From: Leslie and Jerry Kashiwada
To: Sanchez, Diana
Subject: Re: Comments re Grocery Outlet
Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 1:44:59 PM
Attachments: GOCommentsToCC_06.05.23.docx
I’m not sure why this is happening.
I’m attaching the original word doc.
____________________________
On Jun 6, 2023, at 1:42 PM, Sanchez, Diana <[email protected]> wrote:
This is the error message that appears when I try to open your attachment. <image001.png>
From: Leslie and Jerry Kashiwada <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 10:16 AM
To: Sanchez, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Comments re Grocery Outlet
Thank you for letting me know. I’ve attached it again (after reserving it as a PDF).
Please let me know if it comes through this time.
-Leslie
> On Jun 6, 2023, at 9:22 AM, Sanchez, Diana <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Leslie,
>
> Your attachment is blank. Please resubmit if you would like for it to go in the record. >
> Best,
>
> Diana Sanchez
> Administrative Analyst
> City of Fort Bragg
> 416 N. Franklin Street
> Fort Bragg, CA 95437
> [email protected]
> Fax: 707.961.2802
> Tel: 707.961.2823 ext. 100
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leslie and Jerry Kashiwada <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2023 4:30 PM
> To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
> Subject: Comments re Grocery Outlet
>
> Please find attached my comments about the proposed Grocery Outlet. The most important section of this lengthy letter concerns the proposed alternatives and that section is near the end of the letter. I will address those concerns during my oral comments at tonight’s meeting.
>
> -Leslie
>
Honorable Council Members
This letter was published in the AVA on June 2 concerning the proposed Grocery Outlet (GO) to be located on land currently occupied by the abandoned Social Services Building. Since then, I read the comments sent in after the Planning Commission meeting on May 10, 2023 and included as part of your agenda for this meeting (Att 17 - Public Comments). These comments included a letter from the Law firm Remy Moose Manly LLP (RMM) with rebuttals to concerns expressed by members of the public, some of them directly related to what I wrote below. I am including additional comments in blue based on those rebuttals.
You would think from all the glowing praises of those who support this project that the GO is a nonprofit distributing free food. It is not! Rather, it is a grocery store that offers somewhat cheaper food, alcohol, and other household items, many of which are obtained through opportunistic buying.
Proponents also claim that GO will bring money to the City and more jobs. Note that 20% of GO sales are from alcohol, which is taxed (unprepared food is not), so that might mean more income to the City, but might also increase public drinking. The jobs are non-union, despite what the developers say. I personally know someone who worked for GO in Ukiah in 2021 and, while all the positions were full time, the pay was less than the state minimum ($13/hr instead of $15/hr) and there were no medical benefits. This was because of a loophole in the state requirements that full time employees must receive medical benefits since GO is considered a private businesses as long as it has less than 26 employees. GO Corporate takes 50% of profits out of the business, which means there is a disincentive for the local owners, who make all decisions related to personnel, to pay well and provide benefits. It likely isn’t financially feasible. If GO takes business away from other local grocery stores, it will result in loss of better-paying full time jobs with benefits. These kinds of trade-offs must be considered. Note that $15/hour provides gross monthly pay of about $2690 (before deductions) which is not a living wage in our area. This is a systemic issue, one that transcends this project. However, the known pay for GO means those jobs cannot be characterized as “good paying.”
Regardless, this application isn’t about popular demand. It is about a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which, according to CEQA, should examine potential impacts, using quantifiable thresholds, and suggest mitigations for any that are found to be significant, along with possible alternatives. The bottom line is, if this project deserves to be done, it deserves to be done right.
This project has been reviewed multiple times, so the process may seem complete but numerous issues still remain, and most of them are about location, location, location.
And, while the draft EIR was circulated for public comment as required by law, the responses to those comments in the final EIR consist mostly of hand waving and redirection to the previous studies, and did not substantially address those concerns. I will bring up a few significant concerns in this letter.
Noise
The noise study showed significant impact on the Super 8, with lesser impact on the Seabird Lodge to the north and the Harbor Lite Motel to the south. This was dismissed as not needing mitigation because the Super 8 is visitor serving. There was no indication that any effort was made to contact the owner or to determine if a manager resides onsite who might be impacted by the noise. (Note: The May 31 letter from the law firm, RMM, points out a recently submitted re-analysis of the noise study and introduced new data indicating that, due to required motel construction standards, the noise levels inside the motel would not exceed acceptable limits. I should point out that it is easy to manipulate data to show what you want. In fact, a book was written about it by Darrell Huff in 1954 called Lying With Statistics. That is why it is important to get public input when new data and analyses are introduced to a document like this FEIR.) This motel was recently remodeled with good recent reviews. However, I can imagine visitors will not be happy about being woken up by loud backup beeping of delivery trucks first thing every the morning. Truck fumes could also have a strong negative impact on the Super 8. If I were the owner of the Super 8, I would be very concerned about the impact this project would have on my business. I will point out that the developers got the owners of the immediately surrounding businesses to write letters in favor of this project, including the general manager of the Super 8, Devon Patel. I commend the developers for seeking such input, which should have been provided at a much earlier time. Of course, new development will be better than an abandoned building, and I sincerely hope these owners/managers do not come to regret their support.
Dust
There was a recently submitted latter from Thomas Jones, former Vice President of Hilbers Inc providing all the reasons why the old Social Services Building could not be reused. I appreciate the thoroughness of his response. I would have been appropriate to have received this information much earlier in the review process. One think he said that concerned me was the “The building has asbestos characteristics, including, but not limited to, asbestos in the roofing materials, insulation, drywall, acoustical ceiling, flooring materials and exterior finishes. He goes on to explain that trying to remedy this would be costly and that demolition of the building would result in encapsulating the asbestos to be hauled off without environmental impact. IF the building contains asbestos, THEN dust control and containment during demolition is essential. This should be added as a special condition.
Utilities and Service Systems
Despite repeated requests from the public, emergency services was never consulted about potential impacts of this project on travel to and from the hospital. I contacted Davey Beak, the long-time manager of emergency transport. After I provided a brief description of the project, he wrote:
“A significant change in the volume of traffic on South Street will absolutely have an effect on our response and return times. Code 3 (lights and sirens) help but they will have a negative effect on the residential neighborhoods to the South and East of South Street.
Typically, we limit our use of lights and sirens until we are approaching the Franklin Street intersection. With the additional traffic created by this development we will need to switch to Code 3 several blocks earlier which will likely lead to angry public and reduced real estate values in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Access to our Hospital will also be negatively affected.
A street widening project along with a stop light at HWY 1 would definitely help. Please share this letter with any appropriate parties.
Thanks,
Davey”
Note: This quote is the entire verbatim response I received from Davey Beak, and I am more than willing to provide the entire email thread if you want it. I did encourage him to reach out to the Planning Commission and City Council directly.
Davey Beak’s response made it clear that he was never contacted for input on the project, despite repeated public comments concerning this issue. His comments should be taken under consideration and will likely require further study.
Traffic
There is no doubt this project will increase traffic, impacting access to the harbor, the hospital, medical offices, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Some special conditions were proposed, but those have not yet been made public, and it’s not clear what they are.
There was discussion during the recent Planning Commission hearing on May 10 of a new signal on Main St. at N. Harbor Dr. However, during previous hearings, I recall hearing that CalTrans would not permit a signal at that intersection because of its proximity to the bridge. Instead there was discussion of a signal on Main St. at South St.
This cost would be borne by the City with some money provided by the developer.
There will be far more vehicles making left turns onto Main St. at both intersections, and only one will warrant a signal, so left turns from the street without a signal may have to be disallowed.
Note: There has been some mention of phone conversations with CalTrans, but there has there been no written, published communication from CalTrans indicating their approval to place a signal at N. Franklin St and Main St if warranted. This seems to be an important piece of information that should require more than just verbal confirmation.
The much-touted “additional traffic studies” used the old 2019 data.
Many people mentioned the convenient location, and looked forward to walking to the GO. A quick tabulation of all the apartments in the area totaled a minimum number of 350 (with perhaps 500 residents). If even a fraction of those residents walk to the project, it will vastly increase pedestrians crossing South St., which currently has no stop. If a stop is added, along with crosswalks, this will completely change the traffic flow in the area. In addition, consider the ambulance responding to an emergency with sirens blaring while one of our elderly residents is trying to cross the street.
Note: Special conditions 2 and 33 address sidewalk and crosswalk issues around the intersection of South St and S Franklin St.
Note:
These may all be acceptable changes, but the impacts must be fully analyzed and understood for the project to proceed. The current EIR fails in this regard. This brings me to the last issue - alternatives.
Alternatives
Only two alternatives were proposed – reduced size and no project. The reduced size alternative was dismissed as not meeting the project goals, but those are somewhat arbitrary and this alternative needs to be given more consideration. This is especially true if it allows for trucks to drive through with a short angled back in instead of the proposed long back in pathway (see below).
In addition, there were no proposed alternatives that place the new building elsewhere on the site although this was previously brought up by the Planning Commission, the City Council, and members of the public. The proposed placement on the north end of the adjoined parcels would lead to vastly increased truck and car traffic on N. Harbor Dr.
Placement on the south end of the adjoined parcels would lead to vastly increased truck and car traffic on South St. The latter alternative was not analyzed. Placement somewhere in the middle of the property was also not considered.
Note: The letter from RMM provided some insight into the decision for building placement. The northerly placement was chosen to lessen the impact of setback requirements and to lessen noise impact on Motel 8. Though the noise contours indicate that the rooms along the north wall will be impacted (see section on noise above), the additional information about standard construction of motels shows the walls are designed to dampen outside noise (not clear about the bathroom windows, especially if left open). The letter also mentioned the angle of the property line along N Harbor Dr and that the required setback of 20 ft would make placement the building on the south end of the property not feasible. Perhaps the more serious issue would be noise impact on the east wall of rooms. However, given the new information about the sound dampening construction of the motel wall, perhaps that impact in less than significant. Given that placing the building on the south end of the property will change the traffic flow, directing more onto South St rather than N Harbor Dr, it is worthy of consideration. It may be preferable to the developer to place the building on the north end of the property, but it is not impossible to place the building on the south end.
The proposed truck well is very narrow with the vehicle parking to the east and RV parking to the west. The EIR did not describe the travel pattern of trucks turning onto North Harbor Dr and then backing down the long, narrow path to the receiving area (beeping all the way). This seems unduly long and torturous. There may be other ways to site the building which will minimize truck backing, but those were not considered.
Note: I spoke to a friend who drives big rigs for WalMart. I provided a site map and building plans and asked how he would approach delivery. He said he would come in on the S. Franklin entrance. He said the RV parking was inconvenient, but he could manage it. I didn’t have time to explain how the landscaping might interfere with his ability to turn in order to back down the truck well. I could also envision trucks driving just past the N Harbor Dr entrance, then backing in along the entire length of the parking lot. The developers need to explain the truck delivery pattern they envision.
Both Safeway and Harvest Market have drive through delivery lanes that require little, if any, backing down.
Conclusion
This letter only brings up some of the most important concerns I have about the impact of the proposed project. It is essential that the City Council carefully consider these impacts and how they might be mitigated. The final EIR is not sufficient and does not provide insight into appropriate solutions. There have been numerous new analyses submitted about the project since the Final EIR and those have not been released with adequate time or procedure for public review and input. It should not be certified, but rather sent back to address all the issues that have not been properly analyzed. Any concerns about the delay in opening a Grocery Outlet in Fort Bragg should be placed at the feet of the developer who has repeatedly tried to cut corners, and obfuscate instead of addressing significant impacts of the project in the proposed location. I hope the City Council doesn’t rubber stamp the project just because it is popular. Even the people who support this project should consider what can be done to minimize negative impacts. Again, if it deserves to be done, it deserves to be done right.
Thank you,
Leslie Kashiwada
For more information and documentation go to
https://www.city.fortbragg.com/departments/community-development/city-projects.
Please send all comments to the City Council ([email protected]) in advance of their hearing on June 5 at 5 pm and consider participating in the hybrid (in person/zoom) meeting.
From: Maddy Hirshfield
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comments for tonight"s meeting
Date: Monday, June 05, 2023 4:22:57 PM
The North Bay Labor Council is opposed to the Grocery Outlet project. The Grocery Outlet is not a union shop and does not provide living wages. Largely because of this, they're able to keep prices lower than normal making it difficult for local businesses to compete.
There are other reasons to object to this store but these are our biggest concerns. We have members who live in Fort Bragg and surrounding areas who we are concerned would be negatively impacted.
Thank you for considering out position on this project.
Maddy Hirshfield
Political Director
North Bay Labor Council
1371 Neotomas Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
707-545-6970 (office)
707-570-6180 (cell)
From: Munoz, Cristal
To: Sanchez, Diana
Subject: FW: Grocery Outlet
Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 11:37:15 AM
Same with this comment thanks!
From: Ducey, Peggy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:36 AM
To: Munoz, Cristal <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Grocery Outlet
More Grocery Outlet comments.
From: LYNNE KOGELER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 3:04 PM
To: Ducey, Peggy <[email protected]>
Subject: Grocery Outlet
Dear Ms. Ducey:
Judy Valadao in the Fort Bragg, California, Community Discussion (F.B.), suggested writing to you regarding the upcoming town hall meeting tonight discussing the Grocery Outlet. As a resident of Fort Bragg, I believe the addition of a Grocery Outlet would provide locals a bit of relief from the overpriced Safeway and Harvest stores. I love shopping at Purity, and will continue to do so, but it also is pricey.
Having to drive 33 miles to the nearest Grocery Outlet is ridiculous. I'm tired of hearing the NIMBY's claim that it will destroy the local economy or somehow "taint" our small-town vibe. I have heard it said that our Safeway is the most expensive Safeway in California. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that it is grossly overpriced. I also am aware that everything is overpriced these days! I have also heard rumblings that it is the fault of one of the homeowners who apparently lives close to the proposed site and is afraid the fumes from vehicle's exhaust entering/exiting the store will somehow affect his/her flowers! We who live here accept the fact that we must drive 50 miles to get to the nearest "city," i.e. Ukiah. However, can't the City accept that locals deserve an alternative when it comes to grocery shopping? A Grocery Outlet store will bring in revenue to the City and allow locals to save a little bit of money. I really don't understand the uproar. We have a vacant building. We have a Taco Bell, McDonald's, Starbucks, a Dollar Store, Safeway, CVS and Rite Aid. Can a Grocery Outlet really be that dangerous? Those who don't want to shop there don't have to! We also will have 3 breweries! Really?
These are my concerns and if you feel appropriate, please present this at the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance.
Lynne Ballard
Fort Bragg, CA
From: Munoz, Cristal
To: Sanchez, Diana
Subject: FW: please forward to the entire City Council
Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2023 11:36:57 AM
Importance: High
This has not been published be upload.
From: Ducey, Peggy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:35 AM
To: Munoz, Cristal <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: please forward to the entire City Council
More comments on Grocery Outlet
From: Sarita Colberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 2:39 PM
To: Ducey, Peggy <[email protected]>
Subject: please forward to the entire City Council
To all it may concern,
We own a family childcare here in Fort Bragg which has been open for 23 years now. We currently feed our family and the children of 15 low income families. All 16 of our families support the Grocery Outlet and many of us already shop at the Willits store with the time and expense of traveling.
All of our families are working and receive no or little assistance in the way of food from Social Services.
We were lucky to receive a lot food assistance through our local Food Bank during covid, but what is provided to us and our families is now minimal. I only shop sales to keep cupboards, fridge and freezer stocked, often ordering online and traveling to Willits to Grocery Outlet. My local shopping is done at Safeway for sale products only unless we run out of milk or other products like eggs which are never cheap. I spend a ton of money making sure all the children have healthy real food to eat.
Please to not let those who do not need an affordable grocery option sway your perception away from how many do need it. Those who prefer to and can afford to shop at other local stores will still do so and they may just ignore the Grocery Outlet's existence. Additionally, please realize how many opposing this project do not live in Fort Bragg or our surrounding community; living in Caspar and south your objection should hold no bearing on this decision.
Our final comment on the opposition has to do with location; a more desirable location was attempted at length and received the same push back. No location will be prefect and the current one does have the added benefit of being within walking distance to a concentrated population of low income residents.
Those who live across the street knew the zoning before the bought property there and do not have the right to tell property owners they can not use their property out of inconvenience. If you have ever been to the property or even driven past you know that claims of it being a wetland or any other natural aspects which need to be preserved are false and simply grasping at straws trying to stop the project.
Please approve the Grocery Outlet project because our community is largely low income and even middle income residents live in poverty due to housing and utility costs which, like everything else, continue to rise.
Thank you,
Sarita Colberg and Sean Patrick
Sarita's Childcare
334 N Corry St.
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk; cdd
Subject: Public Comments Grocery Outlet EIR meeting 6-5-2023 Date: Monday, June 05, 2023 3:46:17 PM
To Fort Bragg City Council,
Please accept my public comments and City staff please post them online today.
I have some concerns regarding the parking area.
I reached out to Marie Jones last week and asked if someone couldn’t stripe the lot with chalk to get a better visual of the parking. She was too busy to consider doing that so the Public could get a better visual and of course you the Council Members.
My concerns are the configuration and where certain designated parking is. The loading dock for delivery trucks appears be placed so that trucks will have to enter from S Franklin St and pull up next to the designated RV Parking and then back in. I presume they would exit on N Harbor Drive and it looks like an awful tight turn if the make a right turn there.
I don’t see any designated parking or area where they could wait to use the loading dock. Most other delivery trucks are larger than a passenger car or pickup truck. As an example large delivery trucks at Safeway back into the loading dock but most of the other delivery trucks park in or on the driveway on the to the south of the loading dock. There only seems to be one way in and out of the loading dock. It is unclear to me where smaller delivery trucks will unload.
I also wonder what the designation means for Clean Air Vehicles.
Many of the spaces have special designations. Many of our local stores require employees to park on the perimeter of their parking lots and save the closer parking for customers.
I also would like to see the Rhododendrons left or new ones planted.
They may not be native but Fort Bragg is one of the few places they grow well. They don’t require a lot of maintenance and seem to survive quite well on the coast. There are many in and around Fort Bragg that are reaching their 100th birthdays so to say.
I would like to encourage the Council Members to really study the parking for the site and make sure it will absolutely work before approving this EIR.
Kind Regards,
Jay Rosenquist
From: [email protected]
To: cdd; City Clerk
Subject: Special Fort Bragg City Council hybrid public hearing about Grocery Outlet this Monday, June 5 at Town Hall Date: Monday, June 05, 2023 3:02:49 PM
Dear Decision Makers,
Decades ago Fort Bragg (FB) was referred to as Mendocino's ugly step sister and often referred to as Fort Drag. You don't hear that so much anymore, because wise decisions coupled with community input has shaped FB for the better.
Mendocino is a safe zone from corporate sprawl which infests most American cities.
This coupled with historical preservation keeps Mendocino unique, special.
Please spare the corner of discussion, 825, 845 and 851 S Franklin St. and N harbor Drive the glare and impact of a Grocery Outlet store.
Thank you for your consideration,
Zia Cattalini
Please also consider these comments below:
TRAFFIC: This project will increase traffic, impacting access to the harbor, the hospital, medical offices, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Some special conditions were proposed, but those have not been made public. There was some mention of a signal on Main St. at N. Harbor Dr. but previous discussion concerned a signal on Main St. at South St. The options must be analyzed to find which will best mitigate increased traffic. It is also clear that this project will vastly increase pedestrians crossing South St., which currently has no stop. If a stop is added, along with crosswalks, this will completely change the traffic flow in the area.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The developers never consulted emergency services about potential impacts of this project on travel to and from the hospital.
When contacted, Dave Beak, the long-time manager of emergency transport wrote:
“A significant change in the volume of traffic on South Street will absolutely have an effect on our response and return times. Code 3 (lights and sirens) help but they will have a negative effect on the residential neighborhoods to the South and East of South Street. Typically, we limit our use of lights and sirens until we are approaching the Franklin Street intersection. With the additional traffic created by this development we will need to switch to Code 3 several blocks earlier which will likely lead to angry public and reduced real estate values in the adjacent neighborhoods. Access to our Hospital will also be negatively affected. A street widening project along with a stop light at HWY 1 would definitely help.
Please share this letter with any appropriate parties. Thanks, Davey”