Dear Ms. Hom:

Today I read the final Walmart EIR. I request that the following responses be noted by staff and included in the record:

1. The Planning commission should consider that even according to the EIR, increased traffic resulting from the proposal will result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts.

    

2. The EIR did not address my concerns regarding lost sales tax revenues but simply noted that issues of taxation are outside of the scope of the CEQA process. The Planning Commission remains free to consider my concern in deciding whether or not Walmart's proposal serves the general welfare.

    

3. The EIR likewise failed to address public concern about Walmart's corporate practices because this is also an issue outside of the scope of CEQA. However, the EIR specifically noted that the Planning Commission remains free to consider these concerns in deciding whether or not to grant the requested conditional use permit. When I reviewed the Walmart file at City Hall, I noted that of nearly 300 letters from the public received in response to Walmart's application, only about eleven appeared to be from individuals in favor of Walmart. Corporate practices were a primary concern of most people who sent written comments. This is substantial evidence that the people of Milpitas do not believe that Walmart's proposed expansion is in the public interest. Please also see the attached document, which cites articles from professional journals that discuss Walmart's corporate practices. Note that some of these studies demonstrated the impact that Walmart's practices have on local economies and on public revenues.

    

4. It is the height of irony that while several responses to my comments criticized me for not providing substantial evidence for my concerns about Walmart's proposal, the EIR section on crime provides no substantial evidence at all to support the claim that Walmart's proposal to remain open twenty-four hours per day and to sell alcohol on-site until 2 A.M. will not result in increased crime. The EIR depends entirely upon mere speculation, unsupported by data, in a letter from the acting police chief. Common sense dictates that if the store will remain open an additional ten hours per day, there will be additional opportunities for people to congregate on-site and cause disturbances! With regard to crime, please see the section on that topic in the attached document. I believe that the Planning Commission has ample evidence to determine that it is in the public interest at least to require Walmart to provide nighttime security patrols as a condition of its permit.

    

5. I question both the draft and final EIR's assertion that Walmart will not compete with ethnic food stores. While criticizing me for not providing substantial evidence for several of my assertions, the EIR provides no substantial evidence for its claim of limited competition other than to suggest that this assumption is generally accepted. Can the authors of the EIR cite any expert treatise supporting its claim that this assumption is generally accepted? I am also highly offended at the suggestion in the final EIR that small ethnic grocery stores in the area are nothing more than convenience stores. I shop regularly at Indian food stores in Milpitas, and I am able to do most of my grocery shopping for the week there. Contrary to the EIR's suggestion, the selection at these stores overlaps considerably with the selection at traditional supermarkets and discount food stores. I am able to purchase milk, soy milk, rice, lentils, yoghurt, bread, cereal, cabbage, carrots, apples, bananas, okra, oranges, tea, coffee, candy bars, ice cream, butter, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, onions, and potatoes, just to name a few overlapping items. Moreover, there is no suggestion in the EIR that Walmart will not sell ethnic food items in its store. I am informed that several Indian retailers in the area resent the fact that Costco sells a selection of ethnic food items. In response to the EIR's comment that I failed to provide examples of small ethnic food stores not included in the EIR's study, please note the following examples:
   • Spice of India, 10 S. Abbot Avenue;
   • Sugandh India Imports, 118 S. Abel Street
   • New India Bazaar, 440 S. Main Street; and
   • Taj Palace India Super Bizzar, 1291 S. Park Victoria Drive.

    

6. The EIR also provides no evidence for its “generally accepted assumption” that Walmart's expansion will not harm non-food stores in the area. While I do not have the resources at my disposal to conduct a study to prove my belief, I still contend that the EIR should have considered the fact that most grocery stores in Milpitas serve as anchor stores for small businesses. In the way of substantial evidence, I can at least state the following. I do my grocery shopping once a week in Milpitas. My choices of barber, restaurants, auto parts store, photo copy store, and ice cream shop are dictated by my choice of grocery store. Were I to shop at Walmart instead, I might make these purchases elsewhere or else forgo some unnecessary purchases altogether. I seriously doubt that I am alone in consolidating my shopping habits in this way, and I contend that in the aggregate such behaviors are likely to impact small stores in Milpitas shopping centers if Walmart's proposal is approved.

    

7. I do not profess to be a statistician or mathematician capable of fully grasping the process by which the EIR concludes that Walmart's expansion will not force existing stores out of business. I would greatly appreciate if someone from the City would sit with me and carefully explain that analysis. I will, however, once again ask that the Planning Commission consider the statements in the EIR that there is currently no excess demand for groceries in the market area and that Walmart's proposal may negatively impact existing stores. This analysis alone suggests that the Planning Commission should at the very least consider the 50-percent scale back recommended by the EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. Moreover, as I understand the EIR, according to Table 4.11-14 Walmart expects $12,402,898 in annual grocery sales. Elsewhere in the EIR we see that household growth in the market area is expected to generate $9,328,184 in additional food sales. According to Table 4-11.15, Walmart will absorb only a small portion of these sales, leaving $8,496,213 for other stores. As I interpret this data, that still leaves about $4,000,000 in food sales drained by Walmart from area stores and not made up by population growth. This leads me to believe that the impact of the proposed expansion on existing businesses will be substantial even if it does not force existing businesses to close.

    

8. Even if Walmart's proposal does not harm businesses, I submit that existing grocery stores will be forced to negotiate inferior contracts with their workers in order to remain competitive with Walmart. This will have a negative impact on the local economy that will more than outweigh Walmart's insistence that the new grocery department will create 75-85 new jobs. Please see the attached document for citations to expert authorities on why this is so.

Thank you once again for your time.

Best regards,

Erik D. Kaeding

Attachment: Walmart_supporting_evidence.pdf