Agenda Item Wording:
title
A Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17: A request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot commercial building for the sale of general retail merchandise with a fuel dispensing service station and a car wash, within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. The project site is located on the southwest corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).
body
Deadline for Action: 12/3/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner, (559) 713-4443, cristobal.carrillo@visalia.city <mailto:cristobal.carrillo@visalia.city>
Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, (559) 713-4025, paul.bernal@visalia.city <mailto:paul.bernal@visalia.city>
Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and staff presentation, hold a public hearing, and adopt Resolution No. 2024-68, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17.
Summary:
The applicant, Derek Finnegan, consultant with Lars Anderson & Associates representing property owner Jim Shehadey, filed Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, to establish an expanded service station with 14 fueling dispensers (containing 28 total positions) and a carwash facility. The uses will be located within the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center, at the southwest corner of West Visalia Parkway and South Mooney Boulevard. The carwash will be a standalone use, while the service station will be affiliated with a proposed big box retail membership club store, also to be located within the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center. A full description of the conditional use permit request is provided in the “Project Overview” section of this staff report.
The entitlement application was heard by the Visalia Planning Commission at public hearings on September 23, 2024, and October 14, 2024. The Planning Commission requested modifications to the project’s conditions of approval and site plan at the September 23, 2024, meeting, and officially approved the conditional use permit request on October 14, 2024. On October 24, 2024, the City Clerk received two appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval, citing errors and abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, and a lack of evidence supporting its approval of the conditional use permit request. An appeal hearing before the Visalia City Council was scheduled for November 18, 2024. However, due to the breadth of the appeal filings, the applicant requested a continuance of the public hearing to December 3, 2024. The continuance was granted by the City Council at the November 18, 2024, meeting. Detail on the Planning Commission hearings and appeals of the conditional use permit approval are provided in the “Planning Commission Review and Action” and “Appeals” sections of the staff report.
Planning Commission Review and Action:
September 24, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing
At the September 23, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, a request to establish a service station with 14 fuel dispensers and carwash within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center. Public comment in favor of the proposal was received from property owner Jim Shehadey, and project consultants Dan Zoldak, Ryan Alvarez, and Sterling Smith with Lars Anderson and Associates, Kimley-Horn, and BRR Architecture, respectively.
Public comments in opposition to the proposal were provided by a general member of the public, April Lancaster, and residents of the Westlake Village senior mobile home park (Claudia Lenoir, David Jensen, Jill Faenza, Mary Abeyta, Joseph Metras, and Anna Maier). The mobile home park is located west of the project site. All speakers shared concerns about potential environmental impacts from the project to the elderly residents of Westlake Village. Speakers focused primarily on the location and operation of the proposed gas station and analysis provided within the Health Risk Assessment (HRA). Specifically, the opponents indicated they believed an advisory guideline of a 300-foot setback for the siting of service stations near sensitive receptors such as housing should be required. In response to the comments and questions from the Commission, the applicant stated that they would be willing to relocate the proposed gas station further eastward, increasing the setback between the gas station and the nearest residence within the Westlake Village mobile home park.
At the conclusion of public testimony, the Planning Commission requested revisions and additions to the proposed conditions of approval for the project, to further address potential impacts to nearby sensitive uses. This included adding a condition requiring a landscape buffer along the western boundary of the project site, clarifying where the height of noise buffering block walls would be measured from, clarifying hours of operation for loading dock and delivery activities, and including mitigation measures as explicit conditions. The Planning Commission also directed the applicant to provide a revised site plan depicting the relocated service station. The Commission then approved the item by a vote of 4-0 (Commissioner Chris Tavarez absent). As part of its decision, the Commission directed staff to return with the revised conditions and site plan at the next regular meeting on October 14, 2024, so it could review and give final approval to the revised materials as a Consent Calendar item.
October 14, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing
At the October 14, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered a Consent Calendar item to review the revised conditions of approval and site plan for Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17. The revisions to the conditions reflected changes requested by the Commission at its September 23, 2024, meeting. The site plan reflected a change by the applicant to relocate the gas station further eastward, to address concerns expressed by the public over the facility’s proximity to existing residential uses west of the project site. While the original site plan presented by the applicant identified the nearest fuel dispenser as approximately 99 feet from the property boundary shared with Westlake Village, the revised site plan depicted the nearest fuel dispenser at a setback of approximately 160 feet from the shared property boundary, and approximately 187 feet from the nearest residence.
The applicant also provided a revised HRA with a brief addendum, analyzing the effects of the relocated service station to nearby sensitive receptors. The analysis remained fundamentally unchanged, concluding that there would still be a “less than significant impact” from the proposed service station on nearby residences. The materials also clarified the applicability of a 300-foot setback guideline provided within the HRA, noting that such guidelines are advisory, and would not supersede site-specific analysis, which determines the actual risk from a particular facility.
Public comments in favor of the proposal were received from property owner Jim Shehadey, and project consultant Jason Ellard, an air quality consultant with JK Consulting Group. Public comments in opposition to the proposal were provided by members of the public April Lancaster and Efrain Becerra, and residents of the Westlake Village senior mobile home park (Claudia Lenoir, Anna Maier, Doug Gallard, Connie Page, Jill Faenza, Angela Romanello, and Mary Abeyta). All speakers continued to express concerns about potential environmental impacts from the project to the Westlake Village residents as a result of the close proximity of the proposed gas station. Specifically, the speakers requested that the City impose the advisory 300-foot setback guideline mentioned in the HRA. Opponents also expressed concern about the filing of a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) for the September 23, 2024, approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17. The opponents stated that the filing was premature since the Commission had requested to review revisions to the site plan and conditions of approval. In response staff stated that pursuant to Public Resources Code 21152(c), a revised NOD would be filed after the final approval of the conditional use permit request, if approved.
At the conclusion of public testimony, the Planning Commission expressed support for the revisions to the conditions of approval and site plan, and approved the item by a vote of 4-1 (Commissioner Charlie Norman voting in opposition).
Appeal:
Appeal Filings
On October 24, 2024, the City Clerk received two appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17. The appellants, and the reasons for the appeal, are listed below:
• Appeal No. 1 - Filed by William N. Hannah, attorney with the law offices of Hornburg, Gaebe, & Hannah, Inc., representing 2400 W Midvalley, LLC, the owner of the Westlake Village mobile home park.
The appellant alleges that the City of Visalia did not observe proper public notification procedures for the project, and failed to conduct adequate environmental review to address impacts from the gas station use to wildlife and sensitive receptors, and to analyze impacts from air pollution and noise.
• Appeal No. 2 - Filed by Anna Maier, resident of Westlake Village, in conjunction with residents of Westlake Village and other members of the public (April Lancaster, Claudia Lenoir, Angela Romanello, Mary Abeyta, Patti A. Evrett, Deborah Merriss, Sharla Searcy-Masor, Joan Goularte, Jill Faenza, Suzan Jaques, Joseph Jaques, David Jensen, Barbara Jensen, Connie Page, and Lonnie Le).
The appellant alleges that there was an error and abuse of discretion by the Visalia Planning Commission when it acted to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, and that the Commission lacked sufficient evidence to support its decision. Allegations within the document are wide ranging, touching on many areas of possible indiscretion, including a faulty HRA analysis, unaddressed impacts from noise, traffic, and lighting, unaddressed impacts to wildlife and housing, inadequate General Plan analysis, and instances of non-compliance with City planning documents, CEQA review processes, and Federal/State law.
The full text of the appeals are included in Attachments 1 and 2. Given the breadth of the documentation provided by the appellants, the claims are bundled together and addressed via category. The appellant claims and City responses are provided below.
1. Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
Claim: Both appellants claim that the HRA submitted by the applicant was flawed in its analysis of air pollution impacts from the service station. Appellants noted several potential issues, including the incorrect listing of the number of fuel dispensers proposed which could impact the conclusions of the HRA, a lack of deference to San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) guidance for the siting of service stations 300 feet from sensitive receptors, failure to employ AERSCREEN or CAPCOA analysis tools, use of outdated emissions data and guidance, use of an outdated EMFAC model to assess emissions, and a failure to address cumulative impacts from benzene, particulate matter, truck deliveries, idling vehicles, and traffic on State Route 63/South Mooney Boulevard. The appellants also noted that the City did not receive comment on the HRA from the SJVAPCD.
City Response: To address the many claims under this category, the applicant has provided a response from air quality consultant Jason Ellard, with JK Consulting Group. The full response is included as Attachment 6. Per Ellard, when evaluating a project’s impact on adjacent sensitive receptors (i.e. those susceptible to adverse health effects from exposure to toxic air contaminants, such as children, the elderly, etc.) the first step is to evaluate the project against available screening tools/methodologies. In evaluating the proposed project, the first step included a comparison of the project to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, Table 1 - Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such as Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities. The handbook provides recommendations for siting ‘new sensitive land uses’ within proximity of facilities known to generate toxic air contaminants (TACs). When a project proposes a facility known to generate TACs to be located adjacent to sensitive land uses, Table 1 may be used as a screening tool to determine if further analysis of the project is warranted. In this case, the project is located within 300 feet of sensitive receptors and does not meet the ‘recommendations’ of Table 1. Therefore a site-specific analysis of impacts to sensitive receptors was required to be provided. It should be noted that the ‘recommendations’ in Table 1 are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1 (see the HRA in Attachment 7), and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility.
The second step is to perform a Prioritization Analysis consistent with California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology. The SJVAPCD, the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within Tulare County, created a prioritization calculator based on CAPCOA guidelines which may be used to evaluate a projects potential impact to sensitive receptors. “Prioritization” results are a conservative health risk representation and the SJVAPCD recommends a more refined analysis be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This was the method used for the HRA submitted for this project. [Please note, per the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015, there are various tools that can be used to screen toxic sources impacting sensitive receptors, including AERSCREEN and prioritization calculators. Both need not be completed, nor one preferred over the other, to properly evaluate impacts.] If a screening risk assessment shows that there is a concern, a more refined analysis may be prepared to provide more accurate information for decision makers. Screening assessments use more conservative assumptions and thus gives higher risk than refined assessments.
Ellard states that the storage and combustion of fuel at the project site poses potential health risks associated with Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes, Ethyl Benzene, Hexane, Naphthalene, and Propylene (propene) exposure, in addition to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). These toxic emissions are associated with the project’s operations, and thus were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator, which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, TAC emissions associated with the project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further analysis is not required nor warranted per SJVAPCD guidance since the Prioritization Score is less than 10.
Per Ellard, it should also be noted that while idling vehicles at the gasoline station would generate criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it would be at a level that is less than significant. Considering trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook and criteria pollutant emission factors from EMFAC 2017 and 2021 for Light-Heavy Duty vehicles, the gas station would generate emissions as follows:
|
Pollutant |
EMFAC 2017 |
EMFAC 2021 |
|
ROG |
0.065706 tons/yr |
0.065953 tons/yr |
|
CO |
0.550752 tons/yr |
0.551055 tons/yr |
|
NOx |
0.059816 tons/yr |
0.059015 tons/yr |
|
CO2 |
20.452703 tons/yr |
20.453493 tons/yr |
|
SOx |
0.000200 tons/yr |
0.000201 tons/yr |
|
PM10 |
0.000638 tons/yr |
0.000639 tons/yr |
|
PM2.5 |
0.000610 tons/yr |
0.000611 tons/yr |
The SJVAPCD has established a significance threshold of 10 tons/year for ROG, 100 tons/year for CO, 10 tons/year for NOx, 27 tons/year for SOx, and 15 tons/year for PM10 and PM2.5. Results show that emissions from idling will not exceed the established SJVAPCD criteria. It should be noted that EMFAC does not include emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 for gasoline vehicles since the PM contribution to ambient air quality from gasoline vehicles is normally negligible. The SJVAPCD has not established a significance threshold for GHG emissions (CO2). Instead, CARB has established a significance threshold of 7,000 MT CO2eq per year. GHG emissions from idling vehicles at the gas station represent 0.3% of the CARB threshold. Given the above, analysis of cumulative impacts from idling vehicles would still produce a less than significant impact to air quality.
In regard to the number of fuel dispensers identified, staff acknowledges that the original HRA did incorrectly state the number of fuel pumps proposed (12 in the HRA versus the 14 that are proposed). However, per Attachment 6, Mr. Ellard states that emissions analysis is based upon the 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel that are projected to be sold annually onsite. The Prioritization Score of 8.62 identified in the HRA is not related to the number of pumps at the gas station but is directly related to the fuel throughput of the station. As such, the figures provided in the HRA are still accurate despite the wrong number of fuel dispensers listed.
In regard to the use of an outdated EMFAC model, Ellard first notes that the Emission Factor model (EMFAC), developed by CARB, is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California. It is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources. There are two versions; one from 2017 and one from 2021. Ellard notes that EMFAC 2017 is approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, due to not accounting for new vehicle technologies, was employed in this instance to produce more conservative emission readings. Ellard notes that for comparison purposes only, he conducted analysis using EMFAC 2021, considering the same methodologies used in the HRA prepared by JK Consulting Group for the project. Using EMFAC 2021, results indicated that toxic emissions associated with the project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.63 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. The prioritization (max) score increases by 0.01, when compared to the results produced from the use of EMFAC 2017.
In response to claims of use of outdated guidance and data, Ellard notes that all guidance and data employed for the development of the HRA is consistent with SJVAPCD methodology and industry standards.
For comments related to the inclusion of impacts from traffic on State Route 63/South Mooney Boulevard, staff notes that the CARB land use handbook recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. In this instance, residential uses west of the project site are setback approximately 1,252 feet from State Route 63, well outside of the 500 foot CARB guideline setback. Residential areas to the southeast of the project site that are closer to State Route 63 (approximately 400 feet) are setback at least 850 feet from the proposed gas station, and thus outside the 300-foot CARB guideline setback for gas stations to residences. Given that the guideline setbacks are being met in each scenario, it is unlikely that State Route 63 is producing impacts on the mobile home park that would be exacerbated by the placement of a gas station.
Lastly, the appellant is correct that the SJVAPCD did not provide written comment for the project. However, staff notes that the SJVAPCD was notified and given an opportunity to provide comment during publication of the CEQA Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and through regular public hearing notification processes. Staff also spoke with SJVAPCD staff on September 16, 2024, and provided a link to the CEQA document. SJVAPCD did contact staff on September 23, 2024, after 5:00pm, the day of the first Planning Commission public hearing, to request an extension of time to provide comment. However, due to the public hearing for the project occuring later that evening, staff stated that an extension of time would not be possible. As such, no comment letter was ever received from SJVAPCD. Please note that as part of regular development processes, the applicant will still be required to comply with SJVAPCD requirements, including obtaining permits through the SJVAPCD for construction of the proposed service station and carwash.
2. Noise
Claim: The appellants claim that noise impacts from the proposed use have not been adequately analyzed or addressed. The appellants point to the lack of analysis of noise impacts from onsite vehicle traffic, including delivery trucks and parking lot operations, specifically in the area where vehicles will exit the gas station property.
City Response: The applicant has provided supplement information to the 2024 BAC noise study (Attachment 5) that was originally conducted for the project, included here as Attachment 5. The supplemental information is provided from noise consultant Dario Gotchet, with Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC). Per BAC, the supplemental material incorporates trip generation information provided in a traffic memo previously prepared for the project by Kimley-Horn (see Traffic Memorandum for the Proposed Sam’s Fuel Project in the City of Visalia in Attachment 7). BAC has conducted a re-analysis of project noise level exposure as the changes identified in the traffic memo will affect the analysis and associated results contained in the parking movements and cumulative project on-site operations noise impact discussions. Further, after review of a traffic circulation diagram contained in the Kimley-Horn traffic memo, and consideration of the projects proximity to nearby residential uses, it was determined that an additional impact discussion for on-site passenger vehicle noise would be warranted, employing both data from the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and project trip generation data contained in the revised Kimley-Horn traffic memo. Additionally, modifications were also made to account for how noise affects typical manufactured home construction versus standard residential construction. That analysis conservatively assumes an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 20 dB for manufactured homes, instead of 25 dB for standard residential construction.
Upon reanalysis BAC determined that project parking area noise levels would still be expected to satisfy the strictest Visalia Municipal Code interior noise level criteria within the nearest existing residences (manufactured homes), producing a less than significant impact. For on-site passenger vehicle circulation, BAC determined that noise exposure was predicted to satisfy applicable Visalia General Plan and Visalia Municipal Code noise level criteria at the nearest existing residential uses, and that noise exposure from this activity was not calculated to significantly increase ambient noise levels at those uses, thereby producing a less than significant impact.
BAC concludes the reanalysis by assessing the cumulative noise impacts of all onsite operations. Here, BAC confirms that cumulative and highest predicted noise levels from on-site operations are calculated to exceed the Visalia General Plan daytime and nighttime noise level standards, at a portion of the nearest residential uses, and exceed a portion of the applied Visalia Municipal Code nighttime and maximum exterior noise level limits at the nearest residential uses. When adjusting for manufactured home construction, the impact is identified as potentially significant, requiring mitigation to address. However, BAC notes that the mitigation measures previously identified in the original noise study (i.e. reduced hours of operation for delivery and loading dock activities, eight foot tall masonry walls along the western property boundary, and compliance with construction noise standards in the Visalia Municipal Code) are still sufficient to reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant, and in compliance with Visalia General Plan and Municipal Code noise criteria.
Staff also notes that additional measures have been put in place via conditions of approval to further limit the impact of noise on the Westlake Village complex. Specifically, requirements for the placement of an eight-foot-tall block wall along the southern boundary of the project site (also adjacent to residential uses), and placement of screening landscaping along the southern and western property boundaries. In addition, Condition No. 7 of CUP No. 2024-17 requires that prior to final occupancy of the big box retail store, service station, and carwash facility, the applicant/developer shall verify that the uses do not exceed Community Noise levels as identified in the original noise analysis in Attachment 7 (Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., May 2024 Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024). Per the condition, the applicant/developer shall have their acoustical noise consultant conduct noise measurements for the uses and the measurement shall be submitted and verified by Planning staff for acceptance. Failure to meet the noise requirements as specified in the acoustical analysis shall result in the applicant/developer implementing additional measures as needed to not exceed noise level standards for the residences.
3. Housing
Claim: The appellant claims that the proximity of the gas station to housing affects the ability to insure the home, as Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Guidelines (specifically FHA 4000.1II.D.3.b.iii(C)(6)-(7)) require that homes not be near “flammable or explosive materials”,
City Response: The cited FHA guideline comes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Single Family Housing Policy Handbook, and is meant to assist appraisers in identifying deficiencies in a property when conducting appraisals, specifically from external sources. The text of the FHA guideline is provided below (Note: emphasis added):
(6) Smoke, Fumes, and Offensive or Noxious Odors
The Appraiser must notify the Mortgagee if excessive smoke, chemical fumes, noxious odors, stagnant ponds or marshes, poor surface drainage or excessive dampness threaten the health and safety of the occupants or the marketability of the Property.
The Appraiser must consider the effect of the condition in the valuation of the Property if the conditions exist but do not threaten the occupants or marketability.
(7) Stationary Storage Tanks
If the subject property line is located within 300 feet of an aboveground, stationary storage tank with a capacity of more than 1,000 gallons of flammable or explosive material, then the Property is ineligible for FHA insurance, and the Appraiser must notify the Mortgagee of the deficiency of MPR or MPS.
The project will not involve the development of an aboveground stationary storage tank. And based on the operational information provided by the applicant in Attachment 4 and the HRA, the service station is not expected to produce smoke, fumes, odors, etc. that would threaten the health and safety of nearby residential occupants. As such the regulation is not applicable. Furthermore, City Building permit review and building inspection processes for development of the gas station will ensure that the facility is developed in accordance with all City and State Codes for building and fire safety. Clearance will also be required from SJVAPCD and the Tulare County Environmental Health Division, which conduct their own reviews and inspections for service station uses. Given the above, the project is not expected to be detrimental to a persons ability to ensure a home.
4. Climate Action Plan
Claim: The appellant claims that the City of Visalia has failed to perform regular emission inventories as discussed in its Climate Action Plan. And that this represents a failure of the City to comply with environmental justice mandates to protect disadvantaged communities such as Westlake Village from pollution exposure.
City Response: A Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a proactive plan created to help guide the City with development and enhancement of actions to reduce Visalia’s GHG emissions. The Visalia CAP does recommend the City re-inventory its GHG emissions on a regular basis. However, it is not a requirement of the CAP nor is it a State mandate. Furthermore, the CAP was designed to guide the City to limit GHG emissions through public programs, promotion of cleaner equipment, and development of infrastructure that supports GHG emission reductions. It is not designed as a tool to limit emissions from private development. As such, the claim is considered general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related issues.
Staff notes that the Climate Action Plan does include several municipal mitigation measures to assist in reducing emission impacts, such as installing solar photovoltaic systems, or using Energy Star compliant equipment. Such measures could be included as a condition of approval by the City Council upon the proposed private development. That notwithstanding, staff notes that the HRA analysis, which reviewed emissions from the proposed use, did not recommend the application of any mitigation measures to address emissions.
It should be noted that the City continues to develop projects that enhance its ability to provide for multi-modal modes of transportation, to reduce travel means by vehicles. Efforts to incorporate these projects into the City’s circulation system, as identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan, include the following:
• Packwood Creek Trail Project - Incorporated Class IV bike lanes on Walnut Avenue from Santa Fe Street to Ben Maddox Way, and trail construction from Cedar Street to Crumal Street. This also included incorporation of a mid-block HAWK signal at Lovers Lane.
• Riggin Avenue Widening from Akers Avenue to Demaree Street - Added Class IV bike lanes along the street corridor.
• Caldwell Avenue Reconstruction from Akers Avenue to Shady Street - Added buffered Class II bike lanes.
• County Center Street Rehabilitation Project from Houston Avenue to Riggin Avenue - Incorporated Class IV bike lanes and a protected intersection at Ferguson Street and County Center Street.
• Walnut Avenue Rehabilitation from Court Street to Central Street - Added buffered Class II bike lanes where feasible
• St. Johns Parkway Rehabilitation from Ben Maddox Way to Lovers Lane - Incorporated buffered Class II bike lanes.
Lastly, Caltrans is undergoing the installation of Class II bike lanes along Mooney Boulevard as part of a rehabilitation project. The Mooney Boulevard corridor is also now considered a major transit stop, as it supports two or more major bus routes with service every 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods. Given this classification and the work conducted by Caltrans, Mooney Boulevard is also considered supportive to the City’s efforts to promote multi-model modes of transportation.
5. Federal and State Law
Claim: The appellant claims that State and Federal laws require the City of Visalia to act to protect disadvantaged communities by decreasing exposure to pollution. The appellant cites SB 1000 (2016), AB 98 (applicable in 2026), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as applicable law that the City failed to take into consideration when approving the CUP request.
City Response: SB 1000 is a State law that requires local governments with disadvantaged communities in their planning areas to develop environmental justice policies as part of their general plans. The aim is to address unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by decreasing pollution exposure, increasing community assets, and improving overall health. The City has drafted an Environmental Justice Element for its General Plan that has been posted for 30-day public review from June 3, 2024 to July 3, 2024. The draft plan includes within the Background and Context section (Page 9-12) a methodology for determining what is considered a “disadvantaged community”. This includes use of a screening tool (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) to identify such communities. CalEnviroScreen uses 21 indicators to assess pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities for each census tract in California and assigns a score for each indicator. The higher the percentile score, the more that census tract is impacted by that indicator. Individual indicator scores are then summarized into two primary metrics: pollution burden and population characteristics, which are together calculated to determine an overall CalEnviroScreen score. Census tracts in the top 25 percent of overall CalEnviroScreen scores (percentile scores between 75 and 100) are identified as disadvantaged communities by the CalEPA. Per CalEnviroScreen, the project site has an overall score of 60%, outside of the range identified by CalEPA to be considered a disadvantaged community. As such the Westlake Village community is not considered a disadvantaged community. Please note, despite this conclusion, mitigation measures and conditions of approval have still been applied to the project to address potential impacts from noise, lighting, and operation of the use on the Westlake Village community. And once the Environmental Justice Element is adopted, it will further assist in reducing pollution impacts Citywide.
AB 98 is a State law, commencing September 30, 2026, that prohibits cities and counties from approving new or expanded logistics uses unless they meet specified standards, and requires cities and counties to update their circulation elements to include truck routes. Standards include setback requirements from residential uses. AB 98 defines “logistics use” to mean “a building in which cargo, goods, or products are moved or stored for later distribution to business or retail customers, or both, that does not predominantly serve retail customers for onsite purchases, and heavy-duty trucks are primarily involved in the movement of the cargo, goods, or products, with specified exceptions”. The proposed big box retail membership store that is associated with the gas station does not meet this definition, as it will predominantly serve retail customers for onsite purchases. As such, the provisions of AB 98 would not apply.
The ADA is a Federal law that provides protections for individuals with disabilities, with focuses on civil liberties and accessibility. While the appellant notes that some Westlake Village residents are affected by disabilities, no connection is made or information provided to support that the project will produce impacts to civil liberties and/or accessibility for the residents of Westlake Village. As such, the claim is considered general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related issues. Staff notes that as part of building permit and inspection processes, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that all proposed facilities will be ADA compliant.
6. Traffic
Claim: The appellant claims that traffic projections submitted by Kimley-Horn are based on figures collected from a non-equivalent site, due to its location in a low populated area. The appellant also states that West Visalia Parkway, in its current configuration, is inadequate to support the expected traffic to be generated by the proposed use.
City Response: Staff notes that the Kimley-Horn traffic memorandum cited by the appellant (see Attachment 7, Exhibit M from the October 14, 2024 Planning Commission staff report) is primarily meant to evaluate the vehicle queuing capability of the service station. Staff also notes that the facility used as a basis for trip generation figures (Sam’s Club in Bakersfield, CA) is located in an active commercial shopping center, primarily surrounded by commercial development to the north and west, and residential development to the east. Though there is vacant commercial land to the south, it does not appear that the area is unpopulated.
In response to the claim that West Visalia Parkway is inadequate to support increased traffic, staff notes that as part of the original CUP approval for the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center, right of way improvements to South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway were required to adequately support traffic. Improvements included widening of the southern half of West Visalia Parkway between the project site and South Dans Street, including a portion west of the Dans Street and Visalia Parkway intersection. The right of way improvements required for the overall shopping center are largely completed, save for the widening of the southern half of West Visalia Parkway between the project site and South Dans Street. Per previous conditions and mitigation measures applied to the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center, widening of West Visalia Parkway is required prior to occupancy any of the uses proposed on the project site. Given the above, it is expected that West Visalia Parkway will be able to adequately serve traffic generated by the proposed uses, if they are approved.
7. CEQA Processes
Claim: The appellant claims that a number of errors were conducted by staff during its steering of the CEQA review process, thereby inspiring a loss of confidence in the adequacy of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. The appellant provides as examples the premature filing of a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) for the project prior to its official approval by the Planning Commission, inconsistencies within the Air Quality portion of the Initial Study that note impacts are both “less than significant” and “significant and unavoidable”, and the fact that an Environmental Impact Report was not conducted.
City Response: Staff concurs that the NOD for the project was filed prematurely. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21152(c), the NOD must be filed only when a final approval for a project has been given, following the expiration of any appeal period or the processing of any appeal action. A NOD filed before a project approval is issued is invalid and does not trigger the statute of limitations (Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408.). As such, the premature filing of the NOD was void on its face, and is considered a clerical error that resulted in no harm or prejudice to any legal rights held by any interested party to this matter. As detailed above, the administrative process for this project has continued, with all interested parties fully able to participate in the proceedings subsequent to the premature NOD filing.
In regards to Section III (Air Quality) of the Initial Study, staff notes that during processing of the General Plan, it was acknowledged that full build out of the City as formulated in the General Plan would result in “significant and unavoidable impacts” to the environment. This was addressed via the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations along with the General Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is a written statement that outlines the specific reasons why the social, economic, legal, technical, or other beneficial aspects of a project (in this case the 2014 General Plan) outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and why the Lead Agency is willing to accept such impacts. This is why the text within Section III states that impacts to air quality are significant and unavoidable. That said, the City has yet to be fully built out. The City contains three development tiers, and has only recently opened development into Tier II. As such, the project, based on the analysis provided in the HRA, is considered as producing less than significant impacts. As it stands, it is unclear how the apparent inconsistency in Section III correlates to an increase in environmental impacts to the appellants.
Lastly, staff notes that the first CEQA review conducted for the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center was an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Per the 2001 CEQA Deskbook (1999 Second Edition) an Environmental Impact Report should be conducted when a “Lead Agency determines that it can be fairly argued based on substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment” (Page 37). The City of Visalia (the Lead Agency in this instance) determined that the proposed revisions to the original shopping center proposal did not support a requirement for an Environmental Impact Report. Studies provided by the applicant indicated that impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the application of mitigation measures. No evidence has been provided by the appellant demonstrating the potential for significant and unavoidable impacts from the project.
8. Public Noticing
Claim: The appellant claims that the Westlake Village property owner did not receive a public notice informing them of the September 23, 2024, Planning Commission public hearing.
City Response: Staff has provided within Attachment 8 documentation verifying that a public hearing notice was mailed on August 22, 2024, to occupants and owners of properties located within 300 feet of the project site, informing them of the intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and hold a Planning Commission public hearing for CUP No. 2024-17. The mailing list includes both the mailing address for the Westlake Village property owner and the main office for the Westlake Village mobile home park. Mailing information is provided by the City GIS system, which obtains addresses from the Tulare County Assessor.
9. Wildlife
Claim: The appellant claims that the environmental review did not take into account impacts to wildlife and habitat present at the Westlake Village mobile home park, such as Canadian geese, aquatic turtles, ducks, fish, and man-made lakes. The appellant claims that some of the animals cited are protected by State and Federal law.
City Response: Staff does not have any evidence confirming one way or the other whether any species or habitats of note are present within the Westlake Village complex. The Biological Resources section of the Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report includes a map (Figure 3.8-1: Vegetation and Special Status Species) that indicates that no such special status species are present within the project site or Westlake Village property. The list of animals noted by the appellant is general and does not identify any specific species, save for Canadian geese, which do not show up on any State or Federal endangered species list. The lakes within Westlake Village are manufactured, and it is unknown if they are treated in any way by the property owners to reduce algae or other nuisances, which would dilute the naturalness of the habitat. As it stands, the Westlake Village complex is already partially surrounded by urban development, including a big box retail store (Target) to the northeast, with little effect on the animals and habitat present onsite.
10. General Plan
Claim: The appellant claims that the 2014 General Plan does not address the type of development or air pollution impacts associated with the project, raising concerns about the adequacy of planning for the projects.
City Response: Staff notes that the City of Visalia 2014 General Plan includes an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Element, which describes the air quality setting in Visalia and provides objectives and policies to improve conditions. Included as part of the Element is discussion of various criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, including benzene, which were discussed in the HRA submitted by the applicant. The General Plan also includes a Land Use Element, which includes policies that address development of regional commercial uses, such as the project. As such, it is unclear why the General Plan is not considered adequate, and what relevance that has to any potential impacts to Westlake Village.
11. Lighting
Claim: The appellants claim that the project will produce increased lighting impacts within Westlake Village.
City Response: As part of the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP No. 2024-17, conditions have been included requiring the applicant to design onsite lighting so as to direct light downward, reduce glare, and produce no more than 0.5 foot candles at property boundaries, all of which must be verified prior to operation of the use. A condition is also included requiring the planting of evergreen screening trees along the entire western boundary of the project site, with the applicant also proposing additional screening trees along the southern property boundary. The trees will further assist with reducing lighting impacts. Lastly, Condition No. 8 of CUP No. 2024-17 is included, requiring that prior to final occupancy of any building proposed in the site plan, the applicant/developer shall verify that parking lot lighting does not exceed an output of 0.5-foot candles measured at property line, in accordance with the site photometric plan submitted in Attachment 4. The applicant/developer shall have their electrical or construction contractor conduct a light measurement to be submitted and verified by Planning staff prior to final occupancy. Failure to meet requirements as specified in the photometric plan shall result in non-operation of the site until light levels are met.
12. Case Law Precedent
Claim: The appellant states that a current lawsuit filed by Ventura County Citizens Against Mega Gas against the development of a Costco in Camarillo, CA “may offer useful precedents for Visalia.” Per the appellant, “the case highlights similar concerns regarding the proximity of large retail developments to sensitive receptors like senior communities.”
City Response: The court case was filed by citizens of Camarillo, CA and gas station owners to challenge the City of Camarillo approval for a 160,000 square foot big box retail membership store, with a tire center, and 30 pump gas station. The City Attorney conducted research into the court case and found that the lawsuit was filed on the basis of CEQA, and that no decision has been made by the trial court as of the publication of this report. Given that the case is still being processed and no decision has been rendered, there is no relevant precedent to apply to this project. As such, this claim is not applicable.
13. Project Design
Claim: The appellant states that the location of the proposed loading docks for the big box retail store are too close to residential uses, and will result in exacerbating health conditions suffered by residents. The appellants state that the loading dock should be located along West Visalia Parkway, and that the gas station should be relocated further east, to the property on which the carwash is proposed. The appellants also cite impacts from people loitering and racing in the shopping center parking lot, and request the installation of speed bumps as a preventative measure.
City Response: The proposed locations of the gas station and loading docks are expected to produce less than significant impacts to the abutting residential areas with implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. In particular, per building elevations provided in Attachment 4, the design of the loading docks will include installation of 10-foot-tall screening walls at the eastern and southern ends of the loading docks. This will be on top of the eight foot tall screening walls to be located on the property boundary shared with residential uses.
Staff notes that the existing shopping center parking lot (just west of the Les Schwab Tire Center at 4643 South Mooney Boulevard) is prone to loitering as a result of half the shopping center remaining undeveloped. If the proposed project is approved, its development will bring about the installation of parking lot lighting and security cameras, and will bring employees who can report instances of loitering and racing. Please note that the City Council can also require the installation of speed bumps within the shopping center as a condition of approval, if deemed necessary.
14. Alternative Locations
Claim: The appellant states that the project should be at a different location, away from residential uses. Specifically the appellants state that the project would be better suited within the Oaks Marketplace shopping center, located east of the project site, at the southeast corner of West Visalia Parkway and South Mooney Boulevard.
City Response: The City cannot compel a project applicant to relocate to a different location. Nor can it compel other property owners to sell or rent their property to an entity. As there is no specific environmental impact cited by this claim, no other responses are warranted. It should be noted that the project site is planned and zoned for Regional Commercial uses. This site was originally designated for Regional Commercial development under the 1991 General Plan and was retained with the adoption of the 2030 General Plan. The purpose and intent of the Regional Commercial zone district is to provide areas for retail establishments that are designed to serve a regional service trade area. The uses permitted in this district are to be of a large-scale regional retail nature with supporting goods and services. Given the above, the use is considered appropriate for the project site.
15. Wall Heights
Claim: The appellant states that existing masonry walls that were built with the initial development of the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center are not sufficient to reduce impacts, as they were built shorter than the seven feet required by the Visalia Municipal Code.
City Response: Staff has confirmed that the existing screening walls built along the southern and western project site boundaries are shorter than the required seven feet. Condition No. 12 and 16.b of CUP No. 2024-17 will require the installation of eight foot tall walls along the southern and western project site boundaries shared with residential uses, to be completed prior to operation of the proposed uses. Conditions are written to require that the eight foot height be measured from the adjacent residential grade. Onsite inspections will also be conducted as part of the building permit review process to verify compliance with the requirement. The eight foot tall walls will assist with reducing impacts from noise produced on the project site.
16. Landscaping
Claim: The appellant states that proposed landscaping for the project will be inadequate to prevent impacts from the proposed use. And that the landscaping should have been planted during the initial development of the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center.
City Response: Staff notes that screening landscaping required via conditions of approval will assist in reducing impacts from lighting and noise, but acknowledges that it will not be effective until the landscaping reaches full maturity. Staff notes that additional mitigation and conditions of approval will assist in reducing impacts while landscaping matures, including installation of eight foot tall block walls, limitations on delivery/loading dock hours of operation, onsite lighting design, and compliance inspections.
17. Truck Routes
Claim: The appellant states that delivery trucks will be forced to use roads adjacent to sensitive receptors (i.e. schools and residences) since they are prohibited from using Mooney Boulevard to leave the project site.
City Response: Staff notes that the above claim is inaccurate. Per Figure 4-6: Truck Routes, Rail Lines, and Airport Facilities of the General Plan Circulation Element, South Mooney Boulevard is identified as an approved truck route, available for use by delivery trucks. This will allow for trucks to leave the project site without impacting sensitive land uses. Staff further notes that hours of operation for delivery truck activities will be limited via applied mitigation measures, further reducing impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors.
Project Overview:
Project Description
Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 is a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, which established the Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center. The original conditional use permit (CUP) conditionally facilitated the development of 17.43 acres of a 28.7 acre site, consisting of approximately 138,188 sq. ft. of commercial uses, including the establishment of four retail buildings of varying sizes (56,800 sq. ft., 29,800 sq. ft. and two 10,000 sq. ft. buildings), a 4,088 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store with six fueling stations and a 3,060 sq. ft. canopy, a 7,500 sq. ft. sit-down restaurant, two 3,000 sq. ft. drive-thru restaurants, and a 5,000 sq. ft. automotive repair shop. The amendment to the CUP proposes consolidation of the retail and office uses, removal of the convenience store, establishment of a carwash, and relocation and expansion of the service station, to accommodate the establishment of the following:
• A 172,000 square foot big box retail membership club store. - Per the Operational Statement in Attachment 4, the store will offer “…bulk merchandise at discounted prices to members, typically requiring annual subscriptions for access to exclusive products and services”. Additional services include a tire shop and a service station (discussed below). The use will operate seven days a week, 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Saturdays, and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sundays. Specialized “early shopping” hours will also be provided, 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. on Saturday. Delivery activities would occur 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., seven days a week. The number of employees proposed was not provided.
The building will be located east and north of an existing senior mobile home park. Loading docks will be situated at the south end of the retail store, approximately 90 feet from the southern property boundary shared with residential uses, with 10-foot-tall screening walls placed in between. A trash enclosure is proposed at the southwest corner of the project site, setback between 5 to 10 feet from property boundaries shared with residential uses, with landscaping proposed in between. A trash compactor is also proposed along the western wall of the building, near the southwest corner of the retail store.
• An expanded service station containing 14 fueling stations, a 9,000 square foot fueling station canopy, and 200 square foot fueling station building - Per Attachment 4, the service station use will operate in conjunction with the big box retail store, and will maintain similar hours of operation. The facility will sell gasoline and diesel fuels, exclusively to store members. Deliveries of fuel would be received “around the clock unless restricted by the authority having jurisdiction (City of Visalia)”. Employee numbers specific to this use were not provided. Per the Site Plan, the facility will provide vehicle queuing for up to 70 vehicles. Per the Site Plan, the closest fuel station will be setback approximately 100 feet from the western property boundary shared with residential uses.
• A 7,500 square foot carwash facility - The applicant proposes an automated and manual full-service car wash facility with 22 drying stations. Additional services such as waxing and detailing will also be provided. The hours of operation and employee numbers have not been provided by the applicant. Per Attachment 4, the facility will provide vehicle queuing for up to 24 vehicles. The Site Plan indicates that the carwash will be set back approximately 470 feet from the nearest residential uses to the west. Per Building Elevations, the tenant is identified as a Mister Car Wash.
• A 5,588 square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru lane for 35 vehicles. - The applicant proposes a fast-food restaurant with a dual drive-thru lane. Per Attachment 4, the user will provide “…quick service dining options through a streamlined assembly-line approach to food preparation and service.” The hours of operation or employee numbers have not been provided by the applicant. The dual drive-thru lane will provide vehicle queuing for up to 35 vehicles.
The carwash and expanded service station require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The retail store and fast food restaurant uses are permitted by right and are not a part of the Conditional Use Permit amendment request. As a result of the proposed changes, the total building square footage of the shopping center will increase from 138,188 square feet to 200,398 square feet, primarily due to the addition of the big box retail store.
The area affected by the new uses is composed of seven parcels totaling 22.2 acres out of the 28.7-acre shopping center. The parcels will be reconfigured as part of an ongoing Lot Line Adjustment (see Related Projects) that will consolidate the seven parcels into three parcels, the largest containing the retail store and service station. The parcels are currently primarily vacant, with portions developed with a parking field, drive-aisles, curb/gutter/sidewalk, parking lot lighting, and landscaping. New on and off-site improvements to support the proposed changes consist of the following:
• Relocation of the existing easternmost Visalia Parkway drive approach and drive aisle approximately 250 feet to the west, installation of additional curb/gutter/sidewalk at the northwest corner of the project site and at the location of the relocated drive approach.
• Development of the parking field, increasing stalls provided from 744 to 1,141.
• Installation of on-site parking lot lighting, consisting of 30-foot-tall light poles and wall pack lighting at a height of 24 feet.
• Installation of onsite landscaping.
• Installation of underground storage tanks for the service station use.
• Installation of accompanying utilities for all proposed uses.
The project will also be responsible for completing the widening of the southern half of West Visalia Parkway, from the project site westerly to South Dans Street (approximately 0.4 miles), as required by the original Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center approval. Per the Phasing Plan in Attachment 4, the project will be developed in two phases, with the drive-thru restaurant, carwash, and related improvements proposed during the first phase, and the big box retail store, service station, majority of the parking field, and related improvements proposed for the second phase. Timeframes for when development will occur have not been provided. The remainder of the shopping center has been developed, and includes a sit-down restaurant (Texas Roadhouse), two drive-thru restaurants (Dutch Bros. Coffee and Panda Express), and a tire shop (Les Schwab Tires). Accompanying onsite parking, lighting, landscaping, block walls, and on/off-site infrastructure improvements (including the widening of both Visalia Parkway and Mooney Boulevard across the project frontages, and improvement of the Visalia/Mooney intersection) have also been previously completed.
Land Use Compatibility
The proposed retail building and fast-food restaurant meets all drive-thru performance standards are permitted uses “by right” within the C-R Zone. Ancillary uses conducted within the general retail store, such as the sale of merchandise, groceries, tire sales & service (excluding major repairs), optical exams and sales, hearing aid testing and sales, fast food, specialty food (i.e. butcher), alcohol sales, and propane sales are all permitted as standalone or incidental uses in this zone. The service station and carwash uses are also permitted through approval of a CUP. The proposed uses identified will be situated within an established shopping center and will be compatible with the surrounding commercial areas to the north and east which contain either fully developed and/or developing shopping centers (Packwood Shopping Center to the north, Oaks Marketplace to the east). Furthermore, the General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big-box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”. The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation.
Areas to the south and west are primarily residential, containing the Westlake Village senior mobile home park. Potential impacts to residential areas from air quality, noise, and lighting will be addressed through a combination of design, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval. Mitigation measures include placement of an eight-foot-tall block wall along the western property boundary shared with residential uses and restricted delivery/loading dock hours of operation to limit noise impacts from the retail store and service station. Conditions of approval will also require the placement of an eight-foot-tall block wall and landscape screening along the southern and western property boundary shared with residential uses, and adjustments to onsite lighting to reduce glare, including verification of compliance with photometric plans submitted prior to occupancy of any proposed building. The applicant has also included design elements such as screening walls for the loading docks, parapet walls to screen HVAC equipment, orientation of the carwash so that blowers face eastward towards Mooney Boulevard away from residences, and installation of parking lot light poles no closer than 50 feet to residential areas. Previous mitigation measures and conditions of approval applied during the original approval of the shopping center shall continue to be applicable. With all the identified measures in place, the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Air Quality/HRA
Residences located to the west and south of the proposed project are considered sensitive receptors susceptible to air quality impacts from the proposed use. As a result, an HRA was submitted and is included with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The HRA analyzed potential impacts from carcinogenic, chronic, and acute toxic air contaminants (TAC) produced by the proposed service station on nearby sensitive receptors. The HRA identified residences located west of the project site as the nearest sensitive receptors. Specifically, the fuel dispensing area is located approximately 187 feet from the nearest existing residence. The HRA noted that a 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities and that siting ‘new’ sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater) should be avoided. However, the HRA also notes that while the service station is anticipated to sell 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel annually, the recommendation related to 300 feet is related to siting new sensitive receptors adjacent to exiting gasoline dispensing facilities. Furthermore, the 300-foot setback guideline within Table 1 of the HRA (Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such as Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities) is advisory, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility.
The HRA analyzed volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, diesel emissions from truck traffic and idling, and emission rates provided in the California Air Resources Board and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guide (February 18, 2022), to estimate emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline service station.
Lastly, the HRA employed the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator to determine the “Total Max Score” of Project specific toxic emissions as discussed above. Projects with a Prioritization score of 10 or higher require a Health Risk Assessment with dispersion modeling. Toxic emissions associated with the Project were used as inputs to the Prioritization Calculator which generated the prioritization score for the Project. Results indicated that toxic emissions associated with the Project would generate a max score of 8.62 for sensitive receptors within 328 feet of the Project. Project emissions associated with the Project will not trigger dispersion modeling since the Total Max Score is less than 10. As a result, dispersion modeling was not required for the Project considering the SJVAPCD’s methodology/threshold and mitigation is not warranted since there is a less than significant impact from project operational emissions. The latest version of the HRA can be found in Attachment 7.
Noise
The project will result in noise generation typical of urban development. The Visalia Noise Element and City Ordinance contain criterion for acceptable noise levels inside and outside residential living spaces. This standard is 65 dB DNL for outdoor activity areas associated with residences and 45 dB DNL for indoor areas.
An Acoustical Analysis was prepared for the proposed project, addressing the proposed commercial retail building, service station, and automated car wash uses [Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024, with supplemental information submitted November 19, 2024]. Impacts from the proposed drive-thru restaurant were not included given its lack of proximity to residential uses (approximately 750-foot separation at its closest point), and the fact that it is a use permitted by right in the C-R Zone. The purpose of the study was to determine if noise levels associated with the project would comply with the City’s applicable noise level standards, particularly upon the existing single-family residential mobile home park uses to the west and south. The acoustical analysis was intended to determine project‐related noise levels for all aspects of the proposed project.
The Acoustical Analysis concluded that an exterior noise level in excess of the 65 dB DNL standard for noise-sensitive land uses, specified in the City’s Noise Element, exists on the project site. To ensure that community noise standards are met for the development, the project developers have proposed an increase in height of an existing block wall located on the west side of the main project site to an overall height of eight feet, limited hours of operation to loading dock and truck delivery activities, and construction related compliance with Visalia Municipal Code Noise Ordinance measures and best practices to reduce impacts. The recommendations are included as mitigation measures and will allow for development of the proposal in accordance with the standards contained in the City’s Noise Element and Ordinance. The mitigation measures are as follows:
1. All project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
2. The height of the existing 7-foot-tall masonry wall along the western project property boundary shall be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. Related to this, please note the following:
a. VMC Section 17.36.050 (Fences, Walls and Hedges - Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones) limits the height of commercial walls to seven feet when located in a rear yard. The VMC permits 20% deviations in height limitations when special circumstances are identified, through the Administrative Adjustment process. Approvals are typically administrative, provided by the Planning and Community Preservation Director. As a result, it is recommended that the Planning Commission include as part of its decision, an approval to permit the height of the block wall to eight feet, as recommended by the Noise Study.
b. To further mitigate impacts, staff recommends inclusion of Condition No. 12, requiring placement of an eight-foot-tall block wall along the southern property boundary shared with residential zonings. As above, it is recommended that the Planning Commission include approval of the height deviation in its decision.
3. All on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
4. To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction operations:
a. All on-site noise-generating construction activities should occur pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050 (Noise - Exterior noise standards--Mobile noise sources prohibition against use).
b. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
c. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
d. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
e. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive uses.
f. Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
g. Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.
Please also note that previous mitigation measures for noise identified during review of the original shopping center request will continue to be applicable via conditions of approval. Lastly, a condition of approval was included, requiring the applicant/developer to have their acoustical noise consultant conduct noise measurements for the uses upon completion, to verify compliance with the acoustical analysis and VMC noise measures. Failure to meet the noise requirements as specified in the acoustical analysis shall result in the applicant/developer implementing additional measures as needed to achieve noise level standards for the residences.
Street Improvements/Traffic
Right of way improvements originally required for the overall shopping center are largely completed. The off-site improvements that remain to be completed as identified in the original approval is the widening of the southern half of West Visalia Parkway between the project site and South Dans Street, including a portion west of the Dans Street and Visalia Parkway intersection. The right-of-way improvements shall include installation curb, gutter, park strip landscaping, sidewalks, ramps, streetlights, fire hydrants, and other improvements as required. These improvements will be reimbursed back to the developer via the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. These improvements are still required and are included as conditions of approval.
Street improvements for this project will consist of the relocation of the existing easternmost driveway providing access onto Visalia Parkway. The relocation of this driveway further west is proposed to accommodate placement of a parking field for the future fast-food restaurant. Additional minor improvements to the westernmost Visalia Parkway driveway are also proposed, to accommodate truck and vehicle traffic. Installation of missing sidewalk and landscaping shall occur as well.
A Traffic Memo [Technical Memorandum: Trip Generation Comparison, Visalia Commons Shopping Center, Visalia California. Peters Engineering Group, August 19, 2024] was provided by the applicant, comparing potential trip generation from the amended project to what was originally analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) conducted for the overall shopping center (ref.: Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center. Peters Engineering Group, January 10, 2020). Based on the analysis provided in the Traffic Memo, trips generated by the revised project will be less than the vehicle trips identified in the original TIA.
As previously stated, required street improvements identified in the original TIA have been largely completed, which included the widening of West Visalia Parkway and South Mooney Boulevard to their ultimate widths along the project site frontage, and improvement of the Visalia Parkway/Mooney Boulevard intersection. Due to the completion of improvements and conclusions of the Traffic Memo, and update to the TIA was not required nor new street improvements or mitigation measures recommended. The original TIA performed remains applicable and covers the projected trip generation for the amended project.
Comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was received from Caltrans on September 3, 2024, and is included in Attachment 7. Per the e-mail provided, Caltrans agreed with the findings of the Traffic Memo/Technical Memorandum and had no further comments.
Access and Circulation
With the proposed project, the shopping center will continue to have a total of five access drive points: three along Visalia Parkway and two along Mooney Boulevard. Only the easternmost driveway along Visalia Parkway will change locations. As such, onsite circulation will remain largely unaltered from its original design. Per the Phasing Plan, four of the drive-aisles have already been constructed. Phase 1 of the proposed development will relocate the easternmost Visalia Parkway driveway to the west. The fifth driveway, at the northwest corner of the project site, will be developed with Phase 2.
The driveways will be connected by 25- to 30-foot-wide drive aisles that will function as the main thoroughfares for the shopping center. The drive aisles will be fully installed upon completion of the 2nd Phase of the development. A condition of approval is included requiring all existing CC&R’s and shared use/access/parking agreements to be updated and recorded to reflect the proposed shopping center alterations. This shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for the uses proposed.
Lighting
The project will create new sources of light that are typically associated with commercial retail use. The applicant has prepared a photometric study showing the installation of wall pack lighting for the retail store and 30-foot-tall parking lot pole lights. The plan demonstrates that the use will meet the standard of producing no more than 0.5-foot candles crossing at property line, in particular along the boundaries shared with the existing residential development to the south and west.
Staff has addressed lighting compliance in the CUP’s recommended conditions of approval. The conditions require the developer to conduct a lighting measurement verifying compliance with the photometric plan prior to occupancy of the proposed buildings and requires any onsite lighting to be designed so as to screen lighting and direct it downward, reducing impacts to nearby residential areas.
Public Comment:
A public comment letter was received from Richard J. Garcia, Chair of the Kern Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, and is included as Attachment 3. Garcia requested that the City Council consider applying additional mitigation measures to the project to address global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, Garcia requests that the City Council require the applicant to incorporate “a number of feasible GHG mitigation measures”, listed below as follows:
• Require parking lots for the project to include dedicated electric vehicle (EV) parking and operational charging facilities;
• Require the incorporation of heavy duty EV truck charging stations;
• Require the installation of roof top photovoltaic cells on retail buildings, car washing facilities, and fuel stations;
• Require the installation of solar canopies with EV charging capability within customer and employee parking lots; and
• Require the developer to pay GHG fees to the SJVAPCD, to be used to fund projects that would reduce GHG emissions elsewhere.
Staff notes that requirements for the inclusion of EV equipment in development projects is already built into City Building Permit review processes, as required by the California Building and Green Codes, and SJVAPCD processes for Indirect Source Review. For the City, this includes requiring the installation of EV capable stalls and electrical vehicle supply equipment, based on the total number of parking stalls within a parking facility. Installation of the equipment shall be verified during Building Permit inspections. As such, staff concludes that the requests of the Sierra Club are already incorporated into the overall project.
No other public comment has been received as of the publication of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
Future development of the property will require the developer to pay development impact fees which include Transportation, Trunk Line Capacity, Strom Drainage Acquisition, Park Acquisition and Development, Waterways Acquisition, Public Safety, and Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation.
Prior Council Action:
On November 18, 2024 the Visalia City Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP No. 2024-17: A request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend CUP No. 2019-31, for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot commercial building for the sale of general retail merchandise with a fuel dispensing service station and a car wash. At the request of property owner Jim Shehadey, the City Council continued the public hearing to December 3, 2024, to provide additional time for the applicant to review and provide responses to the two appeals filed against the Planning Commission approval of CUP No. 2024-17.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
recommendation
I move to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 per Resolution No. 2024-68.
end
Alternatives:
The City Council may, in lieu of the recommended motion specified above, consider any of the following alternatives:
1. Deny the conditional use permit and uphold the appeal, overturning the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17. City Council “findings” will need to be integrated into a revised Resolution for Council review and approval at a subsequent meeting; or
2. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission; or,
3. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing for additional information.
CEQA Review:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse 2024080917) states that environmental impacts from the project are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts to the following resources:
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Noise to address impacts to surrounding sensitive land uses.
A 30-day review and comment period through the State Clearinghouse for the Initial Study began on August 22, 2024, and ended on September 20, 2024. Mitigation measures can be viewed in Attachments 5 and 7 of this report.
The City of Visalia received one “no comment” e-mail from Caltrans in response to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. The e-mail is included with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, which can be viewed as part of Attachment 7. No other comments for the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration where received.
CEQA Notice of Determination
During the public comment portion of the October 7, 2024, meeting of the Visalia City Council, members of the public alleged that the City staff had illegally filed a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) for CUP No. 2024-17 prior to its official approval date. City staff confirms that an NOD for the project was filed prematurely on September 26, 2024, under the determination that, while the project would return to the Planning Commission on October 14, 2024 (as a consent item), the project had for all intents and purposes been approved on September 23, 2024.
However, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21152(c), it has been determined that the NOD must be filed only when a final approval has been given, following the expiration of any appeal period or the processing of any appeal action. In this instance, the NOD will be refiled only if CUP No. 2024-17 is approved by the Visalia City Council at the December 3, 2024, appeal hearing, as the date of action taken by City Council would be considered the final approval date.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 2024-68, denying the appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17.
2. Attachment 1 - Appeal of Planning Commission Action, October 24, 2024 - 2400 W Midvalley, LLC
3. Attachment 2 - Appeal of Planning Commission Action, October 24, 2024 - Anna Maier, Et al.
4. Attachment 3 - Public Comment from the Sierra Club, Kern Kaweah Chapter
5. Attachment 4 - Revised Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan Exhibits
6. Attachment 5 - SWC W Visalia Parkway & S Mooney Boulevard - Noise Study Revisions. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., November 19, 2024.
7. Attachment 6 -Summary and Responses to Appeal Comments related to Health Risk Assessment. JK Consulting Group, LLC, November 19, 2024.
8. Attachment 7 - October 24, 2024, and September 23, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Reports
9. Attachment 8 - September 23, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
10. General Plan Map
11. Zoning Map
12. Aerial Map
13. Vicinity Map