Because the Class 32 exemption is proper, there are no grounds for requiring an EIR for the Project. Indeed, preparing an EIR under the circumstances would be contrary to law. The Appellant has not even come close to making the kind of evidentiary showing that would be needed to trigger the preparation of an EIR. Indeed, the appeal offers no evidence of any adverse environmental impacts. Rather, the appeal merely raises issues about the City’s analysis supporting its reliance on the Class 32 exemption.
The law is crystal clear that mere controversy over a proposed project is not enough to require a private project applicant to bear the expense of an EIR. Actual substantial evidence is a potentially significant environmental effect is required. “The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an [EIR] 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.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (b).) In other words, a public agency cannot subject a project applicant to an EIR solely in order to placate unhappy constituents or to more fully vet a controversial development proposal.
Rather, an EIR can only be required where there is actual substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. No such evidence is before the City Council. The Project site was formerly used as a car lot, is highly disturbed, and is surrounded by urban uses.
The site is near US Highway 101. The Project raises no real environmental issues. The Project would make good use of a vacant infill lot that is currently going to waste.
The Project is also consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for its site.
Best seeks no special dispensations in the form of plan amendments, rezones, or variances. The proposed land use is exactly what is allowed under the existing designations. The approvals sought by Best do not present the City Council with an occasion for rethinking the wisdom of the current General Plan and zoning designations.
For these reasons, as more fully explained below, we respectfully urge the City Council to deny the appeal and to approve the Project based on the Class 32 categorical exemption. We also explain below why the proposed Grocery Outlet will bring quality jobs, tax revenues, and affordable groceries to the citizens of King City. Allegations to the contrary are not accurate.
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
DISCUSSION
A. The Class 32 Categorical Exemption
In originally fashioning CEQA in the early 1970s, the California Legislature recognized that certain development projects were too “minor in scope” to justify the substantial expenses in time and money associated with the preparation of full environmental documents such as negative declarations or EIRs. (See Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1100-1102 (Berkeley Hillside).) The Legislature therefore authorized the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Secretary of the California Resources Agency2 to promulgate regulations identifying classes of projects that would be treated as categorically exempt from CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); see also Stats. 1972, ch. 1154, § 1, pp. 2271, 2273.)
The result has been the creation of what are now 33 classes of categorical exemptions. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, div. 6. ch. 3 [CEQA Guidelines], §§ 15301 – 15333.) In creating each categorical exemption, OPR and the Resources Secretary made a finding that the class of project at issue “do[es] not have a significant effect on the environment.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1102, quoting CEQA Guidelines section 15300.) This finding is intended to be binding on public agencies absent unusual circumstances or other factors not pertinent to the pending appeal. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1100-1102; CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2, subd. (c).)
One such exemption, added in 1998, is for “infill development,” and is found in CEQA Guidelines, section 15332. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 126-130 [upholding the adoption of the exemption.) Infill development projects may be contrasted with development projects on the periphery of existing urbanized areas that would, for example, extend development into prime farmland or wildlife habitat. The environmental benefits of infill projects are obvious. Here, as noted above, the Project site was previously used as a car sales lot and is already highly disturbed. (Staff Report from Doreen Liberto to Planning Commission [March 15, 2022], pp. 3-4.) 2 This agency was subsequently renamed the California Natural Resources Agency.
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
“In order for a project to qualify for the infill exemption, five criteria must be met: ‘(a) [t]he project [must be] consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations[;] [¶] (b) [t]he proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses[;] [¶] (c) [t]he project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species[;] [¶] (d) [a]pproval of the project [must] not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality[; and] [¶] (e) [t]he site [must be able to] be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.’” (Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, 959 (Protect Tustin), quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15332.)
Where “a public agency makes a factual determination that a project falls within a ... categorical exemption,” a reviewing court applies the “substantial evidence standard in reviewing the agency’s finding.” (Protect Tustin, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 960, italics added.) The term “[s]ubstantial evidence,” as used in this context, means “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.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).) Under this deferential standard of judicial review, courts “do not weigh conflicting evidence, as that is the role of the public agency.” (Protect Tustin, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 960.)
In light of these legal standards, which give the factual benefit of the doubt to the approving agency (here, the City), a project challenger cannot defeat an exemption simply by raising questions about the factual or technical conclusions that the agency reaches in relying on a categorical exemption, or by offering substantial evidence contrary to the substantial evidence on which the agency relies. Notably, a challenger does not present “substantial evidence” when the challenger offers only “[a]rgument, 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[.]” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (c).) City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
B. The City’s administrative record fully supports the Planning Commission’s reliance on the Class 32 Exemption for the Project.
Nothing in CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines requires an approving agency such as the City to make specific factual findings prior to approving a proposed project based on a categorical exemption. Even so, here the City staff and the Planning Commission went to great lengths to document the evidentiary bases for each factual element of the Class 32 exemption.
This documentation is found in the previously-referenced EA and in the Resolution 22-306, as adopted by the Planning Commission. Taken together, these two documents provide an overwhelmingly adequate evidentiary record to support approval of the Project.
Oddly, the Appellant asserts that “[w]hile the staff report treats the Environmental Assessment (‘EA’) document as unnecessary because of the application of the categorical exemption, the City is nevertheless required to provide evidence that is sufficient to support findings that there will be no significant impacts in the relevant categories.” This assertion reflects a misunderstanding of the function of the EA and the manner in which City staff and the Planning Commission relied upon it.
Although, it is true, the Planning Commission was not required to rely on the EA in relying on the Class 32 categorical exemption, Resolution 22-306 makes it clear that, in fact, the Commission did rely heavily on the EA, which provides abundant analysis and substantial evidence supporting the exemption. This analysis and evidence address, among many other topics, all three of the specific issues raised in the appeal, namely, impacts related to operational noise, operational traffic, and operational air quality. 3 For example, the Resolution includes the following explanation with respect to the Project’s less than significant operational noise effects:
The environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan concluded that buildout under the General Plan would not result in a significant noise impact. Because the Project is an infill development consistent with the General Plan, the Project can be presumed to not result in a significant operational noise impact. The noise report prepared for the Project addressed a number of operational noise-generating activities. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the 3 The Appellants has not alleged that there are any “unusual circumstances” associated with the Project. Even so, we note that both Resolution 22-306, on pages 15 and 16, and the EA, on pages 95 and 96, address the absence of any such unusual circumstances in considerable detail.
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
report concluded that the Project will not result in noise levels at any sensitive receptor locations that exceed any King City noise level standards or result in a substantial increase over existing (without Project) ambient noise levels. With respect to slow-moving trucks on site, the noise report concluded that ambient noise levels measured in the vicinity of the residential land uses north of the site already exceed the applicable King City noise level standards, and that noise levels associated with on-site truck movements will not exceed existing ambient noise levels and will generally not be audible at the residential land uses. With respect to loading docks, the noise report found that noise levels at the loading docks will not exceed any applicable King City noise level standards and will not exceed existing (without Project) ambient noise levels measured at the noise measurement sites near the residential land uses. With respect to noise from mechanical equipment, the noise report found that noise levels will not exceed any King City noise level standard or exceed existing (without Project) ambient noise levels. (EA, pp. 69-70.) As such, approval of the Project will not result in any significant effects relating to operational noise.
(Resolution 22-306, pp. 8-9.)
On the subject of the Project’s less than significant traffic impacts, the Resolution had the following to say:
As of July 2020, “vehicle miles traveled [VMT] is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (a).) VMT “refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” (Ibid.) Level of service (LOS) is no longer a permitted metric for assessing the significance of traffic impacts under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(2).) The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has published a document entitled, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018). This document provides what is currently the most authoritative general direction regarding the methods to be employed and significance criteria to evaluate VMT impacts. Because retail projects typically re-route travel from other retail destinations, OPR recommends that lead agencies should analyze VMT effects for retail projects by assessing the change in total VMT. As the OPR technical advisory states, “[b]y adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact.” Here, the Project will attract customers residing in King City and in surrounding communities. Today the closest existing Grocery Outlet stores are in Paso Robles (51 miles south) and Salinas (49 miles north), and the new store will provide a much closer option. The Grocery Outlet store will compete with the existing Safeway on Franciscan Street in the King City Plaza, City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
and to lesser degree with local specialty markets such as El Pueblo Market and La Princessa Market on Broadway Street to the east. The Grocery Outlet store’s most likely effect on regional travel will be to slightly reduce the length of trips from northern areas of King City and to offer another option for shopping trips made by residents of areas to the south and east. The effect on VMT is likely to be small, but generally VMT will be reduced by offering a closer option. This conclusion is consistent with the OPR presumption that the VMT effects of locally serving retail uses of 50,000 square feet or less may be considered to be less than significant. The Project will consist of 18,187 square foot of interior space. The Project’s impact on regional VMT can be presumed to be less than significant under the OPR Locally Serving Retail criteria. (EA, pp. 74, 79-80.) As such, approval of the Project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic. (Resolution 22-306, pp. 6-7.)
On the issue of operational air quality effects – the third issue of interest to the Appellant – the Resolution once again relied on the EA:
Table 5-4 of the Air District’s CEQA Guidelines indicates that a supermarket of less than 69,000 square feet would typically not be expected to exceed the Air District's threshold for operational ozone emissions. Therefore, long-term operations of the proposed 18,871 square foot supermarket will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone precursors. Nevertheless, EMC estimated the criteria air pollutant emissions that will be generated during Project operation using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. The model results confirm that the Project emissions will not exceed the Air District's criteria air pollutants emissions thresholds for ambient air quality. Therefore, the Project will not result in significant impacts to localized air quality, and the Project’s contribution to regional air quality will be less than cumulatively considerable. (EA, pp. 32-33, including Table 2.) As such, approval of the Project will not result in any significant effects relating to operational air quality. (Resolution 22-306, p. 10.)
As these extended quotations from the Resolution make clear, the Appellant is simply wrong in implying that the Planning Commission had no evidence to support its findings with respect to operational noise, operational traffic, and operational air quality.
C. The specific environmental issues raised in the appeal have no merit.
As noted above, the Appellant raises three specific issues in its appeal, relating to operational noise, traffic, and air quality. After receiving a copy of the appeal, Best contacted the City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
relevant experts who had addressed those topics in the EA in order to obtain their thoughts on their respective subjects. These experts are acoustical specialist Walter J. Van Groningen, transportation engineer Kenneth D. Anderson, and air quality specialist Sally Rideout. Each of these experts responded to particular points raised in the appeal, and each explained why the Appellant’s points had no technical or substantive merit.
1. Operational Noise
On the issue of operational noise, the Appellant argues that “[t]he EA does not seem to have considered the potential impact of early-morning truck deliveries, and in particular the impact of trucks beeping at those early hours, and the impact on potentially sensitive receptors.
This is a predictable and reasonably likely phenomenon that will result from approval of the Project and needs to be studied.”
In response, Mr. Van Groningen cited the regulations governing when trucks of certain kinds must use beepers when backing up, and then noted that “it is unclear as to the required usage of backup alarms for trucks that would be making deliveries to the proposed Grocery Outlet[.]” (Letter from Walter J. Van Groningen to Teri Wissler Adam, April 1, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit A, pp. 1-2.)
Mr. Van Groningen then explained why, assuming that such trucks might sometimes visit the Grocery Outlet store, the noise from such trucks would not create unacceptable noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors. After noting that “[t]he closest residential land uses to the proposed loading dock location are located a distance of approximately 400 feet from the loading dock,” he explained that
[a]t the locations of the closest sensitive receptor locations (residential land uses), such levels would be in the range of approximately 30‐50 dB. Such levels do not exceed applicable King City noise level standards or existing ambient noise levels measured near the residential land uses along Franciscan Way, where hourly maximum levels over the 24‐hour noise measurement period ranged between approximately 58 to 93 dB.
It should be noted, the above‐described noise levels do not take into account the acoustic shielding provided by the existing 6‐foot concrete block wall at the residential land uses along Franciscan Way or acoustic shielding that would be provided by the store structure itself, and should therefore be considered a worst‐ City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
case assessment of noise levels that may be associated with truck backup alarms.
Noise levels associated with truck backup alarms (if used) would generally not be audible above existing ambient noise levels at nearby noise‐sensitive land uses. (Exhibit A, p. 2.)
These responses from Mr. Van Groningen more than answer the noise concerns raised by the Appellant, and provide additional factual support for the conclusions in the EA and Resolution 22-306.
2. Operational Traffic
On the issue of traffic, the Appellant raises the question of whether the traffic analysis prepared by transportation engineer Kenneth Anderson adequately addressed the issue of “queuing” at the US 101 and Broadway Street interchange. Specifically, the Appellant argues as follows:
The EA does not disclose what mitigation measures were considered or are feasible to mitigate the stated likely impact of traffic queuing at the US 101 and Broadway Street interchange. The EA also does not provide specific details regarding the alleged minor reduction in total VMT resulting from the development of the project. While presumptions based on the locally-serving retail provisions are raised, the EA does not state for example whether more trips may be generated as a result of development of a high-frequency retail use (i.e., a grocery store)[.]
Mr. Anderson explained that his report had addressed the queuing of concern, which would be limited and did not require any mitigation. (Letter from Kenneth D. Anderson, P.E., to Terry Johnson, April 7, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit B, pp. 1-2.) He also explained why his analysis of the VMT anticipated for the proposed Grocery Outlet was sufficient and complete. (Id.) The following is Mr. Anderson’s discussion of the queuing issue:
Under CEQA a project’s effect on safety on Caltrans facilities is a potential safety impact. Queueing at ramp terminal and at adjoining intersections is a quantitative measure of the effects of a project on these facilities. The EA summarizes the Grocery Outlet Store’s effects on queueing as noted in the text which follows. The project’s effects on queueing do not result in a significant safety impact, and no mitigation is required.
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
Project Effects / Impacts based on Peak Period Queue Lengths. As noted in Figure 11, Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues, the proposed project would add traffic at some locations where turn lane queues are a consideration. At the Broadway Street / Broadway Circle / San Antonio Drive intersection, the proposed project would increase peak queue by 10 to 15 feet, but this increase would not appreciably effect safety or emergency access in this area. The queues would continue to extend into the transition area between the left turn lane and the adjoining Two-Way Left-Turn (TWLT) lane but will not spill over into the adjoining through lane.
The project will increase the volume of traffic on US 101 / Broadway Circle off-ramps. At the US 101 NB ramps, the off-ramp queue would remain within the distance between the intersection and the location on the freeway where the mainline and ramp diverge (i.e., ramp gore point). The distance from end of queue to the gore point (i.e., 750 feet) would satisfy Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Table 405.2B requirements for deceleration to a stop from the 65 mph posted speed limit. Motorists will be able to slow to a stop without interfering with the flow of traffic on NB US 101.
The project would add traffic to the US 101 SB off-ramp. However, as this ramp is uncontrolled (i.e., stop sign on westbound Broadway Circle approach), this additional traffic would not result in queuing onto the mainline freeway.
In summary, the proposed project would not cause any significant traffic impacts, and is not dependent on any mitigation measures developed for the project on an ad hoc basis in order to avoid such significant impacts. Thus, for purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic.”
The EA did disclose on page 76 that the City of King City is pursuing circulation system improvements that would address queuing in the area of the US 101 / Broadway Street interchange, as noted in the text which follows. This work includes construction of roundabout at Broadway Street / San Antonio Drive intersection. As noted, these improvements have been designed and are considered feasible. While the Grocery Outlet Store project’s effects at this location are not a significant impact and project mitigation is not required, traffic conditions would improve with construction of the roundabout.
The project will increase the length of peak period queues near the US 101 / Broadway Street interchange. The City of King City is working to construct a roundabout at the Broadways Street / San Antonio Drive intersection which is the key control of traffic flow in this area. The roundabout has been designed, and the City is waiting for funding. Once the roundabout is installed overall traffic conditions will improve.
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
(Exhibit B, pp. 1-2 [modified font shows language from original Traffic Impact Analysis included with the EA].)
On the VMT issue, Mr. Anderson defended his original approach, which comports with the direction provided by OPR, the expert state agency that developed CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, which addresses VMT:
The EA discusses the Grocery Outlet Store project’s effects on regional VMT on page 82, as summarized in the text which follows. As indicated, consistent with Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) considerations, the King City store would provide a closer option for Grocery Outlet store customers now traveling farther to reach other locations and provide an alternative to existing grocery stores in King City. However, the presence of the Grocery Outlet Store project would not increase the amount of groceries purchased by King City residents and would not result in additional shopping trips.
The proposed project would attract customers residing in King City and in surrounding communities. Today the closest existing Grocery Outlet stores are in Paso Robles (51 miles south) and Salinas (49 miles north), and the new store would provide a much closer option. The Grocery Outlet store would compete with the existing Safeway on Franciscan Street in the King City Plaza, and to lesser degree with local specialty markets such as El Pueblo Market and La Princessa Market on Broadway Street to the east. The Grocery Outlet store’s most likely effect on regional travel would be to slightly reduce the length of trips from northern areas of King City and to offer another option for shopping trips made by residents of areas to the south and east. The effect on VMT is likely to be small, but generally VMT will be reduced by offering a closer option. This conclusion is consistent with the OPR presumption that the VMT effects of locally serving retail uses of 50,000 square feet or less may be considered to be less than significant. The proposed project’s impact on regional VMT can be presumed to be less than significant under the OPR Locally Serving Retail criteria. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
(Exhibit B, pp. 2-3 [modified font shows language from original Traffic Impact Analysis included with the EA].)
These responses from Mr. Anderson more than answer the traffic-related concerns raised by the Appellant, and provide additional factual support for the conclusions in the EA and Resolution 22-306.
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
3. Operational Air Quality
On the issue of operational air quality, the Appellant argues that “there is not sufficient evidence provided as to whether traffic queuing and increased local frequency of car trips would adversely impact localized air quality.”
As with the noise and traffic issues discussed above, this contention is also without merit, as explained by Sally Rideout of EMC Consulting. (See Letter from Sally Rideout, EMPA, to Terry Johnson [April 7, 2022], attached hereto as Exhibit C.) She offered the following detailed points in response to the Appellant’s very short comment:
The criteria air pollutant of concern related to automobile congestion is carbon monoxide (CO). The Monterey Bay Air Resources District CEQA Guidelines (2008) note that significant impacts related to localized CO emissions could occur if a project would increase roadway congestion to the extent that new CO hotspots are created or existing CO hotspots would be exacerbated.
The proposed project would increase vehicle trips to the vicinity of the site and add to existing traffic volumes on area roadways. As noted in the transportation impact analysis prepared by KD Anderson & Associates dated October 1, 2021, the increase in traffic volumes resulting from the project would increase queuing and the levels of service (LOS) at the U.S. Highway 101 and Broadway Street interchange would change from LOS B to LOS C, which is an acceptable LOS per the City of King City policy (transportation impact analysis Table 10).
Additionally, I contacted Amy Clymo with the Monterey Bay Air Resources District on April 5, 2022, and she confirmed that there are no CO hotspots in King City; further, the air basin is in attainment with State and national air quality standards for CO and the addition of project traffic to existing traffic volumes in King City may increase congestion, but not to the extent that significant localized air quality impacts would occur.
As noted in the Environmental Assessment (EA), project emissions were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4, which utilizes the same trip generation rates (Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition) used in the project traffic report. The model calculates on‐ and off‐road vehicle emissions generated by the project’s customers, workers, and vendors. The model results are included as an appendix to the EA and summarized in the discussion of air quality impacts, Section D3 of the EA. As reported on page 33 of the EA (Table 2, Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions) the model results show that project mobile and non‐mobile‐source criteria air pollutant emissions volumes would be well below air district thresholds and no significant impacts to air quality would occur.
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
Therefore, for purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would not result in significant air quality impacts.
These responses from Ms. Rideout more than answer the traffic-related concerns raised by the Appellant, and provide additional factual support for the conclusions in the EA and Resolution 22-306.
D. There is no evidentiary basis for requiring an EIR for the Project.
Because, as explained above, the Class 32 infill exemption for the Project is welldocumented, the Project does not require an EIR. Even if the exemption did not apply, however, there would still be no evidentiary basis for an EIR. At worst, a negative declaration would be prepared.
As the California Supreme Court has explained,
CEQA requires that agencies follow a three-step process when planning an activity that could fall within its scope. [Citations.] First, the public agency must determine whether a proposed activity is a “project,” i.e., an activity that is undertaken, supported, or approved by a public agency and that “may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” [Citation.]
Second, if the proposed activity is a project, the agency must next decide whether the project is exempt from the CEQA review process under either a statutory exemption [citation] or a categorical exemption set forth in the CEQA Guidelines [citations]. If the agency determines the project is not exempt, it must then decide whether the project may have a significant environmental effect. And where the project will not have such an effect, the agency “must ‘adopt a negative declaration to that effect.’” [Citations.]
Third, if the agency finds the project “may have a significant effect on the environment,” it must prepare an EIR before approving the project. [Citations.] (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382 [footnote omitted].)
Here, City staff, in conducting the first step of this three-step process, properly concluded that the proposed Grocery Outlet was a “project” as defined by CEQA. Staff then appropriately City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
moved to the next step, the first part of which was to determine whether the Project was statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA. For all of the reasons discussed above, both City Staff and the Planning Commission appropriately concluded that the Class 32 categorical exemption applied to the Project. The City therefore had no need to determine whether either a negative declaration or an EIR was required.
As emphasized early in this letter, a public agency has no right or authority under CEQA, absent an appropriate evidentiary showing, to require a private applicant to bear the costs in time and money associated with an EIR. Indeed, as noted above, “public controversy,” by itself is not a sufficient basis to require an EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (b); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(4).) Where an exemption is not available (which is not the case here), an EIR may only be required where “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 [EIR] shall be prepared.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (d), italics added;4 see also id., § 21080, subd. (d).) As noted earlier, “substantial evidence” does not include “[a]rgument, 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[.]” (Id., subd. (c); see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.)
Hypothetically, if the infill exemption were not available here (which it is), the City would have to consider whether to prepare a negative declaration (ND) or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) before the City could consider whether to prepare an EIR. Where there is no substantial evidence that a project may cause a significant environmental effect, an ND or MND shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (c).) Here, we are unaware of any substantial evidence indicating that the Project may cause a significant environmental effect. The EA includes no such evidence. Nor does the appeal, which does no more than question a few of the conclusions reached in the EA and in Resolution 2022- 4 Not all adverse effects on the environment rise to the level of being substantial. A “‘[s]ignificant effect on the environment’ means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15382, italics added.) City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
306. The appeal does not include any actual evidence of anything, much less of significant environmental effects that would result from the Project.
E. Issues raised by the UFCW but not in its appeal
Finally, we want to respond to certain non-environmental issues raised by the UFCW in a flyer distributed around King City before the Planning Commission but that are not included in the appeal. (See Exhibit D attached hereto.) Because such issues might be raised again in correspondence to the City or in testimony before the City Council, we thought we should address them within this letter.
In its flyer, the UFCW asserts that “[t]he proposed Grocery Outlet is a national discount grocery chain that does not provide most of their employees with the dignity of livable, good wages or affordable medical benefits and does not live up to industry standards.” The flyer then goes on to state that “[n]ot only will this Grocery Outlet make it harder for other businesses that provide good wages and benefits in your community to compete with this cheap labor, but it will also likely result in the loss of several better paying positions for our members in your community. A net loss of these better paying positions for our members will also directly impact other businesses in your community who benefit from the wages that our members who live here put back into the community.” Next, the flyer states that “[w]e understand and respect that competition can be healthy and that growth is inevitable. However, we hope that you consider the bigger and longer-term impact that this proposed Grocery Outlet will have on our members and existing businesses in the area – not to mention negative impacts to traffic, emergency response times, the environment, and limited water resources!” (See Exhibit D.) As is clear from the discussion above, the UFCW has not followed up with any actual evidence of adverse environmental effects. The appeal has nothing to say about emergency responses or limited water resources. Of equal importance, however, is the inaccuracy of the claims that Grocery Outlet does not provide its workers with dignity or good wages and benefits.
The Project will not be a typical chain store owned by a distant corporation with no stake in King City. Rather, consistent with the company’s business model, the new store will be owned and operated by a family living in King City or its environs. Based on past experience with other stores around the country, the owner of the King City Grocery Outlet will be active in local City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
charities and community activities. This same owner will have to formulate wage and benefit packages based on market considerations, and will have to pay what is necessary to attract good and dependable workers. No one will be exploited.
Nor will the Project drive anyone out of business. Grocery Outlet has operated in small communities for decades. Best is unaware of Grocery Outlet ever having driven anyone out of business. The Project will create its own niche, with its primary customers being people whose top priority is to purchase quality brand new products at low prices. The Project will not directly compete with a store such as a Safeway, which stocks a much larger variety of goods and can offer its customers amenities such as a bakery, a deli, or a built-in coffee shop.
In any event, what is before the City Council is a land use decision. Cities are not normally in the business of trying to favor one entrepreneur over another. And the proposed Project does not present the City Council with any such opportunity. “While a city has broad authority over the regulation of land use within its territory, that authority is not unlimited.
Where certain uses are permitted, a city cannot arbitrarily exclude others who would employ a similar use.” (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1013.) “While valid zoning regulations may affect competition and have other economic effects, a city does not have carte blanche to exclude a retail merchant that it, or some of its residents, do not like.” (Ibid.) Here, the Project is consistent with both the General Plan designation (Highway Service Commercial) and the zoning designation (Highway Service District). (See Resolution 2022-306, pp. 4-5; Staff Report from Doreen Liberto to Planning Commission [March 15, 2022], p. 2.) Under the law, the wishes of Safeway or some of its workers are not relevant to the City Council’s decision with respect to the merits of the land use decision whether to approve the Project, which carries out public policy as already embodied in City legislation. “[T]he general plan … embod[ies] fundamental policy decisions that guide future growth and development.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 571.) Even if an EIR were somehow required for the Project (which it is not), such a document would “not ordinarily [present] an occasion for the reconsideration or overhaul of fundamental land use policy” as set forth in the General Plan. (Id. at p. 573.)
City Council
City of King
April 12, 2022
CONCLUSION
Thank you for considering the issues and information discussed in this letter. The Best Development Group and Grocery Outlet very much want to bring to King City a new grocery store that will provide new customers with affordable food and groceries during a time of rising inflation. If approved, the Project will not only bring new economic development, jobs, and tax revenues to the City, but will also provide local residents with additional choices about how to spend the limited dollars they have available for grocery purchases. We believe that the Project has much to offer the City, and hope that the City Council agrees with us, as the Planning Commission did. We therefore respectfully ask the City Council to deny the UFCW’s appeal and to approve the entitlements needed for the Project to go forward, based on the Class 32 categorical exemption.
Very truly yours,
James G. Moose
Cc: Mayor Mike LeBarre ([email protected])
Mayor Pro Tem Carlos Victoria ([email protected])
Council Member Robert Cullen Robert Cullen ([email protected]) Council Member Darlene Acosta ([email protected])
Council Member Carlos DeLeon ([email protected])
City Manager Steven Adams ([email protected])
Community Development Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck ([email protected]) Assistant City Attorney Shannon Chaffin ([email protected]) Planner Maricruz Aguilar ([email protected])
Terry Johnson ([email protected])
Carl Best ([email protected])
Veronica Vargas ([email protected])
Attachments (4)
EXHIBIT A
Aviation Noise Studies ꞏ Community Noise ꞏ Architectural Acoustics ꞏ Environmental Noise Assessments 113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 April 1, 2022
Teri Wissler Adam
Senior Principal
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, California 93940
RE: WJVA RESPONSE TO UFCW5 NOISE STUDY COMMENTS, PROPOSED
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET STORE
Dear Ms. Wissler Adam:
As you have requested, WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA) has reviewed comments provided by UFCW Local 5 regarding the acoustical analysis prepared by WJVA for the proposed King City Grocery Outlet Store project. The comments were provided in a letter dated March 29, 2022. WJVA has reviewed the comments and provides the following response:
UFCW5 Comment: “1. Noise. The EA does not seem to have considered the potential impact of early‐ morning truck deliveries, and in particular the impact of trucks beeping at those early hours, and the impact on potentially sensitive receptors. This is a predictable and reasonably likely phenomenon that will result from approval of the Project and needs to be studied.” WJVA Response: WJVA prepared an acoustical analysis for the proposed Grocery Outlet store, in King City, California (dated October 20, 2021). An analysis of noise levels associated with truck movements is provided on page 12 of the report. The above comment specifically states a concern in regards to” trucks beeping”. The use of backup alarms is not required on all trucks. Section 27000 of the California Vehicle Code requires “a refuse or garbage truck” to be equipped with a backup alarm. Furthermore, OSHA provides the following, regarding the usage of backup alarms.
Teri Wissler Adam
Senior Principal
EMC PLANNING GROUP
April 1, 2022
21‐53 (King City Grocery Outlet, WJVA Response to Comments) 4‐1‐22 “Title 29 CFR 1926.601(b)(4) states:
No employer shall use any motor vehicle equipment having an obstructed view to the rear unless:
(i) The vehicle has a reverse signal alarm audible above the surrounding noise level or:
(ii) The vehicle is backed up only when an observer signals that it is safe to do so.” “Section 1926.602(a)(9)(ii) states:
No employer shall permit earth‐moving or compacting equipment which has an obstructed view to the rear to be used in reverse gear unless the equipment has in operation a reverse signal alarm distinguishable from the surrounding noise level or an employee signals that it is safe to do so.” While it is unclear as to the required usage of backup alarms for trucks that would be making deliveries to the proposed Grocery Outlet, a discussion of backup alarm noise is nonetheless provided. There are no set requirements for the noise level (loudness) of backup alarms.
Additionally, many back up alarms have “smart” technology, which adjusts the noise level based upon variations in ambient noise levels in the vicinity.
The closest residential land uses to the proposed loading dock location are located a distance of approximately 400 feet from the loading dock. A review of available information from various sources (including OSHA) indicates that backup alarm warning sound shall be of such magnitude that it will normally be audible from a distance of 200 feet and will sound immediately on backing.
Additionally, WJVA reviewed noise level data provided by ECCO, a common manufacturer of vehicle back up alarms. WJVA reviewed noise level data associated with ECCO smart backup alarms. Noise levels are variable based upon existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the vehicle. According to ECCO, noise levels are between 82‐102 dB at the alarm. At the locations of the closest sensitive receptor locations (residential land uses), such levels would be in the range of approximately 30‐50 dB. Such levels do not exceed applicable King City noise level standards or existing ambient noise levels measured near the residential land uses along Franciscan Way, where hourly maximum levels over the 24‐hour noise measurement period ranged between approximately 58 to 93 dB.
It should be noted, the above‐described noise levels do not take into account the acoustic shielding provided by the existing 6‐foot concrete block wall at the residential land uses along Franciscan Way or acoustic shielding that would be provided by the store structure itself, and should therefore be considered a worst‐case assessment of noise levels that may be associated with truck backup alarms. Noise levels associated with truck backup alarms (if used) would generally not be audible above existing ambient noise levels at nearby noise‐sensitive land uses.
Teri Wissler Adam
Senior Principal
EMC PLANNING GROUP
April 1, 2022
21‐53 (King City Grocery Outlet, WJVA Response to Comments) 4‐1‐22 Please contact me at 559‐627‐4923 or [email protected] if there are questions or additional information is required. Thank you.
Sincerely,
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.
Walter J. Van Groningen
President
EXHIBIT B
Transportation Engineers
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G • Loomis, CA 95650 • (916) 660-1555 April 7, 2022
Mr. Terry Johnson
BEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP
2580 Sierra Boulevard, Suite E
Sacramento, CA 95825
RE: GROCERY OUTLET STORE IN KING CITY, CA:
RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS APPROVAL
Dear Mr. Johnson:
As requested, I have reviewed the March 29, 2022 appeal of King City Grocery Outlet Store’s Planning Commission approval filed by the UFCW Local 5. As the author of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the project1, my review has focused on item 2. Traffic of the appeal letter.
Comment: The EA does not disclose what mitigation measures were considered or are feasible to mitigate the stated likely impact of traffic queuing at the US 101 and Broadway Street interchange.
Under CEQA a project’s effect on safety on Caltrans facilities is a potential safety impact.
Queueing at ramp terminal and at adjoining intersections is a quantitative measure of the effects of a project on these facilities. The EA summarizes the Grocery Outlet Store’s effects on queueing as noted in the text which follows. The project’s effects on queueing do not result in a significant safety impact, and no mitigation is required.
Project Effects / Impacts based on Peak Period Queue Lengths. As noted in Figure 11, Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues, the proposed project would add traffic at some locations where turn lane queues are a consideration. At the Broadway Street / Broadway Circle / San Antonio Drive intersection, the proposed project would increase peak queue by 10 to 15 feet, but this increase would not appreciably effect safety or emergency access in this area. The queues would continue to extend into the transition area between the left turn lane and the adjoining Two-Way Left-Turn (TWLT) lane but will not spill over into the adjoining through lane.
The project will increase the volume of traffic on US 101 / Broadway Circle off-ramps. At the US 101 NB ramps, the off-ramp queue would remain within the distance between the intersection and the location on the freeway where the mainline and ramp diverge (i.e., ramp gore point). The distance from end of queue to the gore point (i.e., 750 feet) would satisfy Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Table 1 Transportation Impact Analysis For Grocery Outlet Store, King City, California; KDAnderson & Associates, 10/1/2021
Mr. Terry Johnson
BEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP
April 7, 2022
405.2B requirements for deceleration to a stop from the 65 mph posted speed limit. Motorists will be able to slow to a stop without interfering with the flow of traffic on NB US 101.
The project would add traffic to the US 101 SB off-ramp. However, as this ramp is uncontrolled (i.e., stop sign on westbound Broadway Circle approach), this additional traffic would not result in queuing onto the mainline freeway.
In summary, the proposed project would not cause any significant traffic impacts, and is not dependent on any mitigation measures developed for the project on an ad hoc basis in order to avoid such significant impacts. Thus, for purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic.” The EA did disclose on page 76 that the City of King City is pursuing circulation system improvements that would address queuing in the area of the US 101 / Broadway Street interchange, as noted in the text which follows. This work includes construction of roundabout at Broadway Street / San Antonio Drive intersection. As noted, these improvements have been designed and are considered feasible. While the Grocery Outlet Store project’s effects at this location are not a significant impact and project mitigation is not required, traffic conditions would improve with construction of the roundabout.
The project will increase the length of peak period queues near the US 101 / Broadway Street interchange. The City of King City is working to construct a roundabout at the Broadways Street / San Antonio Drive intersection which is the key control of traffic flow in this area. The roundabout has been designed, and the City is waiting for funding. Once the roundabout is installed overall traffic conditions will improve.
Comment: The EA also does not provide specific details regarding the alleged minor reduction on total VMT resulting from the development of the project. While presumptions based on the locally-serving retail provisions are raised, the EA does not state for example whether more trips may be generated as a result of development of a high-frequency retail use (i.e., grocery store).
The EA discusses the Grocery Outlet Store project’s effects on regional VMT on page 82, as summarized in the text which follows. As indicated, consistent with Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) considerations, the King City store would provide a closer option for Grocery Outlet store customers now traveling farther to reach other locations and provide an alternative to existing grocery stores in King City. However, the presence of the Grocery Outlet Store project would not increase the amount of groceries purchased by King City residents and would not result in additional shopping trips.
The proposed project would attract customers residing in King City and in surrounding communities.
Today the closest existing Grocery Outlet stores are in Paso Robles (51 miles south) and Salinas (49 miles north), and the new store would provide a much closer option. The Grocery Outlet store would compete with the existing Safeway on Franciscan Street in the King City Plaza, and to lesser degree with local specialty markets such as El Pueblo Market and La Princessa Market on Broadway Street to the east. The Grocery Outlet store’s most likely effect on regional travel would be to slightly reduce the length of trips from northern areas of King City and to offer another option for shopping trips made by residents of areas to the south and east. The effect on VMT is likely to be small, but generally VMT will be reduced by Mr. Terry Johnson
BEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP
April 7, 2022
offering a closer option. This conclusion is consistent with the OPR presumption that the VMT effects of locally serving retail uses of 50,000 square feet or less may be considered to be less than significant. The proposed project’s impact on regional VMT can be presumed to be less than significant under the OPR Locally Serving Retail criteria. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely,
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.
Kenneth D. Anderson, P.E.
President
King City Grocery Outlet Appeal Response.ltr
EXHIBIT C
April 7, 2022
Terry Johnson
Best Development Group
2580 Sierra Boulevard Suite E
Sacramento, CA 95825
Re: Grocery Outlet Store in King City, CA: Response to Air Quality Issues in Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
Dear Mr. Johnson,
This letter responds, per your request, to comments regarding mobile‐source localized air quality impacts identified in comment 3 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 (UFCW) letter dated March 29, 2022, submitted as part of the UFCW appeal of the project at 1023 Broadway Street, Environmental Determination (CUP‐210‐ 091 and Related Entitlements).
Comment 3 references the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and Broadway Street identified in Comment 2 and states “there is not enough evidence provided as to whether traffic queuing and increased local frequency of car trips would adversely impact localized air quality.”
The criteria air pollutant of concern related to automobile congestion is carbon monoxide (CO). The Monterey Bay Air Resources District CEQA Guidelines (2008) note that significant impacts related to localized CO emissions could occur if a project would increase roadway congestion to the extent that new CO hotspots are created or existing CO hotspots would be exacerbated.
The proposed project would increase vehicle trips to the vicinity of the site and add to existing traffic volumes on area roadways. As noted in the transportation impact Terry Johnson
Best Development Group
April 7, 2022, Page 2
analysis prepared by KD Anderson & Associates dated October 1, 2021, the increase in traffic volumes resulting from the project would increase queuing and the levels of service (LOS) at the U.S. Highway 101 and Broadway Street interchange would change from LOS B to LOS C, which is an acceptable LOS per the City of King City policy (transportation impact analysis Table 10).
Additionally, I contacted Amy Clymo with the Monterey Bay Air Resources District on April 5, 2022, and she confirmed that there are no CO hotspots in King City; further, the air basin is in attainment with State and national air quality standards for CO and the addition of project traffic to existing traffic volumes in King City may increase congestion, but not to the extent that significant localized air quality impacts would occur.
As noted in the Environmental Assessment (EA), project emissions were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4, which utilizes the same trip generation rates (Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition) used in the project traffic report. The model calculates on‐and off‐road vehicle emissions generated by the project’s customers, workers, and vendors. The model results are included as an appendix to the EA and summarized in the discussion of air quality impacts, Section D3 of the EA. As reported on page 33 of the EA (Table 2, Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions) the model results show that project mobile‐ and non‐mobile‐source criteria air pollutant emissions volumes would be well below air district thresholds and no significant impacts to air quality would occur.
Therefore, for purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would not result in significant air quality impacts.
Sincerely,
Sally Rideout EMPA
Principal
EXHIBIT D
UKW
March 10, 2022
Dear Neighbor-Brothers and Sisters:
STRENGTH &
Jack Landes
Secretary - Treasurer
John Nunes
President
840 E Street, Suite 8
Eureka, CA 95501 -6804
(707)442-1751
Fax: *707) 442-9572
323 Geary Street, Room 709
San Francisco* CA 94102
<41 5> 693 0143
Fax: (415! 675-7645
1145 North Main Street
Salinas, CA 93906-3614
(8311757-3094
Fax: (831)757-3614
4121 Alhambra Avenue
Martinez, CA 94553 3823
(9251 228-8800
Fax: <925; 228-8355
323 Miller Avenue
So. San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 871-5730
Fax: (650; 871-3504
Main Office:
United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, Local 5
28870 Mission Boulevard
Hayward, CA 94544-5510
(510)889-0870
Fax: (510)889-6415
Toll Free: (877) 655-FIVE
www.ufcw5.org
85 Galli Drive, Suite H
Novato, CA 94949-5716
(415)883-6833
Fax:(415)883-1043
240 South Market Street
San Jose, CA 95113 2310
*408) 998-0428
Fax: (408) 971-8355
I am writing on behalf of UFCW Local 5 which proudly represents about 30,000 hardworking union members throughout Northern and Central California, including over 4,435 members and working families in Monterey County and King City.
We have strong concerns about the discount Grocery Outlet and strip mall being proposed at 1023 Broadway Street in King City and the negative impact it will have on our members and existing businesses in your community that provide livable wages and benefits to their employees.
The proposed Grocery Outlet is a national discount grocery chain that does not provide most of their employees with the dignity of livable, good wages or affordable medical benefits and does not live up to industry standards. Our mission is, in part, to ensure that working families have the opportunity to make good wages and benefits that they can use to support their families and grow within the communities where they choose to live.
Not only will this Grocery Outlet make it harder for other businesses that provide good wages and benefits in your community to compete with this cheap labor, but it will also likely result in the loss of several better paying positions for our members in your community. A net loss of these better paying positions for our members will also directly impact other businesses in your community who benefit from the wages that our members who live here put back into the community.
A prime example of a local business that will be negatively impacted and forced to cut back on good jobs, is the local Safeway grocery which has been in King City for nearly 70 years- since the 1950’s! This store employs over 80 employees and provides tax revenues for the city and fair wages and benefits that go back into the community and to other small businesses in King.
We understand and respect that competition can be healthy and that growth is inevitable. However, we hope that you consider the bigger and longer-term impact that this proposed Grocery Outlet will have on our members and existing businesses in the area- not to mention negative impacts to traffic, emergency response times, the environment, and limited water resources!
We ask that you join us in urging the King City Planning Commission and City Council to require that a full and comprehensive environmental and economic impact report be conducted for this development BEFORE it is approved. Residents deserve to know the true impact this project will have on the community, jobs, traffic, water resources and our quality of life.
For more information on the project and to learn how you can help, email Working Families of Monterey County[email protected]. Thank you for your time and support! Sincerely,
Efrain Aguilera-UFCW Local 5 Representative.
UEQfiE
Project Name: Grocery Outlet
Applicant: Best Development Group, LLC
Case No:
Project Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA
Proposal:
STRENGTH &
John Nunes
President
Jack Landes
Secretary - Treasurer
In addition to personal attendance, the public also will have the option of attending the public hearing virtually or by telephone. To join the meeting virtually, use either of the following options:
1. A Resolution of the King City Planning Commission Approving a Ccndittona! Use Permit Case No. CUP-210-091, Architectural Review Permit Case No. P21-000-005, Landscaping Permit Case No. L21-000-001, and SN2-100-001 for Grocery Outlet Project at 1023 S. Broadway Street and Approving a Class 32 Exemption (Infill Projects) Under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") Case No., 210-091
Architectural Review Permit ("ARC") Case No. P21 -000-005 Landscape Plan Review Permit ("LP”) Case No. L21-000-001 Sign Design Review Permit (’SN‘) Case No. SN2-100-001
CITY OF KING
PLANNING COMMISSION
323 Miller Avenue
So. San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 871-5730
Fax: (6501871-3504
4121 Alhambra Avenue
Martinez, CA 94553-3823
925) 228-8800
Fax: (925'228 8355
1145 North Main Street
Salinas, CA 93906-361 4
•831' 757-3094
Fax: (831'757-3614
323 Geary Street, Room 709
San Francisco, CA 94102
.415)693-0143
Fax:(415)675-7645
85 Galli Drive Suite H
Novato, CA 94949-5716
,415)883 6833
Fax: (415 883-1043
840 E Street Suite 8
Eureka, CA 95501-6804
(707)442-1751
Fax: >707: 442-9572
Please join with us on March 15,h at 6 PM at City Hal! (2 1 2 S.
Vanderhurst Ave.), to let the Planning Commission know that you support good paying jobs in King City, and that we demand that the developer conduct a full and comprehensive EIR to assess the negative impacts this project will have on traffic, emergency response times, public safety and water
resources.
If the developer has nothing to hide, they should be willing to conduct an EIR!
You can share your comments and concerns in-person or via telephone on Mar. 15,h; see meeting info, below.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the PLANNING COMMISSION of the CITY OF KING will hold a Public Hearing on March 15, 2022, at 6:00 P.M. In the City Council chambers. 212 S.
Vanderhurst Ave., King City, California, to consider the following:
Main Office:
United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, Local 5
28870 Mission Boulevard
Hayward, CA 94544-5510
•510) 889-0870
Fax: (510) 889-6415
Toll Free: (877 1 655-FIVE
www.ufcw5.org
240 South Market Street
San Jose, CA 951 13-2310
,408 998-0428
Fax: .408; 971-8355
Clck on the following link.
liMm>Maflawab.zoom.us/i/83162454735?PwdgaHE¥SzJp,TVhZUHN6ZkR»eW£wWWZF(ftM or Cal) the following number +16699009128 and enter in
Meeting ID: 831 6245 4735
Passcode: 408590
A 30-foot high single story, 18,187 square foot grocery store with 72 parking spaces and 13,908 feet of landscaping on approximately 1.8 acres.
If you cannot attend, please email your comments to the City of King Planner for the project, Maricruz Aguilar
(maguilarfa kingcity.com), BEFORE 5pm on March 15th.
NUMBER 4