoffevents. Dueto the design complexity, regulatoryyrequirementsandc mtof projectsof this nature, majordesign dedslons today are no longer made unlWeralty bya projectteam. Instead, a consensus is reached only after participationby members of the design team and individuals outsidethe team, including owners, operators, regulatoryagenciesand the general public. Therefore, a processof measured steps, ofwhich this isthe first, isour recommendation, FISCALIMPACT: Information only, Noneatthistime. FUNDINGAVAILABLE: Notapplicable turd C. Ofinle. :k. Public Works Director Pr*nd by RWWd Pd=. PW&Worlcs DWscW Wd F. Wdb ft deh OV E1lpin ANNdVnWft J m*WzV*SWf O*W4*Peapra *OC 211712000 I i u ;Fs, EXHIBITIB Comparison of Planning Cost Estimates RechameBasin JAW&%AM 4w14wwNuPMwwn_ER9.d*C 2005 2006 Construction of Recharge Basin $593,000 $593,000 Construction Contin en 20% $119,000 $119,000 Engineering and Other Fees 1596 $89,000 $89,000 Subtotal $801,000 $801,000 Purchase Land for Basin $17,600,000 $26,400,000111 CEQAINEPA $100,000 $100.000 Water Wells $W.700.00(Y" $3,000,000w Total $18,501,000 $30,301,000 JAW&%AM 4w14wwNuPMwwn_ER9.d*C 2005 2006 Surface Water Treatment Plant and Associated Transmission Facilities $25,700,000 $20,000,0000) Construction Contin en 20% $5,100,000 $4 000 WD En ineerin and Other Fees 15% 900000 $3,000,000 Subtotal $34;700,000 $27;080000 4- PurchaseLand for Plant 1,0001000 $1,500,0001*1 CEOA NEPA $1,000,000 $10-00,000 Total I $W.700.00(Y" $29,500,000 JAW&%AM 4w14wwNuPMwwn_ER9.d*C Exhibit C FW" E" FO ION 9MuRdwaW*OMM" Smft. COM Dmnw & MtXm lac. Nwftnwn son.jaWn Cw#y &Wwtvo summary &Wnd~BRW*WAIMhC* 7 EXHIBIT L ASSOCIATION FOR SENSIBLE AND INFORMED PLANNING V. CITY OF CLOMS, CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL, PAYNTER REALTY, ET AL. FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 03 CE CG 01576 (Lead Case consolidated with No. 07 CECG 03817) SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ON RETURN TO WRIT OF MANDATE FOLLOWING THE PREPARATION OF AN EIR (CLOVIS-HERNDON SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT) March 4,2008 VOLUME 1 Nos. IN -CAM 000001 to IN -CAM 000289 .11David o - vis: E1R status Frorn: David Wolfe To: Montesinos, Miriam Date: 11/30/200611:45 AM Subject~ RE: Clovis: EIR status CC: Fey, David Hi Miriam, I hope You hada wonderful ThanksgMng as well. We met yesterday with Tom Skinner and made It up m the Aftematives section. We are meeting tomorrow to review that section. Tom read the latest comment letter you sert IlD us from September 06 and he is famlkr with fie brim Some of the issues we disarmed were the fad that there is no project specific noise study, no energy consumption study, and no heath risk assessment. Nor has global warning been discussed as you nwdioned. We can tryand deal with all of those Issues nuw, or simply make the document as stnang as possible with what we have, wait for the comment leW ns to arrive, and build in the pommy of having to do additional studies and possibly recirculating all or a portion of the Draft ER if the comment letters make an adequate record to warrant such. What are your doughts? Also, we had a frankdiscussion with Tan and Ith1nkthe reality Is we (City sUM are going to have to play a major role in completing this document, responses to comments, and any additional studies. So any canned language cr model studies, reports, etc you have, would be great Please send anything directlytOrna Thanks, Have a great dry. David David I WOWS LOZANO SMITH Atborneys at Law 7404 N. Spalding Avenue Fresno, CA 93720.3370 559-431-5600, 86. 123 dwoft0lozenosmit h,com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may coifth privileged and/or confidential information only for use by the Intended recipients. Unless you are the addressee for authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, disclose, or dlstribube this message (or any formation contained in or attached to t) to anyone. You may be subject to civil action and/or criminal penalties for violation of this restriction. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e -mall or by telephone at (800) 445-9430 and delete the transmission. Thank YOU. >>> "Monteslnos, Miriam" <MM2nteslnos6sbeerd=m> 11/29/200611:46 AM >>> Hi David - A couple of additional thoughts re: issues to discuss In the DER given recent opposition: 1) Global warming - I know this seems far fetched but it has become a to* of disausion as of late, and we anticipate It vAI start being rased by opposition forces. We therefor are encouraging EIR IN -C" 000152 ( 1l bavid More - ovrs: EIR status a e 2 • consultants to Include a discussion re: how the project would not have signlflcant impacts on global vuarm'rig, at leastso that the Issue s discussed and then Itcan be expanded upon as necessary in the FEIR if comments are made on that issue, (Otherwise, the opposition mlght state it is new information ii the FER) 2) CO hot spot -This Issue has been raised previously by opposltieon forces in various pr0etts. I can by to dig up sane prior OR discussion on the Issue E you think that would be helpful, IxdTam might be familiar enough with the issue to have the necessary Info fa- a I think that's all ftx now, butwill let you know iflthink of any additional Issues based upon prior experlences. Up to now, the big ones they typically hit are traffic, economics, and noise; therefore, he needs to be certain that he has VERY good discussions on those issues, Hopefully, he has reviewed theoppoSitim materials we have provided to date and Is Irxorporatln9 discussions as appropriate based upon those documents. Thank you as always, and I hopeyou had a great Thanksgiving) Miriam Miriam Monbesinos Attorney At Law Steeled, Levitt & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, Califomia94111 Tel: (415) 788.0900 Direct: (415) 403-3347 Fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesinos0stedeI& m yM.steefeLcom This emall, induding any attachments, and their use by any redplent are subjecttotrms, conditions, restrictions and dlsdalmers thatcan be reviewed by clicking here. --original Message From: David Wolfe (mailto:DWOLFE(a 1Qmosmtth.coml Sent Tuesday, November 21,2006 1:47 PM Ta David E AICP Fey, Montesinos, Miriam CC: Dave Paynter; Davidoff, Judy V Subject: Ra Clovis: EIR stakes Miriam, We mxt today and started page by page review. We made it through Chapter 2 Air Pollution and will pkk up again on Wednesday November 29th. We blocked out that entire day. Tom will work on revisions reviewed to date prior to the November 29th meeting. David David J. Wolfe LOZANO SMITH Athwnffi e: at Lar 7404 R Spalding Avenue Fresno, CA 93720.3370 IN -CAM 000153 X11/30/2006) David Wo11`e-REB bws: status e SI�A•allyrI!. t. L4 -7L PI im CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This dectront mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential knform tion only for use by the intended recipients. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message (or any krformation-oontained in or attadied to it) to anyone. You may be subject to cM action and/or crindnal penalties for violation of this restriction. V you received V transmission In error, please notify the sender.by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 445-9430 and delete the transmission. Thank you. >>> Nontesinos, Miriam" < .11/21/200612:07 PM HI Fey and Wolle (too many Davids!) - Just wondering if you'd havea dance to speak with SkrTw and, if so, I he gaveyou a sense for timing re: tumkrg around the next version - whkh hopefully will be the Savendredc and will be verY dose to bekng ready for public release. Thank yowl Miriam Miriam Montesinos Attorney At law Redd, Levitt 81 Weiss A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CalWbmla 94111 Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direct: (415) 403-3347 Fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesinosQsteeW.com www.steefel.com This email, Including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subject totem, conditions, restrictionsand disclaimers prat can be reviewed by disking here. iLl IN -CAM OW154 } 11%30/2 avid Wo % • : ov s: status From: "Montesinos, Miriam" <MMontesinos@steefel.00m> To: "David Wolfe" <DWOLFE@lozanosmith,com> Date: 11/30/2006 3:00 PM Subject: RE Clovis; EIR status Attachments: PDF File- 3_7_20Ut1lities_pdf; PDF File- Wal-Mart_20FEIR_20Sept_2006jdf; PDF File- Wal-Mart 20FEIR 20Sept 2006,pdf CC: "Davidoff, Judy V." <JDaAdoff@steefel.com, Hi David - Thanks so much for your hard workwith Tom. We truly do appreciate it as we realize it has turned out to be much harder than it should! Wth respectto whether to include information in the EIR now or wait to see if it is raised in the DEIR comments and recirculateif necessary, we should includeas much Information as possible at this point justifying why a project-specificanalysis was not necessary and, thwrefbre,not required; thatway, in ft FEIR all we need to do is restate that, and not have to wont' about providing new information (hopefully). To that end, I believeweVe previously provided possible language to include re: energy - specifically, why a project-specificanalysis was not required per the CEQA Guidelines and therefore is not provided, but nonetheless the foIlowinginformationisIncluded... Justin case, lam attaching some examples if energy discussions in EIRs. �^ Regarding global warming, similarto energy, at least some discussion re: the issue and why a project-specificanalysis is not being included should be provided. I'll tYy to work on something but would like for Tom to take a first stab. With respect to noise, I guess I don`t understand why he didn't do a project -specific noise analysis- and am song I didn't catch that before. Given he hasn't done one, though, my initial reaction is that he should dearly state in the DEIRwhy he didn't do a project specific analysis- what was his reason for riot doing are. A question for Tom is does he think he can address all ft types of issues raised by the opposition- such as in Santa Rosa- without needing to do a project-specificanalysis? Short of having the analysis, we would need to have information in there addressingwhy the noise sources they typically bring up (trucks, loudspeakers, forklifts, etc.), don't create significant noise impacts. Also, what did he do for Hanford and is there anyway to Incorporate some of that information into this DEIR by way of analogy short of having to do a new analysis for this project? As for the health risk assessment, we also need to include a clear discussion as to why a quantitative health risk assessmentwas not oonducted, and in the discussion include as much qualitative information as possible. (11can't recall off the top what information he has in there about health risks at this pant.) As with noise, what did he do for Hanford? How can he address issues raised by the opposition for other projects without needing to do a project-specificquantitative analysis? IN -CAM 000155 VSM) 155413 Wore- vis: EIR status a Sony that this is going to tum out to be so much work on the C i s end, David. Unfortunately, there really seems to be no way around k given Tom's performance to date, though. We are obviously happy to help in any way we can, including providing discussions in prior EI Rs, etc. (Tothat end, III try to get something tvyou by early next week on health risk assessment and noise, as well as global warming - although the latter is such new issue thatfinding canned languagewill be a challenge.) Thank you, Miriam MiriamMontesinos . Attorney At Law Steefel, Levitt & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direa (415)403-3347 Faoc (415) 788-2019 mmontesinos@steefel.com www.sbefd.com �1 This email, including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subject to terms, conditions, restrictionsand disclaimers that can be .reviewed by clicking here. original NmEga--- Fran: David Wolfe [mailto:DWOLFE@lozanosmith.cm] Sent Thursday, November 30,200611:45 AM To: Montesinos, Miriam Cc: David Fey Subject RE: Clovts: EIR status Hi Miriam, Ihope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving as well. We met yesterday with Tom Skinner and made it up to ftAltemativss section. V1k- are meeting tomorrow to reviewthat section. Tom read the latest comment letteryou sent to us from September 06 and he is familiar with the issues. Some of the issueswe discussed were the fact thatthere is no project spec -ft noise stady, no energy consumption study, and no health risk assessment. Nor has global warming been disossed as you mentioned. VVe can try and deal with all cf those Issues now, or simply make the document as strong as possiblewith what we have, wait for the comment ^� letters to arrive, and build in the possibilityof having to do 3 additional sbrE and possibly recirculating all cr a portion cf the IN -CAM 000156 i VOM303 Davi o e- PT Uldyls: OR Mus a Draft EI R if the comment letters make an adequate record to warrant such. What are your thoughts? Also, we had a flank discussion with Tom and Ithink the reality is we (City staff are going to have to play a major role in completing this document, responsesto comments, and any additional sbxuw. So any canned language or model studies, reports, etc you have, would be great Please send anything directly to me. Thanks, Have a great day. David David J. Wolfe LOZANO SNM Attorneys at Law 7404N. Spalding Avenue Fresno, CA 93720-3370 559431-5600, Ext. 123 dwolfe@lozanosmith.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information only for use by the intended recipients. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message (or any informationcontained in or attached to ft) to anyone. You may be subject to civil action and/or criminal penalties for violation of this restriction. If you received this transmission in error, please notify ft sender by reply e-mail arty telephone at (800) 445-9430 and delete the transmission. Thank you. »> "Montesinos, Miriam"<MMonteslnos@steefel.com> 11/29/200611:46 AM Hi David - A couple of additional thoughts re: issuesto discuss in the DEIR given recent opposition: 1) Global warming - I know this seems far fetched but it has become a topic of discussion as of late, and we anticipate itwill start being raised by oppositionforces. We therefore ate encouraging EIR consultants to include discussion re: how the projectwould not have significant impacts on global warming, at least so that the issue is discussed and then it can be expanded upon as necessary in tine FEI R if comments are made on that issue. (Otherwise, the opposition might state itis new information inthe FEIlt.) IN -CAM 000157 (11130/2006) David Wotfe - RE: Clovis: tt0 status .. _ ._......... ... ... _. �__... _......... age 4 2) CO hot spot - This issue has been raised previously by opposition forces invanous projects. Ican tryto dig up some prior EIR discussion on the issue if you think that would be helpful, butTom might be familiar enough with ft issue to have the necessary info for a short discussion. think hat's all for now, butwill letyou know if I think of any additional issues based upon priorexperiences. Upto naw, the big ones they typically hit are traffic, economics, and noise; therefore, he needs to be certain that he has VERY good discussions on those issues. Hopefully, he has reviewed the opposition materialswe have provided to date .and is incorporating discussions as appropriate based upon thm documents. Thank you as always, and I hope you had a great Thanksgiving! Miriam Miriam Montesinos Attorney At Law Steefel, Levfd & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, Califomia94111 Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direct: (415)403-3347 Fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesinos@steefel.com www.steefel.com This email, including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subjectto temps, conditions, restrictions and disclaimers dint can be reviewed by clicking here, ----Original Message ---- From: DavidWoffe (maifto:DWOLFE@lozanosmith.com) Sent Tuesday, November2l, 20061:47 PM To: David E A1CP Fey, Montesinos, Miriam Cc: Dave Paynter, Davidoff, Judy V. Subs Re. Clovis: EIRstatz Miriam, We met today and started page by page review. We made itthrough Chapter Air Pollution and will pickup again on Wednesday November 29th. We blocked out that entire day. Tom will work on revisions reviewed to date prior to the November 29th meeting. David David J. Wolfe LOZ NO SMITH Attorneys at Law 7404 N. Spalding Avenue IN -CAM 000158 Ell 1 My@ MRMOVE 11IR ilkWePage Fresno, CA 93720-3370 559-431.5600, Ext 123 dwolfe@lozanosmith.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privilegedand/or confidential informationonly for use by the intended recipients. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, disclose, or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone. You may be subject to M action and/or criminal penalties for violation ofthii restriction. Ifyou received this transmission m error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 445-9430 and delete the transmission. Thank you. >>> "Montesinos, Miriam"<MMontesinos@steefel.com> 11/21/200612:07 PM Hi Fey and Woffe (too many Davids!) - Just wondering if you'd have chanceto speakwtth' Skinner and, if so, if he gave you a sense for timing re: turning around the next version which hopefully will be the Screencheck and wM be very close to �. being ready for public release. Thank you! Miriam Nfiiriam Montesinos Attorney At Law Steefel, Levift & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Ernbarcedero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, Califomia94111' Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direct: (415) 403-3347 Fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesinos@steefel.com www.steefel.com This email, includingany attachments, and their use by -any recipient are subject to terms, conditions, restrictionsand disclaimers that can be reviewed by clicking here. IN -CAM 000159 Information Provided at or after the Public Hearing Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Friday, December 12,2008 5:17 PM To: 'george' Cc: City Council; Blair King: Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood: Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: ATT; BOB JOHNSON & COUNCIL MEMBERS Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, responseand/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: george [mailto:marlyne_marlyne@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, December 12,2008 11:47 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: ATT; BOB JOHNSON &COUNCIL MEMBERS MR JOHNSON I DON'T CARE ETHER WAY AWAY WALLMART, AND I'M SORRY TO SAY I DID NOT VOTE FOR YOU AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE IN DOING WHAT YOU THOUGHT BEST, THERE ARE AT LEAST 2 SIDES TO A STORY AND YOU HAVE MY VOTE NEXT TIME IF YOU DECIDE TO RUN. THANK YOU GEORGE DE COTA "Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery,and today is a gift,that's why they call it the present" Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962) 12/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Friday, December 12,2008 9:28 AM To: 'Michael Doan' Subject: RE: Lodi Wal-Mart article Thank you for your email Michael. The City Council on December 10th voted 3-2 to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project has not yet been approved, only the EIR was certified. The minutes will likely be approved at the meeting of January 7th. The agenda packet and meeting itself are available for viewing online at www.lodi.gov. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Michael Doan [mailto:MDoan@kiplinger.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:52 AM To: Randi Johl Subject Lodi Wal-Mart article Can you confirm that the city council has approved the Wal-Mart Supercenter? IDo you have any more written info on that, such as the minutes? Thank you. Michael Doan Kiplinger California Letter 12112/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Friday, December 12,2008 10:58 AM To: 'mjanaforian@sbcglobal.net' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlarn Subject: RE: What a farce Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Mark Anaforian [mailto:mjanaforian@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:30 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob lohnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Lany Hansen Subject: What a farce Dear Lodi City Council, I would like to express my extreme displeasure at the City Council meeting held Wednesday, December 10,2008. My first complaint is with the accommodations that were afforded to such a volatile issue. Having been at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss this issue, and seeing that meeting with standing room only seating, I would have thought that the council would understand the need for a bigger venue. And when a council member brought up the idea of postponing the meeting and relocating at another venue, the only reasoning for not doing so was that Comcast could not broadcast from a different site. That is not a legitimate excuse. Those people who showed up should have access to the meeting before the hand full of people watching at home. Another complaint I have is with the general attitude of some of the council members. Some seemed annoyed to be there. As an elected official it is your j ob to be there and to listen to your constituents. I was also dismayed at the comments from one council member. When discussing the citizens outside in the cold, this member said "it was cold for the Light Parade". This condescending attitude is unacceptable. I went to the Light Parade for my 9 and 11 year old sons. It was important to them and I went to it knowing I would be outside. I did not go to the Council meeting expecting to have to stand out in the cold for over 3 hours! It should also be noted that at least 50 people had left the outside location before the public comments portion of your meeting even started. So much for everyone of your constituents having equal access to this important meeting. And finally I would like to add that I feel that this "public forum" was a farce. I say this because 30 minutes into the meeting I told my wife that the vote would be 3-2. The council had already made up their minds before stepping foot in the building. If this is the case why even ask our opinion? So shame on you city council. I, for one, do not feel like my elected leaders care about what I have to say. And that cuts to the core of what a democracy is suppose to represent. Thank you for your time, Mark Anaforian 12/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2 0 0 811:33 AM To: 'Gerry' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer;Jeff Hood, Rad Bardam Subject: RE: Why Would opening WALMART hurt my business. Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Gerry [mailto:gsalvacr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11,200810:06 AM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hari Subject: Why Would opening WALMART hurt my business. Dear City Council Members, I am very disappointed in the decision to approve the project for the WALMART super center. My business is located in the same plaza where WALMART is situated. Just like most of the businesses around me, our business is driven by the foot traffic comming from WALMART and all other businesses in the area. According to the property management, they would lease out the space to be vacated by WALMART to another retailer. In this economy, which retailer will be able to move to a big warehouse left by WALMART? Granted WALMART will be able to add more employees, but most of this employees do not live in Lodi. Pm afraid that all the businesses in our area will go belly up, one after another. It would have been nice if the City Council would have taken the time to ask all the business owners what our opinion was about opening a super center. Jose Cruz Sr. Software Engineer Mobile: 4083103522 12/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randl Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Thursday, December 11,200812:12 PM To: 'Gail' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer: Jeff Hood: Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Lodi does not need a SuperWalmart........ Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Gail[mailto:gailteague@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:19 PM To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen Subject: Lodi does not need a SuperWalmarl........ Please listen to your voters who feel that Walmart is sufficient as it is. Lodi does not need a SuperWalmart. Let's continue to support downtown, our wineries, and that hometown feeling and experience that Lodi exudes so well and that makes our town so great and special. Don't sell out, Lodi is on the right track, as is, just the way the things are going. Most Sincerely, Happy Lodi Citizens: Gail Teague Allan J. Petersen 1732 Cape Cod Circle 1732 Cape Cod Circle Lodi, CA 95242 Lodi, CA 95242 209-365-1726 "Life is Good!!' 12/11/2008 Page I of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Thursday, December 11.2008 12:13 PM To: 'Treacy Elliott Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: WalMart Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department{s} for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Treacy Elliott [mailto: lazylab@sbcg lobal, net] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:38 PM To: City Council Subject: WalMart I n order to save time at the meeting tonight, I would like to provide my input: I would ask the council to not approve this project for the following reason: With the recently approved Reynolds Ranch additional retail space, which is equivalent in size to this project, the impact as described in the EIR is no longer valid. Failure to send the EIR back for revision on this topic will surely result in another prolonged lawsuit and process. It is only fair to both the proponents and opponents to get this project settled as quickly as possible, approval will not shorten the process. We already learned this lesson once. As most of you know, I have been opposed to the project, specifically it's anchor, since the very beginning. I doubt that the perceived value will ever materialize. I truely beleive that we can do better by bringing in an anchor that will add value to our city, not take it away. Whatever your vote is tonight, I will respect your decision. See you there. Thank you, Treacy Elliott 1712 W. Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95242 12/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December 10,200811:48 AM To: 'Michael Scanlan' Cc: Steve Schwabauer: Blair King Subject: RE: Wal-Mart hearing Mr. Scanlan, Please rest assure that every member of the public wanting to provide public comment will have an opportunity to do so regardless of their time of arrival. Entrance into the building will be on a first come, first serve basis. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Michael Scanlan [mailto:mscanlanl@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09,2008 9:11 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Wal-Mart hearing Hi, I heard a rumor that everyone who wants to attend tomorrow night's -hearing has to show up at City H a I I at 4.30 P M and get a ticket. Is this true? Also, iffolks want to speak, they also have to arrive at 4:30 and fill out a speakers card. What happens to folks who can't be down there at 4:30 to sign up for a ticket or to fill out a speakers card? What about folks who have no idea and will show up at 6:30 PM expecting to get in? I hope this isjust a rumor. Please let me know. Thanks! Mike 12/11/2008 A.5.1 The following minimum scale of wages shall be paid, except in Zone B as set forth in Appendix A5.4 hereof'. ZONE A -WAGE RATES EFF EMWE I 10M6708 1 10104109 1 10M10 Managing Clerks r6 21.16 21.58 21.95 22.32 Senior Head Clerks and Senior Produce Clerks 20.73 21.15 21.51. 21.97 Head Clerks ........... ::: 20.63 21.04 21.40 21.76 I Senior Clerks I perk need X19 20.03 20.43 20.78 21.13 6th 1040 hours 19.30 19.90 2025 20.60 5th 1040 hours ::113.oa - 6;;.,� 18.70 19.20 19.75 213.25 4th 1043 hours 18.20 18.60 1925 19.85 3rd 1040 hours17.20 9;51j''.:: 11.70 17.60 18.25 18.85 2nd 1040 hours !:..'.q'00::i 16.20 16.60 17.25 17.85 1st 1040 hours 10.4623'-_ 15.20 15.60 16.25 16.85 Combo BakeryMell Mgr. :*.R.Ji 113.06 16.66 17.26 17.86 Deparbnent Head Ckwk (optional) 8:67 : 14.96 15.56 , 16.16 16-76 I Clerks I I FUM Staten I Experienced 12.15 12.40 15.76 16.38 10th Stop (10th IM hours) 11.20 15.18 15.16 15.16 9th Step (9th 1040 hours) ::113.oa - 6;;.,� 1456 14.56 14.56 14.56 8th Stop (8th 1 D40 hours) 13.96 13.96 13.96 13.96 7th Step (7th 1040 hours) 9;51j''.:: 11.70 11.70 11-85 12.00 6th Step (81h 1040 hours) !:..'.q'00::i 11.30 11.30 11.35 11.50 5th Step (5th 1040 hours) 10.4623'-_ 10.80 10.80 10.90 11,05 4th Stop (4th 1040 hours) QzQips; 10.25 10-40 10.55 10-70 3rd Step (3rd 1040 horns) 8:67 : 10.00 10.15 10-30 10.45 2nd Stop (2nd 1040 hours) 9.75 9.90 10.05 1020 1st Stop (1St 1040 hours) 9.50 9.65 9.80 9.95 I FUM Staten I Experienced 12.15 12.40 12-65 12.90 61h Step (1040 hours) 11.20 11.35 11.50 11.85 5th Step (1040 hours) 10-70 10.85 11.00 11.15 Ah Step (1040 hours) 10.25 10-40 10.55 10.70 3rd Step (1040 hours)::"- 9;51j''.:: 9.80 10.00 10.20 10.40 2nd Stop (1040 hours) !:..'.q'00::i 9.30 9.50 9.70 9.90 I st Step (1040 hours) b- "7 9.00 9.2D 9.40 9.60 Courtesy Clerks 9.00 9.20 Experlencad 9.40 9.60 I st 1040 hours 8.50 8.70 8.90 9.10 2007-2011 Food 8 Meat Division RALErS Page 49 K A -WAGE RATES imumwages,employees now receiving ahigherwage '.laular classification of work performed shall not have d effect of this Agreement. maintained by the parties heretoduring the period of hereby agreesto paywages in comp! iancetherewith. anynon-contractual benefit including. but not limited ruses. This provision does not apply to over -scale es, except Courtesy Clerks, shall receive extra 'kale herein set forth, of sixty-five cent (65$) per hour of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m, loyerhas the right. but no obligation, to offer a buyout yeas. The Employer may make such an offer during mployer choose to implement such a program, they !gotiate the terms thereof. Ibles; 4PEWAY INC. Page 52 A4.1 The following minimum scale of wages shall be paid, except in Zone B as set forth in AppendixA.4.2 hereot 2007-2011 Food UMSIon SAFMAT IHC. - Page 53 ZONE A CLAAWMATION Curren! 10147107 lemma 10004100 70!89!10 Yine 1 Clerk 20.418 21.118 21.518 21858 22.218 Bonier Heed Clerk 18.877 20.577 20.977 21.327 21.677 Heed Clark 19.753 20.483 20.683 T 21.2113 21563 food Ckrk Tbwwrwr 19234 20.034 20.434 20.7a4 21.134 1040 hours MM 175W 17.500 16.00 18.000 1040 hams 15.000 15.500 15.500 16.000 18.000 1040 hours 13.800 14.00 14.000 14.500 14400 1040 hours 11.750 12,200 12.200 12.700 12.700 1040 hours 10.000 10.400 10AW 70.800 11.010 1040 hours 9 50 9.750 9.760 102x0 10380 520 hours 9.000 9 250 9250 9.750 9.850 $20 hours 8.700 9.900 1 9.000 9.500 9.700 520 hours 8.500 8.750 1, 8.750 1 9.250 9.400 6M clack paakdhr randrNbered Jou man, f-Cemm- am Hand CNrh 13.855 14.405 14.805 15.405 15.805 There~ 13.455 14.005 14.505 15.006 15.505 1040 hours 11.750 12250 12250 12.750 12.750 1040 toms 10.00 11.00 11.1000 11 500 11.600 1040 hours 10.100 10.50 10.500 11.000 11.000 1040 hours 9.400 9.750 9.750 10.250 10250 1040 hours 5.900 9.250 9.2W 9.780 10.00 1040 hours 8.600 8.009 9.00 1 9.600 8.750 52011040 hors row hire) 8.400 8.750 8.750 9.250 0.500 52011040 hours {new hire) 8.20 8.500 8.590 8.000 9.250 820 hours 8.000 8.2608 8'.7x0 9A00 Cou cwxk Theres4 r 8.385 3.760 9.00 9.150 2400 1049 hours 8.000 x.500 8.500 am 9.00 520 haus I 7.64W7.760 8.2W 8.250 8.500 8.750 luioai , Courtesy ks asvA be Paid xis rmd hlghwt role in a,e new amtpraduaes a1 Inst a 00 Per Courtesy Ckrk hired Eger to 090011199 9.412 9,780 10.000 10.150 10.300 Fad *WftniSakmayAom Clerk Low Beleeter 12.260 12.00 12.850 13.100 13.350 TheradMr 71.330 12.200 12AW 12.700 12.950 1040 hours 10800 11,150 11.150 HADD 11.400 1040 hams 1020 10.600 10.300 10.750 10.750 1040 hours 9.009 9.850 9.860 10.100 10250 1040 hours 9.000 9.250 9250 9.500 10.000 1040 hours 8.800 9.000 9.000 9.250 9.750 1040 hours 8.20 8.750 8.750 ohm 9300 520 hours 7.900 8.550 8.550 8.500 9250 320 hours 7.700 6,400 8.400B.B50 9000 520 hours 7.500 a.26001250 8.500 1.750 nomoaslramr 12.900 12.730 P4mhas Eerpialwss: Modify ea dkemod b l -d - eardb+ron of rage Inuesses andlorapuhabed baron Payments 10 foo" Fadpft aorto burr o18r 2007-2011 Food UMSIon SAFMAT IHC. - Page 53 & MO3 -- Z Ctrs 2ges , 7t; COVERED SERVICES PigO/O€, T-OF-AFSISA NON-PPO PPO/OUT OF-AREA Lifetime Maximum' $2.000.000 per person $2,000,000 Deductible Per Person $600 $800 5400 Family Maximum $1,800 $2,400 $1,200 Out-&-Pocket Maximum Per Person $7500. $20,000. $2,000 , Family Maximum $15,000 $40.000 . ' $6.000 Plan Coinsurance 70% after deductible .50%'after deductible:. 75% after deductible Plan Hospital Coinsurance 70% aiter deductible ... ,50% after deductible 75% after deductible':, -` Emergency Room Services 100% after $100 copay, -100% after$100 copay" 100% after $7&cnpay,.; ..` ., (facility only) for true waived if admitted waived if admitted_ waived if admitted emergencies no deductible no deductible no deductible Physician Office Visits 100% after $35 copay, 50% after deductible 100% after $25 copay, no deductible no deductible ChiropracUc/Acupun!cWre Office Vsrt %_ 100% after S35.copay,-.. .50% after deductiblei..'..'.: 100%after $25 copay, no deductible ` no.deductible . . X-Ray and Lab 7096 b096 after deductible 75% Calendar Year Maximum $500...: :.5500 $500 (combined PPOInonPP01 Annual Physical Exam 100%. after $35 copay, ` ` ,` 50%,after deductible'. ,`:.. 100%, no deductible, no deductible Plan pays up to $75 for exam .. . Plan pays up to $75 for exam :. . and $100 for IsWray per.year _ and $100-for labh*ray per-year; one exam per'year;. combined ... one exam_ per year; combinsci.::. with non-PPO .: = wish PPO Mammogram' 70% after deductible 50% after.. deductible.:" ' :." 1001/6. no deductible Plan pays up to $200 per. Plan pays' up-to $200 per, screening screening Well Baby Care 100%. no deductible 50% after deductible ` 100%. no deductible MentalHealth/ Covered under the Covered underthe . Covered under the Chemical Dependency Employee Member Assistance Employee Member Assistance Employee Member Assistance (Detoxification paid under Program(EMAP) Program (EMAP) Program(FMAP) medical as any other illness.) Lifetime maximum applies to all covered medical services providedunderthe UFCW&Employers BenefitTrust including coverage under the PlanA/Standard, Plan B/Ultra and Planq/Premier Plans combined. Includes Mobile Screening. q rs - 7 urs 7 G r6 -- This booklet contains only highlights of certain features of the UFCW& Employers Benefit Trust. Not ellprovisions, limitstions and exclusions. which may vary from plan toplan. have been included, Full details are contained in the Summary Plan Descriptions(SPD) and/or the Evidence of Coverage and Disclosure Form (if you coverage is providedthrough an HMO), subsequent Plan notices and Pian Documents that establish the Plan provisions. i f there is a discrepancy between the wording here and the documents that establish the Plan, the legal Plan Documents or HMO agreements will govern. The Trustees reserve the right to amend, modify or terminate the Plan at any rime. PLAN A/PREMIE P.PO N PLAN Af-PREMIER - .'PPO PLAN HMO PLAN NON -PPO PF01OUT OF= -AREA NON -PPO H1100 Der person $2.000.000 per person No maximum $600 $200 $400 No deductibles $1.800 $600: $1,200 $10.000 :$1,000 $5,000 Varies with HMO $30,000 0,000 .$15,000 50% after deductible 85% after deductible 50% after deductible 100$ 50% after deductible 85% after deductible 50% after deductible 100% after $100 copay per admission 100% after $75 copay, 100% after $75 oopay, 100% after $75 copay. 100% after $75 copay, Waived if admitted waived if: admitted waived if admitted waived ifadmitted no deductible no'deductible ._. no deductible no deductible 50% after deductible 100% after $12 capay, 50% after deductible 100% after $25 copay no deductible (self-funded benefit) 50% after deductible 100% after $12 copay, 50% after deductible 100% after $25 copay no deductible 50% after deductible 85% 50% after deductible 80% $500 $500 $500 $500 50% after deductible 100%. no deductible.' -.50% after deductible 100% after $25 copay 50% after deductible 100%. no deductible 50% after deductible 100% (no copay) 501/6 after deductible 100%. no deductible 50% after deductible 100% after armlicable copav Covered under the Covered underthe Cwered underthe Cwered under HMO mployee Member Assistance Employee MemberAssistance Employee MemberAssistance Employee Member Assistance Program (EMAP) Program (EMAP) Program (EMAP) Program (EMAP) This booklet contains only highlights of certain features of the UFCW& Employers Benefit Trust. Not ellprovisions, limitstions and exclusions. which may vary from plan toplan. have been included, Full details are contained in the Summary Plan Descriptions(SPD) and/or the Evidence of Coverage and Disclosure Form (if you coverage is providedthrough an HMO), subsequent Plan notices and Pian Documents that establish the Plan provisions. i f there is a discrepancy between the wording here and the documents that establish the Plan, the legal Plan Documents or HMO agreements will govern. The Trustees reserve the right to amend, modify or terminate the Plan at any rime. 1620 S. ACKERMAN DRIVE LODI, CA 95240 (209) 369-0592 OR (300) 359-8592 FAX (209) 369-8681 December 10,2008 To: Lodi Cfty Council Re: Super Walmart My name is Gary Markle and I an the owner of Gary's Signs & Screen Printing. I'm "ting this ]etberregarding the Browman Development Company and the Super Walmart. I've done business with the Browman Dev. Co. for several years and Mey have always been a pleasure to work vi� The centers that are owned and maintained by them have always kept a good appearance and noticeably do not have vacancies for very long. T%e Super Walmart vacancy I know is an issue for some but I believe Bomnan's past has - - - shown a good track record of keeping vacancies to a minimum. A Super Walmart would bring more business to Lodi. Ccnstructicn would be beneficial in creatkgjobs during production of the `facility as well as an increase in permanent j obs for Lodi upon completion of a Super Walmart. Regards, Gary D. Markle Gary's Signs &,Screen Printing December 9, 2008 Co: (Ai..N, off odi City Council I ani tvriting this letter in suhpon of the Brownian Development. Company's vew shopping center de%-clopment that will itAc Inde anew Super Wal -Marl and additional retailers that will further develop and strengthen the existing commercial corridor and bring more customers to f._.odi to spend their retail dollars in our City! I am confident that this nc,v retail development kvill makc the retail Qorridor aloin) Kettleman lane and Lower Sac.ra.tttento l...me stronger especially because a successful experienced company like Broca -man Dei elopment is doing the development. Ihave; been the owner of'West Coast Canvas in Lodi since 1482 and I have observed that the Brownian shopping center projects have been highly successful. Good Lodi based tenants providing a diversity of goods and services have filled the well maintained shopping centers for yuat-s and hm e hL�en 'cry successful h's my opinion that this commercial 31 -UA will cotAtintte to prosper as this retail corridor of Lodi continues to gro%%, 'HIQ cnrtACA U its of l-odi will henefit 1ronA all the new business that will he developed and managed by Brow'man Development Respectfully A Gurt Page Owner 11 Tower PaA Adartn 14900 W Highway 12 1 odi California 9524% . (209)333-0243 P R E C I S I O N 835298 4958 Thatcher Drive Martinez, CA. 94553 (925) 360-0775 (925)285-1380 (925) 848-3727 (FAX) precis ioninterex(?ayahoo.com December 10,2008 To: City of Lodi City Council RE: Browman Development — New Shopping Center with Super Wal-Mart at south-west comer of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Rd. I am Michael Donrad owner of Precision Painting and have been in business for I 1 years. I have recently become acquainted with Browman Development and have been very impressed with their quality of shopping centers, the high standards that they have in maintaining their shopping centers with high occupancy levels and quality of tenants. Within the last month our company re -painted one of Browman's shopping centers in American Canyon. My painters work as a team and I am there on-site with my painting crew during the j ob. I was amazed at the customer traffic that is generated and the friendliness of the retail merchants. You don't see this type of enthusiasm at all properties and I was compelled to come here tonight and make you aware of my experience at the Browman retail properties. By the way I am currently scheduling re -painting the video store here at Sunwest Plaza in Lodi in the next week or two. This is another example of Browman's keeping the centers looking current and up-to-date. My company is proud to have the opportunity to support Browman Development in their endeavors of building the Super Wal-Mart retail project. Sincerely, �Miic onrad Owner — Precision Painting Contractor's License #811964 DATE: December 9,2008 -0- City of Lodi City Counsel 1 am Jason Elliot, a resident of Lodi and one of the owners of Arrow Stripe Company which has been in business and located in the City of Lodi for 14 years. Our company has been working for Browman Development for approximately the last 2 years and has found Browman Development to be a property developer with successful, high standards that requires those same high standards of success from its contractors and vendors. Our experience is that Browman does its best to use highly qualified, local companies where its properties are located. We understand that the Walmart may relocate across the street with a Super Walmart. We are confident that the new retail development will strengthen the retail comdor along Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road especially because a successful, experienced company like Browman Development is doing the development. It is our opinion that this commercial area will continue to prosper as this retail corridor of Lodi continues to grow. The City of Lodi and its population base should benefit from all the new business that will be created and professionally developed and nm by Browman Development. Sincerely, ARROW STRIPE COMPANY, INC. Jason Elliott /jpk Memo December 10,2008 To: City of Lodi From: Philip King, Ph.D., and Sharmila King, Ph. D. Re: EIR for Lodi Supercenter Project We have been asked by Brett Jolley of Herum Crabtree to review and comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Lodi Shopping Center, a 340,000 square foot retail project located in southwest Lodi that includes a 226,868 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter (hereafter referred to as the Project). A previous EIR for this Project was found deficient due to several serious omissions in the urban decay analysis. Although this EIR has attempted to correct those omissions, the urban decay analysis remains deficient. Lodi already has a large amount of retail space for a small city and the addition of 340,000 square feet of retail space in the W. Kettleman Lane corridor, which is already crowded with retail, will lead to a substantial number of store closings, exacerbating urban decay that already exists in parts of Lodi. While admitting that blight/urban decay is an issue, the EIR discounts the Project's potentially significant urban decay impacts in several ways. First, it provides an inaccurate environmental setting baseline by omitting existing urban decaylblight in east Lodi and existing retail stores located throughout the City, reducing the El R's ability to determine the level of significance of urban decay and to mitigate these impacts. The EIR ignores existing blight. which was suecifically identified in the recently annroved redevelopment area, vet argues that downtown Lodi. Cherokee Lane, and otherblighted areas will not be significantly impacted by this Proiect. The EIR admits that the Project, in combination with the (now approved) Reynolds Ranch Project will lead to store closures on W. Kettleman, and the eastern part of W. Kettleman has already been declared blighted by the City. Indeed, two anchor stores on W. Kettleman are already closed or closing —Mervyns and Ace Hardware. These and further store closings on W. Kettleman will lead to lower retail property rents, not just on W. Kettleman, but in downtown Lodi and on Cherokee Lane. Lower rents lead to lower maintenance and eventual urban decay of marginal areas. The EIR blames current blight on poor stewardship by past landlords, but this analysis completely ignores the fundamental economic fact that landlords let property decline only when there is no economic incentive (through healthy rents) to maintain the properly. However, this is precisely what will happen yet again as rents on marginal retail properties in already weak areas fall. Weaker stores will close and more successful retailers will move to Southwest Lodi. Second, the EIR relies on City ordinances prohibiting graffiti and disrepair to mitigate any potential urban decay. This tactic shifts the burden of mitigating an environmental impact away from its root cause and onto the City, its law enforcement officials, and its residents. The EIR also essentially assumes that having an ordinance against urban decay solves the problem, despite evidence to the contrary in other places. Laws designed to mitigate urban decay are often expensive to enforce and already overworked law enforcement officials may decide to enforce other laws (e.g., against theft, murder, etc.) instead. Further, ordinances outlawing urban decay will not prevent hard pressed landlords from delaying routine maintenance on marginal, low -rent properties. If laws prevented crime, there would be no crime; clearly that is not the case. At best these ordinances can only partially abate the problem—at a substantial cost. Lodi has spent millions to revitalize its downtown, which is now jeopardized by this project. Finally, the EIR fails to account for the offset in sales tax revenue that will result from this Project. The Project will largely displace current general retail and grocery sales. It will not generate sufficient sales taxes to pay for the considerable costs of increased urban decay. The remainder of this memo will go into more detail on these key issues and other deficiencies in the EIR's urban decay analysis. Urban Decay/Blight already exists in Lodi and the Project will Exacerbate these Impacts Urban decay is a unique impact and therefore demands a more -detailed analysis than some other environmental effects. For example, while a project's individual traffic impacts may be ascertained by determining the trip generation of rates exclusive to the proposed project, a legally sufficient determination of urban decay impacts demands identification and evaluation of similar projects affecting the trade area. Stated slightly differently, urban decay is an "indirect environmental effect" (See, Guideline § 15126,2 and Bakersfield at 1204-5). The evaluation and mitigation of this indirect impact requires a comolete and accurate environmental setting that identifies the retail market area, existing retailers (along with their square footage of sales area) that will compete with the project, and existing blight/urban decay. Thus, the evaluation of a project's potential to cause individual and/or cumulative urban decay requires identification of a cumulative impacts -type baseline — namely a list of "past, present, and probable future projects" within the market area. See Guideline § 15130(0)(1), The DEIR notes that Sacramento Street and other areas in or adjacent to downtown Lodi are already experiencing blight or urban decay: "Sacramento Street shows greater physical problems, especially on the west side in the blocks between oak and Elm... These blocks contain vacant and boarded up buildings and empty lots...they are extremely run down and in need of major improvements before they can be reused. The Pine Street corridor and Main Street to the East of the railroad tracks also show a high proportion of physically deficient properties, including vacant and underutilized parcels and structures." (DEIR, p. 39-40) However, the EIR fails to account for the most of area in east Lodi that the City recently declared blighted. The City has proposed a redevelopment plan' to eliminate blight in portions of east Lodi and has already adopted the area boundaries for the 2,000 acre "redevelopment area" (see Figure 1 below), which encompasses downtown Lodi, Cherokee Lane, and the eastern portion of W. Kettleman. A substantial amount of retail exists in this area. The City's designation of a redevelopment area confirms that urban decay and blight is already a significant existing condition. Further, the EIR makes clear that some store closings on W. Kettleman and Cherokee Lane will occur and the downtown will lose business as a result of the Lodi Shopping Center. The EIR states specifically that one of the goals of the project is "To provide commercial development which does not negatively affect downtown and the past and ongoing investment in the downtown" ( BAE report, p. 32). The EIR details the physical deterioration and urban decay that already exists downtown, but it fails to properly assess the impact of this Project or the cumulative impact of this Project along with the Reynolds Ranch Project, on the downtown. The EIR simply relies on assertions that the likely impacts of these projects will be insignificant even though the evidence that they present indicates otherwise. See httpJ/www.Iodi.gov/Redeveloi)mert.htmi. 2 The EIR does state that the proposed projects will impede growth downtown: "the introduction of additional retail square footage at the Lodi shopping center could delay further downtown growth and the reuse of currently vacant properties until retail demand increases—(BAF- report, p,60)" According to the EIR, 33% of downtown businesses are eating and drinking establishments, 13% are apparel stores and 23% are "other retail." The proposed project calls for 113,132 square feet of retail space besides the Supercenter ranging from fast food and sit down restaurants to "business and professional services," to financial services and "unspecified other retail" (67,960 square feet). In addition the City of Lodi recently adopted plans to more than double retail at Reynolds Ranch to 750,000 square feet. -Palg2!IS pa lulaap aaaq suq uajV aq; jo ganm;uq; smogs gaiV;aawdolaeapag pasodoad jo dvW :1 un3ij Although it may not be possible to precisely specify which stores will go in the Lodi Shopping Center and the Reynolds Ranch shopping center, it is reasonable to assume that a number of smaller retail stores and restaurants which compete directly with the downtown retail will be part of both. The restaurants will clearly compete with the downtown as will the business and professional services. Downtown Lodi also acts contains a substantial percentage of Lodi's banks including the main branches for Bank of America and Bank of Stockton, two of the most popular banks in the area. The Project's additional 113,132 square feet ofnon-supercenterretail is substantial. If one assumes that this retail will generate $300 per square foot, a reasonable estimate, the non - Supercenter retail at the Lodi shopping center could generate close to $30 million per year in revenues, 60% of downtown Lodi's retail revenue. If even a relatively small percentage of this $30 million comes at the expense of the downtown, then the results could be serious and significant. Although the EIR paints a picture of the downtown as full of boutiques and specialty retail, it is clear from visiting the downtown as well as examining the list of businesses, that most are small owner -operated businesses, particularly those involved in the restaurant business, business and financial services, and beauty and cosmetic services. All of these types of businesses can and do easily operate in older (or newer) shopping centers. The main appeal of the downtown is clear ---- low rents. The closure of stores at older shopping centers around Lodi will thus have an important secondary impact on the downtown which the EIR completely omits—it will create a glut of retail space leading to lower rents for current retail. In such an environment it is difficult to maintain the physical integrity of a building since these rents will inevitably fall. This is hardly speculative, but is simple Econ 101—an increased supply in retail which far outstrips the increase in demand that the EIR projects will lower rents on existing properties leading to less incentive to upkeep current property. This impact will occur throughout older shopping areas in Lodi, however its impact will be most profound in downtown Lodi for precisely the reasons specified in the EIR—downtown Lodi has many older and deteriorating businesses and the location of downtown Lodi, away from where most residents live, makes it a less desirable location. These negative impacts will also be felt in other the area designated as blighted by the City of Lodi in its redevelopment zone. The EIR, by ignoring this blight and urban decay, has consequently also ignored these impacts. In such a situation, where rents decrease it will make no economic sense to invest in seismic retrofitting or other investments necessary to maintain the downtown or other areas subject to urban decay. The City has spent $16 million upgrading properties downtown, but without a corresponding investment by private owners, the downtown and other blighted areas will deteriorate. The EIR states that: "The actual potential for physical deterioration and urban decay to occur at a specific property will be largely dependent upon the commitment from the property owner to maintain the property... (BAE report, p. 76)" This is an odd statement for al economic analysis. The commitment of property owners to maintain property will ultimately be a business decision. The glut of retail properties that will be created by this Proj ect in combination with the Reynolds Ranch project will have a direct impact on downtown rents and hence maintenance of downtown properties. We are particularly concerned with the migration of smaller, owner operated restaurants and hairdressers/nail salons out of the downtown to older (and newer) shopping centers. It is clear that these businesses are important for the downtown—and there is no reason that these businesses or other similar businesses are located downtown other than low rents. As the EIR points out, relatively few people live near downtown, and as customers migrate to shopping centers elsewhere, ancillary services like hairdressers, nail salons, and restaurants will follow. Similarly, the downtown has several jewelry stores which would be vulnerable to closing should another jewelry store open outside downtown. Downtown Lodi also has a number of large banks. As banking operations migrate outside of downtown to W. Kettleman, residents of Lodi lose another reason to make the journey downtown. Bookstores are another area of concern. The downtown and near downtown area are the home to most of Lodi's bookstores, mostly small, owner -managed businesses. The EIR does mention that a chain store, such as a Barnes and Noble or a Borders would have a negative impact on these stores. Since much of the retail in both of these projects is unspecified, one should account for the potential impact of a Barnes and Noble or a Borders on the downtown and not dismiss such an analysis as "speculative" since it is veru likely that either the proposed project or the Reynolds Ranch project (or possible both) would contain a large chain bookstore. Indeed, it is unusual for a city the size of Lodi not to have such a store. Health of Downtown Lodi Although the EIR goes to some length to asses the relative health of the supermarket and general merchandise market in Lodi, it omits a similar assessment of the downtown. According to the EIR, the 140 downtown retail businesses generate $51.6 million in revenues. These businesses vary in size but are typically small, a reasonable estimate of average size would be 2000 square feet, or 280,000 square feet in total. As indicated in table 1 below, this works out to $184 per square foot, which is very low. Although sales vary by retail category, a healthy downtown should have sales of between $250 and $300 per square foot. The average sales in downtown Lodi, at $187 per square foot, are considerably below this level. Table 1: Sales per Square Foot in Downtown Lodi Sales $ 51,600,000 Retailers 140 Total Square Feet @ 2000 sq. ft. 280,000 Avg. Sales/Sq ft. $ 184 % of $275/sq. n. 67% In sum, this project will clearly exacerbate the current poor business climate downtown and ultimately lead to a number of stores closing or moving operations to a shopping center outside the downtown Lodi area, and eventually resulting in a significant urban decay impact. For the downtown to survive, it is clear that a substantial investment will be required in addition to the $16 million that the City has already spent. Store Closings The EIR states that a number of stores may close as a result of this project and the Reynolds Ranch project. In particular, the EIR states that the following stores are at risk: the K -Mart, the Orchard Supply Hardware, and one supermarket. The total square footage of the Lodi Shopping Center and the already approved 750,000 square foot Reynolds Ranch projects amounts to approximately 1.1 million square feet of new retail. Given the mediocre state of current retail in Lodi and the downturn in housing and the economy, it is not "speculative," but reasonable to conclude the impact of 1.1 million square feet of new retail will be substantial and severe. Consequently, we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that, in addition to the now closed Ace Hardware and Mervyns stores, several of the following stores will close as a result of the cumulative impacts of Reynolds Ranch and the Lodi Shopping Center: • The existing Wal-Mart (W. Kettleman) • K -Mart (Cherokee Lane) • Orchard Supply Hardware .Former Albertson's (now S -Mart) • S -Mart or Safeway on W. Kettleman • At least one other general merchandise anchor store such as JC Penney • Many smaller stores in shopping centers anchored by the above. As shown in Table 2 below, in aggregate, these stores comprise 450,000 square feet of retail space. Although the above analysis may seem extreme. it reoresents less than half of the new (non -grocery) retail or000sed including the Reynolds Ranch oroiect. Table 2: Store Closings as Result of Cumulative Impacts of Both Projects Store Square Feet JC Penney 75,000 Ross Stores 33,000 Marshalls 32,000 Mervyns 80,000 Pier 1 9,000 M i s c Dollar Stores (e.g. Dolex, Dollar Joe's, 99 cents) 45,000 Other General Merchandise 35,000 Total 309,000 As a result of these closings, there will be a glut of vacant retail space in Lodi. It is possible that one of the older shopping centers on W. Kettleman will go "dark", resulting in a significant urban decay impact. However, it is also possible that the owners of these older shopping centers will compete for these smaller businesses by lowering rents. As indicated in the EIR, the physical condition of many of the downtown sites is poor. Further, as indicated in the EIR, most people in Lodi do not live in or near downtown. Figures 2 and 3: The Ace Hardware store closed in Fall 2008 a few years after the Lowe's opened down the street. Ordinances to Prevent/Abate Urban Decay are Insufficient (and Place the Burden of Mitigation on the City of Lodi ) The DEIR and FEIR also argue that urban decay will not occur because the City of Lodi has ordinances forbidding such decay. Frankly, this argument makes little sense for several reasons: I , The purpose of an EIR is to identify environmental impacts and mitigate them, not simply pass the expense on to the City of Lodi. The DEI R/FEIR's argument essentially states that the City may face an environmental impact and it will have to pay to address the problem. The DE1R/FEIR's assertion is analogous to stating that a project may create a toxic pollutant and that some other (innocent) party will be forced to clean it up, so it's not a problem. This approach turns the entire CEQA process on its head and, if taken to its logical conclusion, renders CEQA vacuous and ineffective. 2. Despite such ordinances it is clear that urban decay is still an issue in other cities with similar ordinances. For example, in the city of Delano, California, a now closed K -Mart is subject to graffiti and urban decay despite ordinances specifically forbidding such 8 graffiti2 and efforts by the city (the store is fenced off and some graffiti has been painted over). Urban decay is still setting in. 3. Although ordinances preventing graffiti allow municipal officials to enforce nuisance provisions, they are not required to do so. City officials have wide discretion as to enforcement of their laws. Enforcement of nuisance provisions is discretionary, and subject to budgetary and time constraints, which will he particularly problematic as the number of vacancies grows. 4. Ironically, the same economic downturn that will give rise to graffiti and urban decay will also lower tax revenues for cities and counties, forcing them to make even tougher choices about how to spend declining tax dollars —under such conditions, it is simply unreasonable to assume that all graffiti code violations will be enforced while other, potentially more pressing, issues are ignored. If abatement authority is sufficient to prevent the impacts from occurring, then there would never he urban decay. The key issue is whether the impacts will occur, not whether there is some potential mechanism to address them after the fact. The EIR does not even address the issue of how long a property would continue in a state of decay before effective action were taken to clean it up, assuming that such action were taken at all. The inescapable conclusion is that the more stores that close and the longer they remain vacant, the more likely urban decay becomes. The EIR also argues that these abatement programs will not impose costs on the City since they place the costs on the property owner to follow City code. If that were the case, however, the City of Lodi would not have had to spend millions of dollars refurbishing downtown Lodi. Ironically, even the EIR notes this: "The City of Lodi has demonstrated its commitment to preventing physical deterioration of urban properties within the City through its successful revitalization efforts in Downtown.. including large expenditures of City L n ,"(BAE report, p.76, emphasis added) Elsewhere in the DEIR, the amount the City has spent is estimated "Overall the City has spent approximately $16 million in the last decade on various capital improvement Programs in the downtown area, excluding normal maintenance." (DEIR, p.41, emphasis added) The City's proposed redevelopment plan is also likely to cost the City a substantial amount and may also lead to lower tax dollars received since tax breaks are often part of such plans. Indeed, if the City of Lodi's ordinances preventing urban decay and blight were working as the EIR suggests, then the urban decay specifically noted in the EIR on Sacramento and Pine Streets (and several other places) would not exist. Clearly, the evidence provided in the EIR itself indicates that such ordinances, while useful, are not sufficient to prevent urban decay- ' Specifically, Delano Municipal code Section 20.1.40 authorizes enforcement of all performance standards ofthe Zoning ordinance, including standards governing wastes, maintenance, etc. E Figures 4, 5, 6: The 55,420 square foot closed K -Mart in Delano, California is fenced, boarded up and covered with graffiti, despite City statutes which outlawing these conditions. This is a textbook example of physical deterioration and urban decay. Ordinances in Lodi are also unlikely to stop urban decay and force the cost of complying with environmental impacts on the City. 10 The EIR Omits Significant Retail in Lodi and thus Understates Impacts Although the picture painted by the EIR is grim enough, the urban decay analysis omits existing and relevant retail establishments, thereby understating the Project's true urban decay impacts. The EIR consultants use sales tax data from the State of California to estimate sales. This is standard practice. However, a careful examination of this data indicates that they only apply these sales data to selected stores, in effect overstating current sales at these stores. This omission of stores was applied to both grocery stores and general merchandise stores in the EIR, to similar effect. • The EIR omits 54 ethnic grocery markets and convenience stores which comprise almost 130,000 square feet and generates up to $50 million in sales. The EIR's data on food sales (and other retail sales) uses the California Franchise Tax Board's sales tax data to estimate total sales. Although grocery stores are indeed the main competitor to the Supercenter, sales tax data is aggregated for all food stores and the EIR fails to properly account for sales at 54 stores it omits. Though, individually, most of these stores are small, the failure to properly account for these 54 stores distorts the El R's conclusions about the health of current grocery stores, biasing their conclusions. Table 3: 2005 Taxable Sales in Lodi' LA MAC" GPU3%E t Type # iarrsNese Pan"" a7IMUM P&MV& rams R*W1 MBARUML MOOM APPWVe Owes 22 4,817 21 1V64 21 2,751 3D 3t,4 0 Geneag menttandise stains 5 5.0n 7 &M 40 206,331 24 €50.7ir Fond sIas 23 1.163 21 1',im, 41 65ras 63 54.6£5 EatMag--W*-kwgpkae- 61 x.213 65 27,174 383 %147 180 9,�5t5 Han* MvnrjftvV&and appmums 30 1,484 18 ins 57 24,m a 18;457 861p. map9. and fano Yemenis 5 .504*5 7# 50 228_176 24 92,241: Aub poem and MW M*p4ees 40 2.407 71 139.361 59 14*.555 .90 201W service stWWS 12 44,247 8 24,129 N 117,515 17 51,171 ted ftm 155 .3',681 132 M.`M 4M 552.957 177 155,rF4 Retaffl Skwn Tanis 3€0 2N,2N 3#i 35*3&1 972 ix6,346 SU 7M,9W Q1 mer Ou4ets 348 37.4W 24 "9.1241 g.2w d15 IS3 W 15.4:7& '.otats AA Ov&ts IV 20AU M i2:t.3'93 2.232 3.6418,21 1,778 X7 Please note that for the City of Lodi in Table 3 above (pasted directly from the California State report) there were 63 permits granted implying that during 2005, 63 stores in Lodi were primarily engaged in food sales in 2005. However, the EIR lists only 9 stores which comprise the major supermarkets in Lodi. Thus, their analysis has omitted 54 stores, a substantial amount. s See California State Franchise Tax Board, Taxable Sales in California 2005, P,22, httnJ/www.boe.ca.eov/news/ndf/ts 05.nd£ Since not all food sales aretaxable, the EIR inflates food sales using a standard procedure. 11 Partial List of Food Stores Omitted in EIR 1. Smart and Final' 2. Quik Stop Market 148 3. Downtown Market and Deli 4. Park India Spices 5. El Molj aceti Market 6. Pay Less Market 7. Buy 4 Less 8. Casa del Pueblo 9. Aldee Market 10. Salisbury Market l 1. Los Portal es Market 12.Bil's 76 13, Dos Hermanos Market 14. AM -PM Market 15. Quik Stop Market 152 16. Tokay Food and Liquor 17. E & L market 18. Star Market 19. Victor's Market and Deli 20. Camiceria California Deli 21. Lakewood Meats and Sausages 22. Fiori's Butcher Shoppe 23. La Chiquita Meat market 24. Dos Amigos It is reasonable to assume, as the EIR appears to, that the remaining stores comprise ethnic stores, convenience stores, and smaller grocery stores. While nationally, sales at convenience and ethnic stores typically represent only a small percentage of total food sales, this percentage varies considerably depending upon a number of factors including local demographics. It is clear that in Lodi, which has a substantial Hispanic population (approximately 27%) as well as many other ethnic minorities, has a significant number of ethnic markets, as well as a number of convenience stores and "Mom and Pop" stores in and near the downtown. The proportion of sales represented by these stores cannot be ignored or dismissed as small. ° This store was formerly a Grocery Outlet and was discussed in the EIR but not listed as a grocery store. 12 To estimate the impact of these sales, we have used the average size for a convenience or ethnic store of 2400 square feet and we have used the EIR's sales estimates per square foot, which are also reasonable for convenience/ethnic stores,' Table 4 below presents the estimates based on these simple assumptions. Overall, the EIR has omittedjust under 130,000square feet of food retail space representing about one-third of the overall square footage and sales estimated in the EIR. If one applies BAE's assumptions about sales per square feet using national averages (which are similar for convenience and ethnic stores), this implies an omission of just over $50 million in sales. Table 4: Sales and Square Footage of 54 Food Stores Omitted in EIR Total Square Feet 9 Supermarkets in Trade Area (BAE Report, p. 24) 391,663 Estimated Sales BAE Report, P. 24) $ 152,840,000 Avg. Convenince Store Size in square feet #stores excluded fmm BAE Analysis Est. square feet omitted from study 2400 54 129,600 Sales per sauare foot BAE methodoloavl $ 390 Corrected Total Square Feet Food Sales 521,263 Est. total Sales Omitted $ 50,544,000 % BAE Estimated Sales 33% Why does this matter? Because the EIR's omission of these sales leads it to overestimated food sales at the grocery stores in Lodi and thus paint a rosier picture of grocery store sales than is realistic. Table 5 below incorporates the omitted square feet of retail space for convenience stores. To be fair and consistent, we have increased the sales slightly reflecting the complete 2005 taxable sales of $59,615, 000(see our Table 3) as opposed to BAE's estimate of just over $55 million.' ' SeeNeighborhood groceries: New Access to Healthy Food in Low Income Communities, Califonria Food Policy Advocates, 2003, htta://www.cfoa,net/Crocery.PDF, and The Association For Convenienceand Petroleum retailing: httn://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/00002daaicnwltafkvhcednl/GeneralUse Resource,asa?NRMODE= Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNACS%2#Resource%2flndustrvRescarch%2fwhat is a cstore%2eht m&NRNODEGUID=%7b26411 FAF-587F-466D-8968- 90799BACDE74%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR= I&cookie%5Ftest= I. ' The BAE estimate is for the year ending in the third quarter 2005 whereas ours is for all of 2005. These numbers should be quite similar. It is possible that BAE has assumed that the $4 million in taxable sales, which translates into $12.5 in total sales is meant to represent convenience store sales, but this represents less than 8% of all sales even though such stores comprise one third of BAE's estimate of grocery square footage. 13 When one includes omitted retail space for food sales, as shown in table 3, the average sales per square foot is actually $317 per square foot, not $390, as the EIR claims. This $317 represents 81% of the national average sales per square foot employed as the standard of comparison in the EIR, indicating that Lodi's grocery retail market in 2005 was already struggling. After the Supercenter is built the picture becomes far worse. Table 3 also examines the impact of the grocery component of a Supercenter. We apply the same sales figure as used in the EIR, $28 million (though we believe that actual sales could be somewhat higher) and use the same methodology as employed in the EIR (simply subtracting Supercenter sales from the total of competitor store sales). As shown in Table 5, after the Supercenter opens, average sales at food stores will be $263 per square foot, two-thirds of the national average. Consequently, it is clear that some stores would close. Accounting for an increase in demand in 2011 (as the EIR does) only increases this percentage to 70%, still very low. Table 5: Corrected Sales per square Feet at Lodi Food Stores BAE Estimate of Grocery Square Feet (BAE Report, Table 11 p. 24) 391,663 BAE Estimate of Grocery Sales(BAE Report, Table 12 p. 26) $ 152,840,000 BAE Estimate Sales/sq. fl $ 390 Actual Food Store Square Feet (this memo Table 2) 521,263 Corrected Food Store Sales 2005 165,370,000 Corrected Sales/Square Feet $ 317 % ULI National Average before Supercenter 81% BAE Estimated Supercenter Food Sales (Table 18, p. 47) $ 28,533,202 Sales at other Grocery Stores afler Supercenter 136,836,798 Sales per Square Feet $ 263 % ULI National Average after Supercenter 67% It is also clear, as one would expect, and as the EIR acknowledges to some extent, that some stores are doing much better than the average, while others are doing much worse. Although the Food 4 Less next to the existing Wal-Mart is doing reasonably well it can he expected to lose substantial sales and is at risk due to its proximity. On the other hand, the Albertson's near downtown is already performing poorly and even a small reduction in sales would likely lead to closure. The S -Mart of W. Kettleman, just down the road from the proposed Supercenter is also performing poorly and is a strong candidate for closure. Finally, the nearby Safeway is also doing poorly. The RI R agrees that the Safeway will be immune from closure since it targets a more upscale customer, but Wal-Mart Supercenter's grocery component competes well with Safeway and we believe the Safeway is in jeopardy. Our data indicates that the grocery market is already struggling due to overcapacity. The most likely scenario involves the closing of Albertson's and the S -Mart on W. Kettleman, though the Safeway could close instead. The Albertson's is near downtown Lodi and hence its closure would 14 impact traffic of customers to the Lodi's downtown. The S -Mart anchors an older shopping center and its closure could bring down the entire shopping center, which is already weak. • The �s quantitative analysis omits many significant general merchandise (GM) stores. As with food store sales, this omission leads to an overly optimistic assessment of GM retailing in Lodi and hence biases the EIR's conclusions about urban decay. As with food sales, the EIR spends a considerable amount of time deciphering the aggregate data for general merchandise (GM) sales. It divides GM sales into drug store and non -drug store sales. However, the E I R s analysis of non -drug store sales only examines the three large GM retailers in Lodi: the current Wal-Mart, Target, and K -Mart (BAE Report, Table 13, p.27). As indicated in our Table 3 above, the California Board of Equalization lists 24 GM stores in Lodi. The EIR only analyzes eight of these stores (3 large stores plus 5 drug stores). However, Lodi has a number of medium sized GM stores such as Ross, J C Penney, Marshalls and Mervyns (now closed), which make a significant contribution to GM sales (see Table 6 below). Table 6: Sauare Footage of GM stores Omitted in E s Quantitative Analysis' Store Square Feet JC Penney 75,000 Ross Stores 33,000 Marshalls 32,000 Mervyns 80,000 Pier 1 9,000 Misc Dollar Stores (e.g. Dolex, Dollar Joe's, 99 cents) 45,000 Other General Merchandise 35,000 Total 309,000 The EIR discusses many of the medium sized GM retailers such as JC Penney, but the auantitative analysis employed in the EIR. which is used to render its final conclusions, ienores these stores. If one examines the E I R s estimates carefully, it becomes clear that the EIR has failed to take sales at these stores into account properly. ' The Mervyns store has since closed but was open at the time of the EIR analysis 15 Why is this important? As with food sales, when one incorporates these omitted stores in the quantitative analysis, the overall picture of GM sales is far bleaker. As indicated in Table 7 below, incorporating the omitted square footage implies a much lower level of sales per square foot, $209, well below the national average for GM sales. Table 7: Sales per Square Foot at Non -Drug GM Retailers 3 major (N Store square footage (BAE Table 13, p.27) 313,906 Omitted General Merchandise square footage 309,000 Total 622,906 BAE est. sales non -drug GM stores (BAE Table 8, p. 17) $ 135,441,000 Average saleslsq. ft. 217 As with food sales, the results indicate that the retail market in Lodi is far less healthy than the EIR implies. Indeed, a number of stores appear to be struggling, not just the K -Mart. The low sales per square feet not only implies that additional stores will be at risk, but it is also an indication of a general glut in the retail market. Adding over a million square feet of new retail in Lodi will add significantly to this rut. • The EIR underestimated the size of the Reynolds Ranch Project and thus the Cumulative Impacts of both Projects. The EIR (BAE report, p. 63) discusses the cumulative impacts of the Lodi shopping center project as well as the (now approved) Reynolds Ranch project. However, the EIR assumes that the Reynolds Ranch project will be, at most, 640,000 square feet when, in fact, it was recently approved for up to 750,000 square feet -4 10,000 additional square feet of retail." We believe that this increase was reasonably foreseeable and that the consultants, far from acting conservatively, failed to assess the situation properly. Further, the cumulative impact of this additional 1 10,000 is significant, especially when added to other substantial omissions in the EIR. • The EIR omits impacts from retail outside of the Trade Area. The EIR mentions the possibility of two new Supercenters near Lodi, one in north Stockton and one in Galt, ten miles away. However, the EIR dismisses the impacts here since these stores will be constructed outside of the trade area. However, the EIR clearly shows that in General Merchandise, food, and other retail, Lodi draws oeonle from outside the trade area, which is why Lodi has a surplus. The Supercenter in Galt will clearly have a significant impact on Lodi since currently residents of Galt have no Wal-Mart, Target, or other large GM store. Lodi is the closest city to Galt 10 miles away and thus makes a much more convenient destination than Stockton or Sacramento. Our conversations with retailers also indicated that Lodi draws a considerable amount of trade from the east into Amador County where a number of small towns in the foothills come down to Lodi on Hwy 12 and Hwy 88 to 12 to shop. The EIR also fails to mention that the construction of new projects, in particular, the over 300,000 square feet Amador Ridge shopping center in 8 htt:/A*W Jodi. oulclerklaaPQRma eslm09-17-08, df 16 Martel], which will draw customers who would have driven to Lodi previously. This project includes Lowe's, Petco, Staples and other stores which would provide retail currently not provided in the area. Many residents used to travel over thirty miles to go to Lodi for such shopping. Figure 7: The Amador Ridge Regional Shopping Center contains over 300,000 square feet of retail including a Lowe's, Staples, Petco (but not a Target as stated above) and other stores unavailable to residents when the EIR was conducted. This project was easily foreseeable when the DE.1R was prepared (2007) but was not included in the study. 17 The EIR Ignores the Current Economic Downturn and the Foreclosure Crisis The current EIR was completed in the spring of 2008. By that time it was clear that the current housing/foreclosure crisis would have a profound impact on retail and exacerbate existing urban decay in Lodi. This crisis was certainly foreseeable; it is not sufficient for the consultants who prepared the EIR to dismiss these concerns, which are now upon us, as "speculative." If an economic analysis ignores economic reality, how useful is it? How does this further the goals of CEQA or the process? Nationally: The outlook for economic activity in the United States looks grim until 2010. Recent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures, a measure of economic activity, declined at an annual rate of 0.3% from July -Sept 2008.9 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the decline in GDP can be attributed to a sharp decline in spending by consumers (3.1 %). This is the largest decline in consumer spending since 1980. Durable goods spending decreased 14.1 %, nondurable goods spending decreased 6.4 %, and services expenditures increased 0.6 %. Monthly Growth Rate in Personal Incomeand Personal Consumption Expenditures from January 2007 to September2008 Source: Federal Reserve 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 -0.4 -0.8 2007M01 2007M07 2608M01 2008M07 When sales fall for firms, firms will layoff workers in an attempt to return to profitability, causing the unemploymentto rise further. Further increases in unemployment, however, can result in further declines in spending as workers lose income. Indeed the US unemployment rate has risen from 6.1% in September 6.5% to in October—this is the 10t" straight month of job losses in the US. Analysts at the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. forecast that the unemployment rate will further rise to 8.5%by the end of 200910 Since consumer spending is 70% of US GDP, the decline in consumer spending is propagating and amplifying the recession. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts that US and global economic activity will be sluggish through 2009." The decline in home prices and mounting foreclosures is propelling the economic crisis. The decline in consumer spending is a direct result of declining incomes, wealth, the credit crunch, ' h ://www.bea. ov/new releases/national/ d /d newsrelease.htm t0 htt ://www.bl omber .com/a s/ ews? ' =2 01087&refer=home&sid=aZdisKi lE " http://www.imforg/extemal/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/CAROSO I 08A.htrn -18- and an overall decline in confidence about the future due to the housing and financial crisis. Many firms have been unable to obtain credit as local demand falls. Further, firms find it harder to raise credit when stock prices are falling, further compounding firm production and hence layoffs. Consequently fi rm s have had to cut back on employment and wages, real disposable income (after tax income in constant dollars) for consumers fell 8.7%. If consumers' incomes fall, consumers slow their spending. Another reason for the decline in consumer spending is the decline in household wealth due to falling housing and stock prices. From a year ago house prices have fallen 15.40/onationally and returns on the Standard and Poors 500 (S&P500) and Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) has fallen 42.91 %and 37.97%respectively." The largest decline in home prices is in California. Sacramento alone has experienced a 37% decline in the median home price which now stands at $212,000. As chart 1 indicates, house prices are expected bottom -out in 2009 and are unlikely to reach the 2006 peak. Chart 1 U.S. house prices tumble Source: IMF Survey: United States Manages First Housing Bust in Four Decades This means that many consumers are "upside-down" on their mortgages (they owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth) and many more will become "upside-down" so there are more future foreclosures. Mortgage delinquency rates on all loans in the second quarter of 2008 rose to 6.410/onationally in particular, delinquencies on prime and sub -prime loans rose to 1.19%and 18.67%respectively. These delinquencies indicate that many consumers are experiencing financial hardship. US foreclosure filings totaled 279,561 in October 2008, an increase of 25 % from a year ago. The fall in incomes and savings means that consumers are increasingly using credit to pay for necessities, The US is in the midst of a credit crunch; banks are tightly screening loan applicants, "Stock returns using YTD httn;//money.cnn.com/data/markets and house returns 0 2 2007-02 2008 S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices http;//www2.standardandn00rs.comisyf/ndflindeX/2008- 10 Residential Real Estate lndicators,odf mortgage equity withdrawal has dropped (from $700 billon in 2005 to $20 billon Q2 2008), and banks are restricting credit to only those with excellent -good credit ratings. So many consumers are using credit cards to pay for day to day necessities resulting in a decline in retail sales every month since July. Retail sales will continue to fall further when credit cards are "maxed -out". The October retail sales data shows sales down 2.8% from September putting retails sales down in real terms for 5 months in a row. Again, it is the consumer that is now leading the recession since consumer spending is 70% of US GDP. The pattern of consumer spending over the last decade is over. Over the past few years consumers have spent well beyond their means by using home equity loans, credit cards, and auto loans to finance spending. U S consumer debt as a percentage of disposable income (debt to income) increased from 70% in the early 1990's to 100% in 2000 and now stands 140% in 2008." This pattern of consumer spending is not sustainable. At some point, the debt must be repaid or there has to be an adjustment in the economy. The adjustment is occurring now. Chart 2 Sluggish growth The crisis in the financial and housing sectors makes the outlook for the U.S. economy uncertain. (Real GDP, percent change, an a � Tarl cacuianons Source: IMF Survey: United States Manages First Housing Bust in Four Decades Chart 2 illustrates an IMF forecast of US GDP growth through 2009. The best case scenario is sluggish economic growth (indicated by the red -line in chart 2) assuming a substantial policy stimulus by the Federal government and the ability of banks to recover from the sub -prime mortgage mess. The worst case scenario (indicated by the green line in chart 2) is based on slowing economy causing more mortgage defaults and banks incurring further losses and feeding back into economic activity. The Neilsen Company's 2008 Holiday Forecast reports flat sales with over one third of consumers scaling back on discretionary spending. Their 21,000 consumer survey finds that 50% of households expect to spend the same as in 2007 and 35% of households will spend less than 2007. Only 6% of households reported that they would spend more than last year. The retailers 13 htty://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini- monitor/254419120 reasons why the us consumer is capitulatinz thus triggerin? the worst us reces stun in decades -20- that will benefit from the sluggish sales will he discount stores, online retailers, grocery, and mass -merchandise retailers. Department stores and specialty stores will suffer the most this season. The Neilsen Company also reports a worsening in economic conditions through 2009 and a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Consumers are now shifting their spending behavior to levels they can afford. Locally: The economic situation at the local level mirrors the situation at the national level. This means that the retail sector at the local level will take a hit as local consumers slow their spending. In the Stockton MSA area (San Joaquin County) the unemployment rate stands at 10.2%, well above the national average of 6.5% and California average of 7.7%. Non-farm wage and salary employment is down 0.6% from a year earlier—the most affected sectors are in construction (- 11,7%), financial activities (-lo.]%), Leisure and Hospitality (-2.7%), Other Service (-3.9%)s and Government activities (-1.0%), Only wages in two sectors are up from a year earlier: manufacturing (6,1 %), trade, transportation, and utilities (1.7%) for the Stockton MSA. `a The housing market however, is worse in San Joaquin County compared to the national average. Since the downturns in house prices is leading cause of the economic crisis, the economic outlook presented here is not optimistic. According to RealtyTrac.com,1/100 properties are foreclosed in San Joaquin County alone. As of November 19's 2008, the City of Lodi has 245 properties in pre - foreclosure, 113 under auction, and 618 properties bank -owned. In October of 2008, the City of Lodi had 88 new foreclosures in the 95240 zip code and 35 in the 95242 zip code. Many of the pre -foreclosed and bank -owned properties are located between South Main Street and South Cherokee Lane. With many households facing pre -foreclosure and foreclosure, it is likely that most consumers will buy necessities rather than "nice -to -have" items. Fiscal Impact to the City of Lodi For most cities the sales tax dollars derived from sales taxes contribute substantially to their budgets, particularly in the wake of Proposition 13, which limited property taxes. While the proposed shopping center will generate substantial sales it is clear that virtually all of these sales will come from displacement of existing sales. Indeed, the EIR essentially states this fact: "the cumulative impacts of the Lodi Shopping Center and Reynolds Ranch project in addition to the Lodi center may lead to substantial cannibalization in sales from existing outlets in Lodi putting existing businesses at increased risk of closure." (BAE report p. 71) As the EIR also indicates, based on State sales tax data and estimates of demand, it is clear that the City of Lodi also has a substantial surplus in the key categories of general merchandise and grocery sales (most of which are not subj ect to sales taxes) which the Supercenter would compete in. Indeed, the City already has a large Wal-Mart store very close to the proposed site. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the net impact of the project, in terms of sales tax generation, will be a displacement of sales rather than new sales. For new sales taxes to occur, one of two things would need to happen: 1. The Supercenter would have to attract new customers who currently do not shop in Lodi or 14 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. -21- 2. The Supercenter would have to "capture" sales leakage in categories that are underserved currently in Lodi. For a variety of reasons, partially explained in the EIR, it is unlikely for (1) above to occur. First, Lodi already has a large Wal-Mart store and a number of grocery stores which attract local customers as well as some out of town customers. Second, a Wal-Mart Supercenter exists in nearby Stockton, one has been proposed in Galt, and three others in Stockton, one currently operating, one was recently approved, and one being litigated. These other Supercenters limit the appeal of the Project to nearby customers. Indeed, the EIR concludes that additional sales (and hence sales tax dollars though this is never specified) will be generated by capturing leakage in two underserved retail categories in Lodi: apparel, and "other retail." The EIR assumes that 25% of the estimated leakage in these categories will be captured by the Lodi shopping center, either at the Supercenter or auxiliary retail. Unfortunately, the EIR gives no details on how this retail leakage will be filled. The 25% estimate seems to be mere speculation (something the consultants of the EIR have criticized others for doing). Realistically, to fill leakages in these retail categories, one would need new shopping venues in Lodi. There is no evidence that the Project will provide such venues. Instead the shopping center largely duplicates what is already abundantly available in Lodi—general merchandise, grocery, drugstores, fast food, and other restaurants. In the retail category, the GAP and its sister store, Old Navy are very large apparel retailers that do not exist in Lodi. (Customers must go to nearby Stockton.) Other popular retailers such as Abercrombie and Fitch, BeBe, Ann Taylor, Nordstrom, Macys, Sears, etc. are also missing in Lodi and available only in Stockton or Sacramento. It is unlikely that these stores would locate in the Lodi Shopping Center since most of these stores rarely team with Wal-Mart. Similarly, Lodi lacks a major chain bookstore (e.g., Borders or Barnes and Noble) or a Costco, which undoubtedly results in some sales leakage. The EIR simply does not provide any rationale for believing that the retail leakages in these categories will be filled, but simply relies on an unexplained assumption. Even if one accepts the estimate of sales capture in the EIR, (see BAE report, p. 44, Table 16) one is left with an estimate of $14.3 million in new sales, generating $143,000 in new sales taxes per year, or 0.3% of its general fund budget for 2008-9 of $43 million. The EIR also fails to account for the fact that the (now approved) Reynolds Ranch project will almost certainly close much of the leakage in the apparel and other retail sectors, since the Reynolds project (unlike the Lodi shopping center) can reasonably be expected to contain an array of retail now lacking in Lodi. The Reynolds Ranch project will also be built in east Lodi, drawing customers who do not go to stores that already exist near the proposed Supercenter on W. Kettleman. As store closings occur, other taxes such as business licenses, property taxes utility fees and other sources of City revenue will also fall. Essentially, what happens as retail shifts from older stores to the newer stores is that taxes will also shift, but no net increase occurs. Indeed, as urban decay sets in, one should expect property values to fall and economic activity to drop, lowering overall tax revenues. Compared to the increased expensesjust of policing the additional area, plus the costs of urban decay to the City, it is clear that the costs will easily exceed $143,000 per year. The project would entail the following additional costs to the City of Lodi: -22- 1. Providing public safety and fire services for several acres of land that were formerly farm land (and hence less expensive to provide such services). 2. Abating graffiti, run-down buildings, and other consequences of urban decay that the EIR states the City will do. 3. Dealing with increased crime in areas where blight has been exacerbated by the new retail. The costs of 1-3 above should be considerably higher than $143,000, which, as noted above, is an optimistic estimate of the new sales taxes that would be generated by this project. For example, the City of Los Angeles spends $28 million per year on graffiti abatement alone and the costs for a typical City are about $1-3 per resident. The EIR argues that abatement of urban decay will be paid for by fines. However, if that is the case, why has blight and urban decay already set in? Clearly such statutes only partially alleviate urban decay, and at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Increased crime and the costs of law enforcement is also an issue. Two recent studies of Wal- Mart Supercenters'' indicate that crime is an issue at Wal -Marts and that Wal-Mart stores have significantly higher incidences of crime, as measured by police reports, than similar stores such as Target. Table 7 below contains data from one study of Wal-Mart stores 16 indicating that the average store in California and the US reported approximately 270 serious incidents per store per year. Each incident involved an average cost of $77.50 implying that local police departments had to spend about $21,000 per store. Since most of these stores are much smaller than a Supercenter, one should expect substantially higher expenses in Lodi, with its bigger store. Table 7: Cost of Police Incidents at a Typical Wal-Mart Store If these crime reports simply displaced existing crime, one could argue that the net cost to the City would not change. However, as noted above, blight and urban decay also increases crime. Thus it is likely that crime would increase due to urban decay and one would also have to address the crime that occurs at Wal-Mart stores. Conclusion The EIR contains a number of serious flaws and omissions which distort their analysis and conclusions. Perhaps most critical is its failure to even recognize the existing environmental setting in Lodi as indicated by the City's declaration that much of the eastern part of the City is a blight zone. The EIR admits that stores will close, but fails to relate these closings to existing urban decay, except in a very small area downtown. "See Crime and Wal-Mart As Wal-Mart Safe, May 2006, httn://walmarterimereoort.com/rel)ort.pdf, and "Crime at Wal-Mart,bttt)://waimartwatch.rom/im2/documents/CrimeAtWalMart.,r)df, f6 Crime and Wal-Mart—Is Wal-Mart Safe, May 2006; data from Table 2, p. 7. -23- California us # Incidents 24,682 148,331 #Stores 91 551 Avg. Indidents/Store 271 269 Avg. Cost /Incident $77.50 $77.50 Avg. Cost /Store $21,020 $20,863 If these crime reports simply displaced existing crime, one could argue that the net cost to the City would not change. However, as noted above, blight and urban decay also increases crime. Thus it is likely that crime would increase due to urban decay and one would also have to address the crime that occurs at Wal-Mart stores. Conclusion The EIR contains a number of serious flaws and omissions which distort their analysis and conclusions. Perhaps most critical is its failure to even recognize the existing environmental setting in Lodi as indicated by the City's declaration that much of the eastern part of the City is a blight zone. The EIR admits that stores will close, but fails to relate these closings to existing urban decay, except in a very small area downtown. "See Crime and Wal-Mart As Wal-Mart Safe, May 2006, httn://walmarterimereoort.com/rel)ort.pdf, and "Crime at Wal-Mart,bttt)://waimartwatch.rom/im2/documents/CrimeAtWalMart.,r)df, f6 Crime and Wal-Mart—Is Wal-Mart Safe, May 2006; data from Table 2, p. 7. -23- Although the EIR makes clear that a number of large stores are at risk of closure, it goes out of its way to minimize these damages, by omitting important data. We expect that the consultants who prepared the EIR will state that they have considered these stores in their analysis since some of these stores have been mentioned in the report. However, the key data presented in Tables I 1 and 13 of the BAE report. on maior (GM and grocery) store sales in Lodi. is distorted seriously by these omissions and thus the conclusions rendered in the EIR are flawed the situation, in particular the health of GM and food retailing, is far worse than the picture painted in the EIR. Consequently, these serious omissions in the EIR imply that the probability of urban decay is far higher than the EIR concludes. Indeed, in our opinion, the Lodi project, in conjunction with the already approved Reynolds Ranch Project, will significantly exacerbate already existing blight and urban decay in downtown and eastern Lodi, particularly in downtown Lodi, at retail on Cherokee Lane and at older shopping centers and on W. Kettlemen. As a result, many retailers in the City of Lodi will close, resulting in significantly lower rents and hence lower maintenance and eventual urban decay. Parts of downtown Lodi are already deteriorating, as noted in the EIR, and the Lodi shopping center would seriously exacerbate this deterioration. Lower rents would make it much harder to maintain these properties and virtually impossible to do the seismic upgrades that are needed for many structures downtown, as mentioned in the EIR. This conclusion is not based upon "speculation," but upon the most basic concept in all of economics—supply and demand. It is clear that the demand for retail in Lodi will grow very slowly, if at all. Indeed, if the current housing downturn persists for several years as we believe, then growth out to 2011 may be close to zero or even negative. But even with the very low growth forecast by the EIQ it is clear that there will be a glut of retail, particularly if the Reynolds Ranch project is also built. It is not speculative to follow a logical argument based on the facts and data. Rather it is speculative to paint a rosy picture, as the EIR does, and ignore the basic facts. It is abundantly clear from the data presented in the EIR (BAE report, table 10. p. 22), that Lodi already has a substantial surplus of $33 million dollars in retail. For a relatively small city, not far from much larger cities (Stockton and Sacramento) this is already quite substantial. However, the EIR essentially ignores the possibility that some of this surplus might be lost due to retail developments in towns and cities where people now come from to shop in Lodi (i.e,, Galt and towns to the east of Lodi, as well as developments in N. Stockton). When one adds in the proposed Supercenter in Galt, developments in Amador County and N. Stockton as well as the current downturn in the credit markets, one has to question the veracity of an analysis which essentially dismisses all of these factors, while claiming to be "conservative." Even with these omissions, the EIR recognizes that the Lodi shopping center will leave a 120,000 square foot closed Wal-Mart store and result in the additional closing of several hundred thousand square feet of retail space in Lodi. The EIR also recognizes substantial physical deterioration and poor maintenance downtown, a harbinger of urban decay. However, the EIR then concludes that this substantial increase in store closings will have no significant impact on downtown rents and hence the health of downtown retail. This makes no sense. The retail mix in downtown Lodi, small inexpensive restaurants, hairdressers, discount stores, business services, etc., are all types that could easily migrate to other places in the city, in particular shopping centers with newly closed stores (as a result of these projects). When one also incorporates the data omitted in the EIR's quantitative analysis, it becomes clear that downtown Lodi is in serious jeopardy of further physical deterioration and urban decay. If one also looks at the cumulative damages of the Reynolds Ranch project, which would -24- cumulatively increase retail space in Lodi by over one million square feet, it becomes clear that urban decay is an even more serious issue. The EIR also completely omits any discussion of the current housing crisis and economic downturn even though it was clear before these reports were comuleted. that the downturn would be severe and that it would hit central California particularly hard. The E IRs failure to even discuss economic events that are headline news almost every day is further indication that the analysis is flawed and systematically omits information which would lead to any conclusion that urban decay is a significant issue. Finally, it is clear from the E I R s own analysis that the project will not generate substantial sales or other taxes. At best, one can expect $140,000 and we anticipate that with the development of the Reynolds Ranch project the smaller amount of leakage that already exists in Lodi will already be filled by stores that are lacking in Lodi as opposed to duplicating existing retail as this project clearly does. In sum,the consequences of this Project will result in significant urban decay in the City of Lodi. -25- 19111P100411A low, Economics Department, San Francisco State University E-mail: pgkin@sfsu.edu Education: July, 87 Ph.D. in ECONOMICS CORNELL UNIVERSITY Fields: Applied Microeconomics, Economic Drvelopmml, International Economics Dissertation Bargaining between Moltinat:onal Corporationsand less Dee -eloped Countries Deer \Iineral ConcrssionsContracts, May. 78 B. A. in PHILOSOPHY & ECONOMICS WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Nominated toOrnicron Della. Epsilon(Fconomics HonorSociPh ) Work Experience: 9/02-12/05 CHAMECONOMICSDEPARTMENT 9/93 -present ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR 9/87-9/93 9/83-5/85 Books: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ECONOMICS SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY S.U.N.Y. at CORTLAND International Economics, globalization and Policy, McGraw-Hill, 2008. Internahonal Economics and International Economic Policy, 4th Edition, McCraw -Hill, 2004. International Fconomic�, and International Economic Policy, 3rd Edition. NicGraiv-Hill, 2000. International I.conomics and International I-cononnc Policy, 2nd Edition, McGraw -I lill, 1995. International Economics and International Economic Policy, 1st Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1990. Policy Papers prepared for Government and Non -Profit Organizations: Economic Analysis of A Proposed Ordinance to Limit Grocery Sales at Superstores in Stockton, California, 2007. "The (Economic) Benefits of California's Beaches," prepared for the California State Resources Agency, 2002, http://dbw.ea.gov/beachreport.htm. "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Beach Recreation in San Clemente," presented as part of Hearings on Congressional Appropriations for California Coastal Projects, US House of Representatives, April 2002. Also completed similar projects for Cities of Carpinteria, Endnitas, and Solana Beach. San Francisco's Economic Growth 1995-2000 The Fiscal Health of the City and Implications for the Future," prepared for the San Francisco Committee on Jobs Summer 2001, available at http:L/online.sfsu.edu/—Vgking/n-g3ypage22.htm. newpaee22.htm. This report was widely cited in the San Francisco press including front page articles by the Chronicle and Examiner. "The Demand for Beaches in California; prepared for the California Dept. of Boating and Waterways, Spring 2001. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Shoreline Protection Projects in California; prepared for the California Dept. of Boating and Waterways, Spring 2000. "The Fiscal Impact of Beaches in California; prepared forthe Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University, Fall 1999, available at http://online.sfsu.edu/—pgking/beaches.htrn. "An Economic Analysis of Coastal Resources on the Majuro Atoll," prepared for the United Nations Development Program Project MAS 95/001 [DO 1/99 and the Majuro Atoll Local Government, September, 1997. "The Economic Impact of California's Beaches,' prepared for the Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University, Summer, 1997 (with Michael Potepan.) "The Revenue Impact of the Proposed Marine Link Pipeline System in Richmond, California,' prepared for the Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University, Spring, 1997 (with Ted Rust.) "The Economic Impact of California's Ports and Harbors," prepared for the Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University, Spring, 1997 (with Ted Rust). Published Academic Papers: "Potential Loss in GNP and GSP from a Failure to Maintain California's Beaches", 2004, with Douglas Symes, Shore and Beach, Forthcoming. "The Economic Value of California's Beaches,' Fall 1997, Proceedings of the Conference on California and the World Oceans (with Michael Potepan) "William Simon: Treasury Secretary," in Biographical Dictionary of the United States Secretaries of the Treasury: 1789-2995, edited by Bernard Katz and C. Daniel Vencill, Greenwood Press, 1996. "The Multinational Corporation: Pro and Con," in International Economics and International Economic Policy, McGraw-Hill, 1990. "Negotiations over Mineral and Petroleum Contracts in Developing Countries: a new explanation," Winter 1987, Journal cf Economics and International Relations. "A Political Theory of MNC-LDC Negotiations over Mineral Concessions Contracts," 1988, International Interactions. "Are Minimum Quotas Inefficient?'presented at the Western Economics Association Conference, Los Angeles, July 1988. "The Debt crisis and LDC leaders," presented at the Public Choice meetings, San Francisco, March 1988. "Adverse Selection and Competitive Health Care,' presented at the American Economic Association Meetings, New Orleans, December 1986. PERSONAL University Address: EDUCATION SHARMILA KUMARI KING Department of Economics University of the Pacific 3601 Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA 95211 E-mail: skingl @pacific.edu Office Phone: (209) 946 2293 • Ph.D. Economics, University of California, Davis, 2001 Dissertation: The Formulation of Monetary Policy and the Transmission Mechanism in Europe (Chair: Professor Kevin Hoover) Major Fields: Monetary Economics, International Finance, and Econometrics • M.A. Economics, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, 1996 • B.A. Economics (Honors), University of York, York, England, 1992 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS Associate Professor, University of the Pacific, Fall 2007 present Assistant Professor, University of the Pacific, Fall 2001 -Spring 2006 • Introductory Macroeconomics (ECON 55, ECON 55H) • Intermediate Macroeconomics, Theory and Policy (ECON 103, ECON 103L) • Money and Banking (ECON 141) • International Finance (ECON 123) • Computer Applications (ECON 16 1) • Mentor2 PAPERS and BOOKS • "Bank Efficiency and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy" with Michael Jonas, Contemporary Economic Policy, October 2008 • Philip King and Sharmila King International Economics and Globalization, and Policy: A Reader, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Publishers, 2008 • Philip King and Sharmila King International Economics and InternationalEconomic Policy: A Reader, McGraw-Hill Publishers, 2005 • "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," with Philip King, Jean Monnet Chair Conference Proceedings, 2003 • "Tax Evasion and Equity Theory: An Experimental Investigation", with Steven Sheffrin, International Tax and Public Finance, 9,505-521, August 2002 • Sharmila King "Currency Boards" in International Economics and International Economic Policy: A Reader, Philip King and Sharmila King (Eds.), McGraw-Hill Publishers 2005 • Sharmila King "China's Controversial Exchange Rate Policy" in International Economics and Globalization, and Policy: A Reader, S" ed. McGraw-Hill Publishers, forthcoming Fall 2008 • "A Credit Channel in Europe: Evidence from Firm Balance Sheets", under revision • "A Lending Channel in Europe: Evidence from Bank Balance Sheets", under revision PRESENTATIONS • "Bank Efficiency and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy" at the Western Economic Association International Conference, Vancouver, July 2004 • Economics Department Colloquium Presentation: `Bank Efficiency and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy", April 2004 • "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," at the Jean Monnet Chair "Regional Integration Compared Conference in Bordeaux, France, July 2003 • "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," at the Western Economic Association International Conference in Seattle, July 2002 • Economics Department Colloquium Presentation: "Do Symmetric Shocks Matter? The Monetary Transmission in the Euro Area," April 2002 • "A Credit Channel in Europe: Evidence from Firm Balance Sheets" presented at the Western Economic Association International Conference in Vancouver, July 2000 UNIVERSITY SERVICE • College of Pacific Council -present • College of Pacific: Curriculum Committee 2007 -present • Department of Economics Webmaster, Fall 2004 -Fall 2008 • Omicron Delta Epsilon Faculty Advisor 2006-2008 • The Pacific Investment Group Faculty Advisor 2007—present • College of Pacific: Courses and Standards 2003-2005 • University Parking Taskforce Committee 2004 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE • Peer Reviewer for Southern Economic Journal • Economics Analysis of MOA between the City of Stockton and the Sierra Club, 2008 • Economic Analysis of a Proposed Supercenter Wal-Mart in Tracy, California 2006 • Economic Analysis of a Proposed Supercenter Wal-Mart in Stockton (Eight Mile Road), California 2005 • Economic Analysis of a Proposed Supercenter Wal-Mart in Lodi, California 2005,2008 • Book Review on Krugman and Well's Macroeconomics, Worth Publishers, 2004 • Chapter Review Stiglitz and Walsh's the Phillips Curve in Principles of Macroeconomics, W. W. Norton Publishers, 2004 D:c. 9. 2002 11:16AM DAGER / SUPERCUTS No. 6093 P. 1 SUPRICUTS December 9,2008 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in Support of the Browman Development Company in their efforts to bring a Super Wal-Mart to the Lodi Community. I have been a Supercuts franchisee for 23 years, and own eighteen stores in and around the Sacramentoarea. We have never owned our own buildings, so in that time I have worked with many landlords. I can say without question that Browman Development Company has been a pleasure to work t�. They own the centers that are home to two of our stores, and in my opinion, have always done and excellentj ob of running them. The centers are well maintained, clean, and have very low vacancy rates. Their people are easy to work with, and very professional. They do a great job of supporting their tenants, and make it easier forme to be successful. We have been in our Lodi location for twelve years now, and look forward to a long and continued relationship nth the people of the Browman Development Company. Sincerely, Michael J es Supercuts ranchisee 8004 Folsom -Auburn Rd. • Folsom, CA 95630 . (916)989.4229 Fax: (916)989-2216 12/05/2000 14:47 2959574260 EXPRESS CELLULAR PAGE 01/01 12/8/2008 ExpressWireless-Verizon Wireless Retailer 2314W. KettlemanLane#108 Lodi, CA 95240 To whom it may concern: Express Wireless is Lodi's Verizon Wireless exclusive retailer and we've been in business in Lodi's Sunwest Plaza since April of 1995. The citizens of Lodi, Galt and the surrounding communities have supported us and the store has always been one of our top performers. One big reason for our success is the quality cE the shopping center. Browman Developmentwas successful in attracting a diverse mix of excellent tenants and the occupancy rate has been close to 100%from day one. Sunwest Plaza continues to be Lodi's busiest shopping center and because of the great job the Browman team has done maintaining the property, it still looks and feels new. Our customers really seem to enjoy the shopping experience at Sunwest Plaza. Sincerely, Barorli-.President Wireless from: Mark Green Dba Green <strings I @sbcglobal.net> Subject: Wal-Mart Supercenter To: cityclerk@lodi.gov, shitchcock@lodi.gov, bjohnson@lodi.gov, jmounce@lodi.gov, pkatzaki,,I@]odi.gov, Ihansen@lodi.gov Date: Tuesday, December 9,2008, 1:35 PM Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, The purpose of this letter is to communicate my support of Browman Development for its ongoing proposal for the Wal Mart Supercenter. I have been a tenant of Browman Development since 1994. It has been my experience that Browman Development is a quality landlord and is committed to their tenants success. Our Center has always been totally occupied and I have confidence that all efforts will be made to insure that it will continue to be fully occupied in the future. I believe Browman Development is very aware of the importance of making sure all of their tenants continue to prosper, even with the Supercenter approval, as they will continue to be our Landlord after Wal-Mart has re -located. In my opinion, this project will only help keep more consumer spending In Lodi, which is good for our entire community. I urge each of you to take appropriate action to insure the approval of this project. Regards, Mark Green, Owner Strings Italian Cafe 2314 W Kettleman Lane Lodi, CA 95242 EXHIBIT A WalMart opens Supercenter in Orangevale - Sacramento Business Journal• Sacramento BusinessJournal - May 20,2008 htto://secramento.biziournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/05/ 19/daity2l.html BUM= T%esday, N* 20,2008 WaNart opens Supercenter in Orangevale Sacramento Business Journal - by Kelly Johnson Staff wtiiE Page 1 of 1 Orangevale gets its first Wal-Mart Supercenter on Wednesday 4th the opening of a store at 8961 Greenback Lane. The 107,000 -square -foot store, open aroundthe clock, will employ more than 285 people. Its grocery department will offer bakery goods, deli and frozen foods, produce, meat and dairy. The Supercenter was built with energy-efficient features to reduce energy and water consumption and reduce waste, including skylights, LED lighting, sensor-activatedfaucets and concrete flooring made in part vidh recycled materials. To mark the store opening, Wal..........................................................t Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) will give $i8,000 to local ........ organizations. All contents of this site©American City Business Journalslnc.Ail rights reserved. http://sacramentobizjoumals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/05/19/daily2l .htrn1?t=printab1e 7/17/2008 Wal-Mart In the News Copyright 2008 The Modesto Bee The Modesto Bee (California) Distributed byMcClatchy-Tribune Business News February 29,2008 Friday BUSINESSAND FINANCIALNEWS 20080228 -MO -Wal -Mart -is -to -open -next -year -0229 423 words Wal-Mart is to open next year The Modesto Bee, Calif. Page 1 of2 or LexisNexis- Feb. 29—The smallest Wal-Mart Supercenter in California is to open in Modesto in early 2009, according to company officials. The store, at 3848 McHenry Ave., will occupy one building that previously housed two stores in the North Point Landing Center. Aaron Rios, a California spokesman for Wal-Mart, said the store will be 105.000 square feet, slightly smaller than a supercenterthat Wal-Mart opened in Sanger last year in what was formerly a Kmart The Modesto supercenter will have grocery items, including full produce, bakery, deli and meat counter areas, Rios said, along with items found at a standard Wal-Mart store. Rios said the supercenter will complement, not replace, an existing Wal-Mart store i n Modesto on Plaza Parkway. Wal-Mart also has a store in Ceres and plans for a supercenter in that city. The building that will house Modesto's supercenter has been home to a variety of tenants over the years. Most recently, a SavMax store dosed there in 2002,and a RiteAid dosed in the other half of the building in 1998. Wal -Marl will knock out an interiorwall in the building to create one store. Rios said site worts will begin as soon as the Bentonville, Arte. -based retail giant receives permit approval from the city of Modesto. The supercenterwill need about 350 employees, Rios said, and generate about $500,000 i n local sales taxes. Hiring will begin about three months before the store opens, Rios said. Employeeswill get wages comparable with the average Wal-Mart pays in Stanislaus County — $11.67 an hour -- Rios said. The store will have a budget for contributingto local nonprofit groups, as other Wal-Mart stores do, he said. Wal-Mart Supercenters have been controversial in many cities — including Turlock, where they prompted a virtual ban — because of their effect on lmd economies and use of nonunion labor. Rios said Wal -Mart's experiencewith supercenters in California suggests that consumers will like what they find at the new Modesto store. "Once they're open, they're well-received," Rios said. "It's really an opportunity both for us to open a new store and for customers to save more money." http://www6.lexisnexis.conVpublisherlEndUser?Action=UserDisplayFuUDocument&orgId=2708&topic ... 8/2212008 Studies for Wal-Mart project under way I Union Democrat I Sonora News, Sports, & Weather, Angels ... Page 1 of 2 do print this Studies for Wal-Mart project underway October 28. 200812:00 am ByALISHA WYMAN The Union Democrat As one grocery store owner has announced plans to open in Sonora, Wal-Mart is navigatingthe application process to add a second new store. Wal-Mart officials sought Sonora City Council approval in January to expand the Sonora store by 27,477 square -feet dedicated to grocery sales. The city has contracted with San Ramon firm Michael Brandman Associates to complete the Environmental Impact Report. Jason Brandman, executive vice president and project director, estimates the report should be complete by early next year. A series of studies are examining traffic impacts, whether it will hurt other area grocery stores, lighting, watershed and other environmental issues. 'We may potentially have significant impacts resulting from the project," he said, adding that his firm will recommend ways Wal-Mart could mitigatethe effects. The studies are still underway, so Brandman couldn't detail the firm's findings so far. The existing 130,166 square -foot store was approved in 1992 as part of the Sonora Crossroads Shopping Center off of Sanguinetti Road. A 30,000 -expansion pad on the east side of the building was included in the original project. The store will help boost the local economy with job creation and other economic growth, as unemployment rises in the county, City Administrator Greg Applegate said. 'We've got to get some jobs going here; we've got to get some economic vitality going on, because we can't rely on the state government," he said. 'We can't rely on the federal government." The new grocery offerings at Wal-Mart Q1 be in addition to a new grocery store slated to replace Albertson's in The Junction shopping center. Albertson's closed in February 2007 and left 65 employees without work. Randy Toy, owner of a grocery store in Stockton, plans to open a store called PriceCo in its stead. A languishing economy hasn't shaken Toy or Wal-Mart from their goals. Stores like Wal-Mart usually do market studies of the area before plunging into the local business arena, Applegate said. "They're not about to make an investment not knowing they're going to have a positive return," he said. http://www.uniondemocrat.comlindex2.php?option=com_content&taskwiew&id=-93928&pop=1 &pag... 12/10/2008 Studies for Wal-Mart project under way I Union Democrat I Sonora News, its,& Weather, Angels ... Page 2 of 2 The two stores are essentially replacing John Sierra Market and Albertson's, he added. Wal-Mart officials did not return a call in time for publication. After completion of the EIR, there will be a 30 -to -45 -day public comment period. In addition to written comments, the city will hold a public hearing. The consultantwill examine the comments and give a reply. Its up to the Sonora Planning Commission to approve or deny the final project. Contact Alisha Wyman at awyman@uniondemocrat.com or 588-4526. Close Window http://www.uniondemocrat.com/index2.php?option=com content&task=view&id=93928&pop=1&pag... 12/10/2008 Page 1 o f2 Sonora Wal-Mart expansion plan in works Published: January 11,2008 By REBECCA HOWES The Union Democrat Wal-Mart wants to expand its Sonora store by nearly 27,500 square feet. The City of Sonora Planning Commission will hold a public meeting Monday regarding the proposed expansion of the store, at 1101 Sanguinetti Road. The meeting is to discuss the project's environmental ramifications, Addressed will be city Community Development Director Ed Wyllie's recommendation that an environmental impact report be completed before a site plan and design review of the expansionproj ect proceeds. An original EIR, prepared 15 years ago and before the store was built, advised that further environmental review may be required if major changes to the project were made. The existing 130,166 square foot building at The Crossroads shopping center, if expanded as proposed, would grow to 157,657 square feet. "The proposed expansion would be grocery oriented. Wal-Mart is possibly taking advantage now that Albertsons is gone," City Administrator Greg Applegate said. The Albertsons store in East Sonora closed almost a year ago and has remained empty. Raiey's, a West Sacramento - based chain of supermarkets in California and Nevada, holds the lease on the still -vacant store in The Junction shopping center. The closure of Albertsons left 65 employees withoutj obs. The proposed expansion of Wal-Mart would create 100 to 150newjobs and increase the sales tax revenues for the city, Applegate said. The existing sboe is not open overnight, however, the proposed expanded store, if approved, would be open 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Should the project be approved, parking spaces will increase from 787 to 876, which meets the city's zoning code requirements of one space per 200 square feet for retail use. Additionally, the project would improve existing ADA parking spades along the front of the building. The existing Wal-Mart store was approved by the City of Sonora as part of the Sonora Crossroads Shopping Center prof ect in 1992. Included in the original project was a 30,000 -square -foot expansion pad on the east side of the building. The environmental review of the original project acknowledged the expansion pad, but it did not include development of the pad at that time. http://www.uniondemocrat,corn/news/story_print,cfm?story_no=25468 8/22/2008 Page 2 of 2 The expansion area to the east of the building was rough graded when the shopping center was built and now houses storage containers. "We are not allowing for urban sprawl. The area is already equipped for sewer and water lines. As a city we have concentrated on keeping the stores confined in a concentrated commercial area," Applegate said. Since 15 years have passed since the first EIR, a new environmental report should be prepared by a consultant in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act and city EIR guidelines, Wyllie said. Giving Sonora residents more choice when grocery shopping, increased sales tax revenue for the city and the creation of new j obs all contribute to the overall positive outlook Wyllie and Applegate share for the proposed project. "I don't anticipate much muss or fuss," Wyllie said. "I feel pretty optimistic." Neither Wal-Mart representatives nor RSC Engineering, a Roseville firm which submitted a site plan and design review application to the city on GBliftt'sbehalf, would comment. Contact Rebecca Howes at 588-4531 or rhowes@uniondenocrat. can. httpY/www,uniondemocrat,con/news/story_print,cfn?storyno=25468 8/22/2448 WW -Mart downsizing plans for Galt store to a hybrid format - Sacramento Business Journal: Page 1 of 3 Sacramento Business Journal - October 8,2007 htto: / /sacramento.biziournals.com/sacramento/ stories/2007 / 10/08 / newscolumn l.htmi IZ! Friday, October 5,2007 Wal-Mart downsizing plans for Galt store to a hybrid format Retailer hopes approvals will come more quickly with new site, size Sacramento Business Journal - by Kelly Johnson Staff Writer wai-MaitStores.,Inc,. has moved to Plan B for Galt, with a site and smaller store that the giant retailer hopes will be more satisfactory to the community. For several years Wal-Mart had expressed interest in -- but had no formal agreement for -- building a grocery -selling " supercenter" store in a 40o,00 o -square -foot shopping center proposed for east of Highway 99 between Boessowand Simmerhornroads. Now Wal-Mart is in escrow for io acres a couple of miles away, at Twin Cities Road east of Fermoy Way, and has submittedplans to the city for a store of 132, 000square feet. This store would sell groceries,but it would be a blend of traditional Wal -Marts and the company's larger supercenter format of more than 200,000 square feet. The proposed Wal-Mart also wouldn't be subject to a superstoreban the city is mulling. Galt city leaders are considering an ordinance that wouldban stores bigger than 140,000 square feet and require extra studies for stores of more than 1oo,000 square feet. That requirement wouldn't be a problem for Wal-Mart, company spokesmanAaron Rios said, because the company already routinely includes th a analysis the city is considering. Even so, Wal-Mart objects to the proposed ordinance. The city's planning process alreadyhas the tools availableto evaluate projects on an individual basis, Rios said. The proposed Wal -Martis still several years away, Rios said. But UB1+b3:texpects that this site and smaller store could get through the approval process and start serving customers sooner thanthe other location it was eyeing. The Twin Cities Road site has the appropriate zoning with no big constraints, though traffic will be an issue, said Curt Campion, Galfs ccmr n; ty development director. Wal-Mart would become Galfs largest store, even at the smaller size. Galfs largest retailers now are grocery stores. Wal-Mart would employ about 45 0 people. The retailer is still working on estimates for the amount of sales tax revenue the store would produce for the dty. http://sacramento.bizjoumals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/10/08/newscolumn l.htmi?t=printable 6/28/2008 Wal-Mart downsizing plans for Galt store in a hybrid format - Sacramento Business Journal: Page 2 of 3 While Wal-Mart has moved on, Southern California developer PZ, Partners is still working through the planning process for 56 acres on which it wants to build the 400,000 -square -foot shopping center. Baby fashicnmaker goes retail After 18years of selling wholesale socks for babies and toddlers, and other footwear, clothing and accessories, designer Jon Stevenson has opened his first retail location of Trumpette. Trumpette opened in r,000 square feetAug. 28 in Gold River at 2095 Gold River Lane. Stevenson, who moved himself and the business to the Sacramento area four years ago from Petaluma, figured his product line -- with 427 separate stockkeeping traits — was now large enough to warrant a store. He'd like to have five stores open within two years, either company-ownedor through licensing agreements. Stevenson, 52, said this region could support another store, perhaps in east Sacramento, Roseville or Sacramento— he'd love to land in the upscale Pavilions center. Trumpette's colorful tights, socks designed to look like shoes, Mar-Aane rain boots and other items are sold through 12, o o o vendors, including Bloomingdale's, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue stores, catalogs and Trumpette's Web site. Through a year-old deal with The Walt Dic ley O3 Trumpette also can market itself in connection with Disney (NYSE :DIS) and sell its products at Disney's stores, parks and resorts. About 60 percent of Trumpette's business is baby socks sold in six-packs, Stevenson said, but the company sells a variety of products for babies and kids up to age 7. Stevensonhad two menswear stores in San Francisco two decades ago when he discovered a void in the baby fashion industry. He was a new single father of an adoptedbaby boy when his au pair, out with the baby, would hear complimentary comments about the cute girl. After Stevenson had a romper printed in front with the word "BOY" on it, others wanted to buy it. Trumpette was barn. T.rumpr :%, the wholesalebusiness, employs 50 people in Rancho Cordova. Manufacturing is done overseas. In the past five years, revenue has grown by loo percent and the work f3moehas grown to 50 from four. Now, with the store open, Stevenson wants to increase Trumpette's involvementw i th charitable groups. Sacramento center sold Evergreen Center, a 29,823 -square -foot shopping center at 5575 Mack Road in Sacramento, has changed hands for nearly $7.9 million. The buyer is Id 1ac.Real.Estabe..Hblclings in Los Angeles, which was representedby Michael Pourmirza of S ss viu.Ne. It is the company's fimt purchase in Greater Sacramento. Brett Machale of CB Richard.Ellis represented the seller, a Sacramento-basedfamily test. Evergreen Center, built in 1985 on 2.94 acres, is i o o percent occupied. Its tenants include AutoZone and 7 - Eleven. http.//sacramento bizjoumals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/10/08/newscolumnl.html?t--printable 6/28/2008 DATE: April 4,2008 TO: Interested Persons FROM: Chris Erias, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Galt Wal-Mart Project. PUBLIC REVIEW PERICD: April 4,2008 through May 5,2008 The City of Galt is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Galt Wal-Mart project located within the City of Galt. The document is being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Section 15082 states that once a decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency (the City of Galt) must prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP)to inform all responsible agencies that an EIR will be prepared. The purpose of the NOP is to provide sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable responsible agencies to make a meaningful response regarding the scope and content of the information that should be included in the EIR. Comments are also being solicited from the public. Project Location The project is located in the City of Galt, California. Galt is located within Sacramento County and is approximately 27 miles south of Sacramento and 92 miles northeast of San Francisco. Highway 99 runs north to south through Galt and provides the major regional access to the City (See Figure 1). The project site is located at the southeast comer of Twin Cities Road and Fermoy Way. The proposed project site consists of approximately 11.26 acres on a single undevetoped parcel (See Figure 2) identified as Sacramento County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 148-0074-058. The existing land uses surrounding the proposed project site are as follows: • North: Twin Cities Road abuts the project site to the north. Undeveloped property exists outside the current City limits beyond. • South: The Emerald Senior Village abuts the project site to the south. • East: A single family residential development (Rancho San Jon) abuts the project site to the east. • West: Fermoy Way abuts the project site to the west across from which is a developed commercial shopping center that includes a Raley's Grocery Store and a Dollar Store beyond. Highway 99 is located less than a'�/2 mile to the west. Galt M1+ftt Project/ Notice of Preparation/ 2 Project Components The proposed project includes the development of the approximately 11.26 -acre site and construction of an approximately 133,279 square foot Wal-Mart store, including a 6,030square foot (s.f.) fenced outdoor garden center (See Figure 3). While the project site plan currently illustrates a 133,279 s.f. store, this EIR evaluates a maximum conservative not -to -exceed size of 137,277 square feet. The building would be oriented toward Twin Cities Road with vehicle access points on Twin Cities Road and Fermoy My. Table 1 lists the components included in the floor plan for the proposed project. Table I Project Floor Plan Components General Merchandise SalesArea 69,119 sq. ft. Grocery Sales Area 24,999 sq. ft. Retail Tenant Area 782 sq. ft. Stockroom Receiving Area 11,803 sq. ft. Ancillary Area 7,247 sq. ft. Grocery Support Area 7,909 sq. It Indoor Garden Center 5,390 sq. ft. I I Total Area I 133,279 sq. t I Necessary entitlements for the development of the proposed proj ect would include the following: • Certification of the EIR, findings, and MMP • Site Plan and Design Review; + Sign Permit; • Architectural Review; and • Conditional Use Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The City has reviewed the proposed Galt Wal-Mart project application and has determined that the EIR should address the following issues. Each issue chapter will include a discussion of the existing setting, the thresholds of significance, evaluation of potential impacts, mitigation measures, and monitoring strategies. Land Else—The Land Use chapter will evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with the City of Galt's adopted plans and policies. The chapter will address the City's General Plan, Northeast Area Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, as well as any other appropriate documents such as the recently Galt Wal-Mart Project Notice of Preparation/ 3 adopted Big Box Ordinance, to address consistency issues. The chapter will further assess the compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed. The land use chapter will identify land use impacts and mitigation measures and will note any inconsistencies or incompatibilities with adopted plans and policies created by the approval of the proposed project. Aesthetics — The Aesthetics chapter will summarize existing regional and project area aesthetics and visual setting. The chapter will briefly describe project -specific aesthetics issues regarding development of the proposed project such as scenic vistas, scenic highways, existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding areas. In addition, the potential impacts related to the light and glare associated with retail centers in close proximity to residential uses will be analyzed. This chapter of the EI R will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. Transportation and Circulation — The Transportation and Circulation chapter will describe existing traffic conditions, existing plus project traffic conditions (near. -term), and cumulative traffic conditions (including with and without the proposed project). This chapter wiII be based upon a Traffic Impact Study prepared specifically for the proposed project. The chapter will also include standards of significance and methods of analysis, and will describe the impacts associated with the traffic and propose mitigation to reduce the level of impacts. The traffic chapter will summarize the existing and planned regional and local transportation network as well as existing and future traffic conditions. The chapter will identify traffic loads and capacity of street systems including level of service standards for critical street segments and intersections. In addition, a detailed site circulation and access review will be conducted to determine the adequacy of the proposed site plan in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Construction traffic, emergency access, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities will also be discussed and analyzed to ensure adequacy of the proposed facilities based upon existing City of Galt plans. Air Quality and Climate Change — The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter will summarize the regional air quality setting, including climate and topography, existing ambient air quality, regulatory setting, and presence of any sensitive receptors such as hospitals, convalescent homes, and schools near the project or roads providing access to the praject site. This chapter will be based upon an Air Quality. Study prepared specifically for the proposed project. The air quality impact analysis will include a quantitative assessment of short-term (i,e., construction) and long-term (1,e,, operational) increases of criteria air pollutant emissions of primary concern (i.e., ROG, NOx, and PM�o) using the most current Urban Emissions (URBEMIS), an ARB -approved emission factor computer modeling program. Emissions of onsite sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with the proposed land uses and resultant impacts to nearby sensitive land uses am anticipated to be minor and, therefore, will be qualitatively discussed. Local mobile source carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations will be assessed using the CALINE4 model for any intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E or worse). In addition, detailed emissions calculations for diesel particulate based on expected activity levels will be prepared and a model run using the AERMOD dispersion program to estimate annual average concentration at sensitive receptors. The project's cumulative contribution to regional air quality will be discussed, based in part on the modeling conducted at the project level. Increases in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (i,e,, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) attributableto the proposed project will also be quantified and included in the cumulative air quality impact discussion. The significance of air quality impacts will be determined in comparison to SMAQMD-recommended significance thresholds. SMA QMID -recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated to reduce any significant air quality impacts and anticipated reductions in emissions associated with proposed mitigation measures will be quantified. Galt Wal-Mart Project/ Notice of Preparation 14 lbrire — The Noise chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. This chapter will be based upon a Noise Study prepared specifically for the proposed project. To assess potential construction noise impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure to the proposed project area (considering topographic barriers and distance) will be identified. Noise levels of specific construction equipment will be determined and resultant noise levels at nearby receptors (at given distances from the source) will be calculated. To assess potential operational noise impacts, traffic noise modeling will be conducted based on daily traffic volumes to be obtained From the traffic analysis to be prepared for this project. Traffic noise modeling will be conducted for existing, existing -plus -project, and cumulative -plus -project scenarios. The assessment of long-term noise impacts will also include an analysis of stationary source noise impacts associated with the proposed project. This analysis will include an evaluation of the potential for proposed onsite noise sources to affect nearby noise -sensitive receptors. The significance of noise impacts will be determined in comparison to state and local noise standards. Feasible mitigation measures will be identified for any impacts found to be significant or potentially significant. Energy — The Energy chapter will be based on Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. The chapter will consider the potentially significant energy implications of the proposed project. The chapter will identify the energy consuming portions o fthe project during construction and operations, and describethe existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the area. The EIR will describe potential impacts and propose mitigation measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. Public Services — The Public Services chapter will summarize setting information and identify potential new demand for services on water supply, storm water drainage, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, law enforcement, fire protection, and schools. The chapter will be based upon consultation with the appropriate City and other agencies in order to address public services and utilities and obtain the most recent information. Impacts to law enforcement will be determined based upon a Police Services Impact Report prepared specifically for the proposed project. This chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. Socto-Economics — The EIR will include a Socio -Economics chapter to determine the extent to which the project will impact the existing retailers and shopping centers within the City and market area to determine potential impacts associated urban decay or deterioration. This chapter will be based upon an Economic Impact Study prepared specifically for the proposed project. The Economic Impact Study will include an annual sales estimate, primary market area definition, competitive store reconnaissance, vacancy analysis, and an analysis of retail sales leakage. The study will also assess the proposed project's impact on existing primary market area stores, address cumulative impacts, provide a determination regarding urban decay, and project fiscal revenues. Cuunulativelmpacts — The EIR will discuss and evaluate the cumulative development that would occur independent of, but during the same timeframe as, the proposed project, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. This chapter will determine whether project - level incremental contributions to impacts evaluated in the EIR are cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(ax1) defines a cumulative impact as "[... ] an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." Other Issues to be Addressed - The EIR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to impact existing on-site biological resources and the quality of stormwater runoff. Galt Wal-Mart Project / Notice of Preparation / 5 ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Section 15126.6(x) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will include an analysis of several project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative. The alternatives section will "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The EIR will include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. The significant effects of the alternatives will be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project. The EIR will also include a discussion of the environmentally superior alternative, and a description of alternatives considered but rejected from detailed analysis. At this time, the alternativesto be analyzed by the EIR are still under consideration. Input is sought from the public as to alternatives to be included in the EIR. SUBMITTING COMMENTS To ensure that the full range of project issues and alternatives related to the proposed project are addressed and that all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Written comments or questions concerning the EIR for the project should be directed to the following address by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 5,2008. City of Galt Planning Department ATTN: Chris Erias 495 Industrial Drive Galt, CA 95632 (209) 366-7230 (209) 744-1642 fax planning@ci,galt.ca.us In addition, a scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday April 23,2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the Galt Police Department Community Room, 455 industrial Drive to receive verbal and/or written comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP). All comments must include full name and address in order for staff to respond appropriately. Galt M1+13rt Project / Notice of Preparation / 6 Figure 1 Regional Location Map Raney Planning and Management, 200% 3t7 0 30 60 Miles Galt Wal-Mart Project/ Notice of Preparation/ 7 Figure 2 project parcel. To date, only three parcels have not been developed with senior home units. 3 ao/Lz/zo .... r,. av ITH 4OUae NVId 3115 tit iMB l WIYM mTmffw ZOiQvwvwm- 3UO1S UYNFNM A�1VPttWR38d a l i o 1 if 15, al lit 1; ilit 8909990 0009900 0 Q ' ��� S, �. '•l Yll NiOfl it LN/FYI OY �J i.� t 1 1J \ �` `, may{ til: 1�-t.- '�• I. @ ®.y 1.-cl • - iii! A, _ NeoIMU�____ __ �wes �t r u"! dw OIN. /YFI JOI1/11 � ? � ivu�twwov iwnrtor EXHIBIT B Resolution No.08 " 0477 STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONAPPROVING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR5-04) FOR THE WESTON RANCH TOWNE CENTER PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS: The City Council cf the City of Stockton, after careful review and consideration of all comments received, and after using its independentjudgment, hereby approves the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Project and adopts the Findinas. Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring/Reportlna Program for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Proiec , for property located on the west side of Manthey Road between Henry Long Boulevard and French Camp Road as set forth in the report of the Planning Commission filed with the City Council on December 2,2008, based upon the following findings: It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 5-04) and adopt the "Findings of Fact. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitiaation Monitoring and Reaortina Proaram for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Project" (Findings), prior to, or in conjunction with any related discretionary actions for which the Commission is the final decision-making body. Similarly, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council certify FEIR5-04 and adopt the related Findings prior to, or in conjunction with, any applicable discretionary approvals for this project, based on the following findings: 1. The Draft EIR and Final EIR have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. 2. The FEIR has been reviewed and considered prior to any related project approvals, reflects ft City's independent judgment, and has been found to be adequatefor said approvals. 3. The anticipated benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable or unresolved adverse environmental effects, as supported by the Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Weston Ranch Towne Center commercial project. 4. Based on the significant and/or potentially significant environmental effects identified in Final Environmental Impact Report for the Weston Ranch Towne Center (FEIR5-04) and pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 cf the State CEQA city Any C-0 (i Review Date November 20. 2008 Guidelines, all applicable approvals are based on, and subject to the adopted findings, mitigation/measures and mitigation monitoring/reporting provisions, as specified in the Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Weston Ranch Towne Center project PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED of the City ::ODMAIGRPWISEICOS.CDO.CDO_library:72115.1 J.)CHAVEZ, December2,2008 PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR6-04) AND age The Weston Ranch Towne Center project initially proposed a 232,000square foot Wal- Mart Supercenter and a 134,720 square foot major retail building on the same parcel within the overall shopping center. The original project included other retail stores for a total maximum floor area of 710,000 square feet on a 54-aore site. However, on August 14, 2007, the City Council passed an ordinance to prohibit retail stores larger than 100,000 square feet with 10 percent or more of the floor space for the sale of groceries. Subsequently, the applicant revised the project to comply with the ordinance. The revised project reduces the floor area of the proposed Wal-Mart store to 99,996 square feet and removes the second large major retail store (134,720 square feet), so that the floor area of the shopping center will not exceed 481,000 maximum square feet at buildout. Backaround At its regular meeting of October 23, 2008, the City Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the requests of Vestar California XXVIII, LLC, ET AL for a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR5-04) and adoption of the related California Environmental Q u a l i i Act "Findinas. Statement of Overriding Considerations and Rezoning (Z-13-04), Tentative Map (TM34-06), Vesting Tentative Map (VTM11-08), and Use Permit (UP89-04), to allow the construction of a regional shopping center and Variance (V-1-08) for property located on the west side cf Manthey Road between Henry Long Boulevard and French Camp Road. The environmental document and Rezoning require final approval by the City Council. Accordingly, a public hearing has been scheduled for consideration and determination by the City Council. Council action is not required for the Tentative Map, Vesting Tentative Map, Use Permit and Variance, as there was no appeal filed. Present Situation Environmental Clearance (F E I R5-04) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR5.04) for the Weston Ranch Towne Center Project was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and City Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. In addition, the mitigation monhoring/reporting provisionsand related California Environmental Quality Act findings are Included in the related "Findinas. Statement of Ovenidina Consideration ant! (California Environmental Quality Act Findings). The City Council must adopt all 270 December2,2008 PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR5-04) AND REZONING (Z-13-04) REQUESTS OF VESTAR CALIFORNIAXXVIII, LLC, ET AL. (Page 3) applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR5-04) and the related California Environmental Quality Act Findings in conjunction with approval of any related discretionary authorizations. Rezonina (Z-13-04) The rezoning request would rezone a i45 -acre project site from RL (Residential, Low Density) to CL (Commercial, Large -Scale) to allow construction of a regional shopping center. Tentative Mao (TM34.0$), Vesting Tentative Mai) (VTM11-08). Use Permit (UP89--04) and Variance (V-1-08) As noted above, the Planning Commission also considered and approved the related discretionary applications for the project site, subject to the City Council's approval cf the Final Environmental Impact Report and Rezoning applications. Since these applications were not appealed to the City Council, these exhibits are being transmitted for informational purposes only. Information related to the above -noted environmental clearance and discretionary applications for the project is provided in the staff report to the Planning Commission, attached as Exhibits 1 through 16. PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION Following staffs presentation to the Planning Commission on October 23, 2008, the applicant and a representativefrom Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. spoke in favor of the request. The applicant provided a brief chronology of the project and explained the reasons why the project took six years to process. He indicated that the project was delayed because cf the entitlement requirements, change in ownership and the "Big Box" ordinance that was adopted by the City, which resulted in revisions to the project. The size of the Wal-Mart store was reduced to comply with the new ordinance. He stated that several community meetings were held to receive input from area residents regarding the types of businesses they would like in the retail shopping center. Further, he stated that developmentof the regional shopping centerwill providejob opportunWes fw local residents and would generate tax revenue for the City. The applicant met with staff at the San Joaquin Regional Transit District and discussed ways to design and integrate public transit stops within the shopping center to provide easy access for the public. Commercial building design will comply with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards including energy-efficient heating, ventilation, lighting and air conditioning, water-efticlent irrigation systems and devices, ride sharing programs and the design of bicycle enhancing infrastructure connecting to an existing 271 December 2,2008 PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR6-04) AND (Page 4 bikeway system within the community. The applicant stated that this Wal-Mart store also would have a budget for community giving and provide charitable opportunities for community non-profit organizations particularly in the south Stockton area. Several Planning Commissioners expressed concern regarding security issues once the shopping center commenced operation and directed staff to prepare a condition regarding a security plan as part of approval of the Use Permit (seesecurity condition No. 31 of UP89-04listed below). Area residents spoke in support of the project. They indicated that development of tie shopping centerwould benefitsouth Stockton residents. There was nothing in this area and they were in need of a shopping center. When the shopping center begins operation, south Stockton residents would no longer need to drive to shop in Lathrop, Tracy, or the Eight Mile Road and North Hammer Lane areas. Further, the retail stores would provide employment opportunities for the local residents and generate more tax revenue for the City. The area residents stated that allowing the shopping center in Weston Ranch would bring new residents to the area and keep the existing ones from leaving. A former Wal-Mart employee spoke in opposition to the project. He expressed concern about the future security problems in the shopping center. ANNING COMMISSION CTIC Following the public hearing and its deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7 to 0) to recommend that the City Council approve the following actions based on the findings, as contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibits 1 through 16): 1) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR4-05) and adopt the CEQA and 2) Rezoning request (Z-1 3-04). In addition, the Planning Commission approved the related Tentative Map, Vesting Tentative Map, Use Permit and Variance, based on the findings and subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report, as modified by the Planning Commission, for Tentative Map (TM34-06), Vesting Tentative Map (VTM11-08) and Use Permit (UP89-04): 272 December2,2008 PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(FEIR5-04) AND REZONING (Z-13-04) REQUESTS OF VESTAR CALIFORNIAXXVIII, LLC. ETAL (Page 5) FINANCIAL R) There is no financial impact to the City's departments from this action. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notice in the local newspaper at least one time, ten days prior to the public hearing and notice to owners of record as shown on the last equalized tax roll and addresses within 300 feet of the site, at least ten days prior to the public hearing (Stockton Municipal Code Section 16-420). VOTES REQUIRED Four votes of the City Council are necessary to approve the noted requests. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED BY z3L/,4 - �. ; jW, ft 4 MI H . AEL NIBL C , ECRETARY C PLANNING COMMISSION J. GORDON PALMER, JR. CRY MANAGER MMN:JL:fw ::ODMAIORPWISEICOS.CDD.CDD LllxW.71978.1 273 EXHIBIT C ENIMMEN a Sustainable Future Lee Scott announces goals for energy efficiency and supply chain China Sustainability HE.5 Opens Letthe Contest Begin! Two-day meeting held Most energy efficient U.S. First Sustainable Business Plan in Shenzhen retail store opens its doors competition is April 18 Opens N Most Energy Efficient U.S. Retail Store In March 2008, Wal-Mart &xes, Inc. opened its HE5 prototype in Las Vegas, klev. The HE5 is a western climate-specificstore that is up to 45 percent more energy efficientthan the baseline Supercenter. The store ispartofWal-Marys high efficiencyseriesofHE.1,HE2 and HE5 prototypesthat incorporatemanyyearsof research, experiments, partnershipsand pilots, and will ultimately become Wal-Marrsstoresof the future. Building upon leamingsfromthe HE1 and BUstoresthat Wal-Martopened i n 2007 and 2008 respectively, the HE5 beginsa newseriesofprototypesdesignedfor specificdimates.The HES is western climate -specific, meaningthe efficiency gains are made possible by innovationsdesignedfor the unique condaionsofthe region. Specifically, theHE.S includes new evaporative cooling and radiantflooring tech nologiesthat together provide a cool, comfortableshopping environment while using less energy. Additionally, the stores include alI of the industry-leading technologies currently being installed i n new Wa I -M a rt Supercenters, such as white roofs, daylight harvesting systems, light-emittingdiodes(LEDs) ingrocerycasesandhighlyefficient bathroom fixtures. Given the climate -specific nature of the HES store, t is prototype will only be built in regionswhere its innovationscan providethe greatest benefit. Additionally, because most of the pioneering technologies are housed on the roof and within the walls, floor and ceiling ofthe building, the HES storewilI lookand feel much likea typical Wal-Mart Supercenter. Wal-Mart is working to stay on the leading edge of sustainable building practicesand is committedto openly sharing its leamings with the retail industry and the world. Increasingthe efficiency of its stores isj ust one moreway Wal-Mart is movingtoward i is goal to open a viable prototypethat is 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2009. The HE.S store features advancements i n heating, cooling, refrigerationand lightingto conserve upto45 percent more energy than the baseline Wal-MartSupercenterand reduces refrigerantuse by 90 percent. These technologies include: IndirectEvaporativeCooling: The new indirect evaporative cooling system cools water naturallyby pumping itthrough roof -mounted towers and then runningthe cold water underneath the retailfloor to cool the shopping area RadiantFlooring: Most retail buildings use heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) units located th roug houtth e storeto cool the ambientair. With Wal -Mart's radiantfloor system, cold water is circulated u ndemeath the salesfloor, coolingtheambientair dosesttocustomers asItfloats upwards. The radiantflooris much more efficientthan a conventional air-cooled system and significantly reduces maintenance costs. continued to page 8... S* MART M Opens Its Most Energy Efficient U.S. Retail Store continued from page 9... Integratedwater-source format refrigerationsyslem: All of Wal-MarCs high-efficiencystores contain 100 percent integrated, water -source format heating, cooling and refrigeration systems that reclaim waste energyfrom the refrigerationu nits. This, as with the HE2 projects, utilizesa mediumtemperature, secondary loop system driven bya modular chiller concept that both improves overall system efficiency and reducesthe refrigerant charge by 90 percent. LED motion-sensingcase lighting: All of Wal-MarCs high efficiency stores contain motion-activatedsensors in LID lighted cases, illuminating merchandiseas customers approach and conserving energywhen shoppersare not nearby. LEDs with motionsensors use 70 percent less energythan industry standard fluorescent bulbsand can lower a Supercenter'soverall energy use by approximately three percent. The total energy savingsfor LID lightingwith motionsensorsis morethan 120,000 kWh peryear, enough energyto power 11.5 singlefamily homes (11,020 kWh average annual usage)for an entire year. Water conservation in restrooms: Restroom sinks in newly constructed Wal-Mart stores contain sensor -activated 1/2 gallon per minute high efficieneyfaueets, reducing water usage by 78 percent compared to currently mandated 1992 EPA standards. I n newly constructed stores and S-: risClubs,Wal-Mart also installs high efficiency urinalsthat yield an 87 percent reduction i n water usage and low-flowtoiletsthat yield a 20 percent reduction in water usage. Water turbines are also built into each faucet and similar turbines are intheautomatic toilet flush valves. Duringuse,water flowing through the turbines generates the electricity needed to operatethe sensors, S* MAKT W&Nbrt Stores, Inc. - W&Nbrt Introduces Its Most Energy Efficient U.S.Retad Store Page 1 of 1 WPIAM" 40 Wal-Mart Introduces Its Most Energy Efficient U.S. Retail Store Latest prototype is expected to save up to 45 percent more energy than the baseline Wal-Mart Supercenter Las Vegas, Nev., March 18,2008 -- Today, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. introduced its most energy efficient US. store — the HE.: prototype—that will use up to 45 percent less energy than the baseline Supercenter. Building upon leamings from previous high efficiency stores Wal-Mart opened in 2007 and 2008, the HE.5 begins new series of prototypes designed for specific climates. This facility is western dimate-specific, meaning the efficiency gains are made possible by innovations designed for the conditions of the region. 'Wal-Mart is piloting new technologies, driving innovation and leveraging advances in building design to better align our storeswith the communitieswe serve;' said Charles Zimmerman, Wal-Martvice presidentof Prototypeand New Format Development. "We are committed to openly sharing our leamings with the retail industry and the world because being more energy efficient is something everyone can benefit from" The HE.5 store features advancements in heating, cooling, refrigeration and lighting to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the store takes the integrated water -source format system that Wal-Mart piloted in its successful high efficiency stores and adapts it to the unique local climate by adding evaporative cooling and radiant flooring technologies. The new HE5 system reducesthe temperature of water naturally by pumping it through roof-mounte( cooling towers then runs the cold water undemeaththe retail floor to cool the shopping area. Together, the systems provide a comfortable shopping environmentwhile using less energy. 'The Western Cooling Efficiency Center at the University of California. Davis, applauds Wal -Mart's cooling system design fc the new Las Vegas store;' said Richard Boume, WC EC associate director. 'We believe this is the most efficient cooling system implemented in a major retail facility. This project recognizesthe very significant opportunity to integrate advanced natural cooling features in dry climates, thereby reducing the need to build new peak power generating plants." Given the dimate-specificnature of the HE.5 store, this prototype will only be built in regions where its innovationswill provide the greatest benefit. Wal -Mart's high efficiency series of HE.I, HE.2 and HE.5 stores build upon many years of research, experiments, partnerships and pilots, and will ultimately help Wal-Mart reach its goal to design and open a viable store prototypethat is 25-30 percent more energy efficient by 2009. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE WMT) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart discount stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Marketsand Sam's Club locationsir the United States. The Company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, EI Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. The Company's securities are listed on the Ne, York Stock Exchange underthe symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartstores.com and www.walmadfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmartcom and www.samsclub.com. t http://www.walmartstores.com/PrintContent.aspx?id=8136 4/3/2008 EXHIBIT D Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart to Opm Second Generation High -Efficiency Store Page 1 of 1 WALAMU * Wal-Mart to Open Second Generation High -Efficiency Store Retailer Unveils First of Four Stores That Use 25 Percent Less Energy and Significantly Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bentonville, Arts. January 15,2008 —Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) today announced the opening of its second generation of High -Efficiency stores (HE.2) that will use 25 percent less energy than the baseline Wal-Mart Supercenter. The first store will open in Romeoville,111. on January 23. The store combines what the company has learned from its successful first generation High -Efficiency stores (HE. 1) with new state-of-the-arttechnologies. In addition to saving energy the new stores will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by lowering refrigerant by 90 percent. Leslie Dach, Wal -Mart's executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations, made the announcement at the National Retail Federation's 97th Annual Convention & Expo in New York City. 'These stores are another solid step toward achieving our environmentalcommitments," said Dach. 'We will continue to finq new ways to build stores that have a reduced impact on the environment and ultimately reach a day when every new store is 25-30 percent more energy efficient than it was i in 2005." The improvement in energy efficiency comes from a new secondary refrigeration loop combined with an advanced water - source heating, cooling and refrigeration system. The technology was tested in Wal -Mart's Experimental Stores and uses a non -refrigerant -based solution to cool refrigeratorand freezer cases, resulting in a 90 percent reduction in refrigerant. The HE.2 stores represent the first time secondary loop technology has been paired with a water -source heating, cooling and refrigeration system in the United States. 'We've learned a lot since we opened our fist H E.I store one year ago and we are excited to put what have learned into practice with the HE.2,' said CharlesZimmerrnan, vice presidentof prototype and new format development at Wal-Mart. 'The secondary loop system is ideal because it not only makesthe store more efficient, but also allows us to reduce greenhousegas emissions. This is a perfect example of how Wal -Mart's culture of encouraging learning and driving innovation often yields additional environmental paybacks that can benefit the entire retail industry." The HE.2 series will incorporateseveral leamingsfrom the HE.1 stores and new technologicaladvances, includingwhite roofs, low -flow bathroomfaucets, LED lights and an advanced daylight harvesting system. For more detailed, technical information, please visit www.walmarKacts.com. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE WMT) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart discount stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club locations it the United States. The Company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada. China, Costa Rica, EI Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. The Company's securities are listed on the Ne, York Stock Exchange underthe symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartstores.com and www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmartcom and www.samsdub.com. http: //walmartstores. coWPzintCcntmt.agm0i&786 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Garland Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Pagel of 4 WAL*MART' Garland Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Innovative energy-efficientstore anchors neighborhood revitalization GARLAND, Texas, May 1, 2008 — Distinctive elements and special features abound throughout the new Wal-Mart Supercenter opening May 7 in Garland. Customers at the newly relocated store will find a merchandise mix created with their preferences in mind, including family-oriented departments, bold colors and popular foods. The store is also built to minimize its impact on the environment as the latest of Wal -Mart's High -Efficiency stores to open. Located at 1801 Marketplace Dr., the store anchors the 48 -acre Centerville Marketplace West shopping district near the intersections of LBJ Freeway/Interstate 635, Northwest Highway and Saturn Road. The city of Garland spearheaded the effort to replace a dilapidated apartment complex and other properties and then attract new development. The store is part of a neighborhood revitalization effort that brings new energy to a formerly declining area. Local officials and community leaders will join Wal-Mart representativesto celebrate the store's opening with a 7:30 a.m. ribbon -cutting ceremony May 7, followed by an all -day celebration. "It's been wonderful to see this area revitalized and experiencethe enthusiasm surrounding our opening," said Store Manager Daryl Scoggins. He was born and raised in Garland, graduatingfrom Garland High School in 1984. He chose to return to the area to manage the new Supercenter."I am so excited about coming home to Garland." he said. "The city of Garland acted on its vision to replace blighted properties with a center bustling with retail, restaurants and other businesses I'm proud to be a part of it." The Garland store is the latest High-EfficiencyWal-Mart Supercenterto open. The HE.2 store is designed to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use 25 percent less energy than a typical Wal-Mart Supercenter. By incorporating some of the most innovative products in building today, the HE.2 prototype uses many of the energy improvements from the first generation High -Efficiency (H E. I) stores, such as the one in nearby Highland Village. HE.2 stores feature industry-leading advancements such as integrated heating, cooling and refrigeration systems, and lighting innovationsto conserve energy. (Editors' Note: See page four for more information on High-Efficiencystores.) Sbxe Designed for Local Tastes Since its original opening in 1987, the Garland store has focused on serving the needs of the nearby community. With its relocation, the 195,912 -square -foot store features a full line of groceries and several new time -saving features and services Wal-Mart paid attention to the shopping patterns and preferencesof its customers and designed the store to reflectthe loco. community. As a result, the storewill makefresh corn and flour tortillas and chips daily. The deli will also offer fresh-baked bolillo and pandulce, and the produce departmentwill include an expanded selection of bananas, plantains, chilies and spices. Customers can pick up bulk packages of specially marinated meat, rice and beans. Near the entrance, shoppers wi. find a La Michajuice bar and a special shop with merchandisefor the latest holiday or upcoming sporting event. Customers will enjoy shopping with their families throughoutthe store, induding its new youth -oriented departmentthat displays children's furniture, bedding and home decor together. Bold colors, popular brands and the latest fashions fill the store's apparel and home d6cor sections. The store also has expanded its selection of children's and infant apparel and accessories. In addition to the latest electronics, the store offers a wide variety of Spanish-languagemusic, movies, games and other entertainment choices. The new Supercenterwill have a Wal-Mart MoneyCenter to assist customers who are outside of mainstream banking with http: //walmartstorw . ccaVprintContent. aspOid=8253 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Gm3ard Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Page 2 of 4 convenient access to low-cost money services, including check cashing, money orders, bill payment and money transfers. For added convenience, there will be a vision center, a pharmacy with two drive-through lanes, a digital photo processing center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. Leased areas and services include a SmartSryle Family Hair Care salon, DaVi Nails salon, a Subway restaurant and a branch of First Convenience Bank. Commitment to Community Continues with $18,000 in Grants As part of Wal -Mart's commitment to the communities in which they operate, the newly relocated store is continuing its support of the area by contributing $18,000 to local charitable organizations. The Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club will receive a $5.000 contribution to help with its after-school programs. Garland Summer Musicalswill receive a $2.500 grantt, underwrite scholarshipsand youth -oriented productions. Garland High Schoolwill receive a $2,500grantto upgrade computers used in its classrooms. Other grants will provide support to the families of police officers and fire fighters who have died in the line of duty and help members of the military who have suffered spinal cord injuries. "in addition to cash contributions, we've supported these agencies and other community charitable efforts for years by hosting fund-raisers, providingvolunteers, and giving in-kind merchandisedonations," Scoggins said. 'We think of them as our community partners and consider it a privilege to support the good work they do." Wal-Mart Provides Local Jobs The store plans to employ approximately 650 associates upon opening. Due to its relocation, the Supercenter has added morethan 175jobs. "Many associatesjoined because they know they have the opportunityfor a long-lasting career at Wal-Mart." Scoggins said Like three-fourths of Wal-Mart store management, Scoggins started his own careerwith the company as an hourly associate. Hejoined the company in 1994, gathering mT& and stocking shelves at a store in Benton, Ark. He is one of 52 o the store's associateswho have worked for Wal-Mart for morethan 10 years. Ribbon -cutting Celebration 7:30 am., May 7 Community and business leaderswill join Wal-Mart associates for a brief ribbon -cutting ceremony at 7:30 a.m., Wednesda) May 7, and doors to the new store wil I open at 8 a.m. Throughout the day, activities will include numerous product samples character appearancesand giveaways. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Everyweek, millionsof customersvisit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club locations across America or log on to its online store et www.walmart.com. The company and its Foundation are committedto a philosophyof giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is proudto support the causes that are importantto customers and associates right in their own neighborhoods, and lastyear gave more than $298 millionto local communities in the United States. To learn more, visit www.walmartstores.com, or www.walmartfbundabon.org. EDITOR'S NOTES • An invitation -only open house for VIPs, Wal-Mart associates and their families is scheduled for Saturday, May 3, from 6 to 8 p.m. Previewtours will be provided and checks will be presentedto representatives from community organizations. Reportersand photographers are welcome. • Daryl Scoggins, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or tours. He can be reached at 972-278-8077. STORE FACT SHEET Garland Wal-Mart Supercenter Store facts • Location: 1801 Marketplace Dr.. Garland, Texas • Originally opened in 1987 at 3159 Garland Ave. http: //wahwtstores . ean/PrintGontent. aspi 0i:c=8253 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Garland Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Page 3 of 4 • 195,912-square-footWal-Mart Supercenter • Store opens at 8 a.m., Wednesday, May 7, after a 7:30 a.m. ribbon -cutting ceremony • Store manager: Daryl Scoggins Store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods,frozen foods, meat and dairy products,fresh produce, beer and wine section. • Merchandise departments include apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids and a full line cf electronics. • Convenience services include a money center, vision center, digital photo processing center, Wal-Mart Connect Center and a pharmacy with two drive-through lanes. • Leased areas and services include a La Michajuice bar, SmartStyle Family Hair Salon, DaVi Nail salon, a Subway restaurant and a branch of First Convenience Bank. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • Twenty full-service and 10 express check-out lanes Charitable giving $18,000 in charitable contributions to eight area organizations o City of Garland Parks and Recreation Department • Garland Civic Theatre • Garland High School • Garland Summer Musicals • Guns N Hoses Foundation • Paralyzed Veterans of America • The Achievement Center of Texas • The Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club Ernptoyrnent • The Supercenter plans to employ approximately 650 associates upon its opening. Due to its relocation, the store has added more than 175 associates. • Fifty-two of the store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years. • Store Manager Daryl Scoggins was bom and raised in Garland. He started his Wal-Mart career in 1994 as an hourly associate, working as a cart pusher at a store in Benton, Ark. • The average wage at Wal-Martforfull-time hourly associates in Texas is approximately$10.55 per hour,` • Wal-Mart benefits — available to eligible full- and part-time associates — include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, stor( discount cards, company performance-based bonuses, stock purchase program and life insurance. "Average wage taken April 2008. See www. wa/marfsto0s.comfordetails. HIGH -EFFICIENCY STORE INFORMATION Garland Wal-Mart Supercenter The Garland. Texas, store is the fourth Wal-Mart Supercenter classified as an HE.2 energy-efficientprototype. The stores are located in a variety of climate zones to evaluate how the systems perform and expected to use 20 percent less energy Than a typical Supercenter. The stores feature industry-leading advancements such as integrated heating, cooling and refrigeration systems, and lighting innovationsto conserve energy. In July 2005, Wal-Mart opened the first of its experimental stores in nearby McKinney, Texas, followed by the opening of a similar store in Aurora, Colo., in November 2005, with the hope that successful experimentscould someday be incorporate( into new store prototypes. The Garland High-Efficiencystore brings many of these experimentsto life. http://wahnartstorescom/PrintContent.aspx?id=8253 6/19/2008 MI -M t Stores, Inc. - Gm:! -x d Supercenter Focuses on Local Preferences Page 4 of 4 • To achieve a 25 percent overall energy reduction, the Garland store uses a 100 percent integrated water -source format heating, cooling and refrigerationsystem, where water is hamessedto heat and cool the building. • The store also introducesa number of new and improved technologies, such as a state-of-the-artsecondary loop refrigeration system, to gain a 5 percent improvement in energy efficiency over an HE.I store. This improvement comes from a streamlined design of the water -source heating, cooling and refrigerationsystem, coupled with the new secondary refrigeration loop. This is the first time secondary loop technology has been paired with a water -source system. Additional Energy-EfficientStore components include: • Motion-activatedlight-emitting diodes (LEDs) in refrigerated and freezer cases, plus additional glass doors on deli and dairy cases • Optimized pump packagethat is 50 percent smaller than the H E.I store and uses even less copper piping • Industry-leading daylight harvesting technology • Reflectivewhite membrane roof • Recycled construction materials such as fly -ash, slag, integrally colored concrete floors, and plastic baseboards and chair rails • A state-of-the-art Munters Dehumidification system is expected to increase overall store energy -efficiency by roughly two percent. • Restroom sinks use sensor -activated, low -flow faucets. The low-flowfaucets reducewater flow by 84 percent, while the sensors save approximately 20 percent in water usage over similar, manually -operated systems. In 2007, Wal-Mart opened a series of H E.I stores in Kansas City, Mo.; Rockton, III., and Highland Village, Texas. In Januar 2008, the first HE.2 prototype store opened in Romeoville, III, Others have since opened in Bemalillo, N.M., and Wichita, Kan. Wal-Mart is now introducing its next generation of energy-efficient U.S. stores, the HE.5 prototype. The first HE,5 prototype opened in Las Vegas in March 2008.. These stores use up to 45 percent less energy than the baseline Supercenter. Building upon leamingsfrom previous high efficiencystores Wal-Mart opened in 2007 and 2008. the HE,5 begins new series of prototypes designed for specific climates. The retailer's high efficiencyseries of HE.1, HE.2 and HE.5 stores build upon many years of research, experiments, partnershipsand pilots, and will ultimately help Wal-Mart reach its goal to design and open a viable store prototypethat is 25-30 percent more energy efficient by 2009. Wal-Mart customers are increasingly becomingfamiliar with the company's energy-saving innovations as they are introduced in stores opening across the country. Many new stores now feature daylight-harvestingsystems that minimize electricity usage during periods of bright sunlight, motion sensor -driven LED refrigerated and freezer case lighting and polished concrete floors that reduce the need for harsh chemical cleaning products. http://walmartstoLes.=n!PrintOmtesit.agmOic1=8M 6119/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern Illino ... Page 1 of 4 WAL*L%W 0 Wal-Mart Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern Illinois, Usinc 20 Percent Less Energy See "Related Resources" below to download the HE -I press kitand high resolution images Newprototype to test conditions in cooler climate; Supercenter to bring economic benefits Rockton, III., March 14,2007 —Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. today announced the opening today of its second High -Efficiency Wal-Mart Supercenter in Rockton. III., expected to use 20 percent less energy than a typical Supercenter. The High - Efficiency Supercenter is the second of four to open this year, located in a variety of climate zones to evaluate how the systems perform. The store features industry-leading advancements such as integrated heating, cooling and refrigeration systems, and lighting innovationsto conserve energy. Wal-Mart opened its first High -Efficiency store in January in Kansas City, Mo. "At Wal-Mart, being a good business and a good steward of the environment go hand-in-hand," said ChadesZimmerman, vice president of Prototype and New Format Design. "This series of higher-efficiencystores is an important step toward reaching one of our environmental goals -- designing and opening a prototypethat is 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2009. By incorporating these technologies into a working store, we are demonstrating that more efficient store designs can save energy, lower utility costs and reduce emissions. Those are savings that we can pass along to our customers." In 2005, Wal-Mart opened two experimental stores in McKinney, Texas, and Aurora, Colo., with the hopethat successful experiments could someday be incorporated into new store prototypes. The Rockton High -Efficiency store brings many of these experiments to life. To achieve a 20 percent overall energy reduction, the Rockton store uses a 100 percent integrated water -source format heating, cooling and refrigeration system, where water is harnessed to heat and cool the building o Energy-saving motion -activated light -emitting diodes (LEDs) in refrigerator and freezer cases are expected to create a two to three percent energy reduction. o A state-of-the-art Munters Dehumidification system is expected to increase overall store energy -efficiency by roughl 2 percent • Many floors are made of integrallycolored concrete instead of carpet or tile, reducing the need for certain harsh chemical cleaning products o All baseboardsand chair rails are made of recycled plastic o Restroom sinks use sensor -activated, low -flow faucets. The low-flowfaucets reducewater flow by 84 percent, while the sensors save approximately20 percent in water usage over similar, manually -operated systems "The new heating, cooling and refrigerationsystems are fully integratedso that 100 percent cf the excess refrigerant heat i; pumped back intothe HVAC," said Jim McClendon, Wal-Mart Chief Mechanical Engineer. "That means heatwhich would have been released intothe air is reclaimed and converted into usableenergy. We are actively sharing this technologyand other learningsfrom our High -Efficiency stores with the entire commercial industry, including our competitors." Wal-Mart is now installing motion sensor -driven LED refrigerated and freezer case lighting in its new stores, the first commercial LED installationof this magnitude in U.S. retail. LED lights have a longer life span than fluorescent bulbs, produce less heat and use significantly less energy than typical grocery case lighting. In the High -Efficiency stores, LED http://walmartstores.com/PrintContent.aspx?id=6341 6/19/2008 Wit -Mart Stores, Inc. - WaMwtOpens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern I11ino ... Page 2 of 4 lights have been installed in freezer and refrigerated cases, and doors have been added to cases in the deli and dairy sections. To save energy, the motion sensor -driven lights in these cases automatically turn off when not in use for a few seconds, then quicklyturn back on when a customer approaches. Many environmentallybeneficial features of the store are nearly indiscernible to customers and associates. For example, th daylight harvesting system uses skylights to refract daylight throughout the store and light sensors to monitor the amount 01 natural light available. During periods of higher natural daylight, the system dims ortums off the store lights, thereby reducing energy use. Although the amount of artificial light varies, the state-of-the-art system makes the lighting changes virtually seamless. "We are excited to open this new High -Efficiency Supercenter, bringing reliable, comfortable, convenient service to the Rockton community," said Store Manager Alicia Lawrence. "Our new store features the latest in energy-savingtechnologies and Wal -Mares new interiordesign and most importantly providesthe community with the continuedvalue of every day low price that brings them through our doors." New Interior Designs and Layout add to One -Stop Shopping Convenience The Rockton Supercenter interiorfeatures earth tones, wide aisles and concrete flooring for environmentallyfiiendly maintenance. New signage and lower shelves help customers quickly locatetheir selections in a large format store. A large home organization departmentfeatures the sleek new line of exclusive SELECT edition® GE small appliances. The home department also contains a large infant section completewith a selection of baby cribs, youth furniture and infant car seats. Wal -Mart's newly expanded electronics department offers the latest DVD players, music and other electronics, including a wall display of top brands in plasma and H D N. As a Supercenter, the store also contains a full line of grocery items, including bakery, delicatessen, meat, dairy, frozen foods, fresh produce and organic selections, as well as a complete liquor department. The store has a family apparel department highlighting Wal -Mares new George© line, organic Baby George clothing, health and beauty aids, household needs, toys, an expanded lawn and garden center, jewelry and shoes. For added convenience, the Supercenter has a Tire 8 Lube Express, a vision center, a pharmacy with two drive-through lanes, a one-hour photo lab, a family fun center, and a Wal-Mart Connect Center. Additional leased space and services include a Regal Nails Salon, a Cost Cutters Hair Salon, a Subway restaurant, and a branch of Members Alliance Credit Union. The store will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week with 18 full-service and eight express check cut lanes. Morethan 1,000 applications for400 newjobs According to store manager Alicia Lawrence, the store has received more than 1,000 applications for the 400 new positions planned at the store. "We have had many people interested in working at the store, and I think its because they see the benefits and career opportunities Wal-Mart has provided for many of their friends and neighbors in the state," says Lawrence. Lawrence, like more than 75 percent of Wal -Mart's store managers, started as an hourly associate in menswear sales in Ottawa. Ten of the Rockton store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years. As of February2007, Wal-Mart employed 45,758 associates i n the state of Illinois. Includingthe newest Wal-Mart Supercenter in Rockton, the company currently Om -s and operates the following facilities in the state: • Supercenters: 59 • DiscountStores:78 • Sam's Clubs: 28 • Distribution Centers: 4 $25,500 in Grants to Local Organizations 77 1=77 U191 M1. Wdl-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart Opens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern Illino ... Page 3 of 4 According to Lawrence, as part of the new store's commitmentto the community, the Rockton Wal-Mart Supercenterwf announce $25,500 in donations to local organizations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program. Like all Wal-Mart stores, the Rockton Wal-Mart will provide grant dollars throughout the year to help its neighborhood organizations. (Editors note: For a complete list of grant recipients, please seethe Fact Sheet, attached. Area organizations interested in learning more about funding from Wal-Mart or are interested in raising money at Wal-Mart stores can contactthe store for details, or go to www.walmartfoundabon.org. Grand Opening Celebration The grand opening ceremony begins at 7 a.m. with area dignitaries and local representatives present to share in the community celebration on March 14. Additional grand opening activities planned throughout the day include product samples, giveaways and character appearances. About Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) Every week, more than 127 million customers visit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club locations across America or log on to its online store at www.walmart.com. The company and its Foundation are committed to a philosophy of giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE :WMT) is proud to support the causes that are importantto customers and associates right in their own neighborhoods,and lastyear gave more than $245 million to local communities in the United States. To learn more, visit www.walmartfacts.com, www,walmartsiores.com, or www.walmattfoundation.org. EDITOR'S NOTES Media is welcome to attend the preview night forVIPs, Wal-Mart associates and their families before the store opens, scheduled for Mon., March 12, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. • Preview tours will be provided. Video and photography will be allowed, as well as on Grand Opening day. Please contact Wal-Mart (800)331-0085 if planning to attend so we can add you to the guest list. FACT SHEET Rockton Wal-Mart Supercenter Store Fast Facts o Location: 4781 E. Rockton Rd., Rockton, 111. 0 205,147 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter 0 7 a.m. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, March 14; doors open at 7:15 a.m. • Second High Efficiency, Energy -Saving store to use 20% less energy • Store manager: Alicia Lawrence (See press kit at at the bottom of this release for details on energy efficiency areas.) Basic Store Features • General merchandise departments including family apparel with an expanded infant section, a household organization department, health and beauty aids, household needs, expanded electronics department, toys and crafts, lawn and garden supplies, jewelry and shoes o Other special features: Tire 8 Lube Express, a vision center, a pharmacywith two drive-through lanes, a one-hour photo lab, a Regal Nails Salon, a Cost Cutters Hair Salon, Subway restaurant, a Wal-Mart Connect Center, a Famili Fun Center, a branch of Members Alliance Credit Union and a complete liquor department o Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week http: //wahmrtstozw . mWRcj ntCcntent. aWOic1=634 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Vbl-MwtOpens Second High -Efficiency Store In Northern Illino ... Page 4 of 4 Employment 0 400 planned newjobs, more than 1,000 applicants o The average wage at Wal-Martfor full-time hourly associates in Illinois is $10.91 per hour.* • Lawrence, like 76 percent of other store managers, started as an hourly associate. Her firstjob was as a menswear sales associate in Ottawa. o Wal-Mart benefits — available to full- and part-time associates — include healthcare insurancewith no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions. whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. *Average wage tekenDecember 2006. See www .walmattfacts.comfordetails. Charitable Giving $25,500 in charitable contributions to several area organizations: o American Legion#0332 Walter Graham Post o City of Rockton o City cE Rockton Fire Department o City of Rockton Police Department o City of Rockton-Talcott Free Public Library o City of Roscoe Parks Department o Goldie B. Floberg Center for Children o Harlem Roscoe Fire Protection District o Hononegah Community High School o MacktownA. Living History Education Center o Oldstone Church Food Pantry o Rockton Chamber of Commerce o Rockton Lions Club Charities o Roscoe Chamber of Commerce o Stateline Family YMCA cf Beloit, Inc. Click hereto learn more about Wal-Mart in Illinois http: //walmartstores . ccm/print Omtent. &cpOid=634 6/19/2008 Veal -Mart Stores, Inc. - Vbl+tmtto Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expe ... Page 1 of 4 Wal-Mart to Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expected to Use 20 Percent Less Energy Wal-Mart Wends Environmental Efforts to Kansas City —Donates $190,000 in In -Kind and Cash Contributions to Local Community "Attention Journalists" See "Related Resources"for downloadable press kit and high resolution images of the Kansas City High -Efficient Supercenter Attention N stations: Broadcast -quality video available for download Bentonville, Ark., Jan. 18, 2007 —Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. announces it will open tomorrow in Kansas City, Mo. the first in a series of High -Efficiency stores that will use 20 percent less energy than atypical Supercenter. In addition to the cutting- edge technologies already found in Wal-Mart stores, the new High-Efficiencystores will integrate industry-leading heating, cooling and refrigeration systems to conserve energy. High -Efficiency stores will help the retailer move one step closer to achieving its environmental goals, which include using less energy and producing less waste. "Just over a year ago, our CEO Lee Scott challenged our associatesto open a store that was 25 to 30 percent more efficier by 2009," said John Menzer, vice chairman, Wal-Mart Stores.'The Kansas City High-Effiaencystores the first of its kind. and shows Wal-Mart is capable of operating stores, clubs and distribution centers in a way that saves energy, lowers utility costs, reduces emissions, and above all, providesa bettershopping experiencefor our customers." In 2005, Wal-Mart opened two experimental stores in McKinney, Texas, and Aurora, Colo„ to test several different environmentallyfriendly technologies, ranging from wind powerto pervious pavement, from wateriess urinalsto light - emitting diodes. The aim was to experimentwith innovativetechnologies, with the intentionthat they could some day be incorporated into a store prototype. The Kansas City High -Efficiency store is the first store to bring some of these experiments from the preliminary testing phase to a practical trial phase. Wal-Mart plans to open the next High -Efficiency store in Rockton, III., this spring. 'We are learning a tremendous amount from our experimental stores;' said EricZorn, president, Wal-Mart Realty. "Wal -Mai stores are already some of the most energy-efficient in the retail industry, but we want to take efficiency even further. This new Supercenter is where we really get to put what we've learned into practice, and we're excited to reach a 20 percent energy reduction so quickly." To achieve the 20 percent energy reduction at the new Kansas City High-Efficiencystore, the company will target two main energy -Consuming units: the heating and air conditioning system (HVAC), and the refrigerationsystem. With the installation of special equipment, such as a water source heat pump and cooling towers, hot and cold water can be hamessed to drive new levels of efficiency. Specifically, the new HVAC and more efficient refrigeration systems are fully integrated so that 100 percent of the heat rejected by the refrigeration system is reclaimed into the HVAC. The reclaimed heat is then converted into usable energy. By incorporatinga looppiping design, the advanced refrigerationsystem also reduces the amount of installed copper and the total refrigerant charge required. "For years. retailers have used air cooled equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration," Vice President of Prototype and New Format Design Charles Zimmerman said. "In recognizingthat water has four times the heat carrying capacity of air, wE realized it would be much more efficient as a conductor of energy in our heating, cooling and refrigeration systems. In this http://walmartstores.com/PrintContent.aspx?id=6213 6119/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Ml-Martto Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expe... Page 2 of 4 High -Efficiency store, we're putting that to the test by utilizing our on-site resources to full capacity before applying secondary power sources." Other energy-saving technologies in the High -Efficiency store include the installation of ultra -efficient case fans, glassdoor,' on medium temperature grocery cases, RollSeaM quick response doors to seal air in areas such as the Garden Center, an a top-of-the-line dehumidification system, The store will also have a daylight harvesting system, which uses skylights to refract daylight throughoutthe store and light sensorsto, monitorthe amount of natural light available. During periods of higher natural daylight, the system then dims or turns cff the store lights when they aren't needed, thereby reducing energy usage. Like many other Wal-Mart stores opening this month, the Kansas City Supercenteralso features GE's energy-saving light - emitting diode (LED) refrigerated case lighting. LEDs have a longer life span than fluorescent bulbs, produce less heat and use significantly less energy than typical grocery case lighting. In the High-Efficiencystore, motion sensor -driven LED lights have been installed in all freezer and medium -temperature refrigerated cases. When not in use for a few seconds, the light: in these cases automaticallytum off, and quicklyturn backon when a customer approaches. This direct learning from the Aurora and McKinney experimental stores is expected to add a 2 to 3 percent energy reduction, and will be rolled -out in ne% Wal-Mart stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Clubs beginning this month. 'We're very excited to launch this High -Efficiency concept in Kansas City, where our residents and local business leaders have shown that the environment is a key priority for them:' said Dan Steele, Wal-Mart store manager. "Though most of the energy-saving technologies here are not visible to the public. we've added new signage to show our customers how these systems can help save money and keep our prices low." Lighting the Way for Energy Savings in Kansas City In addition to the focus on energy-efficient stores, Wal-Mart is committed to selling productsthat sustain our resources and our environment. As part of this store's grand opening events, Wal-Mart announces a partnershipwith Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes to support the city's"A Million Lights Campaign." With its donation of 21,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), Wal-Mart will aid the city's campaign to distribute CFLs to low-incomeand senior citizen households in Kansas City Mo. The Wal-Martgift will also help the ate+ reach its goal to change one million incandescent bulbs to energy-saving CFLs by October 2007. This in-kind donation of more than $53,000brings this store's total grand opening donations to local charities and organizations— such as the Kansas City Weatherization Improvement Project, Bridging the Gap, and the Boy! Club of Greater Kansas City — to $110,000. About Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE WMT) Every week, more than 127 million customersvisit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets. and Sam's Club locations across America. The company and its Foundation are committed to a philosophy of giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is proud to support the causes that are importantto customers and associates right in their own neighborhoods, and last year gave more than $245 million to local United States communities. To learn more, visit www.walmartfaGts.com, www.walmart.com, orwww.walmartfotmdation.org. FACTSHEET Kansas City Wal-MartSupercenter Store fast facts • Location: 11601 E. U.S. 40 Highway, Kansas City, Mo. 0 197,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter o VIP Preview night Thursday, Jan. 18, 6 p.m. • Grand opening ceremony Friday, Jan 19; 7:30 a.m. followed by store opening at 8 a.m. o Store manager. Dan Steele Other Store features hq://walmartstorescom/PrintContent.aspx?id=6213 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Vibil-blwtto Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expe... Page 3 of 4 Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products, fresh produce, full line of beer, wine and liquor, apparel and accessories, toys, fine jewelry. lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids. electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, Subway restaurant, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, SmartStyle hair salon, Wal-Mart Connect Center, Kansas City Chiefs and Royals sport shop and a LIMB branch. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. o Nineteen full-service and 12 express check-out lanes. Employment More than 1,200 applications. Store plans to employ 480 associates. o Thirty-two of the Kansas City store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years. o The national average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates is approximately $10.11 per hour.' Wal-Mart benefits— available to full- and part-time associates— include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart associates are eligible for health care benefits. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and lie insurance. 'Average wage taken December2005. See www.wa/maftfacts.comfordetails. For more information o Store manager. Dan Steele, (816) 313-1183 o Wal-Mart information online: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com CharitableGiving Fast Facts Kansas City Supercenterponates over $110,000 in In -Kind and Cash Contributions to Local Community $53,000 in product donations of 21,000 CFL light bulbs for "A Million Lights" Campaign; City will distribute 21,000 energy-efficient light bulbs to low-income and senior citizen households in Kansas City, Mo. o $10,000 donation to the Home Weatherization Division of the Kansas City Neighborhood and Community Services o $10,000 donation to Bridging the Gap to support various environmental programs and community organizations "A Million Lights" Campaign —More than $53,000 in in-kind light bulb donations Wal-Mart is pleased to partner in the Kansas City, Missouri's "A Million Lights" campaign— an effort to replace one million light bulbswith compactfluorescent light bulbs to save the region over $2 million in energy costs by October 2007. Compac fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) consume 70 percent less energy than standard incandescentbulbs and last up to 10times longer. Each CFL can save about $30 over the life of the bulb and keep as much as 450 pounds of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. Wal -Mart's donation of 21,000 CFLs, worth more than $53,000, will have far-reaching impacts in the city's effort to distribute energy-efficient light bulbs to low-income and senior citizen households in Kansas City, Mo. Kansas City Weatherization Improvement Project- $10,000 cash contribution In 1977. the Missouri Department of Natural Resources established the Low -Income Weatherization Assistance Program. (LIWAP) and since the program's inception more than 140,000 homes have been weatherized. The program operates year round and service providers of the program examine furnaces and ductwork, perform window and door repairs, and target general heat loss areas with caulking and weather-stripping. The Home Weatherization program income guidelines are set at 150 percent of poverty and are funded through several income sources. The Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources and the Federal Departmentof Energy serve as the largest source of funds. The program is also funded through utility providers including Kansas City Power & Light and Missouri Gas Energy. http://wahTat-tstoL-es.=rVPzintCcntecbpx?id=6213 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Wal-Mart to Open First High -Efficiency Store; Supercenter Expe... Page 4 of 4 Bridging the Gap – $10,000 cash contribution 10 9911, Bridging the Gap opened Kansas City's first volunteer recycling center. A year later, the group formed a 501(3)(c) organization with the mission to encourage an understandingof local and global interconnectednessthrough education ano action. Today, Bridging the Gap operates as an organizing hub for numerous environmental projects—from waste prevention to environmental education, from recycling to picking uplifter and keeping Kansas City beautiful. The organization works closely with business, schools, governments and the community to encourage local partnershipsand support sustainable decision making. Additional Charitable Outreach – $37,500in charitable contributions are directed to 15 area organizations o Greater Kansas City Foundation for Citizens with Disabilities o Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission o Special Olympics Missouri o City of Kansas City Police Department o Blue Hills Community Services Corporation o City of Independence Fire Department o Gillis Center Inc. o Kansas City Community Gardens • Raytown Fire Department District o Sickle Cell Disease Associations of America –Kansas City Chapter2301 o Vietnam Veterans of America o Boys Club of Greater Kansas City o Police Athletic League of Kansas City • American Cancer Society o City of Kansas City Police Department- Tactical Response Team For more information • Wal-Mart information online: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com o Kansas City Neighborhood and Community Services Department. RobertJackson, director o Home Weatherization Division: (816) 513-3025http:ttwww.kcmo.org/neigh.nsf/web/weather main?opendocument http: //wOnartstores. czm/Print Ca stent. agmOid=62 3 6/19/2008 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Sustainable Buildings ;IF Home About Us Facts 81News Health & Wellness Home> Sustainability> Climate& Energy> Sustainable Buildings Sustainability Sustainable Value Networks Sustainability Newsletter Sustainability Progress Report Climate & Energy $ustainable_Buildir�gs, Trucking Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions Zero Waste Reusable Bags Kids Recycling Challenge Sustainable Buildings Page I o f2 Careers Community & Giving Diversitt Our experimental stores were builtto help us reach our three long-term environmental goat: • To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy • To create zero waste • To sell products that sustain our resources and the environment We are also committed to designing a store prototype that is 25-30 percent more efficient b\ and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in existing stores by 20 percent by 2012. Our experimental stores Products Paper Products We have two stores, one in McKinney, Texas, and Seafood one in Aurora, Colorado, that show howworking Organics together can help solve issues. Engineers, Locally Grown Products architects, scientists, contractors, landscape Wal-Mart Paleches Packaging Reduction designers, and owners created functional facilities Compact Fluorescent that save energy, conserve natural resources and Light Bulbs reduce pollution. They also created a more pleasant Ethical Sourcing shopping experiencefor our customer and a Communities healthierwork environmentfor our associates. Store Siting Economic Impacts These stores are living laboratories Acres for America Solar panels on our McKinney, T4 experimental store At these stores, we test new technologies and products that we can potentially incorporate i Associates of our stores. Some tested tech nolog iesfrom our experimental stores — like LED lighting — Healthcare already making their way into stores across the country — at Wal-Mart stores and the facilit Compensation our competitors. Our high-efficiencystores In 2007, we opened three High Efficiency stores, called HE.1 s, that use 20 percent less ene than a typical Supercenter. Located in Kansas City, Missouri, Rockton Illinois, and Highland Village, Texas, these stores were constructed using recycled building materials and energy lighting methods. They operate using an environmentally -friendly, 100 percent integratedw: source heating. cooling and refrigeration system. Other features of the HE.I stores include reflectivewhite roofs, low -flow bathroom faucets, motion-sensingLED lights and an advano daylight harvesting system. Our ultra high -efficiency store In January 2008, we opened the first of four next generation High Efficiency stores (HE -2s) http: //wabmartstores . oWStztairWAUty/7776. asp. 6/1912008 `Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Sustainable Buildings Page 2 of 2 Sustainable building design focuse reducing energy use, utilizing wind/solar/skylightslLED lighting/cc technologies, all to create up to a reduction in overall usage. > Next Featured Video > See all videos Romeoville, Illinois. The store builds upon what we learnedfrom the HEA and experimental by incorporatinga secondary loop refrigeration system. In combinationwith other energy-sak and environmental lyfriendly building aspects, this technology allows the store to be 25 pert, more energy efficient than the 2005 baseline, and reduce refrigerant use by 90 percent. Solar Power We are also experimentingwith solar power. In 2007, we announced a solar power pilot in 2 locations throughout Californiaand Hawaii. When fully implemented,the aggregate purchas, be one of the top 10 largest -ever solar power purchases in the United States. Email A Print Font Size Add to W Content 4 Shane "� Shop At WalmaR.Coin I Shop At Samsclub.com I Intemational0perat:ions I Video Center I Product Recalls I Other Sites I Re t http://wahnartstorescom/Sustainability/7776.aspx 6/19/2008 EXHIBIT E As published in Real Property Law Reporter, September 2007 Analyzing Climate Change Under CEQA in a Climate of Uncertainty Arthur Friedman, Judy Davidoff, and Miriam Montesinos Introduction California has long been recognized as a leader in envi- ronmental protection. In 1970, the legislature enacted the California Environmental Protection Act (CE0A) (Pub Res C §§21 000-2 1 1 78), which mandatesthat gov- ernmental agenciesat all levels identify potentiallysig- nificant environmental effects, and implement feasible mitigation measures or alternatives, before approving a project. Pub Fes C 921002. CECA requiresthat public agencies prepare a comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) to analyze projects that may cause significant environmental effects. California courts have described the EIR's role "as an environmental alarm bell whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." County of Inyo v Yorty (1973) 32 CA3d 795, 810, 108 CR 377. Yet, in the 37 years since its enactment, CEOA has not served its function as the "environmental alarm bell" on the issue of climate change. California's awareness and growing concern about this issue, which many describe as the single most important environmental issue of this and future generations, has developed outside the context of CEQA largely in responseto pri- vate action and other legislative initiatives spanning approximately 20 years. Consequently, there is no California appellate rase law applying CEQA's require- mentsto the issue of climate change. But in the words of Bob Dylan, "The times they are a-changin'." Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & S C §§38500-38599), a t least two CECA lawsuits have been filed challenging the respectiveagerxys allegedfailure to consider a project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and effects on climate change. Last December, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a challenge to the City of Banning's approval of a 1500 -home develop- ment. On April 13, 2007, California Attorney General (AG) Jeny Brown, on behalf of the state, filed a lawsuit against San Bernardino Countys update to its General Plan. (As we go to press, the Attorney General and San Bernardino County have settled the suit, with the coun- ty agreeing to incorporate a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan into its General Plan, including specif- ic reduction target and mitigation measures. See http://www.sbcou nty.gov/pressreleases/docs/ 1877AG Iawsuitsettlementrelease8-21-07.pdf .) The PG has also submitted C EOA comment letters chal- lenging several projects throughout the state based on the project EIR's alleged failure to analyze climate change impacts, including: • The San Diego General Plan; • The Yuba Highlands Project; • The Kern County Regional Transportation Plan; • The Merced County Regional Transportation Plan; • The San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Plan; and • The ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Expansion Project. The sudden proliferation of C ECA challenges on the issue of climate change recently prompted the Since the California legislature's enactment in California Chamber of Commerce, along with several September 2006 of AB 32, the California Global prominent California companies and labor unions, to This material is reproducedfrom Real Property Law Reporter, September 2007, copyright 2007 by the Regents of the University of California. Reproduced with permission of Continuing Education of the Bar- California. (For information about CEB publications, telephone toll free 1.800-CEB-3444 or visit our Web site, CEB.com)." jointly submit a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate President pro tem Don Perata, and Speaker Fabian Nunez requesting legislation clarifying that "CEQA is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing climate change concerns." Their June 21, 2007, letter warns: "The potential for harm if these [CEQA] chal- lenges are allowed to continue is staggering." (The letter can be found at www.pcl.org/newsroom/ CEQACIimateChangeLetter. pdf.) The industry group's letter sparked a flurry of letters in response to the Governor from environmental groups asserting that CEQA is a vitally important legal instrument to accomplish the state's goal of reducing GHG emis- sions. Given California's political and actual climate today, there is a growing consensus among CEQA practition- ers that in at least some, if not most, circumstances, even in the absence of an express statutory require- ment t o do so, governmental agencies will expand the traditional scope of their environmental review under CEQA to consider a project's GHG emissions and poten- tial climate change impacts. This article discusses the regulatory background lead- ing to California's focus on the issue of climate change. It then discusses some of the unique challenges pre- sented by environmental review under CEQA of a pro- ject's potential effects on climate change. Finally, it dis- aases alternative approaches to such CEQA review. California's Actions to Address Climate Change - Warming Up to the Threat of Warming In 1988, the California legislature enacted AB 4420, which, among other things, directed the California Energy Commission (CEC), in consultation with California's Air Resources Board (CARB) and other agencies, to study the implications of global warming on California's environment, economy, and water sup- ply. Executive Order 5-3-05 and the Climate Action Team In June 2005, the Governor signed Executive Order S- 3-05, which called for a reduction in GHG emissionsto 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80 -percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. (Executive Order S-3-05 can be found at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/ climate-action-team/index.html.) The Executive Order also directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to lead an effort to evaluate the impacts of climate change on California and to recommend measures in response. The Secretaryof Cal/EPA thereafter created the Climate Action Team (CAT). The CAT includes representatives from the CARE, Business, Transportation & Housing Agency, Department of Food & Agriculture, CEC, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Department of Water Resources, and the Public Utilities Commission. The CAT released its 107 -page report to the Governor in March 2006. (The report can be found on the CAT website at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/ climate-action-team/index.html.) The CAT report states that "during the 20th century, we have observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pol- lutantsthat is attributable to human activities." Report at ra The report continues that "[tJhe climate change we are seeing today ... differs from previous climate change in both its rate and its magnitude." Report at 6-7. The report states further that "[clontinued climate change would have widespread impacts on California's economy, ecosystems, and the health of its citizens." Report at 37. Finally, the report identifies several GHG emission reduction strategies, most of which are not applicable to land use development. The recommendations relat- ingto land use include (Report at 39-65): • Planting trees in urban and suburban areas; • Implementationof energy efficient water and waste- water operations; • Implementation of building energy efficiency stan- dards; • Implementationof energy efficient cement manufac- turing techniques; • Implementation of strategies that integrate trans- portation and land -use decisions (e.g., encouraging jobs/housing proximity, transit -oriented development, and high-density residentiallcommercial development along transit corridors); • Implementation of Green Building Initiatives compa- rableto the Governor's Green Building Executive Order, S-20-04, which sets forth specific actions state agencies are to take with state-owned and leased buildings; and e Increased use of solar and other noncarbon sources of energy. California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 The CAT's findings provided additional impetusfor the legislature to enact landmark legislation aimed at addressing global warming. In September 2006, Governor SchwarzeneggersignedAB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires CAR- the state agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to determine by January 1, 2008, what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalentto that level, to be achieved by 2020. Health & S C §38561. Assembly Bill 32 includes a declaration by the legisla- ture that "(g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environmentof California." Health & S C §38501(a). Section 38501(a) further states that the potential adverse impacts of global warming includethe exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectiousdis- eases, asthma, and other human related problems. Although the CARE has primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions under AB 32, the Act further directs that "[n)othing in this division shall relieve any state entity of its legal obligationsto complywith exist- ing law or regulation." Health & S C §38598(b). The PG and various environmental organizations have asserted that AB 32 implicitly has imposed a mandato- ry duty on governmental agencies to analyze under CEOA a project's potential effects on climate change. This viewpoint gained momentum on April 27, 2007, with the Association of Environmental Professionals' (AEP) publication of its Draft White Paper on Global Climate Change (found at httpJ/www.califaep.org/cli- mate%20change/default.htm l). The AEP is a statewide group with over 1600 memberswhose primaryfocus is the preparation of CEA4 compliance documents. AEP's Draft White Paper states (at 8): When the legislative findings about the threats to the environment and the absence of relief from other laws are considered together, AB 32 creates compelling statutory basis for addressing signifi- cant adverse effects of GCC [Global Climate Change] in CECiA compliance. Advocates of the AG's viewpoint contend further that CEOA is a critically important legal instrument for achieving the GHIG reductions mandated by AB 32 given the severity of existing GHIG levels and current trends. According to the CEC's December 2006 report on the "Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks' (found at http:/lwww.erexW.ca.gov/publications/ display0neReport.php?pubNum=CEC-600-2006-013- SF), California is the second largest contributor of GHG emissions in the United States (behind Texan and the 16th largest in the world. CEC Report at 17. The major source of GHG emissions in California is transportation, contributing 41 percent, followed by electricity, con- tributing 22 percent. CEC Report at 8. The CEC report concurs with the CAT that urgent action is needed to reverse the trend of increasing GHG emissions. CEC's report states (at 8): California's GHG emissions are large and growing as a result of population and economic growth and other factors. From 1990 to 2004 total gross GHG emissions rose 14.3 percent; they are expect- ed xpected to continue to increase in the future under "business -as -usual" unless California implements programsto reduce emissions. On an optimistic note, however, the CEC report states that while California's economy grew 83 per- cent between 1990 and 2004, its GHG emissions increased more slowly, at 12 percent, thus demon- strating "the potential for uncoupling economic trends from GHG emissions trends." CEC Report at i. The state's ongoing ability to uncouple economic growth from GHG emissions, according to the CEC, is largely dependent on its commitment to imple- menting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other GHG emission reduction measures. CEC Report at i. Advocates of the AG's viewpoint contend that CEQA is perhaps the best mechanism to ensure that GHG emission reduction measures are incorporated into future projects. The CEC's warning against proceeding with "business as usual" is echoed in the AG's recent CEQA comment letters. As an example, the AG's June 11,2007, letter to the City of San Diego regarding its proposed general plan states (at 7�: "The impacts of global warming are potentially catastrophic and we cannot proceed with 'business as usual' even though some of the required changes may encounter public opposition." (The letter can be found at httpV/www.sandiego.gov/ cityattor- ney/reports/pdf/sag 1070706.pdf.) The growing consensus favoring CEQA analysis of cli- mate change impacts, however; has far outpaced any consensus on how to conduct this analysis during the interim period before the CARB provides regulatory guidance. From "Business-as-Usual"to "Ad -Hoc" Rules GHG emissions into the atmosphere are not by them- selves an adverse environmental effect. The increased concentrations of GHG emissions, resulting in global climate change and its associated consequences, pro- duce adverse environmental impacts. Although it is possible to generally estimate a project's incremental contribution of CHG emissions into the atmosphere, there is no recognized methodology for determining how an individual project's relativelysmall incremental contribution might translate into physical effects on the environment—particularlygiven the global nature of the problem. Among other issues, there is ongoing debate among CEQA practitioners regarding how bestto determine: • A project's environmental effects, if any, on global cli- mate change; • The threshold for finding that a project's incremental climate change effects rise to the level of a "cumula- tively considerable" impact; and • If the project's climate change effects are cumulative- ly considerable, what feasible alternatives or mitiga- tion measures, if any, can "substantially lessen" the project's effects. Determining the Project's Effects on the Physical Environment Among the first steps in the environmental analysis under CEQA is a determination of what physical changes to the environment, if any, will be caused by the project. Baird v County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 CA4th 1464, 38 CR2d 93. Lead agencies are required under CEQA to consider direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that may be caused by the project. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064(d). An indirect physi- cal change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact; a change that is specu- lative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foresee- able. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064(d)(3), There is no established methodology for determining the impacts of a land use plan cr an individual project on global climate change. The 2005 report prepared by the National Research Council, a branch of the National Academy of Science, entitled "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties," concludedthat "the mecha- nisms involved in land -atmosphere interactions are not well understood, I et alone represented i in climate mod- els." The determination of a project's effect on the physical environment resultingfrom climate change is further complicated by the fact that GHG emissions, unlike other air quality impacts that are linked to a localized area or region, are by definition a global issue, requiring analysis on a global scale. Consequently, CEQA analysis of a project's effect on The analysis of a project's effect on the environment global climate change involves unique challenges. begins with an inventory of each potential source of GFiG emissions fairly attributed to the project. CEQA defines the term "project" broadly to encompass the "whole of an action, which hasa potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." 14 Cal Code Regs §15378(a), Courts have held that under this broad definition, the envi- ronmental analysis should encompass not only air- borne emissions associated with project construction and operations, but also mobile emissions related to transportation to and from the project. Kings County Farm Bureau v City of Hanford (1990) 221 CA3d 692, 716, 270 CR 650. The latter source is a subject of some controversy. In many oases, a project will not cause "new" vehicle GFiG emissions sources from a global perspective, but rather merely causes the movement of existing vehicle emission sources from one location to another, In Natural Resources Defense Council v Reclamation Bd. (Sacramento Super Ct, Apr. 27, 2007, No. 06CSO1228), the court rejected petitioner's claim that recent global warming legislation constituted new information trig- gering the need for "supplemental" environmental review under CEQA, in part because the causal link between the specific project and climate change was not established. The court stated: As the projected effects of climate change become clearer and can be related to specific sites, there is little doubt that those effects will have to be fac- tored into the analysis of many projects under CEQA The court's holding suggeststhat a lead agencys obliga- tion to disclose a project's incremental impact on cli- mate change may grow as science advances. See Bogdan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: CEQA Catches Up With Screncq Celebrities, and Product Placemen4 16 California Land Use L & Policy Rep 245 (June 2007). During this interim period, lead agencies may conclude that a determination regarding the project's impact on climate change is too specula- tive. Bogdan, supra. Title 14 Cal Code Regs §15145 authorizes such a conclusion, stating that "[i]f, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a par- ticular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discus- sion of the impact." UnderCEQA's "rule of reason," an EIR is required to evaluate impacts to the extent it is "reasonably feasible" to do sa 14 Cal Code Regs § 15 15 1; San Francisco Ecology Ctr. v City & County of San Francisco (1975) 48 CA3d 584, 122 CR 100. While CEQA requires lead agencies to make a good faith effort to disclose what they reasonably can, it "does not demand what is not realistically possible." ResidentsAd Hoc Stadium Comm. vBoard of Trustees(1979) 89 CA3d 274,286,152 CR 585. Determining Thresholds of Significance CEQA compels public agencies to refrain from approv- ing projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. Pub Res C §21002; Sierra Club v State Bd. of Forwhy(1994) 7 C4th 1215, 1233, 32 CR2d 19. The determination of what constitutes a "significant" impact is important under CEQA because mitigation measures are not required for effects not found to be significant. 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.4(a)(3). The AG has argued that anticipated GFiG emissions of proposed projects will cause significant environmental effects under a "cumulative impacts" analysis. A cumu- lative impact consists of an impactcreated as a resultof the combination of the project evaluated together with other projects causing related impacts. 14 Cal Code Regs §§15130(a)(1), 15355. Cumulative impact analysis involves a two-step process. The lead agency first determines whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulativelysignificant. If the answer isyes, thesecond question is whether "the proposed project's incremen- tal effects are cumulatively considerable." Communities for a Better Env't v California Resources Agency (2002) 103 CA4th 98, 120, 126 CR2d 441; Thomas, Moose, Manley, Guide to CEQA 468 (11 t h ed Solano Press 2006). The AG has asserted that because the state is commit- ted by AB 32 to a 25 -percent decrease in GFiG emis- sions, any projectthat produces increases in GFiG emis- sions could be an obstacleto complyingwith AB 32 and thus should be considered a significant cumulative impact. The AG argues further that this approach is consistent with 14 Cal Code Regs 515387, App G (Environmental Checklist Form), which lists as a factor (in determining whether an air quality impact is signif- icant) consideration of whether the project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of applicable air quality plans. The logical extension of this argument, however, i s that virtually a I I projectswiII require prepa- ration of an EIR rather than a negative declaration, as the slightest incremental contribution of G -IG emis- sions may cause significant environmental impacts. There is minimal guidance under CEC A regarding what constitutes a cumulatively considerable impact. Courts have held that the addition of "one molecule" is not cumulatively considerable. Communities for a Better Env% supra. On the other hand, "the greater the exist- ing environmental problems are, the lower the thresh- old should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant." Communities for a Better Env't supra. The determination of whether an incremental increase in airborne contaminants greater than one molecule constitutes a cumulatively consider- able impact ultimately must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are currently no published thresholds for signifi- cance for measuring a project's impact on climate change. CARB is expected to provide regulatory guid- ance regarding standards of significance in January 2008. During this interim period, agencies may con- clude that any determination of significance would be speculative "and terminate discussion of the impact." 14 Cal Code Regs 515145, Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 1137, 26 CR2d 231 (upholding E)R's conclusion that potential cumulative impacts of toxic air emissions are too speculativefor evaluation). The PG rejects such determinations by lead agencies. As an example, the P31s comment letter to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission regarding .the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Expansion Project states: By declining to determine that G -IG emissions from the projects could have a cumulatively con- siderable impact on global warming, the County has attempted to avoid CEQA's requirement to adopt all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the project's global warming impacts. This substantially undercuts "the funda- mental purpose of CECA which is to ensure that environmental considerations play a significant role in governmental decision making." The PG has asserted that even if no regulatory agency has established a threshold by which to measure the significance of a single project's GHG emissions, lead agencies are obligated under C ECQAto maketheir own determinations of significance. 14 Cal Code Regs §15064.7(a). ("Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.") Critics of the AG's position counter that while agencies have considerable discretion in determining thresholds of significance, their determination should be based, to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data, which are lacking prior to CARB's issuance of regulato- ry standards. See 14 Cal Code Regs §15064(b). Additionally, an agencVs determinations must be sup- ported by "substantial evidence." Pub Res C §21080(c)(1). CBDA defines "substantial evidence" as facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. 14 Cal Code Reps § 15384(b). The PGs critics additionally warn that absent reliance on regulatory guidance from the CAFU through the PB 32 pmoess, rules regarding how climate change impacts are to be evaluated will likely be developed on an ad hoc basis, increasing the risk that mitigation resources will be misallocated. Determining Feasible Mitigation Measures C ECA requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise significant adverse environmental effects of proposed projects. Pub Res C §21002. Mitigation meas- ures should be capable of avoiding or substantially less- ening the project's environmental impacts. 14 Cal Code Pegs §15370. Additionally, to survive constitutional scrutiny, mitigation measures must be "roughly propor- tional" to the impacts of the project. 14 Cal Code Regs § 15126.4(a)(4)(B). Project modification is not required when it is infeasi- ble or the responsibility for mitigation lies with some other agency. 14 Cal Code Regs §15091(a), (b). "Feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." Pub Res C §21061.1. I n comes in which significant impacts are not at least "substan- tially lessened," the agency may nevertheless approve the project if it first adopts a "statement of overriding considerations" setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's benefits rendered acceptable its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 14 Cal Code Regs §§15043(b), 15093. The AG has asserted that lead agencies must make project approvals contingent on the implementation and enforcementof mandatory mitigation measuresto reduce GHG emissions, which, depending on the nature of the project (i.e., plan -level or site-specific), may include, but are not limited to, the following: Transportation • Coordinate controlled intersections so that traffic passes more efficiently through congested areas. Where signals are installed, require the use of Light Emitting Diode (LM) traffic lights. • Set specific limits on idling time for commercial vehi- cles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Require construction vehicles to use retrofit emission control devices, such as diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters verified bythe CARE. • Promote ride sharing programs, e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for high -occu- pancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to accommodate vans used for ride -sharing, and designat- ing adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas. • Create car -sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing parking spaces for the car -share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation. • Require clean alternative fuels and electric vehicles. • Develop the necessary infrastructure to encourage the use of alternativefuel vehicles, e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations. • Increasethe cost of driving and parking private vehi- des by imposing tolls, parking fees, and residential parking permit limits. • Develop transportation policies that give funding preferenceto public transit. • Design regional transportation center where public transportation of various modes intersect. Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness on vehicles and i n and around stations. • Assess transportation impact fees on new develop- ment in order to facilitate and increase public transit service. • Provide shuttle service to public transit. • Offer public transit incentives. • Incorporate bicycle lanes into street systems in regional transportation plans, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Create bicycle lanes and walking pathsdirected to the location of schools and other logical points of destina- tion and provide adequate bicycle parking. • Require commercial projects to include facilities on- site to encourage employees to bicycle or walk to work. • Provide public education and publicity about public transportation services. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy • Require energy efficient design for buildings. This may include strengthening local building codes for new construction and renovation to require a higher level of energy efficiency. • Adopt a "Green Building Program" to promote green building standards. • Fund and schedule energy efficiency "tune-ups" of existing buildings by checking, repairing, and readjust- ing heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, hot water equipment, insulation, and weatherization. (Facilitating or funding the improvement of energy efficiency in existing buildings could offset in part the global warming impacts of new development.) • Provide individualized energy management seances for large energy users. • Require the use of energy efficient appliances and office equipment. • Fund incentives and technical assistance for lighting efficiency. • Require that projects use efficient lighting. (Fluorescent lighting uses approximately 75 percent less energy than incandescent lighting to deliver the same amount of light.) • Require measures that reduce the amount of water sent to the sewer system. (Implementing this measure means less water has to be treated and pumped to the end user, thereby saving energy.) • Incorporate on-site renewable energy production (through, e.g., participation in the California Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership). Require project proponents to install solar panels, water reuse systems, and/or other systems to capture energy sources that would otherwise be wasted. • Streamline permitting and provide public informa- tion to facilitate accelerated construction of solar and wind power. ■Fund incentives to encourage the use of energy effi- cient equipment and vehicles. • Provide public education and publicity about energy efficiency programs and incentives. Land Use Measures • Encourage mixed-use and high-density development to reduce vehicle trips, promote alternatives to vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. (A city or county could promote "smart" devel- opment by reducing developer fees or granting prop- erty tax credits for qualifying projects.) • Discourage "leapfrog" development. Enact ordi- nanoes and programs to I i m it sprawl. • Incorporate publictransit into project design. • Require measures that take advantage of shade, pre- vailing winds, landscaping, and sun screens to reduce energy use. • Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees and require the planting of replacement trees for those removed in construction. • Impose measures to address the "urban heat island" effect by, e.g., requiring light-colored and reflective roofing materials and paint; light-colored roads and parking lots; shade trees in parking lots; and shade trees on the south and west sides of new or renovated buildings. • Facilitate "brownfleld" development. (Brownfields are more likely to be located near existing publictrans- portation and jobs.) • Require pedestrian -only streets and plazas within developments, and destinations that may be reached conveniently by public transportation, walking, or bicy- cling. Solid Waste Measures • Require projects to reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. • implement or expand city- or county -wide recycling and composting programsfor residents and businesses. • Increase areas served by recycling programs. • Extend the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling). • Establish methane recovery in local landfills and wastewater treatment plants to generate electricity. • Provide public education and publicity about recy- cling services. See Office of the California Attorney General, Global Warming Mitigation Measures (http://ag.ca.gov/ newsalerts/ release.php?1d=1433&). The AEP similarly recommends in its draft white paper that lead agencies require the implementation of all feasible and applicable emission reduction strategies contained in the CAT Report or a locally applicable GHG reduction plan if one has been adopted. The AEP concludes that compliance with such strategies would likelysupporta conclusion that the projectwould have a less than significant impacton global climate change. AEP Draft White Paper a t 12-1 a Critics of this approach note that many of the CAT strategies are not applicable to land use projects. Moreover, while the GHG emission reduction strategies identified in the CAT Report are quantified statewide, there is no recognized basis for quantifying the CAT's strategies on a project -by -project basis. Thus, there is no recognized way of quantifying whether the imple- mentation of GHG emission reduction strategies avoids or substantially lessens a specific project's otherwise cumulatively considerable global climate change effects. Thus, when an agency concludes that a pro- jects GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable, in the absence of irrefutable evidence that the required mitigation measures avoid or substantially lessen those impacts, lead agencies are well advised, in the exercise of caution, to adopt a statement of overriding consid- erations in support of the project. Alternative Approaches to CEQA Analysis of Climate Change Impacts CEOA documents may address GHG emissions and a project's potential impacts on climate change by using one of the following approaches: ■ Limited discussion of the issue followed by a finding that the impact is too speculativefor evaluation; ■A "qualitative" analysis that discusses the issue in more detail, but ultimatelyconcludes that one or more elements of the analysis are too speculative for deter- mination; or ■A "quantitative" analysis that makes determinations regardingthe project's anticipated GHG emissions, find- ings ofsignificance, and th e adequacy of feasible mitiga- tion measures. The following checklists summarize some of the funda- mental components to these varying approaches: Alternative 1—Findings of Infeasibility or Speculation .A discussion of the scientific knowledge regarding cli- mate change. e A discussion of the regulatory setting pertaining to climate change at the international, national, state, and, if applicable, regional and local levels. e A discussion of the GHG emission reduction measures incorporated into the project. ■A discussion of the distinction between direct and cumulative impacts. ■A discussion of the various methodologies that are available to assess the project's anticipated GHG emis- sions and/or thresholds of significance. ■A finding that there are no accepted methodologies or standards for measuring the project's anticipated GHG emissions and/or determining a threshold of sig- nificance. e A finding that, after thorough investigation, the potential impact is too speculative for evaluation under 14 Cal Code RegsH15145 and 15151. Alternative 2-1 QualitativeAnalysis .A discussion of the scientific knowledge regarding cli- mate change. e A discussion of the regulatory setting pertaining to climate change at the international, national, state, and (if applicable) regional and local levels. ■A discussion of the project's anticipated GHC emis- sions considering the project as a whole. ■A discussion of the distinction between direct and cumulative impacts. n discussion of the various methodologies that are availableto assess the thresholds of significance. ■A determination that a threshold for significance is too speculative. ■A discussion of the project's proposed GHG emission reduction measures. ■ A recommendation that the project implement as mitigation measures the feasible recommendations from the CAT Report or other local GHG emission reduction plan. .A finding that, based on the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures recommended by the CAT or some other applicable plan, the project's cumulative impacts would likely be less than significant. Alternative 3-4 QuantitativeAnalysis e A discussion of the scientific knowledge regarding cli- mate change. ■A discussion of the regulatory setting pertaining to climate change at the international, national, state, and (if applicable) regional and local levels. .A discussion of the project's anticipated GHG emis- sions considering the project as a whole. e A discussion of the distinction between direct and cumulative impacts. e A discussion of the adopted threshold for significance (i.e., consistency with the GHG emission reduction requirements of AB 32) . • A discussion of the project's proposed GHG emission reduction measures. • If there is a finding that the proposed project's GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable under the adopted threshold of significance, a discussion of all feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or sub- stantially lessen the impacts. • A finding that, with the implementation of the pro- posed mitigation measures, the cumulatively consider- able impacts would be substantially lessened; or, alter- natively, a finding that the project, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts that would necessitatethe adoption of a statement of overriding considerations in orderto approve the proj- ect. Conclusion Since the legislature's enactment last fall of the Global Warming Solutions Act the times are indeed "a- changin"' with respect to the requirements for envi- ronmental analysis of climate change impacts under CECA Until CAM provides some guidance regarding baseline conditions for GHG emissions and standards for significance, CEQA practitioners will continue to grapple with a climate of uncertainty. The words of Bob Dylan, which today seem eerily prophetic, are a fit- ting conclusion: Come gather 'round people wherever you roam And admit that the waters around you have grown And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, Forthe times they are a-changin'. About the Authors Arthur a Friedman is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use, Natural Resourcesand Environmental practicegroup at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter& Hampton LLP in San Francisco. Mr. Friedman litigates real estate, land use and various commercial matters. He also has significant experience practic- ing before the California Courts of Appeal, which resulted in a number of published decisions concerning the interpretation of CEQA and the Subdivision Map Act. He also leadsthe land use litigation subcommittee for the firm's Global Climate Change practicegroup. Judy V. Davidoff is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use, Natural Resourcesand Environmental practicegroup at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in San Francisco. Ma Davidoff focuses on state and federal land use and environmental matters, including CEQNNEPA compliance, nat- ural resources, air and water law, public trust and coastal matters, endan- gered species, cultural and historic resources, initiatives and referendums, public land permitting, and administrative proceedings and litigation. Miriam Montesinos is an associate in the Real Estate, Land Use, Natural Resources and Environmental practicegroup at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in San Francisco. Ms. Montesinos' practice emphasizes land use and environmental matters, including obtain- ing development entitlements, compliancewith CEQA, and administrative proceedingsand litigation. EXHIBIT F W143rtFacts _E1 Centro GB1i49rtSupercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening CelebrationTuesday, J... Page 1 of 4 _ Shop Careers 9/6/2007 16 -Year Relationship Between Wal-Mart and Arizona Business Grows, Thrives ;= Cl Featured Topics - ---- - --- -- EI Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening EconomicOpportunittes " Celebration Tuesday, Jan. 31 Employment and Diversity Merchandising H"ealth" CaZ. re El Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening Celebration Tuesday, Jan. 31 > -_F--K-=•�-r� ^�- ....... � -s,•.- Store's impactseen in 400 newjobs and $14,000 in charitabledonatiom Financfal_Results Store Openings EL CENTRO, Calf, Jan. 20, 2006 - Creating4W newjobs and focusingon charitable. support and Charitable Giving every day low prices, the newly relocated Wal-Mart Supercenter in EI Centro will open to the publicon 7A Friday, Jan. 27, at 7 aand celebrate its grand opening at 7:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 31. The store is _ More... M. ' m, _._.......... _,.,._.._._........._..3 located at 2150 N. Waterman Ave. C Wal-Mart Media Center (� ..... .... ...... ... ........... ...... ... ._ .................. Company overview C7 ........... Community Benefits _................... _ (3 Wal-Mart on the Web Store featu res Originally opened in 1990 at 2050 Imperial Ave., the newly relocated store has gained more than 113,630 additional square feet. According to Store ManagerAngel Sanchez, the new 207,000 -square -foot Wal- Mart Supercenter now features a full line of groceries as well as a bakery, a delicatessen, a frozen food section and meat, dairy and fresh produce sections. The store has 36 general merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics. I t will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include 12 full-service, 14 express and four self check-out lanes. - Other store features include: a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's, a family fun center, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon and a Regal nail salon. In addition, the store will have a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. Grand opening activities - Tuesday, Jan. 31 The Southwest High School marching band will perform the national anthem and representatives of the StateVeterans of Foreign Wars will presentthe colors at the grand opening ceremony. Membersfrom the EI Centro Chamber of Commerce will cut the ribbon to the new store. n addition, R Centro Mayor Cedalia Sanders will speak at the ceremony. She also attended the 1990 grand opening ceremony of the original EI Centro Wal-Mart. Sanchez and Wal-Mart associateswill be present Sanders with an enlarged picture of her speaking at the grand opening event nearly 16 years ago. Employment The store will employ approximately 720 associates, whkh Includes 400 jobs created by the relocation. More than 3,000 people applied forjobs at the new store, according to Sanchez. The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly assodates in California is $10.50 per hour.* "The large numberof applicantsfor this new store doesn't surprise meat all," said Sanchez. 'Great career opportunities, fantastic benefits and lasting friendships are just a few ofAe positive aspects of becoming a Wal-Mart associate." Sanchez started as an hourly associate in 1992 at the EI Centro store as a cashier. Seventy-sevenof the EI Centro store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, added Sanchez. Charitable giving Upon its opening, the store will announce $14,988 in donations through Wal -Marts Good Works communtty involvementprog ram to a number of organizations. The store will also have a budget to give donations away locally throughout ft year. Organizations interested in receiving funding can contact the store for details. Groups recelving donations upon the store's opening include: • Boys and Girls Club • Catholic Charities: a Community Service Ministry of the Diocese • Central Union High School • City of EI Centro Fire Department • City of EI Centro Parks and Recreation Department http://www.wahnartfacts.com/articles/1795.aspx 9/15/2007 waii-i u't rtruts - m %-entrU W ai-murt oupurucinuf Vpellb rflUdy,_ V1a11U VPG1U11g %-V10u1a11v11 1 u-auay, r... a "6%' 'e, va -. • City of EI Centro Police Department • EI Centro KiwanisClub Foundation • EI Centro Police Athletic League • Hidalgo Elementary School • Imperial County Sheriffs Department • Imperial Valley Assodation for the Retarded • Southwest High School Band • United Way of Imperial County • Volunteers of America Inc. • Washington Elementary School I n 2004, Wal-Mart Stores and SAM'S CLUB gave $8,625,303 to local causes and organizations in the communities they serve in the state of California, In addition, many charities and organizations received in-kind donations and additional funds raised through stores, CLUBS and distribution centers in the amount of $3,201,084, for a grand total of $11,826,387 contributed through Wal -Mart's presence across the state. Wal-Mart in California EDITORS NOTE See www.walmartfacts.com for more information about Wal-Mart in California. • As of December2005, Wal-Mart employed 73,787 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California as of October 2005: • Supercenters: 7 • Discount Stores: 150 • SAM'S CLUBS: 34 • DistributionCenteh: 9 In 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid more than $99.7 million instate and local taxes. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges underthe symbol VVW. More Information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmaMacts.com for more information about Wal-Mart in California. As of December2005, Wal-Mart employed 73,787 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California as of October 2005: • Supercenters: 7 • Discount Stares: 150 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 I n 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in'sales taxes and paid more than $99.7 million in state and local taxes. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAM'S CLUB lomtiens in the United Slates. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, PuertoRicor South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges underthe symbol WMT. More Information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandisesales are available at www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmnrt.com. EDITOR'S NOTES • Wal-Mart store employees are called associates. • Angel Sanchez, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or preview tours. He can be contacted at 760-353-2512 (new store) or 760-337-1600 (old store). http: //www.walmartf+acts.am/articles/17%Px 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - El Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter Opens Friday; Grand Opening Celebration Tuesday, J... Page 3 of 4 * Average wage taken yearly (December ZOOS). See www.walmartfacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET El Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New Location: 2150 N. Waterman Ave., EI Centro, Calif. • Originally opened in 1990 at 2050 Imperial Ave. • 207,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 113,630 square feet • Store opening Friday, Jan, 27, at 7 am.; Grand Opening eventTuesday, Jan. 31, at 7:30 a.m. • Store manager: Angel Sanchez Storefeatures • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, McDonald's restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon, Regal nail salon, family fun center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 12 full-service, 14 express and four self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment is 720, including 400 newjobs; 3,000 applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour.' • Store ManagerAngei Sanchez started as an hourly associate i n 1992 as a cashier at the EI Centro store. * Average wage taken December 2005. See www.walmartfacts.com for more details FACT SHEET EI Centro Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New Location: 2150 R Waterman Ave., EI Centro, Calif. • Originally opened in 1990 at 2050 Imperial Ave. • 207,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 113,630 square feet • Store opening Friday, Jan. 27, at 7 am; Grand Opening eventTuesday, Jan. 31, at 7:30 a,m. • Store manager. Angel Sanchez Store features • Fullllne of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, finejewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, McDonald's restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon, Regal nail salon, family fun center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 12 full-service, 14 express and four self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment is 720, including 400 newjobs; 3,000 applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates i n California is $10.50 per hour." • Store ManagerAngei Sanchez started as an hourly associate in 1992 as a cashierat the EI Centro store. * Average wage taken December2005. See www.walmartfack.com for details. Charitable giving $14,988 in charitable contributions to 15 area organizations o Boys and Girls Club o Catholic Charities a Community Service Ministry of the Diocese o Central Union High School o City of El Centro Fire Department hap://www.walmartfacts.com/ardeles/1795.aspx 9/15/2007 YT 41-JLVLULL rUULb - Zt 1.C11WO wai-man supercenter vpens rnaay; brand vpemng Uetebration'Iuesday, J... Page 4 of 4 o City of EI Centro Parks and Recreation Department o City of EI Centro Police Department o EI Centro Kiwanis Club Foundation o EI Centro Police Athletic League o Hidalgo Elementary School o Imperial County Sheriffs Department o Imperial Valley Association for the Retarded o Southwest High School Band o United Way of Imperial County o Volunteers of America Inc. o Washington Elementary School a back to top a Security & Privacy a Terms aE U s e 11 Contact Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback http: f/wwra.wa]maztfacts. cudardclw/1795 .aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Page 1 o f4 f�~ 3 ; Shop Careers 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates$4 Million to America's Second Harvest ❑ Featured?oples ___... Z: . ._ _.___.__,.____.._...- Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Economic Opportunities _ g'W ...... _...__...... _..... _ Employmentand Diversity a Merchandising Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening k Health Care First Supercenter in the Bay Area offers groceries and traditional retail s Financial Results GILROY, Callf,, Sept. 22, 2005 -Creating 450 newjobs and focusing on charitable support and every a Store Openings day low prices, the new Wal-Mart Supercenterin Gilroy - the first Supercenter i n the Bay Area -- will a Charitable Giving celebrate its grand opening at 7 a.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 28. Doors will opento shoppers at 7:30 a.m, The store is locatedat 7150 Camino Arroyo: Store features Originally opened as a traditional Wal-Mart Store in 1993 at 7900 Arroyo Circle, the newly relocated store has gained morethan 93,613 additional square feet. According to Store Manager Ken Higgins, the new -•-_ -...... — •-•••.•-. -- - - 219,570 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter now features 36 general merchandise departments including Wal-Mart Media Center apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics. I n addition, the store offers a bakery, a delicatessen, a frozen food section and meat, dairy Ci Company Overview and fresh produce sections. Itwili be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will Community Benefits include 30 full-service, eight express and three self check-out lanes. 5] Wal-Mart on the Web Other store features include: a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's restaurant, a portrait studio, a one- ..........._.. __.- hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon and a Regal Nail Salon. I n addition, the store will have a Wal-Mart Connect Center for cellular phone sales and a Hearing Aid Center. Grand opening activities The 7 a.m. grand opening ceremony will begin with Rose Marie Arbizu, a Wal-Mart associate, performing the national anthem. Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars will presentthe colors, and Higgins will State cut the ribbon to the new store. I n addition, there will be costumed character appearances, product samples and gNe-aways during the grand opening celebration. Employment � The store will employ approximately 650 associates, which Includes 450 newjobs created by the 1 relocation. Two -hundred associatesfrom the original Store have relocated to work at the new Supercenter. More than 1,500 people applied forjobs at the new store, most of which will be full-time, according to Hlggjns. The average wage at Wal -Matt for full-time hourly assodates in the Bay Area Is $10.82 per hour.* "We were thrilled with the large pool of applicants we had for ourjobs," said Higgins. 'It makes me proud IIto work for this company where there truly are unlimited opportunities." More than 20 of the Gilroy store's assodates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, added Higgins. Charitable giving Upon its opening, the store will announce $18,000 In donations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community Involvement program to a numberof organizations. The store will also have a budget to give donations away locally throughout the year. Organizations interested in receiving funding can contactthe store for details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening include: • City of Gilroy Fire Department • City of Gilroy Police Department • City Team Ministries (Back To School Clothing Program) • Gilroy High School • GUSD Middle School Performing Arts Program • National Exchange Club • Ronald McDonald House at Stanford • St. Joseph's Family Center • United Way of Silicon Valley More donations will be announced during the grand opening event. http://www.walniartfacts.com/articles/1954.aspx' 9/15/2007 wai-mart racts - utiroy wa1-man supercenter %-eteorates vrana upenmg rage /. ui -t I in 2004, Wal-Mart Stores and SAMS CLUB gave $8,625,303 to local causes and organizations i n the communities they serve in the state of California. I n addition, many charities and organizations received in-kind donations and additional funds raised through stores, CLUBS and distribution centers i n the amount of $3,201,084, for a grand total of $11,826,387 contributed through Wal -Mart's presence across the state. Wal-Mart in California EDITOR'S NOTE See www.walmartfacts.com for more information about Wal-Mart in California. As of August 2005, Wal-Mart employed 66,582 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supertenters: 5 • Discount Stores: 149 • SRWIS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 In 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid more than $99.7 million in state and local taxes. Waf-Mart benefits Wal-Mart benefits - available to full- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurancewith no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at lessthan $40 per month for an Individualand less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributesor not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates i n Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rioo, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol VAT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www,walmartfacts.corn for more information about Wal-Mart in California. As of August 2005, Wal-Mart employed 66,582 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 5 • Discount Stores: 149 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 in 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid more than $99.7 million In state and local taxes. Wal-Mart benefits Wal-Mart benefits -available to full- and part-time associates -Include healthcare insurancewith no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less then $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal -Matt also offers a 401(k) plan and profitsharing contributions, whether an associate contributesor not, store! discount oads,performance-basedbonuses, discountedstockpurchase program and life insurance. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB locationsin the United States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal-Mart can be found by visiting www,walmartfacto.com. Online merchandisesales are available at www.walmart.com, EDITOR'S NOTES • Wal-Mart store employees are called associates. • Ken Higgins, store manager, can providedetails about the grand opening, offer quotes for Interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or preview tours. He can be contacted at 408/848-8161. • A special Invitation-onlyopen house for VIPs, Wal-Mart associates and their families Is scheduled for Monday, Sept 26, at 6:30 p.m. Preview tours will be pmvided. Checks will be presentedto hUp://www.walmuffacU.com/mlicies/1954.aspx 9/15/2007 V131+1WtFacts - Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Gid Opening Page 3 of 4 representatives of the community organizations this evening. *Average wages taken yearly (October 2004). See www.walmartfacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New location as a Supercenter: 7150 Camino Arroyo, Gilroy, Calif. • Originally opened as a Discount Store in 1993 at 7900 Arroyo Circle • 219,570 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 93,613 square feet • Store opening 7:30 am, Wednesday, Sept. 28; 7 a.m. grand opening ceremony • Store manager. Ken Higgins Store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon, a Regal Nail Salon, a Hearing Aid Center and a Wal-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 30 full-service, eight express and three self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment is 650, including 450 new jobs; 1,500 applicants • Majority of jobs are full-time • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in the Bay Area is $10.82 per hour.* • Wal-Mart benefits- available to full- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchaseprogram and life insurance. • Approximately 76 percentof Wal-Mart store managers started as hourly associates. * Average wage taken October2004. See www.walmartfaGts.com for more details. FACT SHEET ' Gilroy Wal-Mart Supercenter stone fast facts • New location as a Supercenter: 7150 Camino Arroyo, Gilroy, Calif. • Originally opened as a Discount Store in 1993 at 7900 Arroyo Grde • 219,570 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 93,613 square feet • Store opening 7:30 a.m., Wednesday, Sept. 28; 7 am grand opening ceremony • Store manager. Ken Higgins store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozenfoods, meat and dalry productsand fresh produce, a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's, a portrait studio, a one-hourphoto lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hairsalon, a Regal Nail Salon, a Hearing AM Centerand a Wal-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 30 full-service, eight express and three self check-out lanes Employment • Total employmentk 650, Including 450 new jobs; 1,500 applicants • Majority of jobs are full-time • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in the Bay Area is $10.82 per hour.* • Wal-Mart benefits - available to full- and part-time associates- include healthcare Insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. • Approximatety 76 percentof Wal-Martstore managers started as hourly associates. * Average wage taken October 2004. See www.walmar#acts.com for details. http://www.walmuffacts.com/aWcles/1954.aspx 9/15/2007 w at -Matt Pacts - li;ltroy Wal-Mnrt Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Page 4 of 4 Charitable giving • $18,000 in charitable contributions to nine area organizations: o City of Gilroy Fire Department o City of Gilroy Police Department o City Team Ministries (Back To School Clothing Program) o Gilroy High School oGUSD Middle School Performing Arts Program o National Exchange Ciub o Ronald McDonald House at Stanford o St. Joseph's Family Center o United Way of Silicon Valley 3, back to top s Security & Privacy s Terms of Use > >i Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback tttp:/Iwww.YiWmartfacts.com/ardeles/ 1954.aspx. 9/15/2007 WENartFacts - Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Pagel of 3 + Shop Careers } 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest L Featured Topics . CitSupercenter i Wal-Mart Srcenter Celebrates Grand Opening > Opportunities o- Economic0 -.Yuba i Employment and Diversity Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening a Merchandising Store's impactseen in 300 newjobs and $17,000 in charitable donations a Health Care a Financial Results YUBA CITY, Calif., San. 24, 2006 - Creating 300 new jobs and focusing on charitable support and a Store Openings „. , ..., �,, ,-1- :..,,y",,., .,: every day low prices, the newly relocated Wal-Mart Supercenter in Yuba City will celebrate its grand s=Cha,Atabie Giving M " ,* { N.. opening at 7,30 am. on Tuesday, Jan. 31. Doors will open at 8 a.m. The store is located at 1150 Harter a More.. v q. Road. Store features Originally opened in 1990 at 935 Tharp Road, the newly relocated store has gained more than 78,829 additional square feet According to Store Manager Paul Kovacs, the new 204,000 Wal-Mart Supercenter now features a full line of groceries as well as a bakery, a delicatessen, a frozen food section and meat, Wal-Mart Media Center dairy and fresh produce sections. The store has 36 general merchandise departments including apparel _......................................_.- ........ .......... . _ (t7 Comp anY Overview and accessories, Finejewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics. It will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include 22 full - +0 Community Benefits service, six express and four self check-out lanes. ❑ Wal-Mart on the Web Other store features include: aTire & Lube Express, a McDonald's restaurant, a portrait studio, a one- 's.,- ,• _; .. n :.�,.,. , . .;, hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy and a Hair Works hair salon. I in addition, the store will have aTri-County Bank branch and a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. Employment The store will employ approximately 630 associates, which includes 300 jobs created by the relocation. More than 1,000 people applied for jobs at the new store. The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time ?state hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour.' "The large numberof applicantsfor this new store doesn't surprise meat all," said Kovacs. "Great career opportunities, fantastic benefits and lasting friendships arejust a few of the positive aspects of becoming ALt r a Wal-Mart associate.' Kovacsstarted as an hourly associate in 1995 at a store in Mobile, Ala., as a truck unloader. Forty-five cfthe Yuba Qty store's associates haveworked for Wal-Martfor morethan 10years, added Kovacs, Charitable giving Uponits opening, the storewili announce $17,000 in donations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community Involvement programto a numberof organizations. The store will also have a budgetto give donatlonsaway locally throughout the year. Organizations Interested In receiving funding cancontactthe store for details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening include: • City of Yuba City Fire Department • City of Yuba City Police Department • Klwanis International • Ronald McDonald House • Rotary International • United Way I n 2004, Wal-Mart Stores and SAM'S CLUB gave $8,625,303 to local causes and organizations inthe communities they serve in the state of California. I n addition, many charities and organizations received in-kind donations and additional funds raised through stores, CLUBS and distribution centers in the amount of $3,201,084, for a grand total of $11,826,387 contributed through Wal -Mart's presenceacross the state. Wal -Matt InCalifomla EDITOR'S NOTE: See www.waimartfacts.com for more information about Wal-Mart in California. www.walmartfa&.com for moreinformation about Wal -Martin California, http://Www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1755.aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts- Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Page 2 o As of December 2005, Wal-Mart employed 73,787 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California as of October 2005: • Supercenters: 7 • Discount Stores: 150 • SAMS CLUBS: 34 • Distribution Centers: 9 in 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid more than $99.7 million instate and local taxes. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and S416 CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates In Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com, Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmartfacts.com, Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com, EDITOR'S NOTES • Wal-Mart store employees are called associates. • Paul Kovacs, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or preview tours. He can be contacted at 530-751-0130. "Average wage taken yearly (December 2005). See www.walmartfacts.com for more details. www.walmarffacts.com for more details. FACT SHEET Yuba City Wal-Mart Supercenter store fast facts • New Location: 1150 Harter Road, Yuba City, Calif. • Originally opened in 1990 at 935 Tharp Road • 204,000-squarefoot Wal-Mart Supercenter, gaining an additional 78,829 square feet • Store opening 8 am., Tuesday, Jan. 31; 7:30 a.m, grand opening ceremony • Store manager: Paul Kovacs Store features • Full line of groceries, bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, McDonald's restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon, Tri -County Bank branch and a Wal -Matt Connect Center. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 22 full-service, six express and four self check-out lanes Employment • Total employment Is 630, Including 300 newjobs; 1,000 applicants • The averagewage at Wai-Martfor full-time hourly associates in Californiais $10.50 per hour.* • Kovacs started as an hourly associate in 1995 at a store In Mobile, Ala., as a truck unloader. * Average wage taken December 2005. See www.walmaffcts.com for details. www.walmartfacts.com for details. Charitable giving • $17,000 i n charitable contributions to six area organizations o City of Yuba City Fire Department o City of Yuba City Police Department o Kiwanis International o Ronald McDonald House o Rotary International o United Way iq://www.walmartfacts.com/ardcles/ 1755. aspx 9/1512007 Wal-Mart Facts - Yuba City T4Q+brt Supercenter Celebrates Grand Opening Page 3 of 3 ,> backto top 3, Security& Privacy * Terms of Use 1, Contact ... . . .. ....... I .... ................................. .......... .., ..... .. ........... ... - Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback http://www.w&bartfacts.ccWat+-icles/1755.aspi 911512007 Wal-Mart Facts _Vb1-M3rtSupercenter in Beaumont Celebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Supercenter... Page 1 of 4 z.: J Shop Careers 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest ❑ Featured Topics _ M __ - Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont Celebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Economic OpportunitiesSupercenter Nationwide; Offers New Wal-Mart Features z Employment and Diversity ...........................__...._..........._...._..... �, Merchandising b Health Care t Financial Results10taurriont, AUMONT, Calif., March 22,2006 — The grand opening of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter in � Store Openings Calif., today is a milestone for the US. company, marking 2,000 Wai-Mart Supercenters Charitable Giving officially open across the country. Before the store opened its doors today, it held a pre -opening .....:..........._..:......:,......,,.,.,_.,..,.....,.,,,,.,,...... celebration, Saturday, March 18 to thank customers, associates and suppliers for their patronage and t More... ......... ............ partnership. 'We are very excited to be a growing part of the California community," said Henry Jordan, California regional general manager, Wal-Mart. 'We are creating new jobs and helping working families to save money, and that's worth celebrating with Californians who have continued to be a part of that effort." n Wal-Mart Media Center -•-- Ryan Cabrera Hits the Wal-Mart Stage ±. Company Overview Hundreds of residentsturned out for the store's community event, which included a live concert from rising recording artist Ryan Cabrera to kick-off the week's festivities. Surrounded by tents, booths and Ell Community Benefits inflatables, participants were able to freely join in festivities surrounding the stage, as well as show their -1 Wal-Mart on the Web support for America's Second Harvest Food Bank, which held a silent auction of autographed music items from well-known artists such as Alabama, George Straight and Lonestar. Beaumont Wal-Mart Supercenter Features Located at 1540 E. Second St., the new 216,000 -square -foot store boasts many of the latest merchandise features coming to Wal-Mart Supercenters across the U.S. , including wider aisles, concrete and hardwood floors throughout the store, an expanded Garden Center, and its popular exclusive apparel line state George©. The new Supercenter also includes an expanded selection of organic food items in its grocery. L.._...... ...... ..... _... -...._......... I n addition, Customers will find new features in the electronics section that showcase the latest i n computers, (Pods and hi -definition televisions and a do-it-yourself paint center. 4. r The new 24-hour Supercenter offers a one-stop shopping experlence for customers, including a bakery, delicatessen, frozen food section and meat, dairy and fresh produce sections and 36 general merchandise departments which include apparel and accessories, finejewelry, a lawn and garden center, toys, automotive and health and beauty aids. Other store features Include a Tire & Lube Express, a Subway ppd' restaurant, a portralt studio, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a Hair Works hair salon, and a Banco Popular community bank branch. More Than 3AW Applicants for 600 New lobs The store will employ approximately 600 associates, most of which will be full-time. More than 3,400 r t people applied for jobs at the new store, according to Store Manager Rodney Colyott. "The large numberof applicants for this new store doesn't surprise me at all," said Colyott. "Great career t; opportunities, fantastic benefits and lasting friendships are just a few of the positive aspects of becoming a Wal-Mart: associate." Some of the Beaumontstore's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, added Colyott. The averagewage at Wai-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour." $34,000 inAdditionalCharitable Support The store also announced $34,000 indirect grant donations to local organizations as apart of Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program. The Beaumont Library District received $5,000 to provide repairs and renovation to an elevator and the upper level of its building; the Seocnd Harvest Food Bank cf Riverside and San Bernardino Counties also received $5,000; and Child Help USA, which serves abused and neglected children, received a $5,250 grant. Other groups receiving donations i n celebration of the grand opening Include: o American Cancer Sxdety o Veterans of Foreign Wars http://www.wahnartfacts,cont/articles/169Saspx 9/15/2007 TnB1+firtFacts - Vb1+19 t Supercenter in Beaumont Celebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Supercenter ... Page 2 of 4 o Renu Hope Foundation o City of Riverside Fire Department Explorer Post 566 o City of Beaumont Police Department Citizen Volunteer Patrol Program o Carol's Kitchen Food Pantry As with any Wal-Mart store, organizations can contact their local Wal-Mart to Inquire about local grant opportunitiesto raise dollars outside store locations throughoutthe year. Waf-Mart Economic I m pact in California EDITORS NOTE See www.walmar#acts.00m for -the latest Information about Wal-Mart in California. As of January 15,2006, Wal-Mart employed 70,412 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 13 • Discount Stores: 146 • SAM'S CLUBS: 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 1 n 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $719.9 million in sales taxes and paid more than $99.7 million in state and local taxes. Wal-Mart benefits - availableto full- and part-time assodates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Martoffers a choice of as many as 18 health plans that cost as little as $11 a month i n some areas. Both full and part-time Wal-Mart associates are eligible for health care benefits. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. About: Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAM'S CLUB locations i n the United States. Internationally, the company operates i n Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol VVMT. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmarfscU.com for the latestInformation about Wal -Martin California. As of January 15, 2006, Wal-Mart employed 70,412 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 13 * Discount Stores: 146 • SAWS CLUBS: 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 1 n 2004, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of tine state of California more than $719.9 million In sale5 taxes and paid more than $99.7 million In stake and local taxes. Wal-Mart benefits - available to full- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart offers a choice of a5 many as 18 health plans that cast as little as $11 a month in some areas. Both full and part-time Wal -Matt associates are eligiblefor healthcare benefits. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life Insurance. About Will -Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stomes,Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAM'S CLUB locations in the United Sl-ades. Intemationalty, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The companys securities are listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.waimartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com, *Average wage taken yearly (December ZOOS). See www.welmartfacts.com for more details. www. walmartfacts. com for more details. http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1695.aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont Celebrates brand Opening as 20UUth Supercenter ... Page 3 of 4 FACT SHEET Beaumont Wal-Mart Supercenter Store fast facts • Location: 1540 E Second St., Beaumont, Calif. • 2,000th Wal-Mart Supercenter to open • 216,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • Store opening Wednesday, March 22, at 8 a.m.; 7:30 a.m. grand opening celebration • Store manager: Rodney Colyott Charitable giving totaIs $34,000 in grants • $5,000 charitable donation to Second Harvest Food Bank of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties • $5,000 charitable donation to the Beaumont Library District for elevator repairs and upper level building renovation • $5,250 donation to Child Help IDSA, serving abused and neglected children • $15,000 in charitable contributions to six other area organizations o American Cancer Society o Veterans of Foreign Wars o Renu Hope Foundation o City of Riverside Fire Department Explorer o City of Beaumont Police Department Citizen Volunteer Patrol Program o Carol's Kitchen Food Pantry Employment • 600 new jobs; 3,400 applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour.* • Approximately 76 percentof Wal-Mart store managers started as hourly associates. * Average wage taken December2005. See www.walmartfacts.com for details. Store features • Wider aisles, a new home trends display, concrete and hardwood floors throughout the store, and an expanded selection of organic food items in Itsgrocery line. I n addition, customers will find new features in its electronics section that showcase the latest in computers, IPods and hi -definition televisions. Overall, the store contains a full line of groceries, bakery goods, dell foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, Subway restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon and a Banco Popularcommunity bank branch. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 18 full-service, 10 express and four self check-out lanes Fcrmore Information • Store manager: RodneyColyott, 951-845-1529 *Media contact: Amy Juaristi, 310-633-9428, www.walmartfacts.com for details. Store features . Wider aisles, a new home trends display, concrete and hardwood floors throughoutthe store, and an expanded selection of organicfood items In Its grocery line. I n addition, custanerswill find new features in Its electronics section that showcase the latest in computes, IPods and hi -definition televisions. Overall, the store contains a full line of groceries, bakerygoods, dell foods, frozen foods, meat and dairy products and fresh produce, apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, vision center, Subway restaurant, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, pharmacy, Hair Works hair salon and a Banco Popularcommunity bank branch. • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 18 full-service, 10 express and four self check-out lanes For m ore IntorrAstion • Store manager: Rodney Colyott, 951-845-1529 • Media contact: Amy Juaristi, 310-633-9428, ajuaristi@HillandKnowiton.com • Wal-Mart Home Office spokesperson: Melissa O'Brien, Wal-Mart corporate communications, 479-273- 4314, option 1, mellssa.obrienawal-mart,com • Wal-Mart information online: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmorefacto.com; merchandise sales: www-walmart.com http://www.wahnartfacts.com/articles/ 1695.aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Wal-Mart Supercenter in Beaumont Celebrates Grand Opening as 2000th Supercenter ... Page 4 of 4 r back to top a Security & Privacy Terms of Use 3, Contact .......... ...._.. .................. Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback http://www.walmartfacts.corn/articles/1695aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart racts - Wal. -Mart opens beconct Local Supercenter I his Month Shop _ 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 M i I I i o n t o America's Second Harvest n Wal-Mart Media Center ........... -_..._....._...... ._ _ ....... ... F!-] ......._...... .... ..... ..... ............. ...... ......._........... Company Overview .......... Community Benefits _ ............ LD Wal-Mart on the Web 7:70701 ire I 1111118T97.1 Page I of 4 Careers Store benefits local suppliers; Wal-Mart contributes$46,000 to local groups HANFORD, Calif., May 17, 2006 — The newly relocated Wal-Mart in Hanford will celebrate its grand opening as a Supercenter on Wednesday, May 17, with a focus on supporting the local community. The grand opening of the new store, second dosest to Fresno, adds an additional $46,000 in donations to local organizations through grants and associate contributions at Wal-Mart. The grand opening ceremony starts at 7:30 a.m., and doors open at 8 a.m. The store's new location is 250 S. 12th St. Originally opened in 1991 at 1750 W. Lacy, the relocated Wal-Mart Supercenter has added 84,860 square feet. According to Store ManagerCornel Andrei, the new 209,860 -square -foot Supercenter now features a full line of grocery items, including a new bakery, a delicatessen, meat, dairy and fresh produce sections as well as a full liquor department and a frozen food section. Boasting many of the latest store features introduced by most new Wal-Mart stores this year including wider aisles as well as concrete and wood floors, the Hanford Supercenter offers customers 36 general merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics. It will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include22 full-service and 10 express check-out lanes. Other store features include a Tire & Lube Express, a McDonald's, a family fun center, a one-hour photo lab, a vision center, a pharmacy, a portrait studio, a Regal Nails salon, a Hair Works hair salon, a Kerry's Medical Center as well as a Wal-Mart Connect Center for wireless phone sales. state Fifteen Year Partnership with Community Suppliers With its vision to be the "store of the community," the Hanford Wal-Mart Supercenter also will feature products throughoutthe store from local Fresno -area and California suppliers including Rain Creek Baking Company Inc., Pappys Meat Company and La Tapatia Tortilleria Inc. Customers visiting the store during the ,• grand opening celebration will be able to sample chocolate milk and orangejuice from Berkley Farms and quesadillas and cheesefrom Marquez Brothers' EI Mexican. "We recognize the value of being able to provide our customers with locally produced products," said Andrei. "During the last 15 years, we have been proud of our collaborative partnerships with our suppliers and this grand opening marks the continuationof our commitment." There are more than 50 suppliers servicing Wal- Mart in the Fresno area. In 2005, Wal-Mart Sbmes Inc. spent $20 billion for merchandiseand services with suppliers in the state of California, As a result of Wal -Mart's relationshIpwith these suppliers, Wal-Mart supports 248,000 supplier jobs in the state. Morethan $46,000 in Total Donations to Help Area Organizations An additional $25,000 was provided through Wal-Mart for this particularstore opening, in light of matching grants contributed through the efforts of Wal-Mart associates In California through Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program. I n addition, the store is providing $21,000 in grants, totaling $46,000 to local organizations this week. As with all Wal-Mart stores, the Hanford Wal-Mart Supercenter will have a budgetto support community organizations throughout the year. Organizations Interested in receiving funding or learning about matching grants can contactthe store for details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening Include: • Big Brothers Big Sisters Foundation • Church of the Savior "Hanford Soup Kitchen" http://www.wahrartfacts.caiVarticles/1592.aspac 9/15/2007 MIMa tFacts - Ml-MgrtC13em Second Local Supercenter This Month Page 2 of 4 • City of Hanford Fire Department • Cily of Hanford • City of Hanford Police Department • City of Hanford Recreation Department • Corcoran Emergency Aid • Hanford Conference and Visitor Agency • Kings Ca Commission on Aging • United Cerebral Palsy Association • Visalia Y1V1C'A Grand Opening Celebration Details Associate Raesanne Smith will perform the national anthem and membersof the Lemoore Naval Air Station Color Guard will presentthe colors during the 7:30 a.m. grand opening ceremony. Eighteen associates, whc have worked at the Hanford store since its original grand opening in 1991, will cut the ribbon to the new store. HanfordGty Managerlan Reynolds, Hanford Fire Chief Timothy Jeronimo, Chief of Police Carlos Metas, members of the Hanford Visitors Center and the Hanford City Counal, along with other local dignitaries, will attend the ceremony. Numerous activities are scheduled for the grand opening event including an autograph signing and appearance by Ultimate Fighter Chuck Uddel, a M SCARsimulator and character appearances by Chester Cheetah, the Coca-Cola Polar Bear and the McDonald's Hamburgier. Product samples from Frito Lay, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Pepperidge Farm and Nabisco will be available as well as several give-aways. 275 New Jobs More than 3,500 people applied for the 275 new positions available, bringing the total number employed to 600 associates at the store. The average wage at Wai-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour." 'We were thrilled with the opportunity to provide additionaljobs in our community," said Andrei. "Our associates are proud to serve our customers and look forward to strengthening our great relationship with the city of Hanford." Andrei started as an hourly associate i n 1992 as a toy department sales associate in Fresno. Fifty-five of the Hanford store's associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, and 18 associates have been employed at the store since the original grand opening, added Andrei. Wal-Mart in California EDITORS MOTE: See www.walmartfacts.com for more information about Wal -Martin California. As of March 2006, Wal-Mart employed 69,221 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 14 • Discount Stores: 146 • SAMS CLUBS: 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 n 2005, Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $783.4 million in sales taxes and paid more than $139.7 million in state and local taxes. About Wal-Mart Stores Wal-Mart Stores Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SAMS CLUB locations In the United Slakes. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's securities are listed on the New York and Pacificstock exchanges underthe symbol WMT. More Informationabout Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com. EXMRIS NOTES • An Invitation -only open house for VrPs, Wal-Mart assodates and theirfamilles is scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, from 7p.m. until 9 p.m, Preview tours will be provided. Checks will be presented to representatives of the community organizations this evening. • Wal-Martstore employees are called assodates. hq://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1592.aspx 9/15/2007 wai-mart racts - Wal-Mart Cpens Second Local Supercenter This Nbndi Page 3 of 4 • ComelAndrei, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange forphoto opportunities or preview tours. He can be contactedat 559-589-6701. Statementsand quotes on behalf of Wal-Martshould not be obtained from or attributed to agency employees. *Average wages taken yearly (December 2005). See www. walma#acts.com for more details. FACT SHEET Hanford Wal-MartSupercent+er store Fast Facts • Location: 250 S. 12th St., Hanford, Calif. 209,860 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter; gained additional 84,860 square feet • 7.30 a.m. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, May 17; store Opening 8 am. • Store manager: Comel Andrei Store Features • Features 36 general merchandise departmentsincluding apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full lineof electronics, Tire & Lube Express, McDonald's, one- hour photo lab, Regal Nail salon, Hair Works hair salon, portrait studio, vision center, pharmacy, family fun center, Kerry's Medical Center, Wai-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 22 full-service, 10 express check-out lanes Employment 275 newjobs; 600 total associates; 3,500 applicants The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour." Wal-Mart benefits - availableto full- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large, Wal -Matt also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. Store ManagerCornel Andrei started as an hourly associate in 1992 at a store in Fresno as a toy sales associate. *Average wage taken December2005. S+ae www.walmartfacts.com for details. Charitable Giving * $46,000 in total charitable contributions to 11 area organizations, including: Big Brothers Big Sisters Foundation * Church of the Savior "Hanford Soup Kitchen" City of Hanford Fire Department * City of Hanford * 01y of Hanford Police Oepartment * City of Hanford Recreation Department * Corcoran Emergency Aid * Hanford Conference and Visitor Agencyo Kings Co. Commissionon Aging * United Cerebral Palsy Association * Visalia Y1V1C'A For More Information • Store manager: Cornel Andrei, 559-589-6701 • Wal-Mart Informationonline: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com ittp://www.wahnartfacts.com/articles/1592.aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Wal-Mart Opens Second Local Supercenter This Month Page 4 of > back to top > Security &Privacy 3- Terms of Use 3, Contact Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback ittp://www.walmartfacts.c,om/articles/ 1592.aspx 9/15/2007 TVal-Mal t a a%ltb - vval-1via1L SiPul J %_1VwJl oup-mL:G11Lul LV aduLd111G11ty f 461C 1 Vi Y i .. �•f }, is � �t. t6n'..� ..=P. Shop Careers �i,:;.i i i.`; • ?::;:' 9J13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest =.� Featured Topics Wal-Mart Opens Closest Supercenterto Sacramento ..... .. . b Economic Opportunities a, Employment and Diversity "HolyCowl It's Grand Opening!" Celebrates Local Dalry Producers, Area Suppllers and 655 New a' Merchandising Jobs : Health Care x Financial Results ANTELOPE, Calif., May 17, 2006 The more than 655 associates at the Wal-Mart Supercenteropening " ;• " St •" ore eni.re.1Openi"n '""'" "'""' """"""" ""'•"' this Wednesday, May 17, In Antelope are moo-ving product into position and gearing up for the excitement a Charitable Givs of their grand opening. Celebrating the store's support of local businesses and dairy products, "Holy Cow" w• •.-• �•••• - <• •- -••• will be evident theme of this grand opening, complete with give-aways and costume cow characters! The a More... . • .. ceremony begins just after sunrise at 7.30 am., and the doors open to the publicat 8 a:m• The store is located at 5821 Antelope N. Road. Wal-Mart has more than 12 stores in the Sacramento metro -area, but this will be the closest Supercenter to _................ the city center. El Wal-Mart Media Center Local Economic Impact Already Evident FF Company Overview According to Store Manager Marvin Raps, the store will bring 655 newjobs to the area, which is above F Community Benefits average for a new Wal-Mart store. The Antelope Supercenter holds more than 207,000 square feet of general merchandise and grocery departments. Wal-Mart on the Web r.°r•i crar 'We know that residents have been anticipating this opening, and our associates have worked hard to ( P 9 impressthe communitywlth a terrific new store," said Store Manager Marvin Raps. "While ail Wal-Mart stores feature products from local suppliers, we really wanted to emphasize how important area suppliers are to this Supercenter. We want customers to know that they are supporting California businesses while they shop at our store." state - - - Local California suppliers will be a large part of the celebration, from Berkeley Farms to Crystal dairy products. Because it goes great with milk, an Oreo cookie stacking contest by Nabisco will bejust one of the fun activities for customers of all ages. Free local and dairy -themed product samples, inflatables, i character appearances and other activities will also be at the event. Berkeley Farmsout of the Bay-Areawill have their "chug moblle" on the scene handing out more than 2,000 samples of chocolate milk and orange juice, hard to miss next to their 15 -foot inflatable"Koos Cow." "We're proud to be a supplier of many businesses in this area and are excited to see our relationship continue to grow with Wal-Mart, as this Is our 75th Wal-Mart store to service," said Berkeley Farms General Manager Mike Lasky, "It has been a pleasure working with the managementteam for many weeks to pull together a fun event for Sacramentothat really celebrates with the community;" "Holy Cow" is a cleaning product started by area businessowners Bob and Joni Hilton in Rocklin and will be among the sampling cf local business productsat the grand opening. The productis currently sold in 125 Wal-Mart stores across the state. "We're excited to be working with the store on this grand opening," said Bob Hilton. 'It's a fun way to bring local businesses together, and we think the'Holy Cow' theme is, of course, quite cleverl' There are more than 130 suppliers to Wal-Mart basedjust In the Sacramento area, so the impact indirectly through the retailer has been growing even beforethe arrival of this new Supercenter. I n its last fiscal year, Wal-Mart spent more than $20 billion with suppliers located in the state of California, indirectly supporting more than 248,000 jobs with these California businesses. One -Stop Shopping Conveniences and New Features Boasting many of the latest store features being introduced by new Wal-Mart st=esthis year Including wider aisles and concrete and wood floors, the Supercenteroffers 36 general merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, finejewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, and a full line of electronics, The store also has a full -line of grocery items, including a bakery, a delicatessen, meat, hq://www.walmuffacts.com/arficles/1575.aspx 9/15/2007 Wal-Mart Facts - Wal-Mart Opens Closest Supercenter to Sacramento Page 2 of 4 dairy and fresh produce sections and a frozen food section. It will be open to customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week' and will include 22 full-service and 12 express checkout lanes. Other convenience services include a Tire & Lube Express, a pharmacy, a vision center, a portrait studio, a one-hour photo lab, a McDonald's, a Hair Works hair salon, a branch of Tri -County Bank and a Wal-Mart Connect Center for cellular phone sales. $29,000 Donatedto Help Area Organizations With the goal of giving back locally, the new Antelope Wal-Mart Supercenter will provide donations through Wal -Mart's Good Works community involvement program in celebrationof their grand opening, announcing $29,000 in donations to support local community initiatives. "As the newest partner in the Antelope community, we have aresponsibility and a desire to help make a positive Impact," said Raps. The store will also have a budget to give donations away locally throughout the year. Organizations interested in receiving funding can contact the store for details. Groups receiving donations upon the store's opening include: • American Cancer Society • Citrus Heights Elementary School • Citrus Heights Women's Center • No Linda Union School District • Rotary International • Sacramento County Metropolitan Fire District • Sacramento County Sheriffs Department • Sacramento Medical Foundation • Sacramento Public Library Foundation • Veterans of Foreign Wars Additional Grand Opening Celebration Details sacramento Metro Fire Department Chaplain ward Cockerton will lead the invocation at the 7:30 a,m. grand opening ceremony. Assistant ManagerAmy Felton and her daughterEmily Krauswill performthe national anthem and Keith Weber of the Antelope Chamberof Commerce will cut the ribbon to the new store. Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars will presentthe colors. Other activities planned during the grand opening event include a performance by Center High School band member Duane Anderson as well as productsamples, character appearances and giveaways. Wal-Mart in California As of March2006, Wal-Mart employed 69,221 associates and owned and operated the following facilities in the state of California: • Supercenters: 14 • Discount Stores: 146 • SANIS CLUBS.' 35 • Distribution Centers: 9 n2005, Wal-Mart collected on behalfof the state of California morethan $783.4 million In sales taxes and paid more than $139.7 million in state and local taxes. EDITORS N07E: See www. walmartfacts. cam for morelnforrnation about Wal -Martin Californle. About Waf-Matt Stores Wal-Mart Stores Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and SM/1S CLUB locations in the United States. Internationally, the company operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company's mare listed on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT. More information about Wal- Mart can be found by visiting www.walmartfacts.com. Online merchandise sales are available at www.walmart.com. EDITOR'S NOTES An Invltadon-only open house farVrft Wal -Matt assodates and theirfamilles is scheduled forMonday, May 15, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. Preview tours will be provided. Checks will be presented to hV://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/1575.aspx 9/15/2007 ww-mart racrs- way -mart opens closest supercenter to Sacramento rage.3 014 representatives of the community organizationsthis evening. Reporters and photographersare welcome. • Wal-Mart store employees are called associates. • Marvin Raps, store manager, can provide details about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunities or previewtours. He can be contactedat 916-729-6162. *Average wages taken yearly (December 2005). Ste www. walmartfacts.com for more details. FACTSHEET Antelope Wal-Mart Supercenter store Fast Facts • Location: 5821 Antelope N. Road, Antelope, Calif. • 207,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • 7:30 am. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, May 17; store opening 8 a.m. • Store manager: Marvin Raps Store Features • Features 36 general merchandise departments including apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, a lawn and garden center, health and beauty aids, full line of electronics, Tire & Lube Express, pharmacy, vision center, portrait studio, one-hour photo lab, McDonald's, Hair Works hair salon, Tri -County Bank branch, Wal-Mart Connect Center • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • 22 full-service, 12 express check-out lanes Employment • 655 new jobs; more than 1,100applicants • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.50 per hour.* • Approximately 76 percent of Wal-Mart store managers started as hourly associates. • Wal-Mart benefits - availableto full- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wai-Mart offers a choice of as many as 18 health plans that cost as little as $11 a month in some areas. Both full and part-time Wal-Mart associates are eligible for healthcare benefits. Wal- Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributes or not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. *Average wage taken December2005. See www. walmattfacts.com for details. Charitable Giving * $29,000 i n charitable contributions to 10 area organizations, including: American Cancer Society * C i s Heights Elementary School * Citrus Heights Women's Center * Rio Unda Union School District * Rotary International * Sacramento County Metropolitan Fire District * Sacramento County Sheriffs Department * Sacramento Medical Foundation * Sacramento Public Library Foundation * Veterans of Foreign Wars For More Information • Store manager: Marvin Raps, 916-729-6162 • Wal-Mart information online: www.walmartfacts.com; merchandisesales: www.walmart.com http://www.walmartfacts.conVarticies/ 1575.aspx 911512007 Wal-Mart Facts - Wal-Mart Opens Closest Supereenterto Sacramento Page 4 of 4 > back to top > security & Privacy > Terms of Use > Contact .. ...... .... ... ........ Web services by Rockfish Interactive) Website Feedback hV://www.walmuffac,ts.com/articles/1575.aspx 9/15/2007 rvat-tvaatt a•avw - vv cat oat;tatttellty ou1.►eiwittel %.ateib to 1,,u1tuteu1y Ltvvtae %,vituitututy S ! � hop y 9/13/2007 Wal-Mart Donates $4 Million to America's Second Harvest 7. 0 Featured Topics sEconomicOpporturiifies ... ......... .............. it Employmentand Diversity ................. . . .. .. .. . . r. Merchandising Health Care t Financial Results ........................ t Store Openings h Charitable Giving ........... '...,More .. . ..:. ............... . c,...,..,..,. S. Wal-Mart Media Center 1,.+. Company Overview rYi Community Benefits F) Wal-Mart on the Web r agv t vi -r Careers West Sacramento Supercenter Caters to Culturally Diverse Community Store provides 650 newjobs; supports teens and education with $28,000 in Initial community donations WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 5 2007 - California's largest Wal-Mart Supercenter will bring more than new shopping opportu nities to the residents of West Sacramento. At the Wednesday, June 13, grand opening ceremony, Community members can also celebrate the estimated 650 new jobs planned for the store. The Supercenter merchandise will reflectthe diverse shopping needs of area residents, as the floor plan will include expanded shelf space for Hispanic, Asian and Eastern European food sections. During the grand opening festivities, associates of the West Sacramento Supercenter along with local dignitaries will share what the store means to community, including an initial $28,000 in donations to local organizations with several large grants given to help support local teenagers and education. The grand opening ceremony begins at 7:30 a.m. and doors open at 8 a.m. The store is located 755 River Point Court near the intersectionof Interstate 80 at Reed Ave. Job Impact in California According to Store Manager David Pressly, the neer Supercenter has received a great responsefrom area residents who have applied and has received nearly 2,400 applications. 'We were pleased with the number of applications we have received," Pressly said. "Our associates are excited to serve our customers and we are happy to offer our associates good jobs and opportunities to advance." Seventy-six percent of store managers began their careers as hourly associates. Twelve associates have worked for Wal-Mart for more than 10 years, added Pressly. I State The average wage for full-time hourly associates at Wal-Mart in California is $10.77 per hour." As of April L-`-........ ------------------ 2007, Wal-Mart employed 71,023 associates in the state of California. Including the newest Wal-Mart Supercenter In West Sacramento, the company currently owns and operatesthe following facilities in the state: • Supercenters: 24 • Discount Stores: 144 • Sam's dubs: 37 • Distribution Centers: 9 Store Debuts Latest in Wal-Mart Features The 237,000 square -foot West Sacramento Supercenterwas artfully designed with a modem, unique exterior. Created from a combination of stainless steel and "wooden -look" concrete planks, the facade features towers, steel sculptures over entrance walkways and extensive landscaping with an abundance of newly planted uses. As a store of the community, approximately 20 languages are spoken by store associates, there is navigational signage to guide shoppers easily through the merchandise departments and expanded shelf space for Eastern European, Hispanic and Asian food offerings throughout the store. For one-stop shopping convenience, the West Sacramento Wal-Mart Supercenter has nearly 80,000 square feet devoted to grocery Items, including a bakery, a delicatessen, meat, dairy and fresh produce sections, an assortment of organic selections, and a frozen food section. I n addition, shoppers will find an expanded electronics department stocked with ft latest MP3 players, DVD players and other popular items such as high-deflnitlonand plasma teievklons. Family apparel departments will offer Wal -Mart's popular George© clothing line and shoppers wil I also enjoy the wide selection of health and beauty aids, household needs, toys, fine jewelry, shoes and an expanded lawn and garden center. Customers will also appreciate the Supercenter's wide aisles, low shelving displays, concrete flooring for environmentally -friendly maintenance, energy-efficientfreezer and refrigerator dairy cases that keep foods colder and use less energy, LED lighting, daylight harvesting sky -lights. In addition to Wal -Mart's many hq://www.wahnardacti.com/articles/5096.aspx 911512007 Wal -Man Facts - West Sacramento SupercenterCaters to Culturally Diverse Community Page 2 of 3 products and services, customers will enjoy the convenience of the store's shopping hours -the new Supercenter will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will include 27 full-servicecheck-out lanes, of which eight are express. Other store features include a Tire & Lube Express, a vision center, a pharmacy, a one-hour photo lab and a Wal-Mart Connect Centerfor wireless phonesales. Additional leased space and services include DaVi nail salon, a HairWorks hair salon, a Blimpie restaurant, a branch of Tri Counties bank. ACommitment tx)Community- $28,000 ininrdai GrantstoSupport Local Organizations With the goal of giving back locally, the West Sacramento Wal-Mart Supercenterwill announce a total of $26,000 in donations through Wal -Mart's community involvement program to a numberof organizations. Pressly says that as part of the grand opening celebration, a $pedal $10,000 grant will be given to the Collings SacramentoTeen Center, which will use the donation to help with Its graduation night festivities as well as to help fund the creation of a virtual reality database that teaches students life and financial skills. I n addition, an $6,000 grant will be given to the Washington Unified School District which plans to create two recreational rooms in the localjunior high schools. "As the newest member of the West Sacramento community, we are proud to provide financial support to organ izationsthat are making a positive difference," said Pressly. (Editors note: For a complete list of grant recipients, please see page 3 of this release.) Like all Wal-Mart stores, the West Sacramento Supercenterwill provide grant dollars throughoutthe year to help local groups. Organizations interested in learning more about receiving funding from Wal-Mart or fundraising at Wal-Mart can contact the store for details or go to www.walmaMoundation.org. Grand Opening Celebration Details Local dignitaries including members of the City Council will attend the 7:30 a.m. grand opening ceremony. Store associates will perform the national anthem during the event and Chamber of Commerce representativeswill cut the ribbon to the new Supercenter. Other activities for the grand opening include product samples and giveaways. About Wal-Mart stares Everyweek, morethan 127 million customers visit Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Club locations across America or log on to its oniine store at www.walmart.com. The company and its Foundation are committed to a philosophy of giving back locally. Wal-Mart (NYSE WMT) is proud to support the causes that are important to customers and associates right In their own neighborhoods, and last year gave more than $270 million to local communities in the United Sys. To learn more, visit www.walmarfaCtS.com, www.walmartstores.com, or www.waimsrtfoundation.org. EDITORS NOTES • A special invitation -only open house for VIPs, Wal-Mart associates and their families is scheduled for Monday, June 11, from 6 - 8 p.m. Preview tours will be provided. Reporters and photographers are welcome. FACTSHEET West Sacramento Wat-Mart Supercenter Stone Fast Facts • Location: 755 River Point Court, West Sacramento, Calif. • 237,000 -square -foot Wal-Mart Supercenter • 7:30 a,m. grand opening ceremony, Wednesday, June 13; doors open at 8 a, m. • Store manager. David Pressly Store Features • General merchandise departments include family apparel with an expanded Infant section, a household organization department, health and beauty aids, household needs, expanded electronks department, goys, jewelry and shoes. Other special features: Tire & Lube Express, a vision center, a pharmacy, a one-hour photo lab and a Wal-Mart ConmetCenterfor wireless phone sales. Additional leased space and services include a Quick Health Clinic, DaVi nail salon, a Hair Works hair salon, aBlimple restaurant, a branch of Tri Counties bank. http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/509 9/15/2007 TY41 1VKilt X*4VLJ - VVGJt 0dULQ111G11LV 0UVVZ1GG1RCL %.UtUlJ LV %-ULLUI'itlly IJIVGLSU %-VILULIUl11Ly r48V 3 VL J • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week • Nineteen full-service, eight express check-out lanes Employment • 650 total associates, 2,400 applications • The average wage at Wal-Mart for full-time hourly associates in California is $10.77 per hour." • Wal-Mart benefits- availableto eligiblefull- and part-time associates - include healthcare insurance with no lifetime maximum. Wal-Mart also offers a 401(k) plan and profit sharing contributions, whether an associate contributesor not, store discount cards, performance-based bonuses, discounted stock purchase program and life insurance. *Average wage taken December 2006. See www.walmartfacts.com fordetalls. Charitable Giving $28,000 in charitable contributions to six area organizations: • Collings West Sacramento Teen Center- Campus Life Connection • Explorit Science Center • Friends of Meals on Wheels • Washington Unified Public School District • West Sacramento Friends of the Library • West Sacramento Historical Society For More Information • David Pressly, store manager, can providedetails about the grand opening, offer quotes for interviews and arrange for photo opportunitiesor preview tours. He can be contacted at 916-373-2200. • Wal-Mart information online: wwwmalmartfacts,com; merchandise sales: www.walmart.com > backto top 3, Security & Privacy > Terms of Use Contact Web services by Rockfish Interactive I Website Feedback http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/5096.aspx 9/15/2007 EXHIBIT G ... Printable Version Page 1 o f2 Wal-Mart eyes new store site in Galt By Chris Nichols News -Sentinel Staff' Writer The city may have found its first test case for its proposed "big box ordinance": Wal-Mart. The retail giant applied last week to build a 132,000 square -foot store at Twin Cities Road and Fermoy Way. It's the second Galt site Wal-Mart has eyed in the past two years. They had previously looked at a spot near Boessow Road and Highway 99. Community Development Director Curt Campion said Thursday night any big box rules — if eventually approved by the City Council —will likely apply to Wal -Mart's new application. "I believe it will," he said during a break at the Galt Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners delayed their review of the proposed ordinance, which would ban stores larger than 140,000 square feet that include more than 10 percent of their retail space to non-taxable goods. The proposed rules would require stores from 100,000 to 139,999 square feet to obtain a conditional use permit. Studies on the project's effect on crime, urban decay, the economy and its general compatibility within a neighborhood would be required before a vote on the permit. Commissioners wanted more time for themselves and the public to review the rules. They'll consider them again at their Sept. 27 meeting at 9 a.m. The City Council will vote on the ordinance later this fall. Commissioners and several members of the public were mixed on whether to limit future big box stores. For Donna Healey, having a Wal-Mart nearby would be a big help. "I think with the right planning, it could be a very big benefit to the community," said Healey, a Galt resident and mYther of two young daughters. Galt's proposed big box rules ata glanc • Would ban stores larger than 140,000 square feet that include more than 10 percent of tieir retail space to non- taxable goods. • Would require stores fwn I00,00Oto 139,999 square feet to obtain a conditional use permit. Studies on the project's effect on crime, urban decay, the economy and its general compatibility within a neighborhood would be required before She added that it's difficult driving out of town every time she needs a new pair of socks for her kids. "We take all of as money somewhere else, except for groceries," she added. Wa+kwtspokesmanAaron Rios told Commissioners the stoze would create htip://www.lodinews.com/articies/2007/09/14/news/1_wal-mart 070914.prt 9/14/2007 Printable Version Page 2 of 2 a vote on the permit. 450 jobs, at an average wage of $11.30 Source: Cites cf Galt. per hour. He noted workers would be eligible for benefits, bonuses, vacation time, childcare discounts and other perks. "These are great jobs," he added. CommissionerEugene Davenport, who has previously formed a committee to stop big box stores, said Galt isn't prepared for this kind of retail growth. "Those roads are not ready for this and the community is not ready for ttas," he said. He said Galt retail stores should be limited to less #m 100,000 square feet. Commissioner Lori Heuer said she realizes many residents want big box stores, but also feels they should be evaluated carefully. "I think we do need to look at the effect retail establishments have," she said. http://www.lodinews-conL/articles/2007/09/14/news/1—wal-mart 070914.prt 9/14/2007 1 *461 oulloollsoll DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CITY CENTER II .MIXED-USE PROJECT SCH No. 2006051146 VOLUME I Prepared for: Glendale Redevelopment Agency 633 East Broadway, Room 201 Glendale, California 91206-4387 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite A Camarillo,_California 93012 SEPTEMBER 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CITY CENTER II MAXED -USE PROJECT Sch#2006051146 Volume I Prepared for: Glendale Redevelopment Agency 633 East Broadway, Roan 201 Glendale, California 91206-4387 Preparedby: . LnpactSciences,1nc. 803Camarillo SpringsRoad, SuiteA Camarillo, California 93012 September2007 TABLE CI' CONTENTS VOLUME I 1.0 ..................................................................................................................................1.0-1 2.0 SUMMARY _ - ...........2.0.1 3.0 PROJEC11DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................... 3.0-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 4.0-1 4.1 Land Use and Planning.............................................................. _............................................. 4.1-1 4.2 Population and Housing............................................................................................................ 4.2-1 4.3 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.4 Traffic, Circulation and Parldng............................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.5 Air Quality................................................................................................................................... 4.51 4.6 Noise............................................................................................................................................. 4.6-1 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.8 Hydrologyand Water Quality.................................................................................................. 4.8-1 4.9 Public Services............................................................................................................................ 4.9-1 4.9.1 Fire PbDtactimand Emergency MedicalServices...............................................A.9.1-1 4.9.2 rd iae Protection.........................................................................................................4.9.2-1 4.9.3 Schools.........................................................................................................................4.9.3.1 4.10 10 and Service Systems...................................................................................................4.10-1 4.10.1 Water Service ... ....................................................................................... .............. 4.10.1-1 4.10.2 Sewer..............................._.........................................................................................4.10.2-1 4.10.3 Solid Waste— --- — ---- ..............................................................4.10.3-1 4.11 Recreation...................................................................................................................................4.11-1. 5.0 SIGNIRCANTIRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ............................................... 6.0 GROWTHINDUCEMENT ........ ..... ............................................................................. 6.0.1 7.0 ALTERNATIVES . ............... _..................... ...... _......................... _.................... 7.0-1 8.0 LMr OF EIR PREPARERS....................................................................................................................8.0-1 9.0 REFERENCFSAND PERSONS CONSULTED ..................9.0.1 Impaet 8o mm, Inc. i City Cmta It Mlxad Use Profid Dr* EIR 849-01 Seplen*a 2007 4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the potential population and housing impacts of the Project on the City of Glendale. Information used in this section wasobtained from the Southern CaliforniaAssociation d Governments(SCAG). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING As discussed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, the City of Glendale is located within the planning area of SCAG, the lead planning agency for the Southern California region. SCAG consists of local governments from Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties. To facilitate regional planning efforts, the planning area cf SCAG is further divided into 13 subregions. Glendale is located in the Arroyo-Verdugo Subregion, which also includes the cities of Burbank, La Canada-Flintridge, and the unincorporated communities of La Crescenta and Montrose. One of SCAG`s primary functions is to forecast population, housing, and employment growth for each region, subregion, and city. The latest forecast was completed in 2004 as part of the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. As indicated in Table 4.2-1, SCAG Demographic Projections, both the Arroyo-Verdugo Subregion and the City of Glendale are predicted to undergo sustained growth through the year 2030. Population in the subregion is predicted to increase by 62,130 persons, while the housing stock is projected to increase by 23,109 uritis. Employment opportunities are also predicted to increase by 69,389 jobs. The City is predicted to increase by 26,908 persons, while the housing stock is projected to increase by 9,598 units. Employment opportunities are also predicted to increase by 27,527 jobs. Table 4.2-1 SCAG DemographicProjections Avoyo-Verdugo Sttregion Population 335,438 352,677 360,042 369,816 379,461 388,706 397,568 62,130(19%) Housing 127,481 129,327 133,127 137,454 141,860 146,230 150,590 23,109(18%) Employment 210,848 203,652 222,135 235,640 248,534 26Q336 271,237 69,389 (34%) City of GLercUio Population 195,781 204,435 207,182 211,220 215,207 219,028 222,689 26,906 (141/6) Housing 71,806 72,620 74,095 75,896 77,738 79,569 81404 9,568(13-/.) Employment 85,715 86,136 90,471 96,573 102,469 108,004 113,242 27327(32%) Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan, April 2004. 1"t Sdtmm, Inc. 4.2-1 COCenter Q Mired -use Project UV 8IR 849-01 Sgftnd r 2007 4.2 Population and Housing REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A number cf goals and policies set forth by Glendale's General Plan relate to population and housing growth. An analysis of the consistencyof these applicablegoals and policies with the Project is provided in Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning. As discussed in 9ectim 4.1, the Project does not conflict with applicable General Plan goals and policies related to population and housing growth. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to population and housing are contained in the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Impacts related to population and housing are considered significantif the project would: • Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction cf replacement housing elsewhere (issue is addressed within Appendix LOW of this Draft EIR), • Displace substantial numbers cf people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (issue is addressed within Appendix LOW of this Draft EIR). Impact Analysis Each applicable threshold of significance is IisbEd below followed by analysis cE the significance cf my po6aztial impacts and the identification of mitigation measures that would lessen or avoid potential impacts. Finally, the significance of potential impacts after implementation of all identified mitigation n esmes is presented. Threshold: Induce sbstantial population growth in an area, either dimctly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure) . Impact Analysis: As proposed, the Project would include 184 residential units, a 172 -room hotel, and 4,089 square feet of retail commercial space. Based on a mix of 67 one -bedroom and 117 two-bedroom units and an average household size of 1.5 persons per one -bedroom unit and 2S persons per two - Impact Sciences, Inc. 42-2 City Center If Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR "M September 2007 4.2 Population and Housing bedroom unitl, the residential component of the Project would most likely generate approximately 393 residents (67 units x 1.5 persons per household + 117 units x 25 persons per household). Based on 3.0 employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial space and 0.8 employees for every hotel room, the direct employment growth of the Project would be 150 employees (4,089 square feet x 3.0 employees/1,000 square feet + 172 hotel rooms x 0.8 employees). Applying a 24 percent ratio (which is the percent cf existing employee that work and reside in the City cf Glendale),2 the employment positions would result in 36 of these new employees residing in the City of Glendale. if it is conservativelyassumed that each cf the new employees forms a single household in the City, these households could indirectly add approximately 101 additional residents to the City (36 households x 2.8 persons per household)3. Overall, the increase in population cf 393 people that would be associated with the proposed residential units and the possible additional 'increase in population of 101 people associated with employment opportunities provided by the Project would result in a total population increase of 494 new residents to the City. When the population increase from the Project is added to the 2007 Arroyo-Verdugo Subregional population of 355,623, the resulting population for the year 2010 is approximately 356,234 persons. In addition, when housing and employmentestimates associated with development cf the Project are added to 2007 Arroyo-Verdugo Subregional housing and employment figures, the resulting housing and employment figures are 131,134 housing units and 211,054 jdbs. All cf these demographic increases are well within 2010Arroyo-Verdugo Subregionalprojections. The 2007 State Department cE Finance January population estimate for Glendale is 207,1574 When the estimated population increase from the Project is added to the January 2007 population estimate for the City of Glendale, the resulting total population for the City is 207,766 residents. Th addition, when the 1 Population generation rates for oats were provided by the applicant and represent a rmm conservative populationestimate tbanif generation rates were used from the Glendale Downtown 43edfic PLM. 2 The Hajact would generate 134 employmentposib=. Based on the existing residence dhaxacteristimcf the work force in Glendale, it is estimated that approximately onequarter cf these employees could re]n to Glendale. Travel time -to -work data collected by the 2000 U.S, Census irdimties that approximately 21,800 workers in Glendale aged 16 and over conunute less than 15 n*vA es to their places cf employment or work fmn home. It can be assumed that these wt>dees; are employed within the City lints, since it would conceivably take longer tip 15 minutes to commute to jobs located outside Glendale. In 2040, the City cE Glendale had 91,000 employeesbased on the number of resident and non-resident employees reporbed to the State cf California Employment Development Division by firms located in Glendale. In 2000, therefore, approximately 21,800 cF the 91,000 employees working in Glendale resided in the Com, which equates to approximately 24 percent cf the worker population 3 Based on average Citywidehousehold population rate per unit fromiC 193x TMa State Department cf Finance, Er5 City/County Population and HousingFsduates, Januaryl, 2007, May 2007. 4 Based on average Citywidehousehold populationrate per unit from Cdifmnia State Departinentcf Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, Januaryl, 2007, May 2007, Impact Sciences, Ina 4.2$ City Center It Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 849-01 September 2007 4.2 Population and Housing Project's housing and employment increases are added to the 2007 SCAG housing and employment projections for the City of Glendale, the resulting housing and employment figures are 73,497 housing units and 87,879 jobs. While the housing and employment estimates are well within SCAG 2010 projections of 74,095 housing units and 9OA71 jobs for the City of Glendale, the population figure exceeds the SCAG 2010 population projection of207,182 persons. Despite exceeding the SCAG projection, the population increase associated with the Project is not considered substantial, as the increase would amount to less than a 1 percent increase in population growth. In addition, the population growth and related demand on public services associated with the Project have been assessed in Section 4.9, Public Services, of this IM In this manner, the projected population increase already has been assessed and the increase in population is not considered substantial. Importantly, the growth associated with the Project is also accounted for in the Downtown SpecificPlan (adopted November 2006). To ensure consistencybetween the Downtown Specific Plan and the City of Glendale General Plan, the General Plan would be amended to include new population projections as part of the proposed adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. The City will now submit the new growth projections to SLAG for incorporation into its new population projections, resulting in revisions to the RTP, which is to be updated in 2007. In other words, the demographic projections contained within the RTP are based on a "bottom-up" approach in which local agencies generate the projections that provide the basic framework for SCAG analysis. The Project's population generation would be consistent with the City's General Plan, upon Bch the SCAG population forecast is based. Therefore, after demographic projections are updated, the Project would be even further below future SCAG projections. As a result, impacts associated with population growth would be less than significant. Level cf Significance Before Mitigation; Less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Level cf Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Cumulative Impacts The followirV cumulative analysis evaluates the impact cE the Project and related projects on population in the City of Glendale. The applicable threshold is listed below in bold, followed by an analysis of the cumulative impact of the Project and related projects and their potential significance. Impact Sdasm, Im:. 4.2-4 City Carta II MW -Un Pmjcct Draft EIR 849-01 Scpkmba 2007 4.2 Population and Housing 77treshold. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of mads or other infrastructure). Impact Analysis: Related projects would result in development of an additional 2,641 residential units consisting of one, two, and three bedroom units. Based on an average Citywide household size of 2.8 persons,5 these units would directly add 7,395 people to the population of City of Glendale. Related projects would also generate 4,507 employment positions. The number of employment positions generated by related projects is listed in Table 4,2.2, Employment Generation of Citywide Projects. The Project, together with related projects, would directly add 7,788 people to the population of the City. The Project and related projects would also generate 4,657 employmentpositions. Applying a 24 percent ratio (which is the percent of existing employee that work and reside in the City of Glendale), the employment positions would result in 1,118 of these new employees residing in Glendale. F it is conservatively assumed that each of the new employees forms a single household in the City, these households could indirectly add approximately 3,]30 additional residents to the City (1,118 households x 2.8 persons per household). Overall, the increase in population of 7,788 people that would be associated with the proposed residential units and related projects and the possible additional increase in population of 3,130 people associated with employment opportunities provided by the Project and related projects would result in a total population increase of 10,918new residents to the City. Table 4,2-2 Employment Generation of Citywide Projects MW Retail 631,649 sf 3.0 Etnployees/ksf 1,895 office 348,146 sf 4.44 Employees/ksf 11550 Hotel 870rooms 0.8 Employees/room 696 Banquet Hall 5 5 msf 2.02 Employeeslksf 111 Cinema 70,000 of 2.8 Employees/ksf 140 Nil 38,900 sf 2.02 Employees/ksf 78 Industrial 5,308 sf 3.0 Employees/ksf 16 Camiunity Center 10,600 sf 2.0, Employees/ksf 21 T -til 4,507 Source: Impact Sciences Inc Employment Factors bused on based on SoudiemCalifornia Association of Governments' Foreeastand Los Angeles Central Business District Database. 2 General Employment Factor sf— square fleet• ksf - thousand/kilo squarefeet 5 California State Department cf Fir>anoe, Er5 City/County Rpulatiai and Housing Estimates, January 1,2007, May 2007. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-5 City Center it Mizat-Use Project Draft Eat 848-01 September 2007 4.2 Population and Housing According to SCAG's regional growth forecasts, Glendale's population is projected to increase by approximately 1,650between 2007 and 2010. The Project, together with related projects, could 'increase the City's population by approximately 10,918 residents. The population growth associated with the Pmject and related projects is considered substantial, as the amount cf growth projected for the City would be exceeded, and is considered to be significant. To ensure consistency between the related projects and the General Plan, the General Plan would be amended to include newly proposed population projections. After the General Plan is amended, new growth projections would be formulated by the City and submitted to SCAG for incorporation into new population projections. This would result in ns sicrz to the RTP, which is to be updated in 2007. In other words, the demographic projections contained within the RTP are based on a "bottom-up" approach in which local agencies generate the projections that provide the basic framework for SLAG analysis. In this manner, the related project and the Project's population projections would eventuallybe consistent with the City's General Plan, upon which the SCAG population forecast is based. In the interim, the Project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable and result in a significantimpact due to increasing growth over the SCAG projections. Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation exists. Level of Significance after Mitigation; Significantand unavoidable. Iff"d SdmM, Inc. 4.2.6 CkfCmier It Mind -U09 Projed Draft EIR 849-0I SWIvidwa 2W7 . 4 EXHIBIT I 91 1 1 Il 1 S "-A % -L IM- AC- -TR.--E..'..ORT SCH #89020206. m 1", I :- Wty q Draft Bovir6um MI' TWOM Report Prepared -far: 221 City of Street IA -41 CA 95241-1910 209/333--671.1 Contact: 1ames B. Schmeder Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates; Inc. 1725 - 23rd Street, Suite 100 Saminenta, CA 95816 916/444-1638 Contact: Debra D. Loh Mth contributions from: J. Laurence Mintior & Associates TJKM Pepper Associates April 1990 r PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN (2007): IMPACTS AND MMOATION MEASURES 1 ' Water Supply Increased Groundwater Pumping and Overdraft Impact 1?eve menu rovided fiorb the Proposed GP would ate demand for approximately 7.8 MGD of mxnepl water, ocre r a b u t 67 percent more th an current usage. QarxentlX, the City of Lodi uses groundwater as a municipal supply. Because overdraft of the aquifer already exists in the 0? area (resulting in lowering the water table at a rate of between di and 1.75 feet paryear), it is unlikely that future water demands can be met without increased overdraft and saltwater intrusion, unless projected growth occurs in agricultural areas where groundwater pumping is occurring at a rate greater than that required for domestic use. Domestic water demand, however, is estimated to exceed agricultural uses by 2S tittles based on daily evapotranspiration rates (University of California CQo} rative Extension 1987) and cropp coefficients (University of California Agricultural Experiment Statim 1985) for grapes. It was assumed that grapes are currently grown on 100 percent of the agricultural land to be developed; thispercentage is overstated, but was used to account for leaks in the irrigation systems, leaching if required, and variations in crop management Based on these assumptions, the crop water demand was calculated to equal 2636 inches per year percrop and total water demand was calculated to equal 1, 115 trillion gallatis per year. Projected mrdcipal demand is estimated at 2,847 million gallons per year or 255 times the agricultural demand. The 1978 California Water Atlas omtains data indicating that the water demand fmin grapes is 35 acre-feet per acre. Based on these data, the crop water demand kos calculated to equal 42 inches per year per crop, and total water demand was calculated to equal 1,733 million gallonsper year. Projected municipal demand is estimated at 1.61 titres the agricultural demand. The following policies fan the Proposed GP Conservation Element reduce the impacts cf an inadequate water supply, but not to less than significant: o Policy A-4: The Cky shall explore the potential development of surface water sources to augment the (t's groundwater supply. Io RZW A-7, as identified above. o Polity $-1: The City, shall require water conservation in both City operations and private deuelopmcht to minirnize the need for the development of new water sou.rm and Facilities, o Policy B•2: The Chy shall meter all new residential developments. ■ o Policy ;8-3: The City shall develop a program for metering all existing ' residential uses. 12-3 r. F7 1 o Policy B-4: The City shall require water -conserving landscaping practices in City projects and priyaie developments, such as the use of drought -tolerant pl6.nts and irrigation techniques. o Implementation Program 3: The City shall explore the potential use of surl:ace water to augneut the City's water supply. o Implementation Program 5: The City shall adopt a resolution establishing a program for metering all ryes residential uses. o Implementation Program 6 The City shall evaluate the feasibility of retrofitting existing residential uses with water meters. This impact is considered to be significantly adverse. Mitigation Measures o The City should add the following policy to the Proposed GP Policy Document: The City shall provide far an adequate high-quality water supply p ri or to approving future development, Implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. Water Quality 1 Establishment of Nbdmrdsns to Part goy Reduce the Potential for SurfaoaWater Quality Degradatiob Causedby icier ased Runoff, Eftent Discharge, and Recreational Lbe of Lodi Lake and the Mokela mne Riper Impact, Surfaoe water quality could be degraded by increased urban runoff, ' inmeaseddrschvgg of treated effluentand increased recreational use cfLodi Lake and the Mokelumne Ricer. The paving of lond surfaces as provided forby the development allowed under the Prr msed GP wtstild increase urban runaff to the Mokelum ne River and the WID Canal Urban runoff is nortdally nntansihatad with hydrocarbons (oil, gasoline diesel), heavy metals (lead, caidmi4m, nickel), fertilizers, and other immga= and organic chemicals. X increases in sediment load would also occur as a result of erosion related to construction. The increased ;ptjpulataotn levels provided for by the Propmd GP would increase discharge of se qM Vy fretted eMttw from the White Slough Watdr Pollution Control Facility to Dredger Cttt,a tributary to White Slough and the Sana Joaquin Delta. 12.4 r City shall also monitor the presence of pollutants and other variables that could cause harm to U-4 wildlife, and plant species in the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake. The City shall participate in , implementing remedial action as feasible. See also Chapter 14, 'Biological Resources," since this same measure is addressed , in tlris chapter also. Implementation of these measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Minor Reduction in Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Practices ' Impact. Development cf the GP area with urbanized uses mould reduce contamination of groundwater by argiwlturalpractices, The agricultural practice cf leaching is the cause of igmy of the groundwater gzlity problernsin Lodi, Leaching is the process of applying ittigation water to wash accumulated salts from the root zone. As a result of leachin large quantities of nitrate (fertilizer) and organic chemicals (such as DBCP, a pestici +e) also have to be washed fmn the root zone contaminating the aquifers that are the source of Lodi's municipal water supply. Conversion of agricultural lands in the OP area to urban uses would decrease leaching of these contaminants to the aquifer. Although industrial introduce different urban and pollution may contaminants to the soi.]s, the greatly reduced infiltration rates would eliminate a major source of groundwater degradation in the OP area. On a regional context, this reduction is relatively small since the amount of land being converted is minor compared to the surroundingagricultural Iand. ins may be considered a stet-beneficial impact. Mitigation Measures o None are required. Potential for Increased Saltwater Intrusion Impact, The overdraft of groundwater hag caused the infiltration of saltwater from the San Joaquin 13 lta, r-lthoug?b W- t-amara inaW groundwater is not present in the GP area, it can be fwd a fow tnlies west Curreftft the City relies on groundwater for municipal supplies, Increases in municipai demand caused by development allowed under ' the Proposed OP would cause continued overdraft. Continued overdraft of groundwater resultaq in saltwater intrusion is a sign lcant adverse impact. The following policies fm m the Proposed GP Conservation Element reduce the impacts to groundwater quality, but not to less than significant: o Policies A4, A-7, B-1, B-2, &3, and B-4, as identified above o Policy A-5: 'The City shall regularly mo itor water quality in municipal wells for evidence of contariinati6h from OBCP, saltwater intrusion, and other toxic substances that could pose a health hazard to the domesticwater supply. 12-6 0A-6: A-6: The City shall close or treat municipal wells that exceed the acti,rn Leve! for DI. o 4 plcm ntation-fPro�ggr.a�m 2: The CkyshaU monitor water duality in Citywells ' for evidence cf TSBCP, saltwater inbmsim, and other contaminants, and take remedial action as reoessaty. o Implementation Programs 1, 3, 4, S, and 6, as identified above Mltigalion Measures o The Chi should add the following policy to the Proposed GP Policy Document: ' The City sb .0 provide for an adequate high-quality water supplyprior to approving future development. Implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. ' No Development Subject to 140 -Year Flood Hazards Trrpaet. The ovescoverW.g of soils resulting flan development would reduce infiltration rates, th6reby inmeasu g runoff rates. Increased nmaff and the nearly level topography of the GP area could lead to localized flooding. ■ The population provided for by the Proposed GP would not be subject to the 100 - year Mood, and some would not be subject to any flooding. Most areas would be subject to the 500-yeak flood. ' The following policies fnan the Proposed GP Hollh and Safety Element would reduce the impacts of flooding to less than significant- 0 ignifican :o Policy Art: The City shall continue to participate in the Nationai Flood Insurance Pro and ensure that local regulations are in full compliance with stend9rds d pW by FEMA. o Policy. A-2 The City shall ensure that storm drainage facilities are constructed toserve new development adequate to store nmff generated by a 160=year storm. o Policy A-3 The C by shall ensure that stoma drainage facilities are provided for all new develQprrxent to make certain that all surface mooff generated by the development is adequately handled. o Policy A 4 The City shall evaluate the degree of flood protection afforded to currently developed areas compared to standards for new development. 127 EXHIBIT J City of Lodi 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Final Report Prepared by: RM 1'1111,-AM191"I M119*t March, 2006 City of Lodl 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter 3 Water Supply FINAL Chapter 3 Water Supply 3.1 Current Water Supply 3.1.1 Background The City currently uses groundwater as its sole source of supply. The City overlies a portion of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin, which is not currently adjudicated. The groundwater in the Lodi area exists under unconfined and semi -confined conditions. The Mehrten Formation is the most productive fresh water-bearingunit. The City is located within the geomorphic province known as the Central Valley, which is divided into the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley is a large, northwestward - trending, asymmetric structural tmugh that has been filled with several miles of thick sediment (USGS 1986). The City lies within the San Joaquin Hydrologic ffisin (DW-FBulletin 118) which straddles portions of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Sediments of the San Joaquin Valley consist of interlayered gravel, sand, silt, and clay derived from the adjacent mountains and deposited in alluvial - fax, floodplain, flood -basin, lacustrine, and marsh environments. Hydrogeologic units in the San Joaquin Basin includeboth consolidated rocks and unconsolidated deposits. The consolidatedrocks include 1) the Victor Formation, 2) the Laguna Formation, and 3) the Mehrten Formation. The consolidated rocks generally yield small quantities of water to wells except for the Mehrten Formation, which is an important aquifer (DWR), The unconsolidated deposits include) continental deposits, 2) lacustrine and marsh deposits), 3) older alluvium, 4) younger alluvium, and 5) flood -basin deposits. The continental deposits and older alluvium are the main water-yieldingur its in the unconsolidated deposits. Groundwater flow direction is generally toward the south in agreement v,&h the regional groundwater flow gradientbut may vary from south-southwesttp south-southeast with local gradients likely influenced by pumping form municipal supply wells. Pumping tests on municipal wells indicate that they possess a large capture zone, and thus have a large influence upon groundwater flow. Pumping of municipal supply wells in the City is performed between 100 and 500 feetbelow ground surface (Geomatrix, 200}6), DWR has declared that the groundwaterbasin underlying Easter San Joaquin County is overdraited, and groundwater levels in the County and the City are generally decreasing. The groundwater levels also fluctuate over time depending on precipitation, aquifer recharge, and pumping demands. Groundwater elevations relative to mean sea level (MSL), and the corresponding annual precipitation from 1927 through 2004 are shown in Ftgure 3-1, Overall, the average annual decrease in groundwater levels from 1927 to 2004 has been 0.39 feet per year. Generally, groundwater elevations have decreased with the increase in population and water production. However, annual rainfall also influences groundwater elevation. The groundwater level increase fan 1981 to 1984 can be partially attributedto the increase in annual rainfall fan 1981 to 198.3. Groundwater elevations for the years 1927 to 1961 were obtained from East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) for the City's 12 square mile area, Groundwater elevationdata fm 1962 to the presentwere ftained from the City's Publics Department for Well No. 2, one of the oldest production wells in the City. March 2006 3-1 City o.IlLodl 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter3 Water Supply FINAL Figure 3-1: Historical GroundwaterElavation M, 30 as 20 io -10 t915 19b5 Im t9sl . . . ....... . ........ ..... . . .... I . . . . ........ Source: City of Lodi Public Works Deparfinent 19" 1975 Igo Im 2OD6 ..... . .......... .......... ... ..... . March 2000 3.2 City of Lodi 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter3 FINAL 3.1.2 Water Supply Facilities The Utility operates 26 groundwater production wells. The locations of the wells are presented in Figure 3-2 and discussed in further detail below. Figure 3-2: Well Locations and Storage Facilities F 4 A �,...._� ti„ Y I 17 R ' cr 2 a PaUilli011 ly`OmO� �r i A — _...._ wen Loeallons O aY..w.avvwr and a zW .,neo stor"a fto w" -w 3.1.3 Current Groundwater Supply The 26 wells that currently provide water to the City have a combined capacity of 35,210 gallons per minute (gpm), cr 50.7 million gallons per day (mgd), The wells operate automatically on water pressure demand and pump directly ift the distribution system. All wells are equipped to provide emergency chlorination as needed Historically, water has not required chlorination. Stix wells are equipped with granular activated carbon (GAC) for the removal of ditrromochioropropane (DBCP), Capacity information for the existing wells is summartmd in Table 3-1. March2000 3-3 CityolLodl 2405 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter3 Water Sunnly FINAL Table 3-1: Groundwater Well Capacity I 1,130 1.8 — _ 2 _ �j 3R -820 - _.._1.2 --- 4W 1,980 --•- --..1 •--�--...__-1.7 i 2.8 ___. 5 180 OR i 1,580 2.3 7 9 I — 900—��1.3 -- 10C 11R- 1,320 -1.9 --- - 12 - 80_0 -Y 1.2 - 13--- _ 14 11670 i 2.4 --..._._.15.._.._.._ Ij..._.. x,500 .... -. ... __....__2.2............. 17 1,800 :.._ 2.6 ....._...........:....................... .... _..... 18' 1,800 _.._ 2.6 19 1,110 ^- 1.f 20° 2,070 3.0 2.050 _.21 _ 2Y ............. _...__... _.......-.3.0 ? 1,400 ........ 2.0 23 1,410 24_...._._....d...- } 42.0 2.0 25 _....__._�........._... -7.420 i1,580 ....--.........2.3........._...... ........... _....__ 26 ..... ---- -_ ...__.._. 1,370 .................... 2.0 Total ! 35,210 50.7 Nontnatm- a Wells equipped with GAC b. Spm a gallons per minute c. mgd- milliongallonsperday Table 3-2 presents them o u nts of groundwaterextractedby the City between 1970and20D4. March 2006 3.4 City of Lodl 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 14,301 j 100% Chapter3 14 ,390_......_..._ ............:.._..__.1 _ W/o _..__.._... 1996 Water Supply 1009/4 16.330 __.. FINAL Table 3-2: Historical GroundwaterProductlon (Guidebook Table 5)° 100% F................._.... _.a..............._ I� 100% 1000..,................_............16,724 Year Groundwater Percent Production, of Total 2001 9 ...............100%........ 17.108 _ 1000/0....— 1970_ ? 11,462 100% 100"/0 _ ,. 2003_ _ _ _ _ 16,185 j 12.303 _..._..,�..__..._.._._.....__._................_ "°"' ...... 1009E ".._._...-•--•-•--•-•-• 1971 2 17,8 8.8..... 100% --r ........-._---- 797 3 12.204 ....,.,. ....., '-1 _._ 19'_.."_........._i.._..•._ 12,002 y 189% n7s............ - .L ....................._..__ .......,.13,807 ...1977 ...... . .............. 9_76 i.. ; T _ 10.578 1978....,._. _.....11,477........T_.............-'1Dl .......... ._..T.._. 1979 1 12,349 tri" ___......._...;...-_.................,.....,.. __.. 12,312 __........__ .......................------_... 100% _1980_ 1981 12,487 _ 100% 1962 11,560 ..100°x. ..... 1983 11,538........__............. 100°4 .. 1984 1 13,997 _ ....... 100% 1905 14,813 100°/. 1986 1b 180 109% 1987 .............15.304.......... . _..- ...... ........... ... - ...... -� _ ,1009'. ................. (__..1989 14.653100% _ 1990 .. ................15,387............... :...._._ 100% 1991 13,313 ; .............................. 1 ............... ..... ....................... 100% .-- --1992 13,985 ._ 1993 1,613. 100% 100% 1994 14,301 j 100% 1995 ::r:r......"'--_,,.....--_......._ 14 ,390_......_..._ ............:.._..__.1 _ W/o _..__.._... 1996 15,102 t 1009/4 16.330 __.. 100% _. _._._ _...._ 1998 14 461 100% F................._.... _.a..............._ _...16!5_x._.........._...... 100% 1000..,................_............16,724 ...... 2001 9 ...............100%........ 17.108 _ 1000/0....— 2002 i 16.641 100"/0 _ ,. 2003_ _ _ _ _ 16,185 _. 100% 2004 17,011 1009E Footnotes: a The term "GuideboolX' refers to the table in1he Guidebookto Assist WaterSuppliers m the Prepmafion cfa 2005 Utbm WatwManagement Plan by DWtt. March 2008 3-5 City of Lod1 2005 Urban Water Management Pia n Chapter 3 Water supply FINAL 3.1A Current Surface Water Supply In May 2003, the City entered into an agreement with Woodbridge Irrigation District (W ID) to purchase 6,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of surface water for a period of 40 years. However, at the time this L WMP was prepared, the City had not yet begun using water from this supply. A copy of the City's agreement with VMD is includedin Appendix D. 3.1.5 Current Recycled Water Supply The City's wastewater dischargepeurdtrequires anagronomic application rate. According to discussions with City staff approximately 2,500 AFY of secondary troated recycled water is currently used, primarily for irrigation m the area surrounding WSWPCF. This represents approximately 35 percent of the total treated wastewater pmdaced at WSWPCF . The City disdtarges the non -irrigation water, treated to Title 22 tertiary standards, to the Delta. The Utility currently lacks the necessary infrastructure to distribute additional recycled water to more of its customers. For a none detailed discussion of the City's recycled water supply, as well as the processes by which it is treated, refer to Chapter 8. 3.1.6 Water Distribution System The City of Lodi's distribution system consists of a 100,000 gallon elevated storage tank, a 1 million gallon (MG) storage facility and pumping station, and the piping system. The 1 M G storage ta-k, located east of Highway 99 on Thurman Street, stores groundwater from an onsite well to meet peak hour demands and fine flows. The 100,000 gallon elevated storage tank is located on htrth Main Street. The storage facilities and their capacities are presented in Table 3-3. Their locations are shown in Figure 3-2. Table 33, Water Storage Facilities Storage Facility Storage Volume, MG Elevated s tank i 0.10 Ground levelstorageiank I 1.00 Total ; 1.10 Distribution mains in the City's piping system range from 14 inches to 2 inches in diameter, and the entire distribution system consists of approximately 225 miles of pipe. The City is in the process of replacing the 2 -inch and 3 -inch diametermains as well as other deficientpipes. A summary of the City s current and planned water supplies is presented in Table 3-5. 3.2 Future Water Supply 3.2.1 Constraints on Existing Supplies The City's current water supply system is oonstrained by 1) the pumping capacity of its currently active wells, and 2) a longer-termredtction in supplydue to the oyerdrafting currently taldng place in the City's groundwater basin, Although the declining groundwater basin is a result of groundwaterextractionby all groundwater pumpers in the a3ma including other cities, agriculture, private well owners, and the City itself, the City plans to reduce its groundwater pumping in the long tam as part of what will have to be a regional effort to stabilize the groundwater balm. A copy of the GBA Groundwater Management Plan is included inAppendlx F. March 2000 3.6 City of Lodi 2005 UlbanWaier Management Plan Chapter Water Supply FINAL 3.2.2 Future GroundwaterSupply The continuing decline of groundwater levels in the aquifer underlying the City means that the sustainable annual groundwater supply available to the City is something less than what is currently extracted. As a member agency of GBA, the City is participating in the development ofpolicies and programs, including groundwater recharge and conjunctive use programs, intended to help eliminate the eastern San Joaquin County groundwater basin overdraft condition. Additionally, the City plans to reduce its overall groundwater pumping in the future, A safe yield of approximately 15,000 AFY (Treadwell and Rollo, 2005) has been estimated for the aquifer servingLodi based on waterbalance calculations (see Appendix C)performed using data primarily from the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Management Plan dvil"thiti(�)ii}t fi or the purposes of this UWMP, 15,000 AFY has been assumed as the amount of groundwater available during all future (post -2005) years. Although rigorous scientific analyses have not been performed, the City projects that some recharge of the groundwater basin will occur as the amount of groundwater pumped annually decreases. This result, however, is contingent on the cooperative efforts of all groundwater uses within the basin, including other cities, agriculture, and private well owners, to reduce groundwater extraction. The City does not expect development of cones of depression, significant changes in direction or amount of groundwater flow, changes in the movement or levels of contaminants, or changes in salinity and/or total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations. The amount of groundwater that is projected to be pumped over the next twenty-five years is presented in Table 3-4, Table 34: Projected Groundwater Pumping (Guidebook Table 7) Footnote: a. Refers to the total supplics shown in Table 3-5. 3.2.3 Future Surface Water Supply As discussed in Section 3.I.4, in May 2003 the City entered into a 40 -year agreement with W!D for 6,000 AFY of surface water from the Mokelumne River. The diversion point has not yet been determined. The City is considering options for implementing this source before 2010. Therefore, 6,000 AFY of treated surface water is included in the supply projections presented in Table 3-5 below. The City is also considering the possibility of obtaining additional surface water supplies from WB), these supplies are not included in Table 3-5, however, as they are not yet considered "firm" supplies. 3.2.4 Future Recycled Water Supply As discussed in Section 3.1.5, the City currently treats approximately 7,200 AFY of wastewater at WSWPCF, of which 2,500 AFY is recycled in the vicinity of WSWPCF. WSWPCF has adequate capacity to treat all wastewater flows to Title 22 standards. The City is in the process of developing a Recycled Water MmAw Plan (RWMP) that will outline additional distribution of this supply to the Utility's c sbmem. For the purposes of this UWMP, all treated w9sh 3sisrproduced at WSWPCF has been t m*m as recycled water supply and is included in Table 3-5 below. The amount of recycled water available increases with time, because as the City's population increases, the amount of wastewater available for reclamation will also increase. For a more detailed discussion of recycled water supply projections, refer to Section 8.6 March 2006 3.7 ii�lirY��i/isT}; Iosailt1�36mc8 ��� rs 3A06paCuovaeafiunwt[U't�urlk' City of Lodi 2005 Urban Water Management Pian Chapter3 Water Supply FINAL Table 3.5: Currentand PlannedWaterSupplles (Guidebook Table 4) Groundwater', AFY 1 17,300 j 15,000 1 15,000 1 15,000 i 15,000 f 15,000 WID Surface Water, AFY 6,000 l 6,000 6,000 ': 6,000 6,000 6,000 Recyded Water °, AFY i 7,200 1 7,700 8,300 8,940 9,630 10,380. ._._..._.._.._....___...___..._..._....- .... .... .......... _._.......�.______._._........_......__....._..._......_.... ...... ........... ........................................._.....}............ ........ ..... .{.-._._.........___.__... T01101`, AFY i 30,500 ! 28,700 29,300 29,900 t 30,600 y 31,400 a. Refer to Section3.2.2 for more information. b. Based on the amara of wastewater treated during 2044, according to City staff. Future recycled water supplies are v rapolated f mthe2004 amount Assumesthatthe permitted capacityof WSWI'CF will be i ncreased as necessary. C. Rounded tonearest hundred. 3.2.5 Planned Water Supply Projects At the present time the City does not have approved plans for any additional water supply projects. The City has participated in the Mokelurrme River Regional Water Storage and Conjunctive Use (MORE WATER) Feasibility Analysis. The MORE WATER project, if approved, would capture unappropriated flows firm, the MokelumneRiver for storage and beneficial use. 3.3 Exchange or Transfer Opportunities The City does not currentlyhave any approved plans to pursue exchange or transfer opportunities. 3.4 Desalinated Water At the present time the City does not foresee any opportunities for the use of desalinatedwater, which includes ocean water, brackish oceanwater, and brackish groundwater, as long-term supplies. 3.5 Wholesale Supplies Since surfacewater will be purchased from WID, WID is considered a wholesale water supplierby DWR As such, the City has provided demand projections to WID for the next 25 years, Similarly, the City has received availability projections fan WID for the same time period. These demand and availability projections are presented in Table 34 and Table 3-7 below. As discussed previously, the City has not yet begun to use this water supply. As stated in the City's contractwith WID, any water not taken by the City during the first three years of tate contract (May 2003 to May 2006) may be "banked" and delivered to the City in subsequent years, provided WID has sufficientwater available. The banked supply may not exceed 18,000 AF. To date, over 16,000 AF of water has been banked. The City has not made any formal plass at this time to use any of its banked supply, in addition to the normal 6,040 AFY. for any of the years shown in the tables below. However, the projected supplies and demands shown below may in crease if and when the City decides to use its banked supply. The magiih.ide and availability of banked supply to be deliveredwill be discussedwith W I D at an appropriatetime(s) m the future. March 2006 3.8 City of Lodi 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Chapter 3 WaterSupply FINAL Table 3-6: Demand Projections for Wholesale Supply a. Subject to change wth WID and City approval. Although the City may take water dcl i veries in excess of 6,000 AFY from its banked"supply, no formai plans to do so have beendevelopedat this time. Table 3-7: Availability Projectionsfrom Wholesale Supplier a. Subject tri change wth WID and City approval. Although the City may take water deliveries in excess of 6,000 AFY fma its "banked"supply. no formal plans to do so have been developedat this time. b. Reliability of WM supply is indicated in the City s contract with WID in Appendix D. Wholesale supply reliability is presented in Chapter 6. Although changes in deliverable volumes of water for future hydrologic scenarios have not been formally predicted at this time, Chapter 6 presents the most restrictive possible cases for the future. March 2006 3.9 EXHIBIT K AGENDA ITEM EP7 AOL CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Receive Background[ nformation on ImplementingWoodbridge Irrigation DistrictSurface Water Program MEETING DATE: March 1,2006 PREPAREDBY PublicWorks Director RECOMMENDEDACTION: That the City Council receive background informationon implementingthe surfacewater treatment program utilizingthe Woodbridge IrrigationDistrict (WID) 6,000 acre-feetcontractual allotment. This materialfs being provided in advance of the March 15,2006 Council meeting atwhioh staffwill request preliminaryapprovals as described. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On several pastoccasions, the Council has received information regardingtheacquisitionand usage of 6,000 acre-feet peryear of Mokelumne Riverwater from WoodbridgeIrrigation District. In May2003, the Cityoontracted with WID to provide untreated surfacewater to Lodifor 40 years. At the September2l, 2004 Shirtsleevemeeting, the Water Supply Options Report was presentedto the Council. & the April 19, 2005 Shirtsleeve meeting, staff again presentedaftemativesfor implementingthe 6,000 acre -feat per year surfacewater supply. On April 20,2005, Council approved hiringa consultant to further study and develop recommendationfor full implementation of the WID surfacewater supply. On June 9, 2005, Councilwas given a copy cEthe WID SurfaceWater Implementation Study, On Novemberl, 2005, Council receiveda presentationfrom the consultant and the recommendationthatthe Ofty goto a conjunctive use water supply system—one that utilizes bothgroundwater andtreated surfacewaterto serve the demandsof Lodi's customers. Overthe course of the pastthree years, a numberof alternatives have been consideredwith the most feasible options being"treat and drink" and "groundwater recharge". Some of the other alternatives studied include: 1)1njectionwe] I recharge, 2) rawwaterIrrigationof parks and schools, 3) recharge pondswithin the City limits, 4) rechargeponds using North San Joaquin Water Conservation District facilities, 5) East Bay Municipal UtilityDlstrict banking, and 6) interimsupplyto Stockton recharge ponds. These altemativeswere ruled art primadlydueto high costs and regulatory uncertainties. At the regional level, City of Lodi has been participatingin severalwater supply activides that will, hopefully, bring additional water suppliestothe City and theodw ageinthe region. Examples includethe Mokelumne RiverWater and PowerAutharfty MORE Project that seeksto capture unappropriatedpeakflows inthe Vokelumne River. Also, Lodils oollat>oratingwith Stockton EastWater District, North San Joaquin Water Conservation DistrictandWID arra pilot -scale recharge project near Micke Grove Park. North San Joaquin Water ConsewationD i irecently passed groundwater rechargeassessmentfor their groundwater rechargeand is evaluating multiple sites in its district, Note that a large part of the City (generalty, the area east of MillsAvenue) iswithin the Districtand paysthis nominalassessment. APPROVED Imo- - 1 BlairKing,ty Manaper J xroarAc ram doc T/2N000 Receive Backgroundlnformation on ImplementingSurfaceWaterTreatment Program lJtilizing Woodbridge Irrigation Distft ContractualAikrtment March 1,2006 Page 2 The recently-oompleted2005 UrbanWater Management Planconciselypresentsthe C i s existingand future water supply vs. demand outlook (seeExhibitA) As shown onExhibttA,the safe long-termyield of the groundwater basin undedyingft C i is estimated at 15,000 acre-feet annually (afa). At present, the City is using 17,300 afa to meetthe demands of existing customers, reflecting a current need for additional water supply and/or conservation. The LANK/Panticipatestimtthrough a combinationcf conservation (the on-going Citywideinstallationof water meters is expectedto conserve approximately2,400 afa uponcompletion)and adding 6,000 afa of WID heated surface wafter, the City's sustainable water supply wiI I meet ar exceed the projectedwater demands up to the year 2029. The C iCouncilwilI be asked to support staffs recommendationto pursuethe "treat and drink" aftemattve on the basis it isthe "highest and best use"of tbeWID water given a numberof factors that are compared below. Cast The estimated constructionocstfor a surfacewater treatmentfacility and associatedfacilities is estimatedto be up to $29.5 million. These oo-sts are inclusive of site acquisition, surfacewater diversion piping, ultrafiltration (without pretreatment)usingmembranetechnoiogy, chlorine disinfection, transmission piping, and storage tanks. 11-ssite mabvedoes eliminatethe need to construct additional wells to serve future demands. The constnactionoa5tfbragroundwater rechargeprogramisestimatedto be$30.3 million. This assumes rechargefield 88 acres in size adjacent to ftWID canal at $300,000 per acre, including site improvementsand pipe appurtenances. Constructionoffive newwells is included in the estimate. These costs are differentfrom offir numbersthat have been discussed i n the past. A comparison of kwmer and currentestimates is providedin Exhibit B. I neither scenario, new development is expected to fund the capital improvements. Operatingand maintenance costs are considerablyhlgherfor the "treatanddrW alternative, when comparedto the recharge option. The changeto current rateswould be an increase of approximatelyl5% (very rough estimate), if the burden was shared City -w de. Benefit Crtteria to evaluate benefitsto the Citycf Lodi and the region Include: 1)diroot benefitto the groundwater resource, 2) long-term water quality, 3) sharing the regional burden, and 4) time of use Each isclisame l below. t Inthe context that thewater demands of exlsttng Lodi are matched bythe safe yield of ttte groundwater resource, the"treatanddrink"aitemattveeliminates further miningof the groundwaterand, thereby, results inthe highest direct benefit to the groundwater basin ourrently serving the City. Groundwater recharge programs have a numbercf inherentlossesinduding evaporation, uptake by plant materials, and capture within the soil column. These losses can be as high as 30 percent, meaning i wvamcwasuftcow"PROWUN M?fww Receive Backgroundlnformationon ImplementingSurFaceWater Treatment Program Utilizing Woodbridge IrdgationDistdctContractualAllotment March 1,2006 Page 3 the process is about 70% eRicient. In addition, the rechargewater, once it reachesthe groundwater, moves away from the Lodi point of use and toward the centra Veastem-County groundwaterdepression. A mapof the County groundwater contours isprovidedin ExhibitC Long -Term Water Quality Lodi has longenjoyed a high qualityof water that is pumped from the groundthrough wells that are clustered in relativelyclose proximityto the Mokelurnne River. Not only hasthe qualityof water been excellent, butthe yield from eachwe0 has been relativelyhi h, with an averageyield of approximately 1,400gailons perminute. Based upon experienceandwater quality informationforareassoutherlyand westerly of the City, newwells inthese areas are expectedto have a higher salinity leveland lower yields. Forthe "treatand drink" alternative, the salinity levels inthe treated surfacewater will be lowerthan levels currentlyfound in the groundwater. Combiningthese two sources for potable usewill result ina loweringof salinity levels in both our drinkingwater and ourwastewater. This providesa long-term tangible benefitto the City as the State is expected to impose limits on salinity for discharges to the Delta. Loweringthe salinity of our "source water" will help avoid very costly improvementsto remove salinity at the wastewater end cf the use cyde. A groundwater recharge programwill essentially not alter the water quality characteristicsof the City's groundwater resource. The "treatand drink" altemativewill result inchlorinationof the entire Citywater system as is requiredby State regulation. Most inthe industryagree that chlorination requirementswillalso be imposed upon all groundwater users i n the foreseeablefuture. Sharinmc the Reaional Burden On a regional basis, the varbus cities and agencies are col laboraflvelyworking to enhancethe supply side of the region's groundwater resource. The groundwater basin Lodi shareswith other agencies and individualpropertyowners is being mined by over 150,000afa. This results in declining water levels in web, which reducesyield, increases pumping costs, and impactswater quality as more saline water is drawn intothe basin, rendering wells unfitfor use. 150,000 afa and more is needed to meet the goalto reverse and stabilize this problem. Ona conceptual level, the principalstrategiestr>achleve this goal include: 1) securing additionalsurfacewater resources, 2) eliminationcr deferral of further groundwater pumping, 3) bankingthrough recharge crdeferral cf pumping, and4) regional recharge. The MORE project was described above. The Stockton Delta Water Supply Project includesa treatment plantthat wiH begin treating 56,000 efe within three years. Lodi`s water treatment plant can begin producing 6,000 afaoftreated drinking water within 4.5 years. A rechargeprogramwoukd provide somewhat less regional benefit by virtue of the losses describedabove. Time of Use Water demands within the C iare highestinthespring, summer and fall. Conversety, the lowest demands are inthe winter. OurWID water isavailablefrom March /through October 15, and this perfectlymatdras our highest demand period. Lodi has secured high quality surface water deliveries that meldwith demands, bothinquantityand intime. To stare suchwater inftgroundduring periodsof peak demandsdoes not make a 4ot of sense. ,i wweleA01*Sud.mWa% PmM dw afmame Receive Background Informationon ImplementingSurfaceWater Treatment Program Utilizing Woodbridge Irrigatlon DistrictContractualAllotment March 1. 2006 Page4 As Is the Stiategyai: manyof the regional recharge programs, excesswater, that usuallybecomes available in the winter months, is diverted to Now fields for percolation. Often times, this water is sediment laden and well suitedfor groundwater recharge. TheCity of Lodi could pursuea similar strategy by diverting storm drainage water to rechargeareasand/or byaltedngdesignsfor new developmentsto incorporaterechargefacilities. At the March 15 meeting, staffwill be requesting0ty Councilapproval to moveforwardwith the "treat anddrink" altemativeandthat the CityCoundl authodzestafftosollott proposalsfor PreliminaryWater Treatment MasterPlanning work requiredto preparepreliminarydesign altemativesand further recommendations. DesignattematNes could includepartnershipswrth other agencies. Among the tasks to be done am: 1. Watershed Assessment 2 Process Evaluationand PilotTesting a Alternative Site Evaluations 4 Cost Estimates 5. FinancingAltematives ra Environmentaland Regulatory Considerations Staff recognizesthatthii recommendationis notwhatwe anticipatedwhen the WID water purchase agreementwas made. Sincethen, a numberoffac k s have madegroundwaterrecharge a less desirablealtemative. Regulatoryrequirementsonrechargeprojects have increased in the lastfew years and, nwst recently, water rightsand undergroundstorage permit requirementsare making recharge projects more uncertaininthelong-run, However, as notedeadier, rechargemay bea viable altemative for the Irregularpeak flows assodated with local sto=and high riverrunoffevents. Dueto the design complexity, regulatoryrequlremsntsand mstof projectsof this nature, majordesign decisionstoday are no longer made unilaterallyby a project team. Instead, a consensus is reached only after participation by members d: the designteam and individuals outsidethe team, including owners, operators, regulatoryagenciesand thegeneralpubRc. Therefore, a processcf measuredsteps, of which thii isthefirst, isour recommendation. FISCALIMPACT: Information only. Noneatthistime. FUNDINGAVAILABLE: Notapplicable Jo. WWd C. OfIllivia.:Ir. PublicWorks Director Pnpsnd by Rkdrard Pfta, PubIC Works DI 9dW and R Walt' SWKW. Cly EnOnOW RCPIFWSW Aftedwnwft J 1W*6W%CmkSm1&C*W8 UFMgMn OOC 201FIam | -- -------� --__-�+__ __-�.___ -_-�-__�---1 �� � EXHIBIT B Comparison of Planning Cost Estimates Surface Water Treatment Plant 2005 2006 Construction of Recharge Basin $593,000 $593,000 Conshucction Contingency 20% $119,000 $119,000 Engineering and Other Fees 16% $89,000 $89,000 Subtotal $801,000 $801000 Purchase Land for Basin $17,600,000 $26,400 000 CEOAINEPA $100,000 $100,000 Water Wells $36,700:0001-1 $3-000,0001M Total $18,501,000 $30,3011,000 Surface Water Treatment Plant 4C I Do The land east for 68 acres is assumed to be $300, 000 per acre compared to $200,000 peracre as reflected in the West Yost Lodi Surface Water ImplementationTM. (MastYost TM) (2) Five new wells are required for the groundwater recharge alternative and the estimated construction antis$600,000 per well cr$3,000,000. Thiscostwas not Ind uded in the West Yost TM. (3) Further research into the type of treatment processes and after visitation to three Northern Cal'rfomla plants, a better planning estimate has been determined to be $20,000,000 for constructing a 10 MGD huhnat plant and associated transmission facilities. (4) The landcost for 5 acres is assumedto be $300,000 per acre, compared to $200,00-0 per acres as reflected i n tris West Yost TM. (5) The West Yost TM presented $50 million numberthat was $36.7 million adjusted to the forecast mid -pant cf construcdon. 2005 2006 Surface Water Treatment Plant and Associated Transmission Facilities $25,700,000 $20,000,0000) Construction Contingency 20% $5,100,000 $4,000,000 Engineering and Other Fees 15% $3,900,000 $3,000,000 Subtotal 34-700000 - x27;000.1100 Purchase Land for Plant 1000 000 $1,500,0001*1 CEOA/NEPA $1 000 000 $1000,000 Total $36,700:0001-1 $29,500,000 4C I Do The land east for 68 acres is assumed to be $300, 000 per acre compared to $200,000 peracre as reflected in the West Yost Lodi Surface Water ImplementationTM. (MastYost TM) (2) Five new wells are required for the groundwater recharge alternative and the estimated construction antis$600,000 per well cr$3,000,000. Thiscostwas not Ind uded in the West Yost TM. (3) Further research into the type of treatment processes and after visitation to three Northern Cal'rfomla plants, a better planning estimate has been determined to be $20,000,000 for constructing a 10 MGD huhnat plant and associated transmission facilities. (4) The landcost for 5 acres is assumedto be $300,000 per acre, compared to $200,00-0 per acres as reflected i n tris West Yost TM. (5) The West Yost TM presented $50 million numberthat was $36.7 million adjusted to the forecast mid -pant cf construcdon. L-!xh-�ft-c Easfrm $an 4OWNin Qroands %trrBa10n GbowdrgWManananmt Plan Fig" ES -2 FaQ 1499 GroundwabrConbxm Source. Caine Dmmw & McKee Inc. Natheasfan San J*Wn OamW ExacidNa Siminmry GnwndivarorBnWftAvrh** ' 7 EXHIBIT L ASSOCIATION FOR SENSIBLE AND INFORMED PLANNING V. CITY OF CLOVIS, CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL, PAYNTER REALTY, ET AL. FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 03 CE CG 01576 (Lead Case consolidated with No. 07 CECG 03817) SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ON RETURN TO WRIT OF MANDATE FOLLOWING THE PREPARATION OF AN EIR (CLOVIS-HERNDON SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT) March 4,2008 VOLUME 1 Nos. IN -CAM 000001 to IN -CAM 000289 Int: R�' _ • - _ r_ WL _ r - . From: David Wolfe Ta Montesinos, Miriam Data 11/30/200611:45 AM Subject: RE: Clovis: ER status CC: Fey, David Hi Miriam, I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving as wet. We metyesterdaywlth Tam Skinner and made it up to the M mabm section. We are meeting tomorrow to review that section. Tom read the latest comment letter you sent to us from September 06 and he is familiar with the issues. Some of the Issues we discussed were the fact that there is no project specific noise study, no energy► coruumption study, and no health risk assessment. Nor has global warming been discussed as you mentioned. We can try and deal with all of those Issues now, or simply maize the document as strong as possible with what we have, waft for the Comment letters to arrive, and build in the possibility of having to do additional studies and possibly recirculating all or a portion of the Draft EIR tf the comment letters matte an adequate record to warrant such. What are your dw4htss? Also, we had a flank discussion with Tam and I think the reality is we (City staff) are going to have to play a major role In completing this document, responses to comments, and any additional studies. So any canned languageor model studies, reports, etc you have, woad be great. Please send anything direcdy bo me, Thanks, Have a great day. ' David David 3. Wolfe LOZANO SMITH Attorneys at Law 7404 N. Spalding Avenue Fresno, CA 93720370 559-431-5M, Dct. 123 dwoifeLIMozanosmith com CONFIDENTWIIY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential Information only for use by the intended redpients, Unlessyou are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the , you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message(or ary information oonlained in or attached do it) to anyone. You may be subject to civil action and/or criminal penalties for violation of this restriction. Ifyou received this transmission i n error, please notify the sender by reply a -map or by telephone at (1100) 4459430 and dere the transmission. Thank YOU. >>> "Montesinos, Miriam' <MMontes1nosGsteefelco > 11/29/200611:46 AM >>> Hi David - A couple of additional thoughts 3e: issues to discus in the DEIR given recent opposition: 1) Global warming - I know this seems far fetched but It has become a OW of disatsslon as of laitie, and we anticipate it will start being raised by opposition forces. We therefore are encouraging MR IN -C" 000152 '( 1/30/2 avi o e- ovist statusP e t consultants to include a discussion re: hav the project would not have significant impacts on global warming, at least so that the issue is discussed and then it can be expanded upon as necessary i n the FEIR If comments are made on that issue. (Otherwise, the opposition might state it is new Informationin the FER) 2) CO hot spot - This Issue has been raised previously by opposition fomes i n various projects. I can try b dig up some prior ETR discussionon the issue If you think that would be helpful, butTan might be famglar enough with the issue b have the necessary Info for a short discussion. I think that's all for now, but will let you know if I think of any additional Issues based upon prior experiences. u p tD now, the tag ones they typk ally hit are traffic, economics, and noise; therefore, he needs to be certain that he has VERY good discussions on those issues. Ha:eCully, he has reviewed the opposition materials we have provided to date and is incorporating discussions as appropriate based upon those documents.. Thank you as ahvays, and I hope you had a great Thaniksgivingi Miriam Miriam Montesinos Atbaney At Law Steefel, Levitt & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tei: (415) 788.0900 Direct: (415) 403-3347 Fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesicom WWW.§tU&I.COM This email, including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subjects o terns, conditions, restrictions and disclaimers that can be reviewed by clicking here. - 01ginal Message ----- From: David Wolfe [maiftaDW01FE01ozanosmith ml Sent Tuesday, November 21, 20061:47 PM To: David E. AICP Fey, Montesinos, Miriam Cc: Dance Payrrier, Davkloff, Judy V. Subject: Re. Clovis: EIR status Miriam, We mettoday and started page by page review. We made it through chapter 2 Air Pollution and wail pick up again on Wednesday November 29th. We blocked out that entire day. Tom will work on revisions mvieured to date prior to the November 29th meeting. David David J. Wolfe LOZANO SMITH AUameys at law 7404 N. Spalding Avenue Fresno, CA 93720-3370 IN -CAN 000153 i 111/30/2006) David Wolfe - bvis: status e �l�ialyn fir.. L�r`.11 PI l�dl CONS NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential Information only for use by the intended recipients. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to mod" messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message (or any information -contained in or attached to it) to anyone. You may be subject to dd action and/or criminal penalties for violation of this restriction. it you received this transmission in error, please ratify the sender.by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 445-9430 and delete the transmission. Thank you. >>> "Montesinos, Miriam" < •11/21/200612:07 P.M HI Fey and Woffe (boo many Davidst) - Just wondering If you'd have a chance tq speak with Skinner and, if so, If he gaveyuu a sense for timing re: tumkmg around the next version - whkfi hopefully will be the Screendreck and will be very dose to berg nerdy for public release. Thank youl Miriam MidamMontesinos Attorney At Law 04 Steele!, Levitt & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, Califomia 94111 Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direct: (415) 403-3347 fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesinos0steefei.com www.steefel.com This email, Including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subject to terms, conditions, restrictions and disclaimers that can be reviewed by clicking here. 0) IN -CAM 000154 lrr 11/30/2 avid oMARME1'. From: "Montesinos, Miriam" <MMontesinos@steefel.com> To: "David Wolfe" <DWOLFE@lozanosmith.com> Date: 11/30/2006 3:00 PM Subject. RE Clovis: EIR status Attachments: PDF File- 3 7 20Utilities_pdt PDF file - WaFMart`-20FEIR 20Sept2006,pdf, PDF File- Wal-Mart 20FEIR 20Sept_2006_pdf CC. "Davidoff, Judy V." <JDavid off@steefel.com> H i David - Thanks so much for your hard work with Tom. We truly do appreciate it as we realize it has timed out to be much harderthan it should! Wth respectto whether to include information in the EIR now or wait to see if it is raised in the DEIR comments and recirculate if necessary, we should include as much information as possible at this point justifying why a project -specific analysis was not necessary and, therefore, not required; that way, in ft FE IR all we need to do is restate that, and not have to wont' about providing new information (hopefully). To that end, I believewe've previously provided possible languageto include re: energy- specifically, why a project -specific analysis was not required per the CEQA Guidelines and therefore Ik not provided, but nonetheless the following information is included... Just in case,I am attaching some examples if energy discussions in EIRs, �^ Regarding global warming, similar to energy, at least some discussion re: the issue and why a project-specificanalysis is not being included should be provided. I'll try to work on something but would like for Tom to take a first stab. With respect to noise, Iguess Idon't understand why he didn't doa project -specific noise analysis- and am song I didn't catch that before. Given he hasn't done one, though, my initial reaction is that he should dearly state in the DEIR why he didn't do a projectspeoiflc analysis' what was his reason for not doing one. A question for Tom i� does he think he can address all the types cf issues raised by the opposition- such as in Santa R s a - without needing to do a project -specific analysis? Short of having the analysis, we would need to have information in there addressingwhy the noise sources they typically bring up (txucks,loud speakers, forklifts, etc.), don't create significant noise Impacts. Also, what did he do for Hanford and is there anyway to incorporatesome of that Information into this DEIR by way of analogy short of having to do a new analysis for this project? As for the health risk assessment, we also need to include a clear d iscussion as to why a quantitative health risk assessmentwas not conducted, and in the discussion Include as much qualitetive information as possible. (can't recall off the top what information he has in there about health risks at this point.) As with noise, what did he do for Hanford? How can headdress issues raised by the opposition for other projectswithout needingto do a project -specific quantitative analysis? IN -CAM 000155 Sony thatthis is going to turn out to be so much work on the C is end, David. Unfortunately, there really seems to be noway around it given Tom's performance to date, though. We are obvious happy to help in any way we can, including providing discussions inpriorElRs, etc. (To that end, I'll try to get something to you by early nextweek an health risk assessment and noise, as well as global warming - although the latter is such a new issue t3kfinding canned languagewill be a cha4enge.) Thank you, Miriam MidamMontesinos Attorney At law Steefel, Levitt & Weiss A ProfessionalCorporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Franolsoo, Califomia 94111 Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direct (415) 403-3347 Fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesinosCsteefel.com www.steefel.com �1 This email, including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subject to terms, conditions, restrictions and disclaimers that can be .reviewedby clicking here. --Original Message ----- From: David Wolfe (maiito:DWOLFE@lozanosmith.comj Sent Thursday, November 30,200611:45 AM To: Montesinos, Miriam Ca David Fey Subject: RE: Clovis: EIRstatus Hi Miriam, I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving as well. We metyesterday with Tom Skinner and made k upto the Altematives section. We are meeting tomorrow to review that section. Tom read the latestcomment letteryou sent to us from September06 and he is familiarwith the issues. Some of the issueswe discussed were the fact that there is no project specific noise study, no energy consumption study, and no health risk assessment Nor has global warming been discussed as you mentioned. We can by and deal with all cf timse issues now, or simply make the document as strong as possiblewith what we have, wait for thecomment letters to amve, and build in the possibility of having Indo additional studies and possibly recirculating all or a portion of the IN -CAM 000156 1-770723050"M w6re - W UoRs: OR statusa e Draft EIR if the comment letters make an adequate record to warrant such. What are your thoughts? Also, we had a frank discussionwith Tom and Ithink the reality is we (City staff are going 1ID have to playa ni jwrole in completing this document, responsesto comments, and any additional studies. So any canned language or model studies, reports, etc you have, would be great Please send anything directly to me. Thanks, Have a great day. David David J. Wolfe LOZANO SMITH Attorneys at Law 7404 N. Spalding Avenue Fresno, CA 93720-3370 559-431-5600, Ext. 123 dwolfe@lozanosmith.com CONFIDEN11AL w NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential informationonly for use by the intended reclplents. Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the address—), you may not use, copy, disclose, ur distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it)to anyone. You maybe subject to civil action and/or criminal penaltiesfor violation of this restriction. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail ur by telephone at (800) 445-9430 and delete the transmission. Thank you. >>> "Montesinos. Miriam"<MMontesinosCsteefet.com> 11/29/200611:46 AM Hi David - A couple of additional thoughts ie: issuesto discuss in the DEIRgiven recent opposition: 1) Global warming - I know this seems far fetched but i t has become a topic of discussion as of late, and we anticipate itwill start being raised by opposWon forces. We therefore are encouraging EIR consultants to include a discussion re: how ft projectwould not have significant impacts on global warming, at least so that the issue is discussed and then it can be expanded upon as necessary in the FEI R 2 comments are made on that issue. (Otherwise, the opposition might state it is new information in the FEIR) IN -CAM 000157 (11/30/2006) David Wolfe - RE: Clovis: EIR status age 4 2) CO hot spot - This Issue has been raised previously by opposition forces invarious projects, I can trytodig up some priorEIR discussion on the issue if you think that would be helpful, but Tom might be familiar enough with the issue to have the necessary info for a short discussion. I think that's all for now, butwE letyou know if I think of any additional issues based upon prior experiences. Up to now, the big ones they typically hit are traffic, economics, and noise; therefore, he needs to be certain that he has VERY good discussionson those issues. Hopefully, he has reviewedtheopposition materialswe have provided to date ,and is incorporating discussions as appropriate based upon those documents. Thank you as always, and I hope you had a great Thanksgiving! Miriam Miriam Montesinos Attorney At Law Steefel, Levitt & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Emberoadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direct: (415) 403-3347 Fax (415) 788-2019 mmontesinos@steefel.com www.steefel.com This email, including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subjectto terms, conditions, restrictions and disclaimers that can be reviewed by clicking here, —Original From: David Wolfe (maiko:D1MOLFEClozenosmith.00mJ Sent Tuesday, November2l, 20061:47 PM To: David E AICP Fey, Monteslnos, Miriam Cc: Dave Paynter, Davidoff, Judy V. Subject Re: Clovis: EIR status Miriam, We met today and started page by page review. We made it through Chapter 2 Air Pollution and will pick up again on Wednesday November 29th. We blocked out that entire day. Tom will work on revisions reviewed to date prior to the November29th meeting. David David J. Wolfe LOZANO SMITH Attorneys at Law 7404 hl Spalding Avenue INCA K 000158 11 % avi MRS - FM ES"Nso: EIR status F@Rtm Fresno, CA 93720-3370 559-431-5600, Ext. 123 dwolfe@lozanosmith.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information only for use by the intended recipients. Unless you are the addressee (or authorizedto receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, disclose, or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone. You may be subject to civil action and/or criminal penalties for violation of this restriction. I f you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 445-9430 and delete the transmission. Thank you. >>> "Montesinos, Miriam" <MMontesinos@steefei-com> 11/21/200612:07 PM H i Fey and Wolfe (too many Davidsl) - Just wondering if you'd have a chance to speak with' Skinner and, if so, if he gave you a sense for timing re: turning around the nextversion which hopefully will be the Screencheck and will be very close to being ready for public release. Thank youl Miriam Miriam Montesinos Attorney At Law Steefel, Levitt & Weiss A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francesco, Califomia94111' Tel: (415) 788-0900 Direct (415) 403-3347 Fax: (415) 788-2019 mmontesinos@steefei.com www.steefel.com This email, including any attachments, and their use by any recipient are subject to t;enw, conditions, restrictionsand disclaimersthat can be reviewed by clicking here. C IN -CAM 000159 Page 1 of 1 Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, December 17,200811:16 AM To: 'jnblocke@sbcglobal.net' Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; Rad Bartlam Subject: RE: Wal -Marts opposition Legal intrigue Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for information, response and/or handling. Randi Johl, City Clerk From: Jim & Betty Mae Locke [mailto:jnblocke@sbcgldml.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 17,2008 10:33 AM Th: Rich Hanner; Marty Weybret; Randi Johl; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Larry Hansen; Phil Katzakian; Susan Hitchcock Subject: RE: Wal -Marts opposition Legal intrigue To Our Honorable City Council and the Lodi News -Sentinel: (just read in the Lodi News -Sentinel that Tracy, which approved a Wal-Mart Supercenter last month, has been sued over claims that its impact studies are incomplete and inaccurate. The City was sued by the same law firm that sued Lodi over this project three years ago as well as on other Wal-Mart projects in several different California cities over the past few years. Interestingly enough, this law firm represented Reynolds Ranch in their dealings with the City, helped them get their approvals quickly and no litigation has been filed. Something is not right here. Iwould feel differently if litigation like this was motivated by local residents but that is clearly not the case in Tracy, Lodi or any of the other cities where this law firm has been active. I f our Lodi elected officials feel that the studies and work done by City Staff and the consultants they have chosen is sufficient then lam personally offended that an outside law firm would file a suit like this. From what Ihave heard, this firm appearsto go from city to city filing lawsuits like this against Wal-Mart projects as though they know what's best. But they don't know what's best for Lodi. t should be up to our elected officials and residents to decide and not for outside groups to turn to the courts to stop Council approved projects because they don't like Wal-Mart. They don't live here. We do and Iwant to have a Supercenter in Lodi. Jim Locke 511 Willow Glen Drive Lodi, CA 95240 368-9009 P.S. Note the name of the organization created to play the "front" (representation) like they are local Tracy people. e.g. Tracy First, quite similar to: Lodi First My, what a coincidence. 12/17/2008