Visalia City Council
June 17, 2024

Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Visalia City Council
Visalia City Council
Meeting Agenda - Final
Brian Poochigian, Mayor
Brett Taylor, Vice Mayor
Steve Nelsen, Council Member
Emmanuel Hernandez Soto, Council Member
Liz Wynn, Council Member
City Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, June 17, 2024

ROLL CALL
CALL TO ORDER WORK SESSION - 4:00 PM (Unless otherwise noted)

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council and items listed on the Closed Session. The Council asks that you keep your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

Each speaker will be allowed three minutes, and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

WORK SESSION AND ACTION ITEMS (as described)

1. Special Recognition - Special recognition of Allison Mackey, Communications Manager and Macey Schonbachler, Community Outreach Coordinator for their recent awards and recognition from the Public Relations Society of America’s Central California Chapter.
24-0204

2. Civic Center Project Update - Provide Council with an update for Phase 2 of the Civic Center Project, request authorization to begin the Request for Qualification process for contractors, and authorize the use of a 10% retention for the project.
24-0210

3. Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) - Master Plan Final Update - Receive a final report and presentation on the Master Plan for the Water Reclamation Facility.
24-0232

4. Membership Agreement - Receive update report from the Tulare County Economic Development Corporation and authorize
continued membership for Fiscal Year (FY) 24/25 in the amount of $60,000.
24-0162

1 Visalia City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 17, 2024

5. Pre-Fourth of July Presentation by Fire Department - Presentation on pro-active efforts being undertaken to deter the use of illegal fireworks.
24-0239
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 PM (Or, immediately following Work Session)
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION - 7:00 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

ITEMS OF INTEREST

SPECIAL PRESENTATION / RECOGNITION

PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for people to comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments brief and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

This is the opportunity to address the Council on any matter of interest, whether on the agenda or not, other than the Consent Calendar.

People may comment one time during the evening for up to three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Council. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes, and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only. 24-0180

2. Adopt Resolution & Designate 2024/25 Specific Road
Maintenance Funding: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-30 to
designate Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account 2024/25 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB 1) to the Whitendale Road
Rehabilitation Project; and authorize the transfer of $3,600,000 within the SB1 RMRA Fund from Pavement Rehabilitation and the appropriation of $100,000 from the SB1 RMRA Fund to the Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation project.
24-0173

2 Visalia City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 17, 2024

3. City Council approval of Resolution 2024-27 adopting the 2024-25 appropriations limit for the City of Visalia’s General Fund. 24-0212

4. Abandon Public Utility Easement and Right of Way - Ordering the summary vacation and abandonment of portions of the public utility easements and right of way dedications over Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map No. 4645. Property located on Legacy Ave, approximately 500’ west of American St. Resolution No. 2024-31. APN: 073-220-017 and 073-220-018.
24-0215

5. Ordinance Adoption - Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-06, adding Chapter 3.14 (Cannabis Business Tax) to Title 3 of the Visalia Municipal Code to establish a tax on cannabis business activities within the city.
24-0216

6. Notice of Completion for Caldwell Avenue Improvement Project - Authorize the City Manager to file a Notice of Completion for the Caldwell Avenue Improvement Project from Akers Street to Shady Street.
24-0220

7. Investment Report - Accept the City of Visalia Cash and Investment Report for the third quarter of the fiscal year which consists of months January, February, and March of 2024. 24-0225

8. Approve Resolution Number 2024-28 adopting the City of Visalia's annually updated Investment Policy and delegating authority to invest funds for the City to the Finance Director/Treasurer for fiscal year 2024-25.
24-0226

9. Victory Oaks Phase 1 Final Map - Request authorization to record the final map for Victory Oaks Phase 1 Subdivision located on the north side of Ferguson Avenue approximately 800 feet west of Demaree Street; and request authorization for the formation of the Landscape and Lighting District No. 24-04 and authorize ordering the improvements and levying the annual assessments. Resolution Nos. 2024-__ required. 24-0231

10. Authorize Purchase of Replacement Solid Waste Residential Delivery Truck - Approve the purchase of a Solid Waste
Residential Delivery Truck from Visalia Ford and appropriate the amount of $49,153.64 from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. 24-0235

11. Adopt Resolution & Exchange Regional Transportation funds to State Highway Account Funds: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-29 to authorize the City Manager to sign the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Claim to the Tulare County Association of Governments for Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds in Exchange for State Highway Account Funds and appropriate $889,030 toward Road Rehabilitation.
24-0240

3 Visalia City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 17, 2024

12. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding by and between the City of Visalia and Police Managers and Supervisors Association (Group A) for the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027.
24-0243

REGULAR ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made by a City Council Member and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

1. Contested Special Assessments - Authorization to allow the City of Visalia to place items contested during the June 3, 2024, public hearing on the Miscellaneous Special Assessments on the Tulare County secured property tax roll.
24-0237

2. Public Hearing and adoption of the City of Visalia 2024/25 and 2025/26 multi-year budget. Resolution 2024-26.
24-0236

3. Measure T District Tax Amendment and Recertification - Amend the Measure T plan and recertify the plan for FY 2024/25. 24-0213

4. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Rates and Fees - Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution 2024-04 to authorize proposed new fees, increases, and adjustments to the City's Rates and Fees Schedule for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
24-0008

5. Logo Discussion - Continued logo discussion and direction regarding community process on redesign.
24-0252

6. Change of Terms and Conditions - Authorize Changes to Terms and Conditions of Employment by and between the City of Visalia and City Manager.
24-0254

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

ADJOURNMENT

UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

1. July 15, 2024 @ 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 707 W. Acequia Meeting dates/times are subject to change, check posted agenda for correct details. In Compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in meetings email:

[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> or call 713-4512. 24-0233

4 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0204 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Special Recognition - Special recognition of Allison Mackey, Communications Manager and Macey Schonbachler, Community Outreach Coordinator for their recent awards and recognition from the Public Relations Society of America’s Central California Chapter.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
5 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0210 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Civic Center Project Update - Provide Council with an update for Phase 2 of the Civic Center Project, request authorization to begin the Request for Qualification process for contractors, and authorize the use of a 10% retention for the project.

Deadline for Action: 6/17/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Mike Porter, Civil Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4412 Jason Huckleberry, Director Engineering and Building Department, Jason.Huckleberry <mailto:[email protected]> @visalia.city, (559) 713-4495 Department Recommendation:

1. Receive an update on Phase 2 of the Civic Center Project and approve the interior and exterior colors and finishes, as well as exterior amenities as shown in the presentation and recommended by the Civic Center Committee.

2. Authorize the advertisement of the Request for Qualifications of contractors for the project.

3. Authorize the construction retention amount for this project be raised from 5% to 10% citing the complexity and size of the project as key factors.

Summary:

Civic Center Project Update
Staff and the consultant team will provide a presentation of interior and exterior details including paint colors, finishes, and exterior amenities. All details shown within the presentation were prepared by the consultant team, which included experts in the field of interior design and architecture.

The interior and exterior details and amenities were presented to the Civic Center Committee for review and approval at two meetings in May. The Committee made several comments and suggestions, requiring the consultant team to revise the plan. Once the revised details were complete, the details shown within the presentation were approved by the Civic Center committee and their recommendation is now moving forward for Council review and approval.

Request for Qualifications
Staff proposes to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Civic Center Project. The RFQ will serve to pre-qualify contractors for the project and to make the public aware of the project details in advance of advertising the official Request for Bids for construction.

Raise Project Retention from 5% to 10%
Due to the large and complex nature of this project staff is requesting authorization to increase the Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
6 File #: 24-0210 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.
retention amount for the project from 5% to 10%. This process requires formal approval from the City Council.

Background:

Request for Qualifications
The RFQ process is typically used on large complex construction projects which adds an additional step to the bid process. This process invites interested parties to submit a qualification statement that is used by the requester/owner to evaluate and shortlist potential contractors for a construction project. The primary purpose of an RFQ is to gather information about the qualifications, capabilities, and experience of contractors before inviting them to submit detailed bids. This allows the owner to ensure they are partnering with the right contractor with the right experience for a large complex project.

In addition, the RFQ process lessens the likelihood of an inexperienced contractor bidding low on the project due to a lack of experience, winning the bid, and then not being able to complete the project within the project specifications for the price bid. The pre-qualification increases the likelihood that more qualified bidders will submit a bid, because they understand that they will be competing against experienced companies who will have the knowledge base to submit well costed out proposals.

The City Purchasing Division and Construction Manager (Griffin Structures) have worked collaboratively to create the RFQ documents. Griffin Structures will be assisting in the review and evaluation of the qualification submittals.

Once contractors have been pre-qualified, the City will issue a Request for Bids (RFB) and only the pre-qualified contractors are allowed to submit a bid on the project. This second process allows the owner to secure the best price for the project.

The RFQ is scheduled to be advertised on June 20th and all proposals will be due on July 18th. The RFB is scheduled to be advertised in August of 2024, shortly after the RFQ process has been completed and a list of qualified bidders has been established.

Increased Retention
Retention is money held by the City as a safeguard against defects which may subsequently develop and which the contractor may fail to remedy. The retention is typically paid back to the contractor as part of the final payment, which is made after the contractor has achieved final completion approval by the City. An increased retention amount provides the City more protection.

The public contracting code allows cities to only retain 5% of a contract’s costs for retention, assuring proper performance by the contractor. However, the law allows up to 10% retention in the cases where the contract is “substantially complex” and must be set at a higher amount before the contract is advertised. After a review and discussion amongst the City’s project team, including Engineering and Finance staff, as well as the City’s consultant Construction Management firm, Griffin Structures, we are requesting the retention be raised to 10% for this project.

Public Contract Code Section 7202(b)(4) contains the following exclusion for local governments, including charter cities to raise the 5% retention limit:

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
7 File #: 24-0210 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, the retention proceeds withheld from any payment by the awarding entity of a city, county, city and county, including charter cities and charter counties, district, special district, public authority, political subdivision, public corporation, or nonprofit transit corporation wholly owned by a public agency and formed to carry out the purposes of the public agency, from the original contractor, by the original contractor from any subcontractor, and by a subcontractor from any subcontractor thereunder, may exceed 5 percent on specific projects where the governing body of the public entity or designee, including, but not limited to, a general manager or other director of an appropriate department, has approved a finding during a properly noticed and normally scheduled public hearing and prior to bid that the project is substantially complex and therefore requires a higher retention amount than 5 percent and the awarding entity includes both this finding and the actual retention amount in the bid documents.

In a contract between the original contractor and a subcontractor, and in a contract between a subcontractor and any subcontractor thereunder, the percentage of the retention proceeds withheld shall not exceed the percentage specified in the contract between the department and the original contractor.

This project is complex with a projected construction budget of $80 million dollars, includes an 18 to 24-month construction schedule, and will be constructing multiple buildings on the Civic Center site with extensive offsite improvements. The project will involve a general contractor and several sub- contractors representing a multitude of trades and disciplines necessary to complete the project including grading, irrigation, electrical, plumbing, footings and concrete, utility connections, landscaping, and general construction. Based upon these conditions, staff recommends that the Civic Center project be deemed substantially complex and carry a 10% retention amount.

Fiscal Impact:

None currently.

Prior Council Action:

October 16, 2023 - Council received a presentation, approved a contract amendment for Darden Architects, and authorized an appropriation from the Civic Center Reserve Fund.

October 2, 2023 - Council received a presentation and selected several outdoor amenities alternatives. Staff advised will return at a later date for approval of a consultant contract amendment.

June 19, 2023 - Council received a presentation on the Civic Center landscape options and directed staff to return with clarifications and alternatives.

May 1, 2023 - Council received an update and presentation on Phase 2 of the Civic Center and approved staff moving forward with completion of the schematic design phase of the project.

February 6, 2023 - Council received an update and presentation on Phase 2 of the Civic Center December 19, 2022 - Council received an update and presentation on the site plan and possible architectural styles for the Civic Center buildings and approved the “Mission Inspired” style.

November 21, 2022 - Council received an update and presentation on the site plan and provided Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
8 File #: 24-0210 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.

November 21, 2022 - Council received an update and presentation on the site plan and provided direction on the building orientation.

October 17, 2022 - Council accepted the presentation and approve the recommended site plan layout. City Council further considered and provided input on architectural styles via a visual exercise.

April 4, 2022 - Council Received an update on the Public Safety Office Building and City Council Chambers Project and approved a Consultant Contract Amendment requested by Darden Architects
June 7, 2021 - Council approved a motion for Mayor Steve Nelson to appoint two members of the Council to the Planning & Preliminary Project Assessment Committee.

March 15, 2021 - Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an A/E contract with Darden Architects to design the Public Safety Office Building/City Council Chambers.

November 4, 2019 - Council approved using the design-bid-build method of procurement for the PSOB Project.

August 19, 2019 - Council authorized appropriation of funds to issue an RFP for A/E Consulting Services for the new PSOB Project.

August 5, 2019 - Council received an update on the PSF project planning. Council directed staff to return with recommendation for appropriation of funds and creation of a new CIP for the planning and design of the new Public Safety Facility.

March 4, 2019 - Staff was directed to begin the planning phase of the new Public Safety Facility, and to return with an update on building size, staffing and Project funding.

Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I accept the Civic Center project update and approve the finishes, colors and amenities shown in the presentation, authorize staff to advertise the Request for Qualifications of contractors, and authorize a 10% project retention.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Civic Center Presentation
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
9 Visalia Civic Center – Signage
May 2024
June 17, 2024
Visalia Civic Center
Colors, Materials and Exterior Amenities
10 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?
Review the following:

Review Color Boards and Materials
Updated Renderings
Custom Railings
Tree Grates and Tree Guards
Trash Receptacles
Bike Racks
Seat Walls and Skate Deterrents
11 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?
RENDERINGS - Council Chamber Lobby
12 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?
RENDERINGS - Council Chamber Lobby
13 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS COUNCIL CHAMBER
14 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS COUNCIL CHAMBER
15 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS COUNCIL CHAMBER - COMMUNITY ROOM
16 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS - PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - LOBBY 17 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS - PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - LOBBY 18 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS - PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - LOBBY 19 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS - PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - MEETING ROOM 20 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS - PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - TRAINING ROOM OPTION 1 - BLUE
21 Agenda
Signage

1. Are the signage designs approved?

2. Is the digital display approved?

3. Are the signage locations approved?
Railing

1. Are the railing designs approved?
Bollards

1. Is the custom bollard design approved?
Tree Grate

1. Is the chosen tree grate approved?
Trash Cans

1. Are the chosen trash/recycling receptacles approved? Bike Racks

1. Are the chosen bike racks approved?
Seat Wall Design

1. Is the seat wall design approved?
Skate Deterrents

1. Is the skate deterrent design approved?

RENDERINGS - PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - TRAINING ROOM OPTION 2 - GRAY
22 RAILING
9 Custom Railing Concepts
(All custom railing will be
ADA complaint)

CUSTOM RAILINGS
23 BOLLARDS
10 Off the shelf R-7595 Decorative Bollard
$750 EA+ Powder Coating
https://www.reliance-foundry.com/shop/bollard/decorative/r-7595-bollard Color Dark Brown/Bronze to match building accents
Qty to be determined
24 TREE GRATE & TREE GUARD
Five total
11 Victor Stanley- S-6
$950
Iron Age Designs- Divisadero
$2900
25 TRASH/ RECYCLING RECEPTACLES
12 VICTOR STANLEY- RS12
36 Gallon
$1250 EA
20 in public area
2 in secure area
(half trash/ half recycling)
Color Dark Brown/Bronze to match building accents
26 BIKE RACK
13 Custom U Style Bike Rack
$675
Eight total (Used on ends when multiple racks are together) U Style Bike Rack
$250
Six total (Use in the middle when multiple racks are together) 27 SEAT WALLS & SKATE DETERRENTS
14 Skate deterrents 3’ OC
Skate Deterrent approximately
24" o.c.
28 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0232 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) - Master Plan Final Update - Receive a final report and presentation on the Master Plan for the Water Reclamation Facility.

Deadline for Action: 6/17/2024
Submitting Department: Public Works
Contact Name and Phone Number: Ben Litwack, Public Works Manager, [email protected], 713-4671
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that Council receive a report and presentation on the Master Plan for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).

Background Discussion:

In 2008, a Facility Master Plan was completed for the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), designed with a 20-year outlook. Typically, Master Plans are updated every 8-10 years to ensure that they remain aligned with the evolving needs and growth of the community. Over time, significant developments and changing conditions necessitated an update to address current and future challenges effectively.

Carollo is well-respected and prominent engineering firm that specializes in water and wastewater management. With offices nationwide, Carollo has provided direct services locally out of their Fresno office, but has the ability to call on specific areas of expertise from their resources throughout the country. Carollo is familiar with the WRF facility, and prepared the previous 2008 Master Plan. On April 3, 2023, Council approved a contract with Carollo to perform a Condition Assessment, Facility Plan and Master Plan update. The Facility Plan was presented to the City Council on February 20, 2024, and provided a comprehensive review of the facility’s conditions, along with a 6-year strategy for required near-term improvements. Subsequently, Carollo has now completed their review and update to the Facility’s longer-term Master Plan, which includes a 20-year roadmap to plan for build- out growth conditions and long-term improvements. This process has identified needed Capital Improvement Projects and addresses the need for future expansion of specific processes and components of the WRF.

In 2018, the WRF underwent a substantial upgrade, enhancing its treatment and disinfection capacity to 22 million gallons per day (MGD) with the installation a membrane bioreactor system (MBR) and a UV treatment system along with additional equipment designed to increase sludge digestion and dewatering capability. To manage costs, some equipment was sized for an average annual daily flow (AADF) of 18 MGD. Despite these upgrades, the facility must also adapt to changing conditions.

Water conservation efforts within the City and increased loadings have significantly impacted the Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
29 File #: 24-0232 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 3.
factors used to calculate the WRF's capacity. Through Carollo’s recent Condition Assessment, it was determined that the WRF's effective total capacity currently stands at 13.9 MGD.

Through Carollo’s Condition Assessment and Facility Plan, they identified critical near-term improvements needed to address these capacity issues. The plan outlines measures to increase the WRF's firm capacity, ensuring necessary redundancy, to 16.3 MGD by the end of 2027, also ensuring the facility can accommodate the City's projected AADF of 15.1 MGD in 2030. These improvements are essential for maintaining efficient and reliable operations while supporting the City's growth and sustainability goals.

Carollo Engineers has now completed the Master Plan Update for the WRF and an accompanying report, which outlines a comprehensive strategy for long-term projects to be designed and implemented from 2028 through 2037 as well as changes in operational strategies to accommodate capacity increases. These projects aim to increase the WRF's firm capacity to 21.4 MGD, sufficient to handle the projected AADF in 2044, while also providing necessary redundancy in the Plant’s systems and processes. The flow projections considered in this Master Plan include both residential and industrial development, as well as the latest estimated projections for the Goshen Community Services District (GCSD). It is important to note that the increase in capacity for GCSD is contingent upon amendments to the existing agreement between the two entities, and the District’s ability to pay their share of the up front costs for capacity.

The improvements outline in the Master Plan consist of the following:
· The sludge retention time (SRT) in the MBR will be reduced from 12 to 8 days. This will increase flow capacity while still providing adequate treatment capacity. · An extra RAS pump, aeration blower, and additional membrane cassettes will be added to the MBR system.
· A third UV channel will be constructed to increase disinfection capacity. · A 10th anaerobic digester, the same size as digester 8 and the proposed digester 9, will be constructed along with a 3-day sludge storage tank to increase sludge handling capacity.

These new tanks will be complemented by a new sludge feed system consisting of 4 new dewatering feed pumps.
· To increase biogas capacity, a new flare will be installed which will be able to handle the projected flow of 25,000 square cubic feet per hour (scfh). · To increase dewatering capacity, a fourth screw press will be installed with the same capacity as the existing two screw presses and the third one proposed in the near-term projects.

The Total Project Capital Cost for the recommended projects in the Master Plan is estimated at $92,740,000. Additionally, the Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs for the 20-year planning horizon are projected to be $53,000,000. These investments are crucial for ensuring the long-term functionality and reliability of the WRF, enabling it to meet the growing needs of the community while maintaining high standards of environmental stewardship and operational efficiency. The Master Plan provides a strategic roadmap for achieving these goals, ensuring that the WRF remains a vital asset for the City of Visalia.

Fiscal Impact:

The report identifies a list of the necessary long-term projects to be designed and implemented from Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
30 File #: 24-0232 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 3.
2028 through 2037. The cost estimate total is approximately $146,040,000, of which, $92,740,000 is for design and implementation of the long-term projects from 2028-2037 and $53,300,000 is for repair and rehabilitation costs over the next 20 years. Staff will be exploring funding opportunities to complete the projects identified in the report.

With the completion of the Master Plan, a rate study has been proposed in the 2024/2025 Budget to evaluate current rates and fees to determine if additional adjustments will be necessary to cover the ongoing costs of operations and the necessary capital improvement projects.

Prior Council Action:

April 3, 2023: Council approved a contract with Carollo to perform a Condition Assessment, Facility Plan, and Master Plan Update for the WRF.

December 18, 2023: Council approved Contract with Carollo for engineering services related to the identified near-term projects.

December 18, 2023: Council approved a request from the Goshen Community Services District to increase sewer discharge capacity.

February 20, 2024: Council received a report and presentation on the Facility Plan, Condition Assessment, and Master Plan update for the WRF.

Other: None
Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

Receive a report and presentation on the Master Plan for the WRF.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments:

Master Plan - Final
WRF - Council Meeting 6_17_2024_EDIT
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
31 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
Master Plan
Executive Summary
FINAL / June 2024
32 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
Master Plan
Executive Summary
FINAL / June 2024
33 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Visalia/202132-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Master Plan /MasterPlan_ExecutiveSummary.docx Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction ES-1
ES.2 Background and Purpose ES-1
ES.3 Technical Memorandum 1 – Long-Term Process Performance Evaluation ES-2 ES.4 Technical Memorandum 2 – Regulatory Review ES-2
ES.4.1 Wastewater and Recycled Water Strategic Plan Recommendations ES-2 ES.4.2 Biosolids Strategic Plan Recommendations ES-3
ES.5 Technical Memorandum 3 – Existing Facilities ES-4
ES.6 Technical Memorandum 4 – Long-Term Project Descriptions ES-4 ES.6.1 Membrane Bioreactor Capacity Expansion ES-4
ES.6.2 UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion ES-5
ES.6.3 Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion ES-5
ES.6.4 Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion ES-5
ES.6.5 Dewatering Capacity Expansion ES-6
ES.7 Technical Memorandum 5 – Long-Term Capital Improvement Program ES-6 ES.7.1 Cost Estimates ES-6
ES.7.2 Project Implementation ES-7
ES.7.3 20-Year CIP Implementation ES-7
ES.8 Summary and Recommendations ES-10
Tables
Table ES.1 Summary of Regulatory Concerns and Potential Strategies ES-3 Table ES.2 Total Project Capital Cost for Recommended Projects ES-6 Table ES.3 Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs for 20-Year Planning Horizon ES-7 Table ES.4 20-Year Capital Improvement Program Summary ES-9 Figures
Figure ES.1 Long-Term Projects CIP Schedule ES-8

34 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ii
Abbreviations
AADF annual average daily flow
City City of Visalia
CIP capital improvement program
CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternative for Long-Term Sustainability IMLR internal mixed liquor return
MBR membrane bioreactor
MCL maximum contaminant level
mgd million gallons per day
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
No. number
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PWWF peak wet weather flow
RAS return activated sludge
R&R rehabilitation and replacement
scfh standard cubic feet per hour
SRT solids retention time
TM technical memorandum
TWAS thickened waste activated sludge
UV ultraviolet
UVT ultraviolet transmittance
WRF Water Reclamation Facility

35 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction
The Master Plan evaluates the long-term capacity of the City of Visalia’s (City) Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) using a biological process model. This sets the basis for developing the framework for improvements required to meet the WRF’s long-term (20-year) needs. The biological process model was calibrated to the existing and current flow/loadings data, and then used to determine capacity deficiencies based on the projected future flows/loads, which were developed using annual growth projections. Capacity expansion projects were developed for the identified treatment processes with capacity deficiencies. A long-term capital improvement program (CIP) was developed as well.

ES.2 Background and Purpose
The City’s WRF treats domestic and industrial wastewater from the City, as well as wastewater from the Goshen Community Services District. Due to the Central Valley Water Boards’s adoption of the updated Water Discharge Requirements, which increased regulation on processed wastewater discharge into Mill Creek, major upgrades were implemented to divert discharge from Mill Creek. These upgrades, which were constructed in 2017, included membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment facilities, a new digester, sludge handling facilities, and disinfection facilities to support continued discharge to the Tulare Irrigation District for agricultural uses, along with reuse at the golf course. This project made various improvements resulting in the ability to produce Title 22 compliant recycled water. It was not intended to increase plant capacity, but rather to provide process equipment to support the more stringent wastewater effluent quality requirements. Improvements made to the treatment system were designed around an annual average daily flow (AADF) of 22 million gallons per day (mgd); however, to save overall costs, some of the equipment was sized to handle an AADF of 18 mgd.

In recent years, industrial loads have significantly increased. Furthermore, an increase in water conservation efforts in residential wastewater within the City and Goshen have happened which have caused increased influent concentrations. These increased influent concentrations have had a direct impact on the WRF, which is operating near its maximum capacity when it comes to influent biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids. These elevated loading concentrations are putting excessive stress on some of the treatment processes and leading to disruptions and disturbances.

The Facility Plan was the first step to evaluate the current capacity of the WRF as well as the condition of the assets to develop the framework for improvements required to meet the WRF’s near-term needs. The Master Plan takes it a step farther and evaluates the long-term capacity of the WRF to develop a roadmap for long-term improvements.
36 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-2
ES.3 Technical Memorandum 1 – Long-Term Process Performance Evaluation
This technical memorandum (TM) is an extension of Facility Plan TM 1, which provides an overview of the City's WRF, summarized historical and projected near term influent flows and loads, a plant -wide performance assessment and development of a calibrated biological process model, near term capacity needs, and capital improvement projects through 2030. This TM uses the same methodology to develop long term flow and load projections, capacity needs, and capital improvement projects from 2030 through 2044. If more information is needed on the methodology or near-term findings, see TM 1 – Near-Term Process Performance Evaluation in the Facility Plan.

In order to determine the WRF’s current total capacity, a process model was used to determine the flow and loading on each treatment process using data from the plant. The model was then used to compare real-life impacts to the treatment process, and capacity ratings were used to determine if the plant could meet the projected 2044 flows.

The results of the analysis indicated that the WRF would have capacity deficiencies in the following areas:
 MBR System: Under the current operating conditions the MBR system is projected to reach treatment capacity at an AADF of 16.3 mgd.
 Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection System: The firm capacity of the UV disinfection system will be reached at a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 37 mgd after the near-term expansion.  Anaerobic Digestion: After completing the recommended near-term upgrades in TM 1 of the Facility Plan, the firm capacity of the anaerobic digestors will be reached at an AADF of 18.1 mgd.  Digester Gas Flare System: The installed capacity of the biogas flare system will be reached at an AADF of 18.2 mgd.
 Dewatering Screw Press: After completing the recommended near-term upgrades in TM 1 of the Facility Plan, the firm capacity of the dewatering screw presses will be reached at an AADF of

17.6 mgd. The solid loading capacity is the limiting capacity criteria.

Six projects were identified to address these capacity issues, which are discussed TM 4 – Long-Term Project Descriptions.

ES.4 Technical Memorandum 2 – Regulatory Review
This TM presents a review of current and future regulatory requirements that may impact the City ’s wastewater, water reuse, and biosolids treatment and discharge. In addition, it presents a strategic plan developed to serve as a guide to adapt to the possibility of these changes.

ES.4.1 Wastewater and Recycled Water Strategic Plan Recommendations There is a range of strategies that may be employed for addressing regulatory concerns. Source control, scientific evidence, state and national regulatory advocacy, permit changes, and treatment optimization/upgrades are all options available for preparing and responding to regulatory compliance challenges. Participation in policy development and pilot studies may provide regulatory relief for specific 37 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-3
constituents based on scientific evidence and development of information for improved decision -making by regulators. The possible response strategies are described within the following categories:
 Source Control – Monitoring collection systems, identifying and eliminating pollutant sources, establishing local limits, revising sewer use ordinances, working with manufacturers on product reformulation, and supporting/enacting product bans.
 Regulatory Advocacy – Development of policies and regulations to provide attainable regulatory solutions that are also protective of the environment and public health.  Permit Changes – Conducting scientific studies to evaluate impacts of discharges on the environment, developing site specific objectives, conducting mixing zone/dilution studies, modeling groundwater travel times and flow directions, and conducting antidegradation analyses to allow use of available assimilative capacity.
 Treatment – Optimization of existing facilities, modification of existing facilities, or additional treatment to reduce or remove constituents to comply with effluent limitations.

The compliance concerns and recommended strategies to address them are presented in Table ES.1. The City should continue to participate in Central Valley Salinity Alternative for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) and track the development of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) that could be applied to groundwater discharges.

Table ES.1 Summary of Regulatory Concerns and Potential Strategies End Use Regulatory Concerns Potential Strategies to Address Concerns Land Discharge Nitrate and Total Nitrogen Permit Changes, Treatment Salinity Source Control, Permit Changes, Treatment
MCLs Source Control, Regulatory Advocacy, Permit Changes, Treatment
Potable Reuse PFAS Source Control, Regulatory Advocacy, Treatment through purification
Notes:

PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

ES.4.2 Biosolids Strategic Plan Recommendations
The WRF stabilizes their solids through anaerobic digestion and air drying. The solids produced are classified as Class B. However, recent pathogen testing indicates the solids’ pathogen concentrations meet the requirements to be classified as Class A.

The WRF is in Tulare County, where Class B biosolids land application is currently banned, requiring hauling to other counties. CalRecycle, through SB 1383, is currently attempting to overturn the Class B biosolids ban in Tulare county. If they achieve that, the following are recommended:
 Evaluate local biosolids beneficial use options.
 Consider further testing of the biosolids to determine if they can reliably meet Class A through pathogen testing and attempt to obtain Class A designation for the biosolids. 38 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-4
As described in the Facility Plan TM 3, the high-level cost evaluation for Class A solids processing alternatives identified that advanced digestion alternatives may be cost-competitive relative to an expansion of conventional mesophilic digestion. These alternatives could be evaluated further in a biosolids master plan.

The evaluation in the Facility Plan TM 3 also identified that technologies with the potential to treat PFAS in biosolids, such as pyrolysis and gasification, have very high capital costs and are cost prohibitive. Thus, these technologies should only be considered if potential future PFAS limits require them. Gasification and pyrolysis usually follow thermal drying of solids; however, the City could investigate whether these processes can receive air-dried biosolids, which may result in substantial cost savings. Alternatively, the City could investigate regional partnerships for processing biosolids through an advanced thermal process, given these technologies benefit from economies of scale.

Given the myriad of potential future regulatory changes that may impact the City’s future biosolids management, Carollo recommends conducting a biosolids master plan to do a more detailed analysis of solids processing and biosolids beneficial use alternatives and develop a plan to adapt to these potential future changes.

ES.5 Technical Memorandum 3 – Existing Facilities
This TM summarizes the existing treatment facilities at the City’s WRF. The WRF existing facilities are capable of processing and treating liquid wastewater, biosolids, and digester gas streams. Liquid wastewater entering the WRF is treated via preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment processes. Solids are collected at various stages of the treatment train and undergo a series of solids handling processes prior to disposal. Gas streams that are generated from within the plant are treated via an onsite gas purification system and flared. The descriptions of the existing facilities were obtained from the conformed 2014 Water Conservation Plant Upgrades design drawings and the 2018 Operations and Maintenance Manual, which includes the latest upgrade project completed in 2017.

ES.6 Technical Memorandum 4 – Long-Term Project Descriptions This TM summarizes projects that are recommended for implementation between 2030 and 2044 based on the capacity analysis summarized in TM 1.

ES.6.1 Membrane Bioreactor Capacity Expansion
As described in TM 1, the MBR system does not have sufficient capacity to treat the projecte d average daily maximum month load and maintain the current design criteria of a 10-day solids retention time (SRT) and mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration not exceeding 12,000 milligrams per liter.

However, instead of building additional aeration tanks to reduce the MLSS concentration, operation of the MBR system could be adjusted to use an 8-day SRT, which is the lower end of target SRTs, to increase the capacity of the MBR system.

In addition to adjusting operations, the capacities of the return activated sludge (RAS) pumps, blowers, internal mixed liquor return (IMLR) pumps, and membrane cassettes need to be increased to ensure the MBR system can meet performance requirements.
39 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-5
It is recommended to operate the system at an 8-day SRT to reduce the MLSS concentration in the MBR system. It is also recommended to add the extra RAS pump, aeration blower, and additional membrane cassettes to increase capacity to the MBR system. By making this operational change and equipment installations, additional aeration tanks would not be needed. Lastly, the IMLR pumps’ total capacity should be increased to ensure the total nitrogen limit is met and the City’s effluent helps meet groundwater quality goals. These improvements should be made by 2033 to avoid exceeding the capacity of the MBR system.

ES.6.2 UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion
After the near-term expansion project is completed, the UV disinfection system will have a firm capacity of 37 mgd (6 duty banks + 1 standby bank). However, this is not sufficient to meet the projected 2044 PWWF of 42.8 mgd. Furthermore, the projected PWWF is estimated to exceed the UV system’s firm capacity in 2038. Therefore, the UV system must be expanded and brought online by 2038.

Even though the historical ultraviolet transmittance (UVT) data indicates the system is operating at a higher UVT than the original design criteria of 65 percent, UVT can vary over time, so it is recommended to revisit re-rating the UV system with the UVT data available during preliminary design. For planning purposes, it was conservatively assumed that the UV system would be expanded to meet the projected 2044 PWWF. It is recommended to construct a new third UV channel and bring it online by 2038.

ES.6.3 Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion
The near-term anaerobic digestion capacity expansion project will include a new Digester No. 9 that is the same size and design as Digester No. 8. However, this additional digester does not provide sufficient firm capacity to meet minimum criteria for the projected design year flows.

Both Digester Nos. 8 and 9 have dedicated storage within them, decreasing the available active digestion capacity. It is recommended to remove the capacity out of these digesters and construct a tank with three days of storage to regain digestion capacity. Also, a new digester the same size as Digester Nos. 8 and 9 will need to be constructed to increase capacity for the projected flows. The new digester and sludge storage tank should be online by 2037. It is also recommended to convert the existing dewatering pump station to a sludge storage pump station and construct a new dewatering feed pump station. With the addition of the 3-day sludge storage tank, a fourth pump should be installed in the reserved space north of Digester No. 8 and four pumps should be installed at the new dewatering feed pump station.

ES.6.4 Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion
The current flare system’s capacity of 21,250 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) is not enough to meet the projected 2044 digester gas flows. A capacity of about 25,000 scfh is needed to flare the projected flows.

It is recommended to expand the flaring capacity by replacing the existing flare with a higher capacity flare. This should be completed by 2037. 40
MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-6
ES.6.5 Dewatering Capacity Expansion
After the near-term dewatering capacity expansion project is completed, the WRF will have three screw presses. This provides sufficient capacity for the near-term flows and creates the necessary redundancy required for this process. However, looking toward the 20-year horizon, these screw presses will not be enough to handle the 2044 AADF.

Additionally, if a 3-day sludge storage tank is added as discussed above, the screw presses will need to be able to dewater sludge in the new storage tank in 4 days, assuming that operation is halted over a 3 -day weekend. This can be achieved by running four screw presses at a time, meaning the redundant screw press would also run. Therefore, a new screw press must be installed to expand the dewatering capacity for critical redundancy as well as for dewatering the full sludge storage tank.

It is recommended to add a fourth screw press with the same capacity as the existing screw presses by 2036 to provide additional capacity and redundancy for the dewatering system as well as construct a new dewatering pump station with four pumps.

ES.7 Technical Memorandum 5 – Long-Term Capital Improvement Program
The long-term CIP identifies capacity related projects, which are described in TM 4, required at the WRF between 2030 and 2044. Cost estimates and an implementation schedule were developed for each project.

ES.7.1 Cost Estimates
Total project cost estimates for each project are summarized in Table ES.2. These cost estimates are at a planning level and limited to capital costs. They do not include operations and maintenance costs.

Table ES.2 Total Project Capital Cost for Recommended Projects Project Cost (1)
MBR Capacity Expansion $14,750,000
UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion $7,830,000
Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion $56,950,000
Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion $7,000,000
Dewatering Capacity Expansion $6,210,000
Total $92,740,000
Notes:
(1) The costs are presented in 2024 dollars. Note that capital costs presented are for planning purposes. These costs do not include mid-point escalation or bid market allowance. Current market conditions suggest large rates of cost escalation and high rates of variance in construction bidding. It is suggested that an escalation rate and bid market allowance be added to capital costing efforts as project development becomes more refined. Total project costs include factors for estimating contingency, sales tax, general conditions, and contractor overhead and profit as well as 25 percent allowance for engineering, legal, administration, and permitting costs. 41 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-7
Total rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) costs as well as annual R&R costs that span the 20-year planning horizon are presented in Table ES.3.

Table ES.3 Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs for 20-Year Planning Horizon Element Cost
R&R Cost(1) $53,000,000
Annual R&R Cost First 2024-2034(2) $2,270,000
Annual R&R Cost Second 2034-2044(3) $3,030,000
Notes:
(1) Total R&R costs reflect 35 percent of the total project costs in the 20-year CIP and are presented in 2024 dollars. (2) The annual R&R costs are based on 15 percent of the total capital project costs distributed across the first half of the planning horizon. This approach was used because a majority of the plant was upgraded approximately seven years ago, so it is expected that minimal R&R will be needed during the first half of the planning horizon. (3) The annual R&R costs are based on 20 percent of the total capital project costs distributed across the second half of the planning horizon. This approach was used because it is expected that more R&R projects will be needed in the second half of the planning horizon.

ES.7.2 Project Implementation
The implementation timing, determined by when the plant needs additional capacity, and the project duration assign each project a start and completion date. The recommended implementation schedule for the projects can be seen in Figure ES.1.

ES.7.3 20-Year CIP Implementation
The project implementation plan includes an overall schedule of the CIP and projected cash flow requirements for implementing the CIP. These projects would be implemented as needed to meet flow and load requirements rather than at set dates. The recommended implementation for each project is shown in Table ES.4.

In addition to the outlined capital projects, a biosolids master plan, digester gas use study, new facility plan, and new master plan were added to the CIP. It is recommended that the biosolids master plan and digester gas use study be conducted after the near-term digester capacity expansion project is completed. See TM 3 – Environmental Opportunities in the Facility Plan for more information on these studies. The new facility plan and master plan should be completed within 10 years.

While this Master Plan included projects that increased treatment capacities to meet the projected 2044 flows and loads, the City requested that process areas be evaluated for when 80 percent of the capacity was exceeded to trigger when the process area should be evaluated for expansion. Reviewing the capacity analysis, several process areas were identified to have their 80 percent capacity exceeded during the 20-year planning horizon. A planning study for each of these process areas was included in the CIP the year after it hit 80 percent capacity. If the rated capacity of the process area was expected to be exceeded within two years past the 20-year planning period, then ballpark estimates for design and construction costs were added to the CIP. However, project descriptions were not developed for these cases, and they should be thoroughly evaluated during the next master plan in 10 years. If the rated capacity of the process area was not exceeded for several years after the 20-year planning period, then no additional design or construction costs were included in the CIP. These projects should also be evaluat ed during the next master plan in 10 years.

The costs for these planning studies and design/construction activities can be seen in Table 5.4. 42 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-8

Figure ES.1 Long-Term Projects CIP Schedule

43 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-9
Table ES.4 20-Year Capital Improvement Program Summary
Project Total Project Cost
CIP Cost
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029-2033 2034-2038 2039-2043
Near-Term Projects Costs(1)
TWAS Pump Replacements $630,000 $630,000 - - - - - - -
Dewatering Capacity Expansion – Near Term $4,650,000 $930,000 $3,720,000 - - - - - - Sludge Drying Bed Capacity Expansion $10,350,000 $2,070,000 $5,520,000 $2,760,000 - - - - - Digester Dewatering Pond Addition $6,110,000 $1,220,000 $3,260,000 $1,630,000 - - - - - Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion – Near Term $34,990,000 $3,500,000 $6,999,000 $13,995,000 $10,496,000 - - - - UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion – Near -Term $2,010,000 - $400,000 $1,610,000 - - - - - Subtotal $58,740,000 $8,350,000 $19,899,000 $19,995,000 $10,496,000 - - - - Long-Term Projects Costs(1)
MBR System Capacity Expansion $14,750,000 - - - - $1,967,000 $12,783,000 - - UV Capacity Expansion – Long Term $7,830,000 - - - - - $523,000 $7,307,000 - Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion – Long Term $56,950,000 - - - - - $30,916,000 $26,034,000 - Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion $7,000,000 - - - - - $1,400,000 $5,600,000 - Dewatering Capacity Expansion – Long Term $6,210,000 - - - - - $4,968,000 $1,242,000 - Subtotal $92,740,000 - - - - $1,967,000 $50,590,000 $40,183,000 - Studies and Predesign Activities(2)
Biosolids Master Plan $500,000.00 - - - - $500,000.00 - - - Biogas Master Plan $300,000.00 - - - - $300,000.00 - - - Facility/Master Plan Update $1,000,000.00 - - - - - $500,000.00 $500,000.00 - Grit Tanks $500,000.00 - - - - - - - $500,000.00
Primary Sedimentation Tanks $500,000.00 - - - - - - $500,000.00 - MBR System $1,000,000.00 - - - - - - $1,000,000.00 - UV Disinfection $500,000.00 - - - - - - $500,000.00 - Gravity Belt Thickeners $500,000.00 - - - - - - $-500,000.00 - Anerobic Digestion $1,000,000.00 - - - - - - $1,000,000.00 - Sludge Drying Bed $500,000.00 - - - - - - $500,000.00 - Subtotal $6,300,000.00 - - - - $800,000.00 $500,000.00 $4,500,000.00 $500,000.00 Design/Construction(2)
Primary Sedimentation Tanks $32,000,000.00 - - - - - - - $32,000,000.00 MBR System $155,000,000.00 - - - - - - $2,500,000.00 $152,500,000.00 UV Disinfection $7,830,000.00 - - - - - - - $7,830,000.00 Gravity Belt Thickeners $22,000,000.00 - - - - - - - $22,000,000.00 Anerobic Digestion $56,950,000.00 - - - - - - $8,136,000.00 $48,814,000.00 Sludge Drying Bed $10,350,000.00 - - - - - - - $10,350,000.00 Subtotal $284,130,000.00 - - - - - - $10,636,000.00 $273,494,000.00 R&R Costs(3)
R&R $53,000,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $11,350,000 $15,150,000 $15,150,000 CIP Total $494,910,000.00 $10,620,000.00 $22,169,000.00 $22,265,000.00 $12,766,000.00 $5,037,000.00 $62,440,000.00 $70,469,000.00 $289,144,000.00 Notes:

TWAS - thickened waste activated sludge.
(1) The costs are presented in 2024 dollars. Note that capital costs presented are for planning purposes. These costs do not include mid-point escalation or bid market allowance. Current market conditions suggest large rates of cost escalation and high rates of variance in construction bidding. It is suggested that an escalation rate and bid market allowance be added to capital costing efforts as project development becomes more refined. Total project costs include factors for estimating contingency, sales tax, general conditions, and contractor overhead and profit as well as 25 percent allowance for engineering, legal, administration, and permitting. (2) As stated in Section 5.5, the City requested that future master plans be included in the CIP as well process areas be evaluated for when 80 percent of the capacity was exceeded to trigger when the process area should be evaluated for expansion. A planning study for process areas whose 80 percent capacity was exceeded was included in the CIP the year after it hit 80 percent capacity. If the rated capacity of the process area was expected to be exceeded within two years past the 20-year planning period, then ballpark estimates for design and construction costs were added to the CIP. If the rated capacity of the process area was not exceeded for several years after the 20-year planning period, then no additional design or construction costs were included in the CIP. (3) Total R&R costs reflect 35 percent of the total project costs. 44 MASTER PLAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ES-10
ES.8 Summary and Recommendations
This Master Plan outlines key long-term project recommendations and identifies improvements for the WRF. As described above, it is recommended to complete the following projects within the next 20 years to maintain adequate firm treatment capacity to meet projected flows and loads.  Membrane Bioreactor Capacity Expansion (complete by 2033): Operate the system at an 8-day SRT to reduce the MLSS concentration in the MBR system. Add an RAS pump, aeration blower, and additional membrane cassettes. Upsize the IMLR pumps and piping to increase return flows in the aeration basins.
 UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion (complete by 2038): Construct a new UV channel and install additional UV modules and associated electrical equipment to increase the firm capacity of the UV system.
 Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion (complete by 2037): Remove storage from Digester Nos. 8 and 9 and construct a dedicated storage tank that can store three days’ worth of sludge. Add a new digester with the same dimensions as Digester Nos. 8 and 9. This will increase the digestion capacity and allow the plant to meet the required SRT for Class B biosolids if the largest digester – either Digester Nos. 8, 9, or 10 – needs to be taken offline, providing necessary redundancy to the digestion system. Convert the existing dewatering feed pump station to a sludge storage pump. A fourth pump should be installed in the reserved in the space north of Digester No. 8.  Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion (complete by 2037): Install a higher capacity flare and upsize piping to handle the higher projected flows.
 Dewatering Capacity Expansion (complete by 2036): Install a fourth screw press with the same capacity as the existing screw presses to provide critical redundancy. Construct a new dewatering feed pump station with four pumps.
45 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1
Long-Term Process Performance
Evaluation
FINAL / June 2024
46 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1
Long-Term Process Performance
Evaluation
FINAL / June 2024
47 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Visalia/202132-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Master Plan/TM 1 - Long-Term Process Evaluation/TM01.docx Contents
TM 1 LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1.1 Introduction 1-1

1.2 Long-term Flow and Load Projections 1-1

1.3 Capacity Analysis 1-3

1.3.1 Membrane Bioreactor System 1-6

1.3.2 UV Disinfection 1-7

1.3.3 Anaerobic Digestion System and Ancillary Equipment 1-7

1.3.4 Biogas Flare System 1-7

1.3.5 Dewatering System 1-7
Tables
Table 1.1 Flow and Load Projections Summary 1-1
Table 1.2 Unit Process Capacities 1-4
Figures
Figure 1.1 Influent Flow Projections for 2023 to 2044 1-2 Figure 1.2 BOD and TSS Load Projections for 2023 to 2044 1-3 Figure 1.3 Unit Process Capacities and 2044 AADF and PWWF Projections 1-4 48 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ii
Abbreviations
AADF average annual daily flow
AB aeration basin
ADMML average day maximum month load
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
COD chemical oxygen demand
C Celsius
ft2 square feet
IMLR internal mixed liquor return
lb/ft2/yr pounds per square foot/per year
MBR membrane bioreactor
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
ppd pounds per day
PWWF peak wet weather flow
RAS return activated sludge
scfh standard cubic feet per hour
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SRT sludge retention time
TM technical memorandum
TN total nitrogen
TSS total suspended solids
TWAS thickened waste activated sludge
UV ultraviolet
UVT ultraviolet transmittance
WRF Water Reclamation Facility

49 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 1-1
TM 1 LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION

1.1 Introduction
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in industrial loads, along with increased water conservation efforts in residential wastewater within the City of Visalia and Goshen. The increased concentrations of wastewater have had a direct impact on the facility which is operating near its maximum capacity when it comes to influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).

These elevated loadings are putting excessive stress on some of the treatment proc esses and leading to disruptions and disturbances.

This technical memorandum (TM) is an extension of TM 1 – Near-Term Process Performance Evaluation of the Facility Plan, which provides an overview of the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), summarized historical and projected near term influent flows and loads, a plant-wide performance assessment and development of a calibrated biological process model, near term capacity needs, and capital improvement projects through 2030. This TM uses the same methodology to develop long term flow and load projections, capacity needs, and capital improvement projects from 2030 through 2044. If more information is needed on the methodology or near-term findings see TM 1 – Near-Term Process Performance Evaluation in the Facility Plan.

1.2 Long-term Flow and Load Projections
Using the same methodology to develop the near-term flow and load projections in TM 1 – Near-Term Process Performance Evaluation in the Facility Plan, the projected 2044 flows and loads are shown in Table 1.1. Projections of the future flows and loads are shown in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2, respectively.

The average annual flow for 2044 is projected to increase to 21.4 million gallons per day (mgd), which is

8.9 mgd more than the current 2023 average.

Table 1.1 Flow and Load Projections Summary
Condition Baseline Period(1) 2044 (20-year Horizon)(2)
Average Annual
Flow, mgd 11.9 21.4
BOD, mg/L 539 656
BOD, ppd 54,000(3) 117,000(3)
COD, mg/L 1,251 1,402
COD, ppd 124,000(3) 250,000(3)
TSS, mg/L 715 910
TSS, ppd 71,000(3) 237,000(3)
50 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 1-2
Condition Baseline Period(1) 2044 (20-year Horizon)(2)
Maximum Month
Flow, mgd 12.4 22.3
BOD, ppd 73,000 152,000
COD, ppd 175,000 320,000
TSS, ppd 111,000 237,000
Peak Wet Weather
Flow, mgd 23.3 42.8
Notes:

COD - chemical oxygen demand; mg/L - milligrams per liter; ppd - pounds per day. (1) Baseline period ranges from August 2020 to April 2023 (2) Wastewater concentrations, flows, loads and peaking factors are projected using average data from August 2020 to April 2023 (baseline period).
(3) Influent loading rates are rounded to the nearest thousandth.

Figure 1.1 Influent Flow Projections for 2023 to 2044
51 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 1-3

Figure 1.2 BOD and TSS Load Projections for 2023 to 2044

1.3 Capacity Analysis
The 2044 long-term process capacity evaluation of the Visalia WRF is based on the previously calibrated process model and the recommended capacity criteria, reported in Table 5 of TM1 - Near-Term Process Performance in the Facility Plan. The process model includes primary clarifiers, membrane bioreactor (MBR) system, gravity belt filters, anaerobic digesters, and dewatering screw presses.

The projected 2044 sludge production is estimated based on the solids loading coming from the primary and secondary sludge lines. The equivalent average annual daily flow (AADF) and peak wet weather flow (PWWF) capacity of each process unit are estimated based on when their individual design capacity criteria are reached. These are then compared to the 2044 AADF and PWWF projections to assess the need for capacity expansion. Figure 1.3 shows the comparison between 2044 flow projections (dashed horizontal lines) in conjunction with the estimated equivalent influent flows capacities of each process.

Equipment and processes designed for PWWF criteria (e.g., influent pumps) were only assess ed in terms of firm capacity, with the largest unit out of service. For processes designed for both AADF and PWWF (e.g., secondary treatment) both the AADF and PWWF capacities are shown. The capacities resulting from 52 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 1-4
the recommended near-term expansions (discussed in TM 1 - Near-Term Process Performance in the Facility Plan) are also shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Unit Process Capacities and 2044 AADF and PWWF Projections The ability for each process to meet the 2044 flow/load projections is denoted by a green check symbol. A warning symbol is adopted to indicate when projected flows/loads exceed the capacities of the individual processes.

Table 1.2 presents the estimated capacity for each unit process at the Visalia WRF.

Table 1.2 Unit Process Capacities
Process Controlling
Condition
Capacity
(mgd)
2044 Projected
Flow (mgd)
Capacity
Deficit (mgd)
Year of
Capacity
Exceedance
Mechanical Bar Screens PWWF 47(1) 42.8 - -
Influent Pump Station PWWF 46.9(1) 42.8 - -
Grit Removal PWWF 48(2) 42.8 - -
Primary Clarification AADF
PWWF

21.9(2)
44(2)

21.4 42.8
- -
Inter-Stage Pump Station PWWF 44.4(1) 42.8 - -
Fine Screens PWWF 45(1) 42.8 - -
53 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 1-5
Process Controlling
Condition
Capacity
(mgd)
2044 Projected
Flow (mgd)
Capacity
Deficit (mgd)
Year of
Capacity
Exceedance
MBR System AADF
PWWF

16.3(2)(4)
36(2)(4)

21.4 42.8
-5.1(4)
-6.8(4)
2033
Membrane Tank Permeate Pumps PWWF 50.9(1) 42.8 - -
UV Disinfection PWWF 37(2)(3) 42.8 -5.8 2038
Anaerobic Digestion AADF 18.1(3) 21.4 -3.3 2037
Biogas Flare AADF 18.2(2) 21.4 -3.2 2037
Sludge Transfer Pumps AADF 27.8(1)(3) 21.4 - -
Dewatering Feed Pumps AADF 27.8 (1) 21.4 - -
Sludge Dewatering AADF 17.6(1)(3) 21.4 -3.8 2036
Sludge Drying Beds AADF 21.8(3) 21.4 - -
Notes:

SRT - sludge retention time; TWAS - thickened waste activated sludge; UV - ultraviolet. (1) Firm capacity: largest unit out of service.
(2) Total capacity: all units in service.
(3) Recommended process improvements and capacity expansions from TM 1 - Near-Term Process Performance of the Facility Plan, which includes a 5 percent and 3.5 percent TWAS and primary sludge thickening, respectively. (4) MBR treatment capacity with a 10-day SRT.

As shown in Figure 1.3, to provide enough capacity to treat the 2044 flows and loads projections, upgrades of different process steps are required.
 MBR System: Under the current operating conditions the MBR system is projected to reach treatment capacity at an AADF of 16.3 mgd.
 UV Disinfection System: The firm capacity of the UV disinfection system will be reached at a PWWF of 37 mgd after the near-term expansion.
 Anaerobic Digestion: After completing the recommended near-term upgrades in TM1 - Near-Term Process Performance of the Facility Plan, the firm capacity of the anaerobic digestors will be reached at an AADF of 18.1 mgd.
 Digester Gas Flare System: The installed capacity of the biogas flare system will be reached at an AADF of 18.2 mgd.
 Dewatering Screw Press: After completing the recommended near-term upgrades in TM1 – Near-Term Process Performance of the Facility Plan, the firm capacity of the dewatering screw presses will be reached at an AADF of 17.6 mgd. The solid loading capacity is the limiting capacity criteria.

The first recommended long-term project would be to install additional sludge-drying beds by approximately 2032 to meet future dewatered solids loadings. Under the current design criteria of 10 -day SRT, the MBR system will reach treatment capacity in 2033. Expanding the capacities of the RAS and IMLR systems and lowering the SRT of the system would expand the capacity of the MBR system to meet the long-term capacity requirements. Additional required solids treatment projects are to install an additional screw press (2036), an additional digester (2037), and the expansion of the digester gas flare system (2037). The UV disinfection process will require additional capacity by 2038. 54 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 1-6
Table 1.2 provides a summary of the capacities of the Visalia WRF’s processes. The controlling conditions denote the design criteria used for the specific process. The capacities of the individual processes are compared to the 2044 AADF and PWWF projections, along with the equivalent capacity deficit. The expected year of capacity exceedance is also listed.

1.3.1 Membrane Bioreactor System
The recommended design criteria for MBR systems in TM 1 – Near-Term Process Performance in the Facility Plan includes operating at a SRT of 10 days. For the near-term process performance evaluation, a 10-day SRT simulation of the MBR system ensures sufficient biological treatment capacity, while maintaining mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations in the membrane tanks below the recommended design threshold of 12,000 mg/L.

When simulating the 2044 average daily maximum month load (ADMML) analysis, the solids concentrations in the membrane tanks of the MBR system surpassed the recommended design maximum threshold of 12,000 mg/L. At solids concentrations higher than the design threshold, the flux rate of the membranes can be negatively impacted.

Additional simulations were performed over a range of SRTs to assess the feasibility to lower the MLSS concentration in the membrane tank.

For the 2044 ADMML projections, sufficient capacity can be achieved by lowering the SRT to eight days, while still providing sufficient biological treatment capacity to treat the primary effluent organic and nitrogen loads and meeting regulatory effluent limits using the existing aeration basins (ABs). This alternative avoids the need for additional volume of the ABs, thus requiring only the four existing ABs. The 2044 simulations were assessed under average-temperature conditions (24 degrees Celsius [C]), and for low-temperature conditions (22 degrees C).

However, to ensure sufficient capacity, several equipment upgrades are recommended:
 Additional RAS Pump: The maximum firm capacity of the existing RAS pumps is 78 mgd (3+1, 28 mgd each). To maintain MLSS concentrations of the membrane tanks below the 12,000 mg/L threshold, the RAS pumps flow capacity needs to be increased before 2044. Therefore, the installation of an additional RAS pump is recommended, which would provide a firm capacity of 104 mgd (4+1).

This recommendation is in line with the original design plan for the 22 mgd expansion.  Additional AB Blower: The maximum firm capacity of the existing blower group is approximately 31,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) (4+1, 7,769 scfm each). To meet the projected 2044 airflow requirements of approximately 35,000 scfm the addition of another blower is recommended to reach a firm capacity of 38,845 scfm (five on duty and one on standby). This recommendation is in line with the original design plan for the 22 mgd expansion.  IMLR Pump Flow Capacity Increase: The max capacity of the existing four IMLR pumps is 89 mgd.

To accommodate long-term future loads and lower effluent nitrate to achieve total nitrogen (TN) concentrations below the 10mgTN-N/L effluent limit, an increase in the IMLR flow rate to 160 mgd is recommended.
 Membrane Tank Upgrades: Increase the membrane area per train. This can be achieved by adding a 52-module cassette in each train (from 8 to 9 cassettes), with 7 existing cassettes fully populated (48 modules), 1 partially populated existing cassette (46 modules) and 1 fully populated new cassette 55 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – LONG-TERM PROCESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 1-7
(52 modules). This configuration is slightly different from the original 22 mgd design expansion since the higher packing density currently available for the new MBR cassettes allows to achieve the required membrane surface with only one cassette per train. This adjustment allows the system to operate under AADF conditions of 15 gallons per day per square foot with one membrane tank out of service.

In summary, the proposed upgrades ensure the system's performance without the need for additional tankage. Operating at an eight-day SRT, along with the outlined enhancements, enables the MBR system to meet design criteria and handle varying operational conditions effectively.

1.3.2 UV Disinfection
The original design criteria of the UV disinfection process assume a 65 percent ultraviolet transmittance (UVT) with a design dose of 80 millijoules per square centimeter. After reviewing of the plant operating data, the lower 10th percentile of the UVT indicated a value of 72 percent, indicating that the system was overperforming with respect to the original design criteria. However, the original 65 percent UVT value was assumed when estimating the long-term capacity requirements of the UV disinfection system since a higher UVT would decrease the conservatism of the planning effort, and UVT can vary over time. A minimum temperature of 18 degrees C was also used as a conservative design criterion. These assumptions were selected to account for variability in feed water constituents of the MBR system’s effluent that can impact UVT performance (e.g., colloids, turbidity, etc.). For the long -term improvements to the UV disinfection process, it is recommended to add a new UV channel to increase the UV system’s firm capacity to be able to meet the projected PWWF.

1.3.3 Anaerobic Digestion System and Ancillary Equipment After the near-term improvements have been implemented, the anaerobic digestion system will have sufficient firm capacity until approximately 2037. Near-Term TWAS pumps upgrades are assumed to provide a flow capacity of 100 gallons per minute and are sized to overcome the pressure losses required to pump a 5 percent TWAS stream to the digesters. Although the installed capacity of all nine units in service provides enough treatment capacity until approximately 2044, the firm capacity without the largest digester (i.e., No. 8 or No. 9) is projected to be insufficient to treat 2044 solids loadings. Therefore, assuming digester No. 9 has the same volume allocated to storage as No. 8, an additional active digester volume of 2.24 million gallon (MG) is required to ensure enough firm capacity through 2044, with a total installed and firm capacity of 8.13 MG and 5.9 MG, respectively.

1.3.4 Biogas Flare System
The 2044 projected digester gas volumetric flows will exceed the current rated capacity of the biogas flare system (21,250 standard cubic feet per hour [scfh]). To provide sufficient flaring capacity the flaring system should be expanded to provide an overall treatment capacity of 25,000 scfh.

1.3.5 Dewatering System
The capacity of the dewatering system is not sufficient to meet the projected 2044 sludge flows and loads.

A fourth screw press should be installed to provide sufficient firm capacity to meet the projected sludge flows and loads.
56 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2
Regulatory Review and Strategic Plan
FINAL / June 2024
57 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2
Regulatory Review and Strategic Plan
FINAL / June 2024
58 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Visalia/202132-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Master Plan/TM 2 - Regulatory Review/TM02.docx Contents
TM 2 REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN

2.1 Introduction 2-1

2.2 Wastewater Regulations 2-1

2.2.1 Regulatory Review 2-1

2.2.2 Future Regulations for Land Discharges 2-7

2.3 Recycled Water Regulations 2-8

2.3.1 Non-Potable Reuse Regulations and Current Permit 2-8

2.3.2 Potable Reuse Regulations 2-8

2.3.3 Future Requirements 2-10

2.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water Strategic Plan Recommendations 2-13

2.5 Biosolids Regulations 2-14

2.5.1 Introduction 2-14

2.5.2 Regulatory Review 2-14

2.5.3 Biosolids Strategic Plan Recommendations 2-18
Tables
Table 2.1 Effluent Limitations and Actual Concentrations 2-5 Table 2.2 Recent Groundwater Quality 2-6
Table 2.3 Approved Discharge Locations 2-7
Table 2.4 Summary Comparison of Key Regulatory Requirements for GWR, SWA, and DPR 2-11
Table 2.5 California PFAS Drinking Water Advisory Values 2-12 Table 2.6 EPA Proposed MCLs and MCLGs 2-13
Table 2.7 Summary of Regulatory Concerns and Potential Strategies 2-13 Table 2.8 Biosolids Pollutant (Metal) Concentrations and Limits 2-15 Figures
Figure 2.1 Central Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SALTS) Nitrate Management Zones Map 2-3
Figure 2.2 The City’s WRF Treatment Process 2-4
Figure 2.3 Areas of Discharge and Monitoring Well Locations 2-6 Figure 2.4 County Land Application Ordinances in California 2-17

59 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ii
Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
AGR agricultural supply
AL action level
AOP advanced oxidation process
AWTO advanced water treatment operator
BAC biological activated carbon
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin BOD biochemical oxygen demand
C Celsius
Carollo Carollo Engineers
City City of Visalia
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability CWA Clean Water Act
DBP disinfection byproduct
DDW Division of Drinking Water
deg. degrees
DiPRRA direct potable reuse responsible agency
DPR direct potable reuse
DWQ Division of Water Quality
EC electrical conductivity
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESCP enhanced source control program
F Fahrenheit
ft feet
GWR groundwater recharge
HA Health Advisories
HFPO-DA (GenX) hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
IAP Independent Advisory Panel
IND industrial service supply
IPR indirect potable reuse
LRV log removal value
µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter
max. maximum
MBR membrane bioreactor
MCL maximum contaminant level
60 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN iii
MCLG maximum contaminant level goals
mg/kg milligram of pollutant per kilogram of solids (dry basis) mg/L milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
MPN/100 mL most probable number per 100 milliliters
MUN municipal and domestic supply
MW monitoring well
N nitrogen or nitrate
ng/L nanogram per liter
NL notification level
NOA Notice of Applicability
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
P&O Prioritization and Optimization
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
PFHxS perfluorohexane sulfonate
PFNA perfluorononanoic acid
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate
PHG Public Health Goal
PRO industrial process supply
PS primary sludge
PSRP Processes To Significantly Reduce Pathogens
RAS return activated sludge
REC-1 water contact recreation
REC-2 non-contract water recreation
RL response level
RO reverse osmosis
RWA raw water augmentation
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
sMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO4 sulfate
SWA surface water augmentation
SWRCB California State Water Resource Control Board
TCLP Toxicity Characterization Leaching Procedure
61 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN iv
TDS total dissolved solids
THP thermal hydrolysis process
TID Tulare Irrigation District
Title 22 California Code of Regulations, Title 22
TM technical memorandum
TOC total organic carbon
TPAD temperature phased anaerobic digestion
TS total solids
TSS total suspended solids
TWA treated water augmentation
Type 1 disinfected tertiary-treated recycled water
Type 2 undisinfected secondary-treated recycled water
UV ultraviolet
WAS waste activated sludge
WDR waste discharge requirement
WQO water quality objective
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WRRF water resource recovery facilities
WWTP wastewater treatment plant

62 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-1
TM 2 REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN

2.1 Introduction
This technical memorandum (TM) presents a review of current and future regulatory requirements that may impact the City of Visalia’s (City's) wastewater, water reuse, and biosolids treatment and discharge. In addition, it presents a strategic plan developed to serve as a guide to adapt to the possibility of these changes.

2.2 Wastewater Regulations
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes and enforces federal regulations that govern the City’s wastewater facilities. The EPA develops and enforces federal rules and regulations that set national standards that protect human health and the environment. Most of the regulations that apply to wastewater effluent are based on the implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In California, the Porter-Cologne Act provides the structure for implementing the CWA and regulating discharges to surface waters and groundwater. The Porter-Cologne Act established a structure of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) that set policies and develops Basin Plans to assign specific water quality objectives and beneficial uses for waterbodies within their specific boundaries in California. The California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) develops and establishes statewide policies, regulations and general orders for the protection of water quality, regulates drinking water, administers California’s water rights system, supports and coordinates the efforts of nine RWQCBs.

Other state agencies with jurisdiction or involvement in water quality regulation in California include the Division of Drinking Water (DDW), which is a division of the SWRCB and is responsible for drinking water regulations and water reclamation criteria (water recycling). At the local level, the RWQCBs are responsible for ensuring federal and state water quality requirements are met within their region. They set water quality objectives, issue waste discharge requirements (WDRs) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, determine compliance with those requirements, and take appropriate enforcement action. The Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5) is responsible for the region where the City is located.

2.2.1 Regulatory Review

2.2.1.1 Basin Plan Requirements and CV-SALTS
RWQCB’s set beneficial uses for water bodies and establish water quality objectives that are assigned to protect those beneficial uses. These beneficial uses and water quality objectives are used to identify waterbody impairments and objectives that must be met by discharges to the waterbodies. The Central Valley RWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan) that designates beneficial uses, establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives (WQOs), and contains implementation plans and policies for protecting waters of the basin. The RWQCB issues WDRs that implement the Basin Plan requirements.
63 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-2
The City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) lies within the Kaweah Basin of the Tulare Lake Basin. The beneficial uses of underlying groundwater as set forth in the Basin Plan are: municipal and domestic supply (MUN); agricultural supply (AGR); industrial service supply (IND); industrial process supply (PRO); water contact recreation (REC-1); and non-contact water recreation (REC-2). To protect these beneficial uses the Basin Plan establishes narrative WQOs for chemical constituents, tastes and odors, and t oxicity in groundwater. It also prescribes a numeric WQO for total coliform organisms. The designation of the groundwater as MUN requires that chemical constituents in the groundwater basin must at least meet the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established under California Code of Regulations , Title 22 (Title 22) for potable use.

There has been recognition for many years that one of the biggest challenges facing the Tulare Lake Basin is the increase in salinity in groundwater. The Basin Plan establishes several salt management requirements, including: controlling incremental salt increases; establishing maximum limits on electrical conductivity (EC), chloride and boron; and requiring monitoring of groundwater to assess quality. The City monitors groundwater quality through a network of 18 monitoring wells in both the upper and lower aquifers.

The Central Valley RWQCB is developing Basin Plan amendments to incorporate new programs for addressing ongoing salt and nitrate accumulation in the Central Valley. These programs would change how the RWQCB issues permits for discharges of salt and nitrate. The stakeholder-led Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) initiative has been coordinating efforts to implement new salt and nitrate management strategies.

The City is located in the Kaweah Management Zone, which is a Priority 1 (highest priority) basin for the Nitrate Control Plan from CV-SALTS, as shown in Figure 2.1. CV-SALTS is a regional program that aims to reduce salt and nutrient accumulation in the Central Valley basin to protect sources of groundwater used for drinking water and reduce impacts to agricultural land and habitats. To address these impacts, a Nitrate Program and a Salts Control Program have been established.

The Nitrate Control Program applies to land discharges only. Two regulatory pathways are available to dischargers for the Nitrate Control Program under CV-SALTS: individual permitting (Pathway A) or joining a management zone (Pathway B). Since the City is in a Priority 1 management zone and received a Notice to Comply in 2020, it chose Pathway B, joining a management zone project.

For the Salts Control Program, a similar structure was implemented with a Conservative Permitting Pathway (individual permit) or an Alternative Permitting Pathway (participate in the Prioritization and Optimization [P&O] Study). The City is participating in the P&O study. The plan is currently on Phase 1:

P&O Study, which started in late 2019 and will last about 10 to 12 years. 64 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-3

Figure 2.1 Central Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (CV-SALTS) Nitrate Management Zones Map

2.2.1.2 Current Regulations
The City is currently regulated by WDRs Order No. R5-2018-0046 for land discharges. The City previously had an NPDES permit for surface water discharges to Mill Creek, but this discharge point is no longer used. In 2017 the City upgraded its WRF to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection facility that can produce tertiary treated effluent. The City’s WDRs were updated to account for the higher 65 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-4
level of treatment, with new limits that are performance based (used to ensure the WRF is operated correctly and able to meet tertiary standards). The upgrade of the WRF also provided a facility that both nitrifies and denitrifies, thereby producing an effluent that can meet the Basin Plan standards for nitrogen and nitrate. The process flow diagram for the upgraded treatment facility is shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 The City’s WRF Treatment Process
66 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-5
Table 2.1 presents the discharge effluent limitations the WRF must meet per Order No. R5-2018-0046 as well as how the WRF is actually performing. As shown in Table 2.1, the new WRF is performing well and based on data collected between January 2018 and March 2023, meeting all monthly average requirements. During the same time period, the daily maximum values have been exceeded three times, twice for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in 2022 and once for Total Coliform in 2020. In general, the WRF produces high quality effluent.

Table 2.1 Effluent Limitations and Actual Concentrations Constituent Units Special Condition Monthly Average Daily Maximum Permit Limit Permit Limit Effluent Data Permit Limit Effluent Data BOD mg/L --- 10 3.3(1) 20 23(2)(7)
TSS mg/L --- 10 1.3(1) 20 16(2)
Total Nitrogen (as N) mg/L --- 10 5.4(1) --- 18(2)
Chloride mg/L --- 175 56(3) --- 97(4)
Boron mg/L --- 1 0.20(3) --- 0.28(4)
EC(5) µmhos/cm 1,000 max. --- 510(3) --- 780(4)
Total Coliform MPN/100 mL 2.2 – 7-day median 23 in 30-day period
<2.0(1) 240 1,600(2)
Turbidity NTU 0.2 as daily average(6) --- 0.03(3) 0.5 at any time 0.40(4) Notes:
max. - maximum; mg/L - milligrams per liter; MPN/100 mL - most probable number per 100 milliliters; NTU - nephelometric turbidity units; TSS - total suspended solids; µmhos/cm - micromhos per centimeter. (1) Data represents the average monthly average from January 1, 2018, to May 31, 2023. (2) This represents the maximum concentration reached during the January 2018 to May 2023 period. (3) Data represents the average monthly average from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2023. (4) This represents the maximum concentration reached during the January 2020 to December 2023 period. (5) The 12-month rolling average EC of the discharge shall not exceed the 12-month flow-weighted average EC of the source water plus 500 µmhos/cm or a maximum of 1,000 µmhos/cm, whichever is more stringent. When source water is from more than one source, the EC shall be a flow-weighted average of all sources.
(6) For 95 percent of the time.
(7) The second highest exceedance was 22 mg/L.

The WDRs also requires that the WRF shall not contribute to the groundwater exceeding the greater of natural background quality or Nitrate (as N) of 10 mg/L, Total Coliform Organisms of 7 -day median of

2.2 MPN/100 mL or any primary or secondary MCLs established in Title 22.

Recent groundwater quality was obtained from California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) for October 2018-October 2023. Table 2.2 presents representative samples of groundwater data from wells downstream of the percolation ponds. In general, this data demonstrates that the WRF’s effluent is not degrading the groundwater quality with most constituents under or right around the WDR lim its.

Furthermore, some background wells farther away from the percolation ponds actually had worse water quality than those wells near the percolation ponds, reinforcing that the WRF’s discharge does not adversely impact groundwater quality. See Figure 2.3 for the discharge areas and monitoring well locations.
67 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-6
Table 2.2 Recent Groundwater Quality(1)
Parameter Unit Limit Monitoring Well Concentrations(2)
MW-R MW-J1 MW-J2 MW-J3 MW-Q MW-P
Chloride mg/L 175(3) 63.5 33.8 72.7 9.3 36.3 56.8
Depth to Groundwater feet --- 101.4 100.7 109.6 168.0 103.5 102.7 EC at 25 deg. C µmhos/cm 1,000(3) 791.7 390.0 666.7 128.3 510.0 683.3 Groundwater Elevation ft --- 184.0 178.6 169.6 111.2 163.2 163.7 Nitrate, Total (as N) mg/L 10(3) 10.0 4.7 8.3 0.3 1.7 2.8 Nitrogen, Total (as N) mg/L 10(3) 11.4 5.6 9.6 2.5 2.4 5.4 Sulfate, Total (as SO4) mg/L 250(4)-500(5) 35.5 26.0 35.8 5.1 30.2 53.3 TDS mg/L 500(4)-1,000(5) 510.0 285.0 408.3 131.0 321.7 450.0 Notes:

C - Celsius; deg. - degrees; ft - feet; MW - monitoring well; TDS - total dissolved solids. (1) Groundwater monitoring data was obtained from CIWQS. This data includes the following sampling periods: October 2018, April 2019, October 2019, April 2020, October 2020, and October 2023. Not every well was sampled for each sampling period. (2) Concentrations are the average of samples that were included in the dataset. (3) The City’s WDR limit.
(4) Title 22 recommended secondary MCL.
(5) Title 22 upper secondary MCL.

Figure 2.3 Areas of Discharge and Monitoring Well Locations 68 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-7
The WDR establishes two categories of effluent and recycled water that the WRF will produce and discharge: Type 1 (disinfected tertiary-treated recycled water) and Type 2 (undisinfected secondary- treated recycled water). The City is only allowed to produce and discharge Type 2 effluent in the event of a malfunction or planned maintenance of the UV disinfection system. If a Type 2 discharge occurs, the City must inform the Central Valley Water Board staff within 24 hours, and the duration of a Type 2 dischar ge is limited to the time required to respond to any malfunction or planned maintenance.

The City is allowed to discharge to City-owned ponds and lands and nearby contracted lands. Recycled water uses include City-owned farmland, irrigation via Tulare Irrigation District, and for local landscape irrigation within the City. Approved uses are shown in Table 2.3, and discharge areas are shown above in Figure 2.3.

Table 2.3 Approved Discharge Locations
Description Acreage/Storage Approved Effluent Type
City farmland 996 acres Type 1 or 2(1)(2)
On-site Pond 2 84 acre-feet Type 1 or 2(1)
On-site Pond 3 304 acre-feet Type 1 or 2(1)
City-owned Basin No. 4 1,287 acre-feet Type 1 or 2(1)
Potential contracted land 2,525 acres Type 1 or 2(1)
TID 10,700 acres Type 1
City-owned farmland near the airport 664 acres Type 1
Landscape Reuse 253 acres Type 1
Notes:

TID - Tulare Irrigation District.
(1) Type 2 undisinfected secondary effluent is only allowed to be discharged in the event of malfunction or planned maintenance. (2) Type 2 discharge can only be applied to 250 acres of City-owned land (fiber and fodder) previously authorized by WDRs Order R5-2014-0076 and 168 acres of City-owned land (fiber and fodder) previously authorized by WQ 2016-0068-R5001.

2.2.2 Future Regulations for Land Discharges
Since the City is located in the Central Valley, it is subject to the requirements of the CV-SALTS program.

CV-SALTS’ primary focus is on the impact of salinity and nitrate levels in the groundwater basins. The WRF’s new MBR treatment process allows the City to meet the nitrate and total nitrogen requirements.

The City will need to continue to evaluate options for managing salts through consideration of source waters that are low in salts, pretreatment and source control efforts, and potentially salt removal facilities in the future.

Additionally, because the groundwater basin is a drinking water source, all MCLs apply to the groundwater. It will be important for the City to monitor both the effluent and the groundwater to assess if the effluent is contributing to exceedances of MCLs in the groundwater basin. As more constituents of emerging concern (such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS] compounds) are regulated by MCLs, it is possible that the City’s effluent could be a source of contamination to the groundwater basin.

Compliance with any MCL should be in the groundwater, down gradient of the land disposal areas, and incorporating groundwater mixing. However, source control and/or treatment to remove emerging contaminants in the final effluent waste stream may be required in the future. See Section 2.3.3.1 for a discussion on PFAS.
69 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-8

2.3 Recycled Water Regulations
At the federal level, the EPA developed the 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse to provide national guidance on water reuse regulations and practices in order to facilitate further development of water reuse and to support states, tribes, and other authorities in their development of water reuse guidelines and regulations. Water reuse in California falls under the jurisdiction of the SWRCB. Within the SWRCB, DDW is responsible for protecting public health, and RWQCBs are responsible for protecting the environme nt with respect to water. Title 22 codifies criteria developed by DDW for non-potable uses and potable uses of recycled water.

2.3.1 Non-Potable Reuse Regulations and Current Permit
The City is currently enrolled under Water Quality Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW, Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (hereafter, General Order). In June 2016, the SWRCB adopted the General Order to consistently regulate the use of recycled water for non-potable uses. Under the City’s Notice of Applicability (NOA) for the General Order, the City is the Recycled Water Program Administrator and is allowed to distribute recycled water and operate a recycled water program. Section 2.2.1.2 above discusses the types (Type 1 and Type 2) of recycled water discharge and where these discharges are approved (see Table 2.3 above).

Additionally, the City and TID have an exchange agreement in which for every two units of recycled water the City gives to TID, TID will send one unit of freshwater to the City for groundwater recharge. In 2018 DDW accepted the final amendment from the 2011 Title 22 Engineering Report.

2.3.2 Potable Reuse Regulations
Title 22 codifies criteria developed by DDW for indirect potable reuse (IPR) of recycled water by groundwater recharge (GWR) and surface water augmentation (SWA) as well as direct potable reuse (DPR).

2.3.2.1 IPR via GWR Regulations
GWR, a form of IPR, has been practiced successfully since the 1970s. Final regulations have been in place for GWR since 2014; although, regulations existed in draft form prior to that for almost 40 years.1 GWR can take two forms: (1) surface spreading which entails percolating tertiary effluent or purified recycled water through spreading basins, and (2) direct injection, which entails injecting purified recycled water directly into an aquifer.

1 SWRCB (2018) Regulations Related to Recycled Water. Sacramento, California. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwregulations. pdf.
70 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-9

2.3.2.2 IPR via SWA Regulations
In 2018, DDW finalized its regulations for IPR via SWA. SWA entails augmenting an existing drinking water reservoir with purified water, and later treating that water at a water treatment plant prior to serving it to customers. Regulatory considerations for SWA consider many of the same elements as GWR, but also include new requirements to account for the lack of experience with this type of project and the complexities introduced by the use of a surface water reservoir.

2.3.2.3 DPR Regulations
The EPA has developed regulatory recommendations for DPR on the national level, and New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, and Arizona have developed regulatory guidance for DPR within their respective states.

Regulations for DPR in California were finalized in December of 2023. Prior to that, Assembly Bill 574 was signed into law in October 2017 and required DDW to develop raw water augmentation (RWA ), which adds purified water upstream of a drinking water treatment facility, regulations by December 2023. Since then, DDW published a proposed framework and a second edition framework stating that they intend both RWA and treated water augmentation (TWA), which adds purified water directly into an existing drinking water distribution system, to be regulated under one uniform regulation published in 2023. 2 In August 2021, DDW published Addendum version 8-17-2021 to A Framework for Direct Potable Reuse,3 which provided the second draft of regulations as they might be housed within a new Article under the Surface Water Treatment chapter of Title 22. Expert panel comments and DDW responses were completed in June 2022.4 In February 2023, a meeting with DDW and the DPR working group of WateReuse California established an updated anticipated timeline of release and adoptions of DPR regulations. In June 2023, the updated draft regulations were released with a 45-day public comment period. After review and update, the DDW adopted the regulations in December 2023. DPR regulations will be formally complete after the Office of Administrative Law reviews and publishes them, likely to occ ur in spring of 2024.

The DPR regulations contain extensive requirements for treatment, monitoring, source control, reporting, and more. The framework remains similar to what has been promulgated for IPR, i.e., GWR and SWA, but many of the requirements have been made more stringent, and new elements have been introduced. The key elements of the regulations are defined below, with a comparison summary of GWR, SWA, and DPR regulations in Table 2.4. With these regulations in place, DPR could be viable option for the City. In order to see if DPR is beneficial to the City, further analysis is required.

2 SWRCB (2019a). A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California, Second Edition. Prepared by the State of California Water Resources Control Board DDW, August 2019. 3 SWRCB (2021). A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California, 2nd Edition Addendum: Early Draft of Anticipated Criteria. August 17, 2021. 4 SWRCB (2022). DDW Response to “Expert Panel Preliminary Findings, Recommendations, and Comments on the Draft DPR Criteria (dated August 17, 2021)” in the Memorandum of Findings Submitted by NWRI dated March 14, 2022. June 2022.
71 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-10

2.3.3 Future Requirements
In summary, regulations are now established for all forms of non-potable and potable reuse. The City is already in compliance with requirements under Title 22 for non-potable reuse. As summarized in Table 2.4, the requirements for potable reuse are extensive and high levels of treatment are required.

Given that the State is requiring reverse osmosis as part of the purification process required for potable reuse, the disposal of the waste product (reverse osmosis concentrate) would be problematic for the City given the lack of an ocean outfall or a way to deal with the salty waste. There are also significant technical, managerial, and financial requirements for implementing DPR that would be hard to achieve for a smaller utility. At this point, it is mainly larger utilities that are seriously considering DPR.

The main concern for future requirements for reuse is related to emerging contaminants. 72 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-11
Table 2.4 Summary Comparison of Key Regulatory Requirements for GWR, SWA, and DPR GWR SWA DPR – TWA or RWA
Project Structure and
Interagency Coordination
 Main entity is project sponsor.  Involves both a WWTP and a public water system.  Joint Plan required.
 DiPRRA is the public water agency responsible for project.  Joint Plan required.

Source Control Requires industrial pretreatment and pollutant source control program including:
 Assessment of the fate of site-specific chemicals through the wastewater and recycled water treatment systems.
 Monitoring and investigation of chemical sources.
 Outreach program to minimize discharge of chemicals into the feed water.

Requires industrial pretreatment and pollutant source control program including:
 Assessment of the fate of site-specific chemicals through the wastewater and recycled water treatment systems.
 Monitoring and investigation of chemical sources.
 Outreach program to minimize discharge of chemicals into the feed water.  Requires ESCP.
 All elements of source control as needed for IPR.
 Quantitative evaluation of chemicals discharged to collection system.  Online monitoring that may indicate a chemical peak resulting from an illicit discharge.  Coordination with the pretreatment program for notification of discharges above allowable limits .  Monitoring of local surveillance programs to determine when community outbreaks of disease occur .  Form a source control committee and institute a continuous improvement process for the program.

Feed Water Monitoring None. None.  Prior to operation, 24 months of monthly feed water monitoring for regulated contaminants (i.e., those with an MCL), priority pollutants, NLs, a specific list of solvents, DBPs, and DBP precursors.

Pathogen Control
(required log reduction
credits)
 12-log enteric virus.
 10-log Giardia.
 10-log Cryptosporidium.
 12 to 14-log enteric virus.
 10 to 12-log Giardia.
 10 to 12-log Cryptosporidium.
 20-log enteric virus.
 14-log Giardia.
 15-log Cryptosporidium.

Treatment Train  RO + UV/AOP required.  RO + UV/AOP required.  Ozone/BAC + RO + UV/AOP required in this order.  Alternatives clause is included stating that an alternative treatment train may be allowed if written approval is received from the SWRCB, the DiPRRA conducts public meetings and receives public comments, and the proposed train is reviewed by an IAP.

Chemical Control  Maximum recycled water TOC contribution of 0.5 mg/L.  Must meet all current drinking water standards, including MCLs, DBPs, and ALs. Quarterly monitoring.
 Maximum recycled water TOC contribution of 0.5 mg/L.
 Must meet all current drinking water standards, including MCLs, DBPs, and ALs.

Quarterly monitoring.
 Must consist of at least three separate treatment processes, using diverse treatment mechanisms, for chemical reduction.
 Maximum effluent TOC contribution of 0.5 mg/L; additional more stringent TOC thresholds with response actions.
 Must meet all current drinking water standards, including MCLs, DBPs, and A ls. Monthly monitoring.  Control of 1-hour chemical spike.
 Continuous monitoring of nitrate and nitrite in RO permeate.

Additional Monitoring  Quarterly sampling in recycled water and downgradient groundwater wells for priority pollutants, unregulated
chemicals, and NLs.
 Quarterly sampling in recycled water for priority pollutants, unregulated chemicals, and NLs.
 24 months of monthly sampling for sMCLs, TOC, nitrogen, and others at multiple locations in reservoir to be augmented. Additional monthly monitoring for at least the first 24 months of operations.

Monitoring required in feed water, directly after oxidation process, and finished water for:
 Monthly: All MCLs, sMCLs, NLs, priority toxic pollutants, ALs, DBPs and DBP precursors, and specified solvents.
 Quarterly: Chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive issues for at least three years.  Weekly monitoring of nitrate, nitrite, perchlorate, and lead in the finished water only.  Additional quarterly monitoring for chemicals identified by the DiPRRA in coordination with the SWRCB.

Environmental Buffer  Minimum aquifer retention time of 2 months.  Initial minimum reservoir hydraulic retention time of 6 months; potential to reduce down to 2 months with additional pathogen control.
 Initial minimum reservoir dilution of 10:1, one LRV of pathogen treatment added if dilution is <100:1.
 Additional 2 log reduction credit for continuous blending, continuous mixing in a surface reservoir, and GWR.

Response Time  Minimum aquifer retention time of 2 months None.  The system must be designed to meet certain response time requirements to ensure that diversion and/or shutoff can occur in the event of a failure to meet the pathogen and/or chemical control requirements.  If failure is identified, the system must divert or shut off before 10 percent of the off -spec water reaches the diversion or shutoff point.

Operations None. None.  Grade 5 AWTO required on site at all times, with some exceptions for remote operations allowed.  All facility operators must be AWTO certified.

Plans  Engineering Report.
 Operations Optimization Plan.
 Joint Plan.
 Engineering Report.
 Operations Plan.
 Plan to address impacts to water treatment plant and distribution system .  Joint Plan.
 Water Safety Plan.
 Engineering Report.
 Operations Plan.
 Pathogen and Chemical Control Point Monitoring and Response Plan.  Monitoring Plan.
 Corrosion Control and Stabilization Plan.
 Additional Reporting (climate change).

Reporting  Annual compliance reporting.  Annual compliance reporting.  Monthly compliance reporting.

Notes:

AL - action level; AOP - advanced oxidation process; AWTO - advanced water treatment operator; BAC - biological activated carbon; DBP - disinfection byproduct; DiPRRA - direct potable reuse responsible agency; ESCP - enhanced source control program; IAP - Independent Advisory Panel; LRV - log removal value; NL - notification level; RO - reverse osmosis; sMCL - secondary maximum contaminant level; TOC - total organic carbon; WWTP - wastewater treatment plant. 73 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-12

2.3.3.1 PFAS
DDW has issued NLs and Response Levels (RLs) for perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS). The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment released a first and second draft of Public Health Goals (PHGs) for PFOA and PFOS in July 2021 and July 2023, respectively. Establishing a PHG is the first step towards adopting drinking water MCLs. The PFOS and PFOA MCL rulemaking process began in 2023 with adoption of final MCLs anticipated in 2025. The MCLs would apply to discharges to receiving waters with the MUN or GWR beneficial use.

The current California drinking water advisory values are presented in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 California PFAS Drinking Water Advisory Values Compound NL (issued) RL (issued) PHG (proposed)
PFOA 5.1 ng/L 10.0 ng/L 0.007 ng/L (cancer health protection) PFOS 6.5 ng/L 40 ng/L 1.0 ng/L (cancer health protection) PFBS 500 ng/L 5,000 ng/L --
PFHxS 3 ng/L 20 ng/L --
Notes:
ng/L - nanograms per liter.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the EPA to issue Health Advisories (H A) for contaminants that are not subject to National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. HAs primarily serve as information to drinking water systems and officials responsible for protecting public health when emergency spills or other contamination situations occur. The EPA has issued interim updated drinking water H As for PFOA and PFOS and final HAs for PFBS and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA [GenX]). In chemical and product manufacturing, GenX chemicals are considered a replacement for PFOA and PFBS is considered a replacement for PFOS.

On March 14, 2023, the EPA released proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The proposed regulations establish legally enforceable MCLs and non-enforceable health-based maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for six PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, perfluorononanoic acid [PFNA], PFBS, GenX, and PFHxS) as well as monitoring, public notification, and treatment requirements. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2023, and the 60-day public comment period ended on May 30, 2023. The EPA will now consider the comments received and finalize the regulations. When final, the regulatory requirements will be implemented under the authority of the SDWA and applied to operation of public drinking water systems nationwide. It is anticipated that DDW and the Regional Water Board will incorporate the requirements for operation of facilities that produce recycled water for potable purposes. The proposed MCLs and MCLGs are shown in Table 2.6. The individual MCLs are based on concentrations that can be reliably measured using EPA Draft Method 1633.

Compliance with the Hazard index will be determined by dividing the result of each PFAS compound by its assigned Health Based Factor and calculating the sum of the resulting fractions. 74 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-13
Table 2.6 EPA Proposed MCLs and MCLGs
Compound Proposed MCLG Proposed MCL
PFOA 0.0 ng/L 4.0 ng/L
PFOS 0.0 ng/L 4.0 ng/L
PFNA (health based factor = 10 ng/L) 1.0 (unitless)
Hazard Index PFHxS (health based factor = 9 ng/L)
PFBS (health based factor = 2,000 ng/L)
HFPO-DA/GenX (health based factor = 10 ng/L)

2.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water Strategic Plan
Recommendations
There is a range of strategies that may be employed for addressing regulatory concerns. Source control, scientific evidence, state and national regulatory advocacy, permit changes, and treatment optimization/upgrades are all options available for preparing and responding to regulatory compliance challenges. Participation in policy development and pilot studies may provide regulatory relief for specific constituents based on scientific evidence and development of information for improved decision-making by regulators. The possible response strategies are described within the following categories:
 Source Control – Monitoring collection systems, identifying and eliminating pollutant sources, establishing local limits, revising sewer use ordinances, working with manufacturers on product reformulation, and supporting/enacting product bans.
 Regulatory Advocacy – Development of policies and regulations to provide attainable regulatory solutions that are also protective of the environment and public health.  Permit Changes – Conducting scientific studies to evaluate impacts of discharges on the environment, developing site specific objectives, conducting mixing zone/dilution studies, modeling groundwater travel times and flow directions, and conducting antidegradation analyses to allow use of available assimilative capacity.
 Treatment – Optimization of existing facilities, modification of existing facilities, or additional treatment to reduce or remove constituents to comply with effluent limitations.

The compliance concerns and recommended strategies to address them are presented in Table 2.7. The City should continue to participate in CV-SALTS and track the development of MCLs that could be applied to groundwater discharges.

Table 2.7 Summary of Regulatory Concerns and Potential Strategies End Use Regulatory Concerns Potential Strategies to Address Concerns Land Discharge Nitrate and Total Nitrogen Permit Changes, Treatment Salinity Source Control, Permit Changes, Treatment
MCLs Source Control, Regulatory Advocacy, Permit Changes, Treatment Potable Reuse PFAS Source Control, Regulatory Advocacy, Treatment through purification 75 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-14

2.5 Biosolids Regulations

2.5.1 Introduction
The WRF processes primary solids and thickened waste activated sludge in mesophilic anaerobic digesters. The digested biosolids are then dewatered in screw presses and dried in drying beds. Based on the 2020 to 2023 data, typical solids concentrations are 16 percent total solids (TS) for the dewatered biosolids and 81 to 90 percent TS for the dried biosolids. After drying, the solids are stored in a stockpile.

The City contracts with a third party, Denali, for hauling and beneficial use of the dried biosolids via bulk agricultural land application in Merced and Madera counties. The City occasionally landfills their biosolids.

This section describes current and potential future regulatory requirements pertaining to solids treatment and biosolids end use. It also provides an adaptable plan for the City to address possible future regulatory requirements.

2.5.2 Regulatory Review

2.5.2.1 Current Federal Regulations
40 CFR Part 503: Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge At the federal level, 40 CFR Part 503 governs the use or disposal of sewage sludge. The rule establishes biosolids quality standards based on three parameters: pathogen reduction, vector attraction reduction, and pollutant (metals) concentrations. Depending on the pathogen reduction process, biosolids are categorized as Class A or Class B. 40 CFR Part 503 also provides guidance on best practices for land application of biosolids, specifies site restrictions for each type of biosolids, and sets the requireme nts for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.

Per 40 CFR Part 503, mesophilic anaerobic digestion and air drying are both classified as Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP), both of which produce Class B biosolids.

To produce Class B biosolids using mesophilic anaerobic digestion, the following conditions must be met:
 To achieve the pathogen reduction requirement, solids must be digested at mesophilic temperature for a minimum of 15 days.
 To achieve the vector attraction reduction requirement, a minimum volatiles solids reduction of 38 percent must be achieved through the anaerobic digestion process.

To produce Class B biosolids using air drying, the following conditions must be met:
 To achieve the pathogen reduction requirement, solids must be dried for a minimum of three months with the average daily ambient temperature above 0 deg. C (32 deg. Fahrenheit [F]) for two of the three months.
 To achieve the vector attraction reduction requirement, digested solids must be dried to at least 75 percent TS and undigested solids must be dried to at least 90 percent TS. 76 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-15
The City currently meets the requirements for Class B biosolids through both anaerobic digestion and air drying. The anaerobically digested solids, prior to air drying, qualify as Class B. The air-dried solids, given that their solids content is over 75 percent TS, also qualify as Class B. However, if the City did not digest their solids upstream of air drying, a solids content of at least 90 percent TS would be required, which may be difficult to achieve based on historical performance data.

Some air-drying facilities obtain Class A designation by conducting ongoing testing of fecal pathogens.

The City tested their dried biosolids stockpiles in 2021 and 2022 for pathogens and found that the pathogen concentrations met the limits required to be classified as Class A.

The City regularly measures pollutant (metal) concentrations in their dried biosolids stockpiles. 40 CFR Part 503 requires that biosolids used for bulk agricultural application have pollutant concentrations below the ceiling concentration limits in Table 1 of 503.13. Table 2.8 lists the historical pollutant concentrations measured in the City’s dried biosolids relative to the ceiling concentration limits. As shown, the City’s historical pollutant concentration limits are far below the ceiling concentration limits.

Table 2.8 Biosolids Pollutant (Metal) Concentrations and Limits Pollutant Units Ceiling
Concentration(1)
Sep 2023 May 2023 Mar 2023 Jan 2023 Oct 2022
Arsenic mg/kg dry 75 <4.4 <0.85 <9.9 6 3.9
Cadmium mg/kg dry 85 <0.43 <0.083 0.39 <0.98 Non detect Copper mg/kg dry 4,300 181 130 167 156 248
Lead mg/kg dry 840 30 17 23 19 54
Mercury mg/kg dry 57 0.42 0.4 0.39 0.61 1
Molybdenum mg/kg dry 75 10 7.3 8.2 9 11
Nickel mg/kg dry 420 17 15 18 15 18
Selenium mg/kg dry 100 3.5 6.9 5.7 <14 1.5
Zinc mg/kg dry 7,500 691 499 586 584 778
Notes:
mg/kg dry – milligram of pollutant per kilogram of solids (dry basis). (1) Ceiling Concentration limits from 40 CFR Part 503.13 Table 1. 40 CFR Part 258 Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills When the City occasionally landfills their biosolids, they must also comply with the criteria established in 40 CFR Part 258, which governs the disposal of sewage sludge classified as solid waste. The main requirement for landfilling of sludge is that it must meet the Paint Filter Liquids Test (EPA Method 9095A) and the Toxicity Characterization Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The paint filter test determines the presence of free liquids in a sample. Dried biosolids, such as in the case of the City's biosolids, typically pass this test. The TCLP determines whether the sewage sludge is hazardous. 77 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-16

2.5.2.2 Current State of California Regulations
SWRCB’s General Order
At the State level, beneficial use of biosolids is primarily regulated by the SWRCB Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and RWQCBs through the SWRCB's General Order No. 2004-12-DWQ. The Biosolids General Order goes beyond the requirements of 40 CFR Part 503 for land application of Class B biosolids by requiring additional biosolids testing, soil testing, and groundwater sampling.

The SWRCB and the RWQCBs generally recognize that Class A, Exceptional Quality biosolids products such as heat dried pellets, compost, and liquid product from thermo-chemical hydrolysis are commercial products and their use is not regulated by the SWRCB. In these cases, the California Department of Food and Agriculture has the authority to license these products as fertilizers.

Notably for the City, the General Order prohibits land application of biosolids with solids concentrations greater than 50 percent. However, this limitation can be overcome by obtaining a WDR permit instead of a permit under the General Order.

Senate Bill 1383
Senate Bill (SB) 1383 is expected to be a strong driver to land apply rather than landfill biosolids. SB 1383 requires the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants (including methane) to achieve statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. To do this, it requires 50 percent diversion of organic waste (including sludge, digestate, and biosolids) from landfills by 2020 relative to 2014 levels and 75 percent diversion by January 1, 2025. As of January 1, 2022, use of biosolids as alternative daily cover at landfills is considered disposal. In addition, to promote the beneficial use of biosolids, SB 1383 allows CalRecycle to overturn counties’ overly restrictive biosolids ordinances.

Assembly Bill 901
Assembly Bill (AB) 901 requires increased biosolids recycling and disposal reporting requirements as of Spring 2019. AB 901 requires increased tracking and reporting of organic waste recycling and disposal (including sludge, biosolids, and digestate). Waste, recycling, and compost facilities, as well as exporters, brokers, and transporters of recyclables or compost are required to submit information directly to CalRecycle on the types, quantities, and destinations of materials that are disposed of, sold, or transferred inside or outside of the state.

2.5.2.3 Current Local Regulations
County Ordinances
While regulations at the federal and state level allow land application of Class B biosolids; at the county level, many counties in California have instituted land application ordinances that limit land application of Class B biosolids. As shown in Figure 2.4, Class B land application is banned in Tulare county, where Visalia is located, as well as most of the surrounding counties, including Fresno, Kings, Kern, and San Luis Obispo.

This leads to long hauling distances and correspondingly costly hauling rates since Class B biosolids need to be hauled to far-away counties for beneficial use. The City currently land applies their biosolids in Merced and Madera counties. CalRecycle is currently in the process of reaching out to Tulare, Sutter, 78 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-17
Stanislaus, and San Joaquin counties in an attempt to change their overly restrictive ordinances. Of relevance to the City, these negotiations may lead to Class B land application being allowed in Tulare County in the future.

Figure 2.4 County Land Application Ordinances in California

CV-SALTS
As mentioned above, the City is located in a Priority 1 (highest priority) area of CV -SALTS, a regional program that aims to reduce salt and nitrogen accumulation in the Central Valley basin. Refer to Section 2.2.1.1 – Basin Plan Requirements and CV-SALTS above for more information on this program.

Depending on the findings from the nitrate and salts control programs, described above , salt and nutrient management restrictions may apply which may limit land application of biosolids, since biosolids contain salts and nutrients.

Visalia
79 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-18

2.5.2.4 Future Regulatory Considerations
At the federal level, biosolids regulations are well established. In contrast, several recently implemented and anticipated state regulations may impact the future of biosolids land application in California, with some regulatory drivers potentially promoting land application and others potentially limiting land application.

The following recently implemented state-level regulations may promote biosolids land application:
 SB 1383 (2016, effective 2022):
» Expected to incentivize co-digestion of organics at water resource recovery facilities (WRRF) and beneficial use of biosolids and biogas.
» Expected to increase competition for anaerobic digestion and composting capacity. » May overturn overly restrictive county ordinances.
 Several climate initiatives may promote land application for its fertilizer offset and carbon sequestration benefits:
» Healthy Soils Initiative (2016).
» Executive Order N-82-20 (2020).
» AB 284 (2021).
» SB 27 (2021).

The following expected future federal and local limits on emerging contaminants may hinder biosolids land application:
 Potential limits on PFAS:
» The SWRCB recently issued an order (WQ 2020-0015-DWQ) that requires wastewater treatment plants with AWDF over 5 million gallons per day (mgd) to sample 31 PFAS analytes in biosolids starting March 2023. Limits may be set based on findings from SWRCB sampling and analysis. » If stringent PFAS concentration limits are established for biosolids, this could drive wastewater agencies to either landfill biosolids or implement emerging, advanced thermal technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis (if proven to remove/destroy PFAS compounds).  Potential limits on microplastics:
» SB 1263 mandates a Statewide Microplastics Strategy to protect coastal waters. » May require testing (although there are no standard methods for biosolids to date). » Limits may be established based on the findings from the testing.

2.5.3 Biosolids Strategic Plan Recommendations
The WRF stabilizes their solids through anaerobic digestion and air drying. The solids produced are classified as Class B. However, recent pathogen testing indicates the solids’ pathogen concentrations meet the requirements to be classified as Class A. In most cases, the dried biosolids are beneficially used through bulk agricultural land application in Merced and Madera counties. Occasionally, the biosolids are landfilled.

The WRF is in Tulare County, where Class B biosolids land application is currently banned, requiring hauling to farther counties. In addition, the City is facing increased third party biosolids hauling and end - use rates. CalRecycle, through SB 1383, is currently attempting to overturn the Class B biosolids ban in Tulare county. If they achieve that, the City may benefit from evaluating local biosolids beneficial use options, which would reduce their hauling costs. In addition, the City may consider further testing their 80 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – REGULATORY REVIEW AND STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 2-19
biosolids to determine if they can reliably meet Class A through pathogen testing and attempt to obtain Class A designation for their biosolids. Class A designation would allow the City to beneficially use their biosolids locally, even if the Class B ban remains, and would expand the potential beneficial use options beyond bulk agricultural land application. Class A biosolids can be used in bulk agricultural land application for any type of crop and in commercial and residential landscaping, parks, nurserie s, golf courses, etc.

As described in TM 3 – Environmental Opportunities in the Facility Plan, the high-level cost evaluation for Class A solids processing alternatives identified that advanced digestion alternative s, such as thermal hydrolysis process (THP) and batch temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) , may be cost- competitive relative to an expansion of conventional mesophilic digestion, while providing additional benefits including production of Class A biosolids, reduced solids quantities, and increased biogas production. These alternatives could be evaluated further later in a biosolids master plan.

The evaluation in TM 3 – Environmental Opportunities in the Facility Plan also identified that technologies with the potential to treat PFAS in biosolids, such as pyrolysis and gasification, have very high capital costs and are cost prohibitive. Thus, these technologies should only be considered if potential future PFAS limits require them. Gasification and pyrolysis usually follow thermal drying of solids; however, the City could investigate whether these processes can receive air-dried biosolids, which may result in substantial cost savings. Alternatively, the City could investigate regional partnerships for processing biosolids through an advanced thermal process, given these technologies benefit from economies of scale.

Given the myriad of potential future regulatory changes that may impact the City’s future biosolids management, Carollo recommends conducting a biosolids master plan to do a more detailed analysis of solids processing and biosolids beneficial use alternatives and develop a plan to adapt to these potential future changes.
81 Water Reclamation Facility – Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3
Existing Facilities
FINAL / June 2024
82 Water Reclamation Facility – Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3
Existing Facilities
FINAL / June 2024
83 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Visalia/202132-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Master Plan/TM 3 - Existing Facilities/TM03.docx Contents
TM 3 EXISTING FACILITIES

3.1 Introduction 3-1

3.2 Preliminary Treatment 3-4

3.3 Primary Treatment 3-4

3.4 Secondary Treatment 3-4

3.5 Tertiary Treatment 3-5

3.6 Water Distribution Systems 3-5

3.6.1 Recycled Water Distribution System 3-5

3.6.2 Plant Water Distribution System 3-6

3.7 Solids Handling 3-6

3.8 Digester Gas Treatment 3-6
Tables
Table 3.1 Visalia Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Locations 3-5 Figures
Figure 3.1 Visalia Water Reclamation Facility Current Process Flow Diagram 3-2 Figure 3.2 Existing Site Layout 3-3

84 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ii
Abbreviations
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
Carollo Carollo Engineers
City City of Visalia
cu ft cubic feet
GBT gravity belt thickener
GCSD Goshen Community Services District
µm micrometers
MBR membrane bioreactor
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
mm millimeter
MW megawatt
No. number
RAS return activated sludge
RPGS Renewable Power Generation System
TID Tulare Irrigation District
TM technical memorandum
TSS total suspended solids
TWAS thickened waste activated sludge
UV ultraviolet
WAS waste activated sludge
WDR Water Discharge Requirements
WRF Water Reclamation Facility

85 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 3-1
TM 3 EXISTING FACILITIES

3.1 Introduction
This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes the existing treatment facilities at the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). It is important to note that this TM does not contain information on the condition of the existing WRF assets. For discussion of the condition assessment, refer to Facility Plan TM 2.

The WRF provides wastewater services to the City of Visalia (City) and the Goshen Community Services District (GCSD), supplying Title 22 tertiary treated recycled water for irrigation and plant-wide operational reuse purposes. Originally built in 1966, the WRF has undergone multiple expansions and improvements.

The most recent WRF upgrades were completed in 2017. Figure 3.1 illustrates the current process flow diagram, and Figure 3.2 shows the existing WRF site layout. Per the latest Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order (R5-2018-0046), the WRF is permitted a discharge of up to 18 million gallons per day (mgd) for dry weather monthly average daily flow.

The WRF existing facilities are capable of processing and treating liquid wastewater, biosolids, and digester gas streams. Liquid wastewater entering the WRF is treated via preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment processes. Solids are collected at various stages of the treatment train and undergo a series of solids handling processes prior to disposal. Gas streams that are generated from within the plant are treated via an onsite gas purification system and flared. The following sections of this TM describe these WRF liquid, solid, and gas treatment processes in greater detail. The descriptions of the existing facilities were obtained from the 2014 WRF Upgrade design drawings and the Operations and Maintenance Manual, which includes latest upgrade project completed in 2017. 86 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 3-2

Current Process Flow Diagram was developed using the process flow diagram presented in the Operation and Maintenance Manual for Visalia WRF, which was developed in November 2018 by Parsons.

Figure 3.1 Visalia Water Reclamation Facility Current Process Flow Diagram 87 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 3-3

Figure 3.2 Existing Site Layout
88 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 3-4

3.2 Preliminary Treatment
The WRF preliminary treatment system consists of two Parshall flumes, mechanical bar screens, screenings conveyance, influent pumping, grit removal, and grit conveyance. Raw sewage from a number of influent sources (collection system, septage receiving station, etc.) enters the WRF through the headworks structure where it undergoes screening and grit removal. The wastewater first passes through two Parshall flumes that measure the amount of influent flow entering the WRF. Each Parshall flume has a capacity of 47 mgd. Two mechanical bar screens, each with a capacity of 47 mgd, are used to remove coarse solids, such as rocks, trash, and other large materials. The screened materials are conveyed and transferred to a compactor before disposal.

After screening, the Influent Pumping Station, consisting of six submersible non-clog pumps, lifts the wastewater from the influent wet wells to the grit removal system. The grit removal system includes four vortex grit removal tanks, four grit pumps, and two classifiers. The grit pumps transfer all the settled grit collected from the grit removal tanks to the classifiers before disposal. Additionally, foul air emitted from the headworks structure is collected and delivered to biofilters for gas treatment. The effluent from the grit removal system is conveyed to the primary flow split structure where wastewater continues on to the primary treatment process.

3.3 Primary Treatment
After preliminary treatment, the Primary Flow Split Structure distributes flow to the primary treatment system. The primary treatment system consists of two primary distribution boxes, five rectangular primary sedimentation basins, three primary sludge grinders, four primary sludge pumps (two duty and two standby), two primary scum grinders, and two primary scum pumps. Preliminary effluent is distributed to the primary distribution boxes and primary sedimentation tanks where the heavier solids sink to the bottom of the basins and the lighter solids float. Each basin has a volume of 0.35 million gallons (MG) and is equipped with sludge and scum collection mechanisms. Primary sludge and primary scum are collected, grinded, and pumped to the digesters. The primary sedimentation process removes portions of total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and scum from the wastewater. Without chemical addition, the primary sedimentation basin removal rates for BOD and TSS are typically 30 to 35 percent and 60 to 65 percent, respectively. The primary effluent is conveyed to the Inter-Stage Pump Station and fine screens before secondary treatment.

3.4 Secondary Treatment
Prior to secondary treatment, the Inter-Stage Pump Station pumps the primary effluent from the primary sedimentation basins to the fine screens. This pump station is equipped with a self-cleaning trench-type wet well and three pumps (two duty and one standby) with a firm capacity of 44 mgd. The pumps are required when the plant influent flow exceeds 13 mgd. Downstream of the Inter-Stage Pump Station, the fine screens receive the primary effluent and remove small particles (2 millimeters [mm] in diameter or larger) from the wastewater. Each of the four fine screens is equipped with screenings washing- dewatering-and compact units. This fine screening process prevents damage to the membranes in the membrane bioreactor (MBR) system.

After fine screening, the primary effluent flows to the MBR system, which consists of four aeration basin s and ten membrane tanks. The aeration basins contain three anoxic zones and three oxic zones for 89 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 3-5
effective organic and nitrogen removal. Each aeration basin has a volume of 1.15 MG and is equipped with mixers in the anoxic zones and fine bubble diffusers in the oxic zones. For denitrification, four mixed liquor pumps return mixed liquor from the end of the aeration basins back to the first anoxic zone. Each membrane tank has a volume of 53,860 gallons and consists of eight cassettes of vertical hollow fiber membranes. The fiber membrane pores have a nominal size of 0.04 micrometers (µm), effectively removing small solids, protozoa, bacteria, and most viruses. The MBR system produces a high quality permeate that is conveyed to the tertiary treatment process for disinfection.

The accumulated solids from the secondary treatment processes are collected and conveyed via the return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps. The RAS/WAS Pump Station has four RAS pumps and two WAS pumps. RAS is returned to the first oxic zones of the aeration basins , and WAS is pumped to the gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) for solids handling processing.

3.5 Tertiary Treatment
The membrane permeate from the MBR system is sent to the ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system consisting of an influent channel, two UV channels, an effluent channel, box, and sampler. UV radiation inactivates the pathogens and microorganisms in the water to ensure that recycled water Title 22 disinfection requirements are met. The UV system contains twenty duty modules and four standby modules and has an average flow capacity of 18 mgd and a peak flow capacity of 28.8 mgd. The disinfected tertiary recycled water can then be distributed via the Recycled Water Distribution System or the Plant Water Distribution System for water reuse applications.

3.6 Water Distribution Systems

3.6.1 Recycled Water Distribution System
Following disinfection, tertiary effluent recycled water is discharged into the effluent distribution box where water can be stored in regulating ponds, travel to the Basin Number (No.) 4 distribution box, or sent to the Recycled Water Pipeline Pump Station. The two regulating ponds can each hold about 14 MG of recycled water. The Basin No. 4 distribution box can distribute flow to Basin No. 4 and to the Tulare Irrigation District (TID). The Recycled Water Pipeline Pump Station can pump tertiary effluent offsite for multiple water reuse purposes, such as for irrigating agriculture, a golf course, and a park. Table 3.1 lists the Visalia WRF discharge locations.

Table 3.1 Visalia Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Locations Description Acreage/Storage
City farmland 996 acres
On-site Pond 2 84 acre-feet
On-site Pond 3 304 acre-feet
City-owned Basin No. 4 1,287 acre-feet
Potential contracted land 2,525 acres
TID 10,700 acres
City-owned farmland near the airport 664 acres
Landscape Reuse 253 acres
90 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – EXISTING FACILITIES
JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 3-6

3.6.2 Plant Water Distribution System
In addition to the Recycled Water Distribution System, the Plant Water Distribution System receives tertiary effluent from the UV disinfection system for water reuse purposes within the WRF. The Plant Water Distribution System consists of a hydropneumatics tank, three plant water pumps, and an air compressor. The hydropneumatic tank has a capacity of 10,000 gallons and stores recycled water until it is used within the plant, such as washdown and operation of screens, basins, tanks, and pumps. The water level in the hydropneumatic tank is controlled by the tank air pressure system.

3.7 Solids Handling
The sludge handling processes include sludge thickening, digestion, dewatering, and drying. WAS from the activated sludge process is thickened by the sludge thickening system, which includes two gravity belt thickeners, two belt washwater pumps, two thickened sludge pumps, and three polymer feed and metering units. Before entering the GBTs, polymer is added into the WAS feed stream to enhance solids retention and produce a more concentrated thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS). The residual water that drains through the gravity belt is collected and recycled back to the headworks for treatment.

Following sludge thickening, TWAS, primary scum, and primary sludge are pumped and distributed to Digesters No. 1 through No. 7 for stabilization. Two pumps in the Sludge Transfer Pump Station transfer the digested sludge from these digesters to Digester No. 8 to complete the digestion process. The anaerobic digesters at the WRF are designed to operate in mesophilic mode and stabilize the solids to a degree more suitable for dewatering and offsite disposal. Each digester has a circular fixed cover and is constructed of reinforced concrete. Digesters No. 1 through No. 7 have a combined capacity of approximately 3.39 MG, and Digester No. 8 has a total capacity of about 2.23 MG. Currently, part of Digester No. 8’s capacity is reserved for 0.55 MG of storage, while the other 1.38 MG is available for digestion. Also, digester gas is produced and treated within the WRF. Ferric chloride is added to the digesters to precipitate hydrogen sulfide and assist with the gas purification system.

After completion of the digestion process, digested sludge is pumped to two screw presses that remove additional water from the sludge and produces a sludge cake optimal for drying and disposal. Polymer is added upstream of the screw presses for flocculation, enhancing the dewaterability of the sludge. The drained water (centrate) is recycled back to the headworks for treatment. Once the digested sludge cake has been dewatered, it is transported to onsite sludge drying beds for additional drying and ultimately disposed by either land application at an approved facility or used as landfill alternative cover.

3.8 Digester Gas Treatment
Digester gas is a byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process and is capable of being used for energy recovery applications. At the WRF, a Renewable Power Generation System (RPGS) was installed to generate electrical power and recover waste heat using a 1 megawatt (MW) internal combustion engine.

However, the City has not been able to use the RPGS due to permitting reasons.

Digester gas is first stored in a 100,000 cubic feet (cu ft) gas holder and then conveyed to the gas treatment system. The gas treatment system, consisting of hydrogen sulfide removal vessels, booster blowers, moisture/particulate filters, siloxane removers, and a fuel blending system, is designed to remove undesired compounds providing a cleaner gas to meet the requirements for the engine generator s. The digester gas is then burned via the waste gas flare system. 91 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4
Long-Term Project Descriptions
FINAL / June 2024
92 Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4
Long-Term Project Descriptions
FINAL / June 2024
93 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Visalia/202132-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Master Plan/TM 4 - Long-Term Project Descriptions/TM04.docx Contents
TM 4 LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

4.1 Introduction 4-1

4.2 Membrane Bioreactor Capacity Expansion 4-1

4.2.1 Background 4-1

4.2.2 Basis of Design 4-3

4.2.3 Recommendations 4-3

4.3 UV Disinfection Capacity Expansion 4-3

4.3.1 Background 4-3

4.3.2 Basis of Design 4-4

4.3.3 Alternatives Analysis 4-4

4.3.4 Recommendations 4-4

4.4 Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion 4-5

4.4.1 Background 4-5

4.4.2 Basis of Design 4-5

4.4.3 Alternatives Analysis 4-5

4.4.4 Recommendations 4-7

4.5 Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion 4-8

4.5.1 Background 4-8

4.5.2 Basis of Design 4-8

4.5.3 Recommendations 4-8

4.6 Dewatering Capacity Expansion 4-8

4.6.1 Background 4-8

4.6.2 Basis of Design 4-9

4.6.3 Recommendations 4-9
Tables
Table 4.1 Design Criteria for the Large Digester and Sludge Storage Tank 4-7 Figures
Figure 4.1 Site Layout of Recommended Projects 4-2

94 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ii
Abbreviations
AADF annual average daily flow
ADMM average daily maximum month
City City of Visalia
ft feet
ft2 square feet
HRT hydraulic retention time
IMLR internal mixed liquor return
lb VS/cf-day pounds of volatile solids per cubic foot per day MBR membrane bioreactor
MCC motor control center
mJ/cm2 millijoules per square centimeter
mg/L milligrams per liter
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
No. number
PWWF peak wet weather flow
RAS return activated sludge
scfh standard cubic feet per hour
SRT solids retention time
TM technical memorandum
TS total solids
UV ultraviolet
UVT ultraviolet transmittance
VSLR volatile solids loading rate
WRF Water Reclamation Facility

95 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-1
TM 4 LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

4.1 Introduction
This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes projects that are recommended for implementation within the next 20 years based on the capacity analysis summarized in TM 1 – Long-Term Process Performance Evaluation. These long-term projects are required to reliably treat 20-year projected flows and loads. This TM is not a comprehensive overview of all long-term projects that are required at Visalia’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).

The near-term projects are:
 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Capacity Expansion.
 Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Capacity Expansion.
 Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion.
 Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion.
 Dewatering Capacity Expansion.
 Sludge Drying Capacity Expansion.

Long-term projects can be seen on the site plan shown in Figure 4.1. For each project, this TM summarizes the project background and drivers, basis of design, and recommended improvements. Project costs for the recommended projects are summarized in TM 5 – Long-Term Capital Improvement Program.

4.2 Membrane Bioreactor Capacity Expansion

4.2.1 Background
As described in TM 1 – Long-Term Process Performance Evaluation, the MBR system does not have sufficient capacity to treat the projected average daily maximum month (ADMM) load and maintain the current design criteria of a 10-day solids retention time (SRT) and mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration not exceeding 12,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). However, instead of building additional aeration tanks to reduce the MLSS concentration, operation of the MBR system could be adjusted to use an 8-day SRT, which is the lower end of target SRTs, to increase the capacity of the MBR system.

In addition to adjusting operations, the capacities of the return activated sludge (RAS) pumps, blowers, internal mixed liquor return (IMLR) pumps, and membrane cassettes need to be increased to ensure the MBR system can meet performance requirements.
96 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-2

Figure 4.1 Site Layout of Recommended Projects
97 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-3

4.2.2 Basis of Design
The current MBR system does not have sufficient capacity to meet the future 2044 flows and loads.

Therefore, operations need to be adjusted to increase the capacity of the aeration tanks as mentioned above, and an additional RAS pump, aeration blower, and membrane cassettes need to be added. The additional RAS pump and aeration blower should match the existing equipment. The membrane cassette expansion would include a 52-module cassette with 430 square feet (ft 2) per module per train. This
expansion differs slightly from the 2017 Operations and Maintenance Manual due to what is currently offered for the ZeeWeed 500D, but the additional membrane surface area is the same and is compatible with the City of Visalia's (City’s) existing system. The existing MBR system has space reserved for installation of all these pieces of equipment.

The total nitrogen limit for the system is 10 mg/L for the average monthly concentration. Furthermore, the groundwater quality goal for nitrate is to be less than 10 mg/L. It was determined that the anoxic zones have sufficient denitrification capacity. Therefore, a higher flowrate of IMLR is possible, and the four IMLR pumps should be upsized from a total capacity of 89 million gallons per day (mgd) to 160 mgd.

4.2.3 Recommendations
It is recommended to operate the system at an 8-day SRT rather than a 10-day SRT to reduce the MLSS concentration in the MBR system. It is also recommended to add the extra RAS pump, aeration blower, and additional membrane cassettes to increase capacity to the MBR system. By making this operational change and equipment installations, additional aeration tanks would not be needed. Lastly, the IMLR pumps’ total capacity should be increased from 89 mgd to 160 mgd to ensure the total nitrogen limit is met and the City’s effluent helps meet groundwater quality goals. Depending on the long-term organic load fractionation, additional external carbon (MicroC 2000 or methanol) dosing could be considered for further reducing nitrogen concentration. These improvements should be made by 203 3 to avoid exceeding the capacity of the MBR system.

The MBR Capacity Expansion would include the following:
 Addition of one RAS pump.
 Addition of one aeration blower.
 Installation of additional membrane cassettes and modules.  Installation of higher capacity IMLR pumps.
 Change in operations to have an SRT of 8 days instead of 10 days.  Associated piping, valves, and appurtenances.
 Installation of associated electrical and instrumentation equipment.

4.3 UV Disinfection Capacity Expansion

4.3.1 Background
After the near-term expansion project is completed, the UV disinfection system will have a firm capacity of 37 mgd (6 duty banks + 1 standby bank). However, this is not sufficient to meet the projected 2044 peak 98 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-4
wet weather flow (PWWF) of 42.8 mgd. Furthermore, the projected PWWF is estimated to exceed the UV system’s firm capacity in 2038. Therefore, the UV system must be expanded and brought online by 2038.

4.3.2 Basis of Design
The UV system must have a firm capacity to treat the PWWF. With the projected 2044 PWWF at 42.8 mgd, the UV system needs to expand its capacity to meet the firm capacity requirement.

4.3.3 Alternatives Analysis
The existing UV system channels will no longer have any space available for installing additional modules after completion of the near-term expansion project. Therefore, three alternatives were developed for expanding the capacity of the UV system and are listed below.

4.3.3.1 Re-rate the Existing Ultraviolet System
The existing UV system was designed based on an ultraviolet transmittance (UVT) of 65 percent, but historical data shows that the UVT is higher than 65 percent. Increasing the design UVT would increase the rated capacity of the existing system. Increasing the design UVT from 65 to 68 percent would re-rate the existing UV system to have sufficient capacity for the projected 2044 PWWF .

4.3.3.2 Construct a New Third Ultraviolet Channel
A new UV channel with five duty banks and one standby bank could be constructed to increase the UV system’s capacity. This configuration would include 12 new UV modules, two modules per bank. With a UVT of 65 percent and a minimum dose of 80 millijoules per square centimeter (mJ/cm2), the expansion would increase the current UV system’s firm capacity by 14.4 mgd, resulting in a total firm capacity of

43.2 mgd. Additional piping would be needed to route water to and from this new UV channel as well.

4.3.3.3 Replace the Existing Ultraviolet System with Different Equipment Different equipment could be installed in the existing UV channels. However, after analyzing this further, it was determined that with the higher 2044 PWWF, this was not feasible. Significant structural modifications would be required since other UV systems would not fit in the existing channels with the higher flow.

Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.

4.3.4 Recommendations
Even though the historical UVT data indicates the system is operating at a higher UVT than the original design criteria of 65 percent, UVT can vary over time, so it is recommended to revisit re-rating the UV system with the UVT data available during preliminary design. Therefore, for planning purposes, it was conservatively assumed that the UV system would be expanded to meet the projected 2044 PWWF . As mentioned above, using different equipment in the existing channel structure is not feasible, so it was assumed that a new third UV channel would be constructed and brought online by 2038. This channel could be an external channel or further analysis can be done to evaluate if it’s possible to build the third channel between the two existing channels. Additionally, with higher flows, the headloss limit in the channels could be exceeded. This should be checked, and structural modifications, such as raising the floor upstream of the banks, should be made if this occurs. 99 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-5
The UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion improvements would include the following:
 Construction of a new third channel for UV modules that includes space for seven banks. It is assumed for planning purposes that six banks would be initially installed. This should be verified during preliminary design of the UV system expansion.
 Installation of UV modules and associated vendor provided stepdown transformers and power supply units.
 Yard piping, including piping from the MBR system.
 Installation of associated electrical and instrumentation equipment.

4.4 Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion

4.4.1 Background
The near-term anaerobic digestion capacity expansion project will include a new Digester Number (No.) 9 that is the same effective capacity as Digester No. 8. However, this additional digester does not provide sufficient firm capacity to meet minimum criteria for the projected design year flows as described in TM 1 – Long-Term Process Performance Evaluation.

4.4.2 Basis of Design
The long-term anaerobic digestion capacity expansion will need to provide at least 15 days of SRT at design year 2044 max month flows with the largest digester out of service. To provide three days of storage – which would allow the City to halt operations over a long weekend – at the projected 2044 max month sludge production, the sludge storage volume needed is at least 1.0 million gallons (MG).

This alternatives analysis used a digester feed of 5 percent total solids (TS) and 3.5 percent TS for the thickened waste activated sludge and primary sludge thickness, respectively, and a maximum volatile solids loading rate (VSLR) of 0.2 pounds of volatile solids per cubic foot per day (lb VS/cf-day). The total capacity, including the sludge storage volume in Digester Nos. 8 and 9, of the existing digesters (Digester Nos. 1-8) and the new Digester No. 9 is about 7 MG, which was used to determine the addit ional digestion capacity needed.

4.4.3 Alternatives Analysis
Three alternatives were analyzed for expanding the capacity of the anaerobic digestion system and are listed below.

4.4.3.1 Construct Two Additional Digesters
Both Digesters No. 8 and No. 9 have almost 30 percent of their volume allocated to sludge storage instead of active digestion capacity, resulting in a total storage volume of 1.1 MG. This is because Digester No. 8 was originally designed with storage to accommodate halting operations over the weekend, and if Digester No. 8 is out of service, Digester No. 9 provides redundancy, including storage capabilities. This storage volume is about 15,000 gallons more than the minimum required 2044 sludge storage volume.

The internal storage volume in the two digesters could remain to meet the sludge storage requirement, 100
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-6
but the additional digestion capacity required would be 2.24 MG. To meet this additional digestion capacity needed, two digesters need to be constructed and brought online by 2037.

4.4.3.2 Construct One Additional Digester and One Sludge Storage Tank As stated above, both Digester No. 8 and No. 9 have almost 30 percent of their volume allocated to sludge storage instead of active digestion capacity. Reallocating this sludge storage volume to active digestion capacity and providing a separate sludge storage tank would reduce the additional digestion capacity needed for 2044 down to 1.69 MG. Therefore, one digester the size of Digester No. 8 and No. 9 ,

1.94 MG, and a separate 1.13 MG sludge storage tank could be constructed.

The major advantage of constructing a separate sludge storage tank is that the current configuration , which sends sludge to the smaller digesters (Digester Nos. 1-7) first and then to Digester No. 8 (and Digester No. 9 after the near-term project), could be changed to a configuration with all the digesters being fed directly. With this configuration, the volume in Digester No. 8 is needed to meet the 15-day SRT requirement. This configuration is because only Digester No. 8 has piping that goes to the dewatering process area. Thus, the smaller Digesters No. 1-7 are running at lower SRTs and the City has experienced issues with souring digesters. Having a separate sludge storage tank would eliminate the need to transfer sludge from the smaller digesters to Digester Nos. 8 and 9 and allow all digesters to be fed directly, which would reduce the hydraulic loading to the smaller digesters and allow them to be operated at a 15 -day SRT.

Another advantage of separating sludge storage from active digesters is that the sludge in storage does not need to be heated whereas the sludge in storage in active digesters is heated. Therefore, a separate sludge tank would result in energy savings from the reduced heating demand.

4.4.3.3 Retrofit Digesters to High Solids Digestion System Assuming a minimum design SRT of 15 days and a maximum VSLR of 0.2 lb VS/cf-day, the existing digestion system is currently limited by the hydraulic loading rate. The digester can be transitioned from a hydraulic limitation to an organic limitation by increasing the feed solids concentration. Depending on the feed solids volatile solids concentration, the transition from hydraulic to organic limitation generally occurs around a feed solids concentration of 6 percent TS. It is often difficult for mechanical thickening systems to increase the feed solids concentration beyond this level.

In typical anaerobic digestion (like the City’s digesters), the solids hydraulic retention time (HRT) is equal to SRT. A high solids digestion system uses recuperative thickening to decouple the HRT and SRT and may allow digesters to operate at higher VSLRs. There is some evidence that high solids digesters can be stable indefinitely at 0.25 lb VS/cf-day, but more research is needed to confirm that this VSLR is possible in a range of operational conditions.

A recuperative thickening system would consist of progressing cavity pumps, inline grinders, polymer feed and mixing equipment, flocculation tank, and one recuperative thickener per digester installed on a slab at grade next to the digester that it serves. Solids would be removed from the digester, conveyed through the thickener, and thickened solids returned to the same digester. Filtrate from the thickener would return to the headworks.
101
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-7
To meet the 2044 digestion capacity requirement, three medium digesters (Digesters No. 3 -7) would need to be recuperatively thickened, assuming recuperative thickening reaches 6 percent TS. Since not all digesters would be thickened, the operational complexity of the digestion system would increase since different digesters would be operated at different solids concentrations.

The increased solids concentration inside of the digester is generally too high for pump mixing , draft tubes, linear motion, and gas mixing. Therefore, any digester using recuperative thickening would need to be retrofitted with a new mixing system designed to mix thicker digester solids. In general, due to the age of the existing digesters, any tank being retrofitted would require replacing the covers and significant seismic upgrades to accommodate the new roof-mounted mixing system. For these reasons, converting the existing digesters to high solids digesters is not recommended.

4.4.4 Recommendations
It is recommended to construct a new digester, Digester No. 10, the same size as Digester Nos. 8 and 9, and a new sludge storage tank with a 1.13 MG capacity. The new digester and sludge storage tank should be online by 2037. The new design criteria for the three large digesters and sludge storage capacity are shown below in Table 4.1. The new digester would allow the plant to meet the required SRT for Class B biosolids with either Digester Nos. 8, 9, or 10 offline for the 2044 ADMM sludge loading projections. It is also recommended to convert the existing dewatering pump station to a sludge storage pump station and construct a new dewatering feed pump station, which is discussed more in Section 4.6 .

Table 4.1 Design Criteria for the Large Digester and Sludge Storage Tank Parameter Value
Digester Nos. 8, 9, 10
Operating Volume of Digesters (excluding cone depth), each 1.94 MG Sludge Storage Tank
Sludge Volume (excluding cone depth) 1.13 MG
Side Water Depth 30 ft
Diameter 80 ft
Notes:

Abbreviations: ft - feet.

The Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion improvements would include the following:
 Construction of a new digester.
 Construction of a new sludge storage tank.
 Digester and sludge storage tank mixing systems, including a mixing pump and associated piping, valves, and appurtenances.
 Digester heating system, including a sludge recirculation pump, hot water pump, heat exchanger, and associated piping, valves, and appurtenances.
 Digester feed transfer pumps and associated piping, valves, and appurtenances.  Yard piping, including digester feed, digested sludge, hot water return/supply, and digester gas . 102
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-8
 New pump in the reserved space north of Digester No. 8 for converted sludge storage pump station.  New electrical and boiler building, with a new boiler to expand the capacity of the main hot water loop and new motor control center (MCC) to power all of the equipment associated with this project.

4.5 Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion

4.5.1 Background
With the projected flows, the existing flare system’s capacity will not be sufficient. The biogas flare capacity is expected to be exceeded in 2037.

4.5.2 Basis of Design
This project would include the expansion of the biogas flare system. The existing flare has a capacity of 21,250 standard cubic feet per hour (schf). The expansion needs to increase the capacity of the biogas flare system by about 3,750 scfh, resulting in a capacity of about 25,000 scfh.

4.5.3 Recommendations
It is recommended to expand the flaring capacity by replacing the existing flare with a higher capacity flare and a redundant flare. This should be completed by 2037. The Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion improvements would include the following:
 A new, higher capacity flare system.
 Upsizing digester gas piping for higher flows.
 Yard piping from the gas holder to bypass the gas purification system.  Installation of associated electrical and instrumentation equipment.

4.6 Dewatering Capacity Expansion

4.6.1 Background
After the near-term dewatering capacity expansion project is completed, the WRF will have three screw presses. This provides sufficient capacity for the near-term flows and creates the necessary redundancy required for this process. However, looking toward the 20-year horizon, these screw presses will not be enough to handle the 2044 annual average daily flow (AADF).

Additionally, if a 3-day sludge storage tank is added as discussed above, the screw presses will need to be able to dewater the new storage tank in 4 days, assuming that operation is halted over a 3-day weekend.

This can be achieved by running four screw presses at a time, meaning the redundant screw press would also run in this scenario. Therefore, a new screw press must be installed to expand the dewatering capacity for critical redundancy as well as for dewatering the full sludge storage tank. 103
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – LONG-TERM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 4-9

4.6.2 Basis of Design
As mentioned above, the WRF does not have sufficient firm capacity in the dewatering system for the 2044 AADF. This project would include the addition of a fourth screw press to provide additional dewatering capacity to allow the plant to operate three screw presses with a fourth on standby, providing the necessary redundancy required.

To empty the sludge storage tank after a long weekend, it was assumed that all four units would run 24 hours for four days. By using the redundant screw press for this operation, sufficient capacity is available to handle the higher flows going to the screw presses with the additional flow from the sludge storage tank.

4.6.3 Recommendations
It is recommended to add a fourth screw press with the same capacity as the existing screw presses by 2036 to provide additional capacity and redundancy for the dewatering system; this should be installed south of the existing screw presses. With the addition of the 3-day sludge storage tank, it is recommended to install a fourth pump in the reserved space north of Digester No. 8 and include four pumps at the new dewatering feed pump station.

The dewatered cake conveyors have sufficient capacity and do not need to be replaced. With only one polymer storage tank in use, about 20 days of storage at the projected 2044 sludge flows is available, so additional polymer storage was not included with this project either.

The Dewatering Capacity Expansion improvements would include the following:
 One new screw press, flocculation tanks, and sludge grinders with the same capacity as the existing units.
 New concrete base slab and support columns for the screw presses.  Construction of the elevated platform for the new screw press.  New dewatering feed pumps.
 Necessary piping, valves, and appurtenances for the new screw press.  Installation of associated electrical and instrumentation equipment.  A new vendor control panel would be installed in the field, and a new cable will be routed through the existing conduit.
104

Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5
Long-Term Capital Improvement
Program
FINAL / June 2024
105
Water Reclamation Facility - Master Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5
Long-Term Capital Improvement
Program
FINAL / June 2024
106
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Visalia/202132-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Master Plan/TM 5 - Long-Term CIP/TM05 Contents
TM 5 LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

5.1 Introduction 5-1

5.2 Key Findings and Recommendations 5-1

5.3 Cost Estimate 5-1

5.3.1 General Cost Assumptions 5-1

5.3.2 Project Capital Costs 5-4

5.3.3 Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs 5-4

5.4 Project Implementation 5-5

5.4.1 Project Durations 5-5

5.4.2 Implementation Schedule 5-5

5.5 20-Year Project Implementation Plan 5-5
Tables
Table 5.1 Capital Cost Estimating Approach 5-3
Table 5.2 Total Project Capital Cost for Recommended Projects 5-4 Table 5.3 R&R Costs for 20-Year Planning Horizon 5-4
Table 5.4 Master Plan CIP 5-8
Figures
Figure 5.1 Long-Term Projects CIP Cash Flow 5-2
Figure 5.2 Long-Term Projects CIP Schedule 5-7
Figure 5.3 Master Plan CIP Cash Flow 5-9
107
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN ii
Abbreviations
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering Carollo Carollo Engineers
CIP capital improvement program
City City of Visalia
E.L.A.P. engineering, legal, administrative, and permitting ENR CCI Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index M million
MBR membrane bioreactor
R&R rehabilitation and replacement
TM technical memorandum
TWAS thickened waste activated sludge
UV ultraviolet
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
108
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-1
TM 5 LONG-T ERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM

5.1 Introduction
This technical memorandum (TM) presents the long-term capital improvement program (CIP) for the City of Visalia’s (City) Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and a summary of the associated capital costs. The CIP presents an estimate of the City’s capital expenses over the next 20 years to address recommended capacity-related improvements to the WRF.

5.2 Key Findings and Recommendations
The long-term CIP identifies capacity related projects required at the WRF between 2030 and 2044, which are described in TM 4 – Long-Term Project Descriptions and listed below:
 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Capacity Expansion.
 Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Capacity Expansion.
 Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion.
 Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion.
 Dewatering Capacity Expansion.

Figure 5.1 shows an annual cash flow basis for the CIP based on the assumed implementation date for each project. This cash flow analysis is provided as a preliminary tool to assess impacts on the City’s resources over time.

5.3 Cost Estimate

5.3.1 General Cost Assumptions
The cost estimates were prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the AACE International (the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, 18R-97) for a Class 5 estimate. The AACE Cost Estimate Classification System includes five total estimate classes. Class 5 estimates are appropriate for planning projects before more definitive information, such as detailed designs, is available. Class 5 estimates are typically prepared for any number of strategic business planning purposes, including, but not limited to, project screening, evaluating resource needs and budgeting, and long -range capital planning as is being performed in this Master Plan. Class 5 estimates have wide accuracy ranges. Typical accuracy ranges for Class 5 estimates are -20 to -50 percent on the low side, and +30 to +100 percent on the high side. These ranges vary based on the technological complexity of the project, the availability and accuracy of appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination.
109
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-2

Figure 5.1 Long-Term Projects CIP Cash Flow
110
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-3
Construction cost estimates account for both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include materials, labor, construction equipment required for installation, and subcontractor costs. Indirect costs include contractor general conditions, contractor overhead and profit, sales tax, and an estimating contingency.

Direct construction costs for all improvements were estimated using various references. Where possible, the costs from design estimates or construction bid tabs were used. Other cost sources included reference projects, the R.S. Means price catalog, cost curves, and vendor quotes. Costs used from design estimates, construction bid tabs, or reference projects were adjusted for location using R.S. Means location factors and for inflation using the appropriate Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI).

Indirect construction costs were estimated as a percentage of the direct construction cost based on experience and industry-wide standards.

The total project cost was estimated for each project as the total construction cost plus an additional allowance for overall project costs including engineering, legal, administration, permitting costs, etc.

Table 5.1 summarizes the overall approach for developing capital cost estimates.

Table 5.1 Capital Cost Estimating Approach
Item Cost Formula
Total Direct Cost = A
Estimating Contingency B = 30 percent of A
Sales Tax (1) C = 8.5 percent of half of A + B
General Conditions (2) D = 10 percent of A + B + C
Contractor Overhead and Profit E = 25 percent of A + B + C + D Total Construction Cost = A + B + C + D + E
Engineering, legal, administrative, and permitting (E.L.A.P) costs for implementing the project
E.L.A.P. = 25 percent of Total Construction Cost
Total Project Capital Cost = Total Construction Cost + E.L.A.P.

Notes:
(1) Sales tax is assumed to be applied to 50 percent of the total direct cost (Item A) with estimating contingency (Item B). (2) General Conditions accounts for mobilization/demobilization and costs incurred for project management, bonds and insurance, and temporary facilities and utilities.
111
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-4

5.3.2 Project Capital Costs
The total project cost estimates for each project are summarized in Table 5.2. The estimate is at a planning level and includes capital costs only. Rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) costs are discussed in the next section.

Table 5.2 Total Project Capital Cost for Recommended Projects Project Cost (1)
MBR Capacity Expansion $14,750,000
UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion $7,830,000
Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion $56,950,000
Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion $7,000,000
Dewatering Capacity Expansion $6,210,000
Total $92,740,000
Notes:
(1) The costs are presented in 2024 dollars. Note that capital costs presented are for planning purposes. These costs do not include mid- point escalation or bid market allowance. Current market conditions suggest large rates of cost escalation and high rates of variance in construction bidding. It is suggested that an escalation rate and bid market allowance be added to capital costing efforts as project development becomes more refined. Total project costs include factors for estimating contingency, sales tax, general conditions, and contractor overhead and profit as well as 25 percent allowance for engineering, legal, administration, and permitting costs.

5.3.3 Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs
Total R&R costs as well as annual R&R costs that span the 20-year planning horizon are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 R&R Costs for 20-Year Planning Horizon
Element Cost
R&R Cost (1) $53,000,000
Annual R&R Cost First 2024-2034(2) $2,270,000
Annual R&R Cost Second 2034-2044(3) $3,030,000
Notes:
(1) Total R&R costs reflect 35 percent of the total project costs and are presented in 2024 dollars. (2) The annual R&R costs are based on 15 percent of the total capital project costs distributed across the first half of the planning horizon.

This approach was used because a majority of the plant was upgraded approximately seven years ago, so it is expected that minimal R&R will be needed during the first half of the planning horizon. (3) The annual R&R costs are based on 20 percent of the total capital project costs distributed across the second half of the planning horizon. This approach was used because it is expected that more R&R projects will be needed in the second half of the planning horizon.
112
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-5

5.4 Project Implementation
This section discusses the estimated project durations as well as when the projects should be implemented.

5.4.1 Project Durations
Implementation activities for the recommended projects include predesign planning, design, bidding and award, construction, commissioning, and environmental permitting. Project durations were estimated under the following assumptions:
 Smaller-sized projects (those less than $1.0 million [M]) can be completed in two years or less, with one year for planning, design, and bidding, and one year for construction and startup.  Medium-sized projection (those between $1.0M and $10M) can be completed in two to three years, with one year for planning, design, and bidding, and one to two years for construction and startup.  Larger-sized projects (those greater than $10M) can be completed in three to five years, with one to two years for planning, design, and bidding, and two to three years for construction and startup .

5.4.2 Implementation Schedule
Plant capacity defines not only the need for the projects, but also implementation timing. The implementation timing, determined by when the plant needs additional capacity, and the project duration assigns each project a start and completion date. The recommended implementation schedule for the long-term projects can be seen below in Table 5.2. Project timing and phasing was based on the criticality of the improvements on treatment process reliability.

5.5 20-Year Project Implementation Plan
The project implementation plan includes an overall schedule of the CIP and projected cash flow requirements for implementing the CIP. These projects would be implemented as needed to meet flow and load requirements rather than at set dates. The recommended implementation for each project is shown in Table 5.4.

In addition to the outlined capital projects, a biosolids master plan, digester gas use study, new facility plan, and new master plan were added to the CIP. It is recommended that the biosolids master plan and digester gas use study be conducted after the near-term digester capacity expansion project is completed. See TM 3 – Environmental Opportunities in the Facility Plan for more information on these studies. The new facility plan and master plan should be completed within 10 years.

While this Master Plan included projects that increased treatment capacities to meet the projected 2044 flows and loads, the City requested that process areas be evaluated for when 80 percent of the capacity was exceeded to trigger when the process area should be evaluated for expansion. Reviewing the capacity analysis, several process areas were identified to have their 80 percent capacity exceeded during the 20-year planning horizon. A planning study for each of these process areas was included in the CIP the year after it hit 80 percent capacity. If the rated capacity of the process area was expected to be exceeded within two years past the 20-year planning period, then ballpark estimates for design and construction costs were added to the CIP. However, project descriptions were not developed for these 113
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-6
cases, and they should be thoroughly evaluated during the next master plan in 10 years. If the rated capacity of the process area was not exceeded for several years after the 20-year planning period, then no additional design or construction costs were included in the CIP. These projects should also be evaluated during the next master plan in 10 years.

The costs for these planning studies and design/construction activities can be seen in Table 5.4.

The projected cash flow presented in Figure 5.3 is based on the recommended CIP and the implementation schedule shown in Figure 5.2 and in the Facility Plan’s TM 5 – Near-Term Capital Improvement Program. The cash flow analysis is provided as a preliminary tool to assess impacts on the City’s resources over time.
114
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-7

Figure 5.2 Long-Term Projects CIP Schedule

115
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-8
Table 5.4 Master Plan CIP
Project Total Project Cost
CIP Cost
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029-2033 2034-2038 2039-2043
Near-Term Projects Costs(1)
TWAS Pump Replacements $630,000 $630,000 - - - - - - -
Dewatering Capacity Expansion – Near Term $4,650,000 $930,000 $3,720,000 - - - - - - Sludge Drying Bed Capacity Expansion $10,350,000 $2,070,000 $5,520,000 $2,760,000 - - - - - Digester Dewatering Pond Addition $6,110,000 $1,220,000 $3,260,000 $1,630,000 - - - - - Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion – Near Term $34,990,000 $3,500,000 $6,999,000 $13,995,000 $10,496,000 - - - - UV Disinfection System Capacity Expansion – Near -Term $2,010,000 - $400,000 $1,610,000 - - - - - Subtotal $58,740,000 $8,350,000 $19,899,000 $19,995,000 $10,496,000 - - - - Long-Term Projects Costs(1)
MBR System Capacity Expansion $14,750,000 - - - - $1,967,000 $12,783,000 - - UV Capacity Expansion – Long Term $7,830,000 - - - - - $523,000 $7,307,000 - Anaerobic Digestion Capacity Expansion – Long Term $56,950,000 - - - - - $30,916,000 $26,034,000 - Biogas Flare Capacity Expansion $7,000,000 - - - - - $1,400,000 $5,600,000 - Dewatering Capacity Expansion – Long Term $6,210,000 - - - - - $4,968,000 $1,242,000 - Subtotal $92,740,000 - - - - $1,967,000 $50,590,000 $40,183,000 - Studies and Predesign Activities(2)
Biosolids Master Plan $500,000.00 - - - - $500,000.00 - - - Biogas Master Plan $300,000.00 - - - - $300,000.00 - - - Facility/Master Plan Update $1,000,000.00 - - - - - $500,000.00 $500,000.00 - Grit Tanks $500,000.00 - - - - - - - $500,000.00
Primary Sedimentation Tanks $500,000.00 - - - - - - $500,000.00 - MBR System $1,000,000.00 - - - - - - $1,000,000.00 - UV Disinfection $500,000.00 - - - - - - $500,000.00 - Gravity Belt Thickeners $500,000.00 - - - - - - $-500,000.00 - Anerobic Digestion $1,000,000.00 - - - - - - $1,000,000.00 - Sludge Drying Bed $500,000.00 - - - - - - $500,000.00 - Subtotal $6,300,000.00 - - - - $800,000.00 $500,000.00 $4,500,000.00 $500,000.00 Design/Construction(2)
Primary Sedimentation Tanks $32,000,000.00 - - - - - - - $32,000,000.00 MBR System $155,000,000.00 - - - - - - $2,500,000.00 $152,500,000.00 UV Disinfection $7,830,000.00 - - - - - - - $7,830,000.00 Gravity Belt Thickeners $22,000,000.00 - - - - - - - $22,000,000.00 Anerobic Digestion $56,950,000.00 - - - - - - $8,136,000.00 $48,814,000.00 Sludge Drying Bed $10,350,000.00 - - - - - - - $10,350,000.00 Subtotal $284,130,000.00 - - - - - - $10,636,000.00 $273,494,000.00 R&R Costs(3)
R&R $53,000,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 $11,350,000 $15,150,000 $15,150,000 CIP Total $494,910,000.00 $10,620,000.00 $22,169,000.00 $22,265,000.00 $12,766,000.00 $5,037,000.00 $62,440,000.00 $70,469,000.00 $289,144,000.00 Notes:

TWAS - thickened waste activated sludge.
(1) The costs are presented in 2024 dollars. Note that capital costs presented are for planning purposes. These costs do not include mid-point escalation or bid market allowance. Current market conditions suggest large rates of cost escalation and high rates of variance in construction bidding. It is suggested that an escalation rate and bid market allowance be added to capital costing efforts as project development becomes more refined. Total project costs include factors for estimating contingency, sales tax, general conditions, and contractor overhead and profit as well as 25 percent allowance for engineering, legal, administration, and permitting. (2) As stated in Section 5.5, the City requested that future master plans be included in the CIP as well process areas be evaluated for when 80 percent of the capacity was exceeded to trigger when the process area should be evaluated for expansion. A planning study for process areas whose 80 percent capacity was exceeded was included in the CIP the year after it hit 80 percent capacity. If the rated capacity of the process area was expected to be exceeded within two years past the 20-year planning period, then ballpark estimates for design and construction costs were added to the CIP. If the rated capacity of the process area was not exceeded for several years after the 20-year planning period, then no additional design or construction costs were included in the CIP. (3) Total R&R costs reflect 35 percent of the total project costs. 116
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM JUNE 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO

CITY OF VISALIA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - MASTER PLAN 5-9
F
igure 5.3 Master Plan CIP Cash Flow
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0162 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 4.

Agenda Item Wording:

Membership Agreement - Receive update report from the Tulare County Economic Development Corporation and authorize continued membership for Fiscal Year (FY) 24/25 in the amount of $60,000.

Deadline for Action: 6/17/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Devon Jones, Economic Development Manager, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4190
Department Recommendation:

Receive update report from the Tulare County Economic Development Corporation (TCEDC) and continue membership for FY 24/25 in the amount of $60,000.

Background Discussion:

The Tulare County Economic Development Corporation (TCEDC) is providing the attached report and presentation for FY 2023/24. TCEDC will review specific activity highlights from the current FY but, generally speaking, staff continues to see value in the TCEDC’s efforts in generating and responding to site location prospect inquiries. Prospect inquiries are mostly industrial in nature, though TCEDC’s real estate database (<https://tularecountyedc.giswebtechguru.com/>) markets commercial properties of various types and their broker and site selector network may also represent other types of projects such as retail.

Staff works closely with TCEDC staff on prospect activity and ongoing marketing of the city. Both Airica de Oliveira and Shawna Bryant are readily available to city staff for any applicable needs and have proven to be very responsive and hard working on the city’s behalf in generating and responding to site location prospects. The attached preliminary workplan is the interim workplan until the TCEDC Board can formally adopt the plan after the new Board Chair and officer slate take over.

Mayor Poochigian is transitioning out this year as the chairperson of the TCEDC Board, with Tulare County Supervisor Amy Shuklian taking over the role next fiscal year. Staff has no reason to expect any major changes in the workplan for the coming fiscal year.

In terms of the budget deficit, TCEDC is demonstrating success in closing the gap towards a sustainable balanced budget. While they are still operating in a deficit, through budget cuts and increased membership revenue they are making progress. Staff recommends that they pursue more mission supporting grant opportunities similar to what they received from the Bank of the Sierra.

Such grants provide potential banking partners the opportunity to support economic development in Tulare County without adding new service demands of TCEDC staff. Additionally, staff recommends that they pursue more private sector membership support from the real estate industry given the organization’s role in marketing real estate site opportunities to various industries and for various Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
140
File #: 24-0162 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 4.
uses, particularly given the new real estate database format and functionality.

Currently, all Tulare County jurisdictions are members of the TCEDC. TCEDC membership for FY 24/25 would be the same amount as this year, $60,000. The amount had been $50,000 for several years, but in August last year, the City Council approved increasing membership to $60,000 for various reasons including the TCEDC’stransition to GIS Webtech as their vendor for their enhanced real estate database and a CPI increase/inflationary adjustment. This amount is currently budgeted in the Economic Development division budget.

Fiscal Impact:
$60,000 from Economic Development budget, which has been budgeted.

Prior Council Action:
· April 17, 2023 - The City Council approved FY 23/24 membership · August 7, 2023 - The City Council approved increasing FY 23/24 membership amount to $60,000
Other: N/A
Alternatives: Per Council direction
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to receive update report from the TCEDC and authorize staff to continue membership for FY 24/25 in the amount of $60,000.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: TCEDC presentation
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
141
PreliminaryStrategicWorkplan24-25 FY
A D ifferent C alifornia
142
Overview of Core Function Services
143
Key Activities

SITE SELECTION
24/7 Industrial & Commercial
Real Estate Database
with local workforce and industry
demographics

RECRUITMENT
Primary Marketing Entity for
Tulare County
“Big Fish” fishing

PRACTITIONERS
The only local-level
practitioners for the Governor’s
office of Business & Economic
Development and the Federal
Admin. of Econ. Dev.
144
FEDERAL GOVT.

Practitioners
Federal Economic Development
Administration (EDA)
Tulare County 5-year CEDS Report

STATE OF CA
Governor’s Office of Business &
Economic Development
New Business Leads & Facilitation
CA Jobs First (S2J2)

145
TCEDC Representing Economic Development
$500 Million allocated across the state
Working with Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare
Counties
Next few months: Regional Strategy Team &
Investment Plan, Catalyst Proposal Review,
“Spring Sprint”
146
LEADS by source
Referral
Direct (website, phone, email)
Contracted Vendor
GOBiz (Governor’s Office of Business & ED)
CCVEDC (CA Central Valley EDC)
Broker/Site Selector
Employer & Industry Recruitment
78% 27 7
EDC Exclusive Site SelectorMissions LegislativeMeetings 147
Real Estate &
Demographic Database:

GIS Webtech,
3D Spec Building
Technology,
ESRI-based
Demographics,
Zoning and Utility
layers
Employer & Industry Recruitment
148
23-24 Workplan Achievements
• Public, private, and event financial goals
• Integrating new services: GIS Webtech, Implan
• Generating new leads: Digital marketing campaign
(impressions), website visits/connections
• Marketing and Consulting services: Regional Tour, County SWOT, Tulare County CEDS (5year)
149

TELLING THE TULARE COUNTY STORY
150

TELLING THE TULARE COUNTY STORY
151

TELLING THE TULARE COUNTY STORY
Impressions Digital Marketing Campaign
152
23-24 Revenue Goals
Private Partners $70,000
Event Revenue (Gross) $70,000

Total Goal $140,000
Additional funding recieved:
$25,000 CRA Grant, Bank of the Sierra

Total FY $165,000
($40k A/R)
153

PRIVATE PARTNERS
4Creeks, Inc.
7Points
Adventist Health
AltSys Solar
Bank of the Sierra
Colliers Commercial
College of the Sequoias
Eagle Mountain Casino/ Tule River Tribe
Educational Employees Credit Union
Kaweah Health
Newmark Pearson
Pacific Gas & Electric
Proteus
ReMax Commercial
Seals Construction
Setton Farms
Staffords Chocolates
Southern California Electric
Southern California Gas
True North Physicians Agency
Tulare Chamber of Commerce
Valley Children's Hospital
Valley Strong Credit Union
Ventura Coastal

PUBLIC PARTNERS
City of Dinuba
City of Exeter
City of Farmersville
City of Lindsay
City of Porterville
City of Tulare
City of Visalia
City of Woodlake
County of Tulare
154
Tulare County’s ONLY Economic Summit
155
4 5

T O T A L P R O J E C T S
2 5

L E A D S
1 8 / 2 5
7 2 %

R E S P O N S E
6 / 2 0

V I S A L I A

S P E C I F I C
2 0

A S S I S T S
8 5

S I T E S

S U B M I T T E D
4 S h o r t l i s t
Visalia Participated in 72% of the applicable Leads;
TCEDC submitted 85 sites; across 22 proposals
City of Visalia was “Shortlisted” on 4 Leads
7 Leads were non-Visalia specific or N/A
14 Assists were non-applicable to the City of Visalia or N/A 22 Proposals
City of Visalia Project Metrics, 23-24 FY
156
Prelim 24-25 FY Workplan Priorities
“Maintaining Momentum”
Lead Generation1.
·Increase impressions through Digital Campaign towards: TCEDC Website, GIS Database platform, and "Featured City Properties.” Broker and Site Selectors Missions

3. Close the Gap
Reduce deficit to a Zero-based budget
Increase annual Private Partner memberships and Event Revenue goals *No membership increases for Public Sector

2. Increase Partner Participation
Increase Private Partner Recruitment; lead tracking
Energize Public Sector Participation,
157
$-350,000.00
$-300,000.00
$-250,000.00
$-200,000.00
$-150,000.00
$-100,000.00
$-50,000.00
$0.00
20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25
-$ 317,28 2
-$ 24 3,0 16
-$ 132,5 0 0
Closing the Gap
-$ 5 0 ,0 0 0

0.00 *Estimated
158
TCEDC’s Current Financial Health
• $210k in TCEDC Investment Account
Board of Directors borrowed $60k from investment
account at the start of 23-24 FY
$60k replaced mid Q2 of 24-25 FY
Liquid $85k in operations (as of 5/20/24)
$40k in A/R (as of 5/20/24)
159
www.tularecountyedc.com
309 W. Main St. Suite 110 Visalia, CA
559.625.3100
[email protected]
[email protected]
160
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0239 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.

Agenda Item Wording:

Pre-Fourth of July Presentation by Fire Department - Presentation on pro-active efforts being undertaken to deter the use of illegal fireworks.

Deadline for Action: 6/17/2024
Submitting Department: Fire Department
Contact Name and Phone Number: Corbin Reed, 559-713-4272 Department Recommendation:

Receive a presentation on the 4th of July fireworks detail focused on deterring the use of illegal fireworks.

Background Discussion:

As Independence Day draws closer and celebrations begin, the Visalia Fire Department is coordinating pro-active City efforts to implement Council policy and deter the use of illegal fireworks.

In 2021, Council substantially increased the fines issued for the use of illegal fireworks in the City of Visalia. The fee structure now begins at $2,000 for the first violation, escalates to $3,000 for the second violation, and to $4,000 for the third violation and each additional violation. Violations are tracked over a three-year period meaning, if a resident received a citation last year for $2,000, and is cited again this year, this year’s citation will be for $3,000.

For the 2024 fireworks season, the Fire Department is again focusing on preventing the use of illegal fireworks within the City of Visalia. Multiple social media messages were designed and have been shared across all City of Visalia social media platforms. Banners with information pertaining to fines for the use of illegal fireworks have been hung at all Visalia fire stations, and posters with fine information and how to report the use of illegal fireworks have been hung at all City facilities with public access. The website, www.visalia.city/celebratesafely, has been updated and provides a map showing the locations of all permitted Safe and Sane fireworks booths in the City of Visalia.

Additionally, the website provides safety tips for safe and sane fireworks use and pet safety. The website also provides the address of each fire station to encourage citizens to anonymously drop off illegal fireworks at Visalia fire stations for safe disposal.

Fire department personnel will again be hanging door hangers in the neighborhoods of the community impacted by illegal fireworks use. Door hangers will be placed in areas with high reports of use this year and in areas with high numbers of citations last year. The purpose of the door hangers is to provide community members with statistics on illegal fireworks use, information on the fines for the use of illegal fireworks, and the phone number to report the use of illegal fireworks.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
161
File #: 24-0239 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.

Again for 2024, approximately 41,000 mailers have been added to City of Visalia utility bills. These mailers will have the same information as the door hangers and are being added as an additional means of informing the public of the City’s illegal fireworks prevention efforts.

A call center will again be operating the evenings of July 3rd and 4th. The call center consists of 10 dedicated call-takers inputting the reports of illegal fireworks into a mapping system that feeds the information directly to patrol units in the field. The call center serves two purposes. First, the call center lowers the illegal fireworks burden on Dispatch during this exceptionally busy holiday and allows dispatchers to focus on standard operations and calls for service. Second, the call center provides a robust system for citizens to report their concern to a City employee with a minimal amount of wait time. Citizens can report illegal fireworks use by calling 559-513-8080. Reporting a specific address is most beneficial, but a general location, such as cross streets, may also be provided.

Currently, reports of illegal fireworks are down when compared to the same period of 2023. There will be dedicated patrols throughout the month of June with an increase around the Independence Day holiday. Staff are partnering with the Visalia Police Department for both preventive efforts and enforcement during patrol details. Each dedicated patrol unit will consist of a Visalia Police Officer and Visalia Fire Department member.

Enforcement, prevention, and education efforts will again be a joint effort across the county with neighboring departments working together to combat illegal fireworks use throughout the valley.

In 2021, Council directed Fire Department staff to implement a rewards system as an incentive for citizens to assist with enforcement efforts. This rewards system provides a $500 reward for information leading to the citation of individuals selling illegal fireworks within the community. This rewards system is intended to help catch individuals who are selling illegal fireworks in our community and potentially reduce the amount of illegal fireworks used within the community.

Illegal fireworks pose a great danger to our community, not only endangering citizens’ properties by increasing the risk of grass, tree and fence fires, but they also increase the risk of structure fires that can and have turned fatal. During the Independence Day holiday time our resources are stretched thin not only because of the extreme weather that comes with this time of year, but the increased fires and medical aids that also rise during this time. The use of illegal fireworks needlessly puts our community at risk, tying up valuable resources that could be handling other emergency traffic such as medical aids. One structure or grass fire can rapidly deplete our Emergency Services City wide, putting others at risk and causing significant delays in response.

Fiscal Impact:

Cost for the 4th of July detail will be the personnel costs for staffing the call center and the dedicated patrols, and the material cost of the mailers.

Prior Council Action: N/A
Other: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
162
File #: 24-0239 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

No Motion required
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: PowerPoint presentation
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
163
PRE- 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS DETAIL

AND CITY CELEBRATION PRESENTATION
Visalia Fire Department
164

ENFORCEMENT
Illegal fireworks citation amounts begin at $2,000
for the first offence and increase to $3,000 for the
second and $4,000 for each additional.
Citations are tracked over a three-year period. If
a citizens first offence was last year and this year
they are caught again, the initial fine amount will be
$3,000.
165

PREVENTION
Social Media Posts
Banners hung at all stations
Visalia.city/celebratesafely
Fireworks safety tips
Pet safety tips
Fire station locations for fireworks disposal
166

PREVENTION CONTINUED
Door hangers to be distributed throughout the
community.
Based on high volume call areas from previous years.
Also based on high citation areas with low call volumes. Based on high volume call areas year to date.
41,000 utility bill mailers.
Include reporting number 559-513-8080
167

CALL CENTER
Will operate on July 3rd and 4th
10 dedicated call takers
Information will be relayed in live time to patrol units in the field
Lowers the burden on Dispatch
Provides citizens a direct line to call specifically designed to gather fireworks use data
168

PATROLS
Dedicated patrols throughout the month of June
Increasing saturation around the Independence Day
Holiday
Partnering with Visalia Police Department
Each patrol unit will be comprised on a Visalia Police Officer and Visalia Fire Department member
169

JOINT EFFORT VALLEY WIDE
Partnering with Tulare County, Tulare City and
Dinuba for united messaging, prevention and
enforcement
170

REWARDS SYSTEM
Council directed a rewards system be created for
reporting the sales of dangerous fireworks
$500 reward is being offered for information leading to the successful citation of individuals found to be illegally selling fireworks.
171

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID
172
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0180 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
173
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0173 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Adopt Resolution & Designate 2024/25 Specific Road Maintenance Funding: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-30 to designate Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account 2024/25 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB 1) to the Whitendale Road Rehabilitation Project; and authorize the transfer of $3,600,000 within the SB1 RMRA Fund from Pavement Rehabilitation and the appropriation of $100,000 from the SB1 RMRA Fund to the Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation project.

Deadline for Action: 7/1/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Dolores Verduzco, Financial Analyst, [email protected], (559) 713-4540 Eric Bons, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4350 Jason Huckleberry, Engineering & Building Director, [email protected], (559) 713-4495 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution 2024-30 to designate Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) 2024/25 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB 1) to the Whitendale Road Rehabilitation Project; and authorize the transfer of $3,600,000 within the SB1 RMRA (113) Fund from CP0290 Pavement Rehabilitation and the appropriation of $100,000 from the SB1 RMRA (113) Fund to the Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation project.

Total FY 2024/25 SB1 RMRA Estimated Allotment $3,700,000.

Background Discussion:

The Local Streets and Roads Funding Program requires a resolution identifying the project(s) that will be funded with the fiscal year estimated allotment of SB1 RMRA funds. Staff recommends the estimated fiscal year 2024/25 SB1 RMRA allotment of $3,700,000 be utilized towards the Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation Project from Mooney Blvd to Court St..

In April 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 to address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs in the State.

This bill established a new funding source for road repairs through revenue collected from per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and vehicle registration fees. The Act provides inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.

SB1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs. Therefore, cities and counties receiving the funding will be required to provide annual RMRA project information to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). This Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
174
File #: 24-0173 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.
provide annual RMRA project information to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). This includes action by City Council at a regular public meeting to adopt a list of projects proposed to be funded with RMRA funds for each fiscal year. The project list must be submitted to the CTC by July 1 st to receive and not delay the apportionment of RMRA funds for the upcoming fiscal year. The report for the anticipated use of funding shall include a description of the project including location, estimated project schedule and expected useful life.

In addition, for each fiscal year in which the City spends RMRA funds, the City must submit a report to the CTC that details the RMRA funds expended to include a description and location of each completed project and/or in-progress project, the amount of funds expended on the project and the completion date. The CTC posts reported project information on the Commission’s website and through other reporting mechanisms that are accessible by the public.

In order to receive funding for the upcoming fiscal year 2024/25, Council must adopt by resolution a list of projects intended to utilize the fiscal year 204/25 SB1 RMRA funding and submit to the California Transportation (CTC) by July 1, 2024.

Staff recommends Council designate a new project, Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation from Mooney Blvd. to Court St. Project, as listed on the attached resolution, for RMRA 2024/25 funding.

Project Description:

Rehabilitate the roadway on Whitendale Avenue from Mooney Boulevard to Court Street. The project will also include traffic signal modifications and the repair of miscellaneous damaged concrete structures such as curbs, guter, drain inlets, and pedestrian ramps. Impacted pedestrian ramps will be upgraded to be ADA compliant and existing manholes and valve boxes will be adjusted to grade and/or replaced where necessary.

Project Location:

Street Segment From To
Whitendale Ave. Mooney Blvd. Court St.

Estimated Project Schedule:

Design:

Start: August 2024
Complete: June 2025
Construction:

Start: August 2025
Complete: November 2025
Estimated Useful Life:
15 to 20 Years
Fiscal Impact:

SB1 RMRA funding in fiscal year 2024/25 of approximately $3,700,000 is projected to be distributed to the City of Visalia based on the State Department of Finance projections of RMRA revenues, last updated in May 2024.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
175
File #: 24-0173 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.

Revenues received for RMRA funds are appropriated to CP0290 Pavement Rehabilitation within the SB1 RMRA Fund (113). However, CP0290 does not specify a project location. Therefore, upon approval of the project to utilize FY 2024/25 RMRA funds, funds of $3,600,000 will be transferred from CP0290 Pavement Rehabilitation to the Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation from Mooney Blvd to Court St. Project.

An additional $100,000 is being requested to be appropriated to the Whitendale Road Rehabilitation Project from the SB1 RMRA Fund (113) as the SB 1 RMRA revenues estimated by the State exceed the amount estimated by the City in CP0290 by $100,000.

Prior Council Action:

June 5, 2023
Adopted Resolution No. 2023-20 to designate 2023/24 SB1 RMRA funding to 1) Tulare Ave. Road Rehab from Demaree to Cotta, 2) Plaza Drive Intersection Improvements, and 3) Center & Acequia Street Rehabilitation.

June 20, 2022
Adopted Resolution No. 2022-41 to designate 2022/23 SB1 RMRA funding to 1) Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation, 2) Caldwell Ave. Improvements from Akers to Shady, and 3) Center & Acequia Street Rehabilitation
June 21, 2021
Adopted Resolution 2021-34 to designate 2021/22 SB1 RMRA funding to the FY 2021-22 SB1 Street Rehabilitation - Center & Acequia Project.

April 20, 2020
Adopted Resolution 2020-19 to designate 2020/21 SB1 RMRA funding to the Street Rehabilitation - Akers & Shady project and to the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project.

April 15, 2019
Adopted Resolution 2019-21 to designate 2019/20 SB1 RMRA funding to the Caldwell Avenue Improvements - Akers to Shady Project.

April 16, 2018
Adopted Resolution 2018-25 to designate 2018/19 SB1 RMRA funding to various street segments.

November 20, 2017
Affirmed by Resolution 2017-78 the appropriation of 2017/18 SB1 RMRA funding to a Cape Seal Project.

Alternatives: Do not accept funds and use Measure N funds to perform work.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to adopt Resolution No. 2024-30 to designate SB1 RMRA 2024/25 funding to the Whitendale Road Rehabilitation Project; and authorize the transfer of $3,600,000 within the SB1 RMRA (113) Fund from CP0290 Pavement Rehabilitation and the appropriation of $100,000 from the SB1 RMRA Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
176
File #: 24-0173 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 2.

Fund from CP0290 Pavement Rehabilitation and the appropriation of $100,000 from the SB1 RMRA (113) Fund to the Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation project.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: Environmental review to be completed prior to construction.

Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024-30 2. Location Map
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
177
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FUNDED BY
SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) , the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and

WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and

WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $3,700,000 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2024-25 from SB 1; and

WHEREAS, this is the eighth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and

WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high -priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and

WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate streets/roads, add active transportation infrastructure within the City this year and hundreds of similar projects into the future; and

WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Asses sment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an at-risk condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a good condition; and

WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure , and using 178
cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, which will lead to reduced vehicle emissions and increase responsiveness to the needs to the users of the road system.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Visalia, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following newly proposed project will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2024-25 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title: Whitendale Ave. Road Rehabilitation from Mooney Blvd. to Court St. Project Project Description: Rehabilitate the roadway on Whitendale Avenue from Mooney Boulevard to Court Street. The project will also include traffic signal modifications and the repair of miscellaneous damaged concrete structures such as curbs, gutter, drain inlets and pedestrian ramps. Impacted ramps will be upgraded to be ADA compliant and existing manholes and valve boxes will be adjusted to grade and/or replaced as necessary.

Project Location: Whitendale Ave. from Mooney Blvd. to Court St.

Estimated Project Schedule:

Pre-Construction: Start August 2024 – Completion June 2025 Construction: Start August 2025 – Completion November 2025 Estimated Project Useful Life: 15 to 20 Years

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Visalia State of California this _______ day of _______, 2024, by the following vote:

179
D e e p C r e e k
S o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
P e r s
i
a
n
D
i
t
c
h
J
e
n
n
i
n
g s D
i
t
c
h
P e r s i a n D
i t c
h
T u l a r e I r r i g a t i o n C a
n
n
a
l
C
a
m
e r o n C r e e k
P a c k w o o d C r e e
k
Mill Creek
Evans Ditch
Court
Mooney
DemareeLinwood
K
Tulare
B
e
n
M
a
d
d
o
x
Pinkham
Tulare
Mineral King
Main
Visalia
Akers
Walnut
Walnut
Noble
Demaree
Chinowth
B
e
n
M
a
d
d
o
x
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Giddings
Murray
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Woodland
Acequia
Mooney
Rd 140
Chinowth
Ave 272
Linwood
Hall
Hurley
Locust
Whitendale
BurkeAkers
Court
West
Santa Fe
2nd
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Willis
Santa Fe
Campus
Center
Hwy 198
Bridge
Conyer
Cain
Mineral King
L
o
v
e
r
s
L
a
n
e
3rd
Jacob
M
i l l C
r e e k
Caldwell
Cameron
Visalia
Goshen
Ave 272
Ave 271
Noble
Ave 280
Rd 108
Ave 276
Rd 100
180
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0212 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

City Council approval of Resolution 2024-27 adopting the 2024-25 appropriations limit for the City of Visalia’s General Fund.

Deadline for Action: 6/30/2024
Submitting Department: Finance and Technology Services
Contact Name and Phone Number: Renee Nagel, Finance & Technology Director 713-4375, Amee Swearingen Budget Analyst 713-4170
Department Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt Resolution 2024-XX establishing the appropriations limit for the 2024-25 fiscal year in the amount of $220,211,983 for the General Fund.

Background Discussion:

Annually Council is required by the State to approve the appropriation limit for the City of Visalia. The Appropriation Limitation imposed by Propositions 4 and 111 creates a restriction on the amount of tax revenue which can be appropriated in any fiscal year. The limit is based on actual appropriations during the 1978-79 fiscal year and is increased each year by a factor comprised of the change in population combined with the change in California per capita personal income.

The General Fund is the only fund subject to the appropriation limit mandated by the State of California. Any challenge to the appropriations limit must be brought within 45 days from the effective date of the resolution.

The State of California provides the population and California per capita personal income change data for local jurisdictions to calculate their appropriations limit. Based on the following data received from the Department of Finance, a population change of 1.10% and per capita income change of 3.62%, the appropriations limit for Visalia is $220,211,983. The total General Fund appropriation subject to limitation for the fiscal year 24-25 is $93,475,000 which is well under the appropriations limit as shown in Table 1, Gann Appropriations Limit.

Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 $210,206,169
Adjustment Factors:

Population Change (1.10+100/100=1.0110) 1.0110
Per Capita Income Change (3.62+100/100=0.0362) x 1.0362 Total Adjustment Factor 1.0476
Adjustment Amount 10,005,814
Appropriations Limit for FY 2024-25 220,211,983
Budgeted Expenditures Subject to Limit FY 2024-25 93,475,000 Amount of Unspent Authorized Appropriation $126,736,983 FY 2024-25
Gann Appropriations Limit
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
181
File #: 24-0212 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 3.

Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 $210,206,169
Adjustment Factors:

Population Change (1.10+100/100=1.0110) 1.0110
Per Capita Income Change (3.62+100/100=0.0362) x 1.0362 Total Adjustment Factor 1.0476
Adjustment Amount 10,005,814
Appropriations Limit for FY 2024-25 220,211,983
Budgeted Expenditures Subject to Limit FY 2024-25 93,475,000 Amount of Unspent Authorized Appropriation $126,736,983 FY 2024-25
Gann Appropriations Limit
Table 2, Calculation of Proceeds of Taxes, categorizes General Fund revenues. As shown in the table, the amount of taxes is equivalent to the budgeted expenditures subject to the 2024-25 limit.

Tax Non-Tax
Proceeds Proceeds Total
General Fund
Taxes $93,475,000 $0 $93,475,000
Licenses & Permits 0 212,900 212,900
Fines 0 984,200 984,200
Revenue From Use of Money & Property 0 393,900 393,900
Revenue From Other Agencies 0 2,232,100 2,232,100
Revenue for Current Services 0 2,543,100 2,543,100
Other Revenue 0 647,900 647,900
Subtotal 93,475,000 7,014,100 100,489,100
Interest 0 530,600 530,600
Total General Fund $93,475,000 $7,544,700 $101,019,700
FY 2024-25
Table 2
Calculation of Proceeds of Taxes
Fiscal Impact:

None
Prior Council Action: N/A
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
182
File #: 24-0212 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 3.

Other: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-27 establishing the appropriations limit for the 2024-25 fiscal year in the amount of $220,211,983 for the General Fund.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2024-27 Attachment 2 - CA Department of Finance Letter on Price and Population
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
183
Attachment 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-27

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA ESTABLISHING THE 2024-25 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT

WHEREAS, in 1979, California voters approved Proposition 4 (Article XIII-B of the California State Constitution). Informally known as the “Gann Initiative,” Article XIII-B provides limits to the amount of tax proceeds state and local governments can spend each year.

WHEREAS, in 1980, the State Legislature added Section 9710 of the Government Code stating that the governing body of each City must establish, by resolution, an appropriations limit for the following year. The limit for any fiscal year is equal to the previous year’s limit, adjusted for population changes and the change in the U.S. Consumer Price Index (or California per capita personal income, if smaller). The necessary statistical information is provided by the California Department of Finance.

WHEREAS, Proposition 111 modified Article XIII-B. A City may choose which annual adjustments to use. The adjustment factors include the growth in the California Per Capita Income, or the growth in the non-residential assessed valuation due to construction within the City and the population growth within the City or county.

AND IT FURTHER provided for the 2024-25 fiscal year, any challenge to the appropriations limit must be brought within 45 days from the effective date of the resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appropriations limit as defined by Propositions 4 and 111 is set at $220,211,983 for 2024-25 fiscal using a percentage change growth factor of 1.10% and change in per capita income of 3.62% as established by the California Department of Finance.
184

April 30, 2024

Dear Fiscal Officer:

Price Factor and Population Information

Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments.

Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2024, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2024-25. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the factors to calculate the 2024-25 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit.

California Revenue
and Taxation Code section 2228 p rovides additional information regar ding the appropriations limit. Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2024. Please note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.

/s Richard Gillihan

RICHARD GILLIHAN
Chief Operating Officer

Attachment

185

May 2024
Attachment A

A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2024-25 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income

Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year

2024-25 3.62

B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2024-25 appropriation limit.

2024-25:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 3.62 percent
Population Change = 0.17 percent

Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 3.62 + 100 = 1.0362 100

Population converted to a ratio: 0.17 + 100 = 1.0017 100

C alculation of factor for FY 2024-25: 1.0362 x 1.0017 = 1.0379

186

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Alameda
Alameda 1.21 76,309 77,234 78,071
Albany -0.14 20,354 20,325 20,325
Berkeley 0.12 125,181 125,327 125,327
Dublin -0.03 71,600 71,575 72,917
Emeryville 4.95 12,686 13,314 13,314
Fremont -0.63 230,713 229,250 229,250
Hayward -0.58 160,699 159,770 159,770
Livermore -0.48 85,235 84,828 84,828
Newark -2.36 47,762 46,635 46,635
Oakland -0.52 427,085 424,873 425,093
Piedmont -0.88 10,878 10,782 10,782
Pleasanton -1.17 76,861 75,960 75,960
San Leandro -1.01 87,984 87,098 87,098
Union City -1.26 67,279 66,432 66,432
Unincorporated -1.18 147,743 146,006 146,067
County Total -0.54 1,648,369 1,639,409 1,641,869
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 187

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Alpine
Unincorporated -0.34 1,183 1,179 1,179
County Total -0.34 1,183 1,179 1,179
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 188

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Amador
Amador -1.53 196 193 193
Ione -0.06 5,032 5,029 8,856
Jackson -1.34 4,933 4,867 4,867
Plymouth -0.19 1,063 1,061 1,061
Sutter Creek -1.39 2,589 2,553 2,553
Unincorporated -0.95 22,278 22,067 22,081
County Total -0.89 36,091 35,770 39,611
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 189

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Butte
Biggs -5.02 1,951 1,853 1,853
Chico 1.81 107,639 109,589 109,589
Gridley -4.15 7,235 6,935 6,935
Oroville -3.78 18,841 18,129 18,129
Paradise 16.14 9,205 10,691 10,691
Unincorporated -4.82 61,708 58,731 58,731
County Total -0.32 206,579 205,928 205,928
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 190

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Calaveras
Angels City -0.47 3,604 3,587 3,587
Unincorporated -0.12 41,249 41,199 41,255
County Total -0.15 44,853 44,786 44,842
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 191

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Colusa
Colusa 0.28 6,429 6,447 6,447
Williams -0.72 5,568 5,528 5,528
Unincorporated -0.67 9,834 9,768 9,768
County Total -0.40 21,831 21,743 21,743
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 192

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Contra Costa
Antioch 0.30 115,282 115,632 115,632
Brentwood 0.49 64,496 64,811 64,811
Clayton -0.04 10,687 10,683 10,683
Concord -0.12 121,663 121,513 121,513
Danville -0.40 42,736 42,567 42,567
El Cerrito 1.15 25,409 25,700 25,700
Hercules -0.53 26,202 26,063 26,063
Lafayette -0.06 24,823 24,808 24,808
Martinez 0.04 36,425 36,439 36,439
Moraga -0.44 16,858 16,784 16,784
Oakley 1.80 44,929 45,736 45,736
Orinda -0.21 19,231 19,191 19,191
Pinole -0.47 18,278 18,192 18,192
Pittsburg 0.47 74,736 75,085 75,085
Pleasant Hill -0.28 33,447 33,352 33,352
Richmond -0.34 113,122 112,735 112,735
San Pablo -0.24 31,163 31,088 31,088
San Ramon -0.28 82,754 82,525 82,525
Walnut Creek 0.61 69,010 69,433 69,433
Unincorporated 0.15 174,023 174,289 174,289
County Total 0.12 1,145,274 1,146,626 1,146,626
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 193

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Del Norte
Crescent City 0.52 4,019 4,040 5,564
Unincorporated -0.19 20,768 20,728 20,781
County Total -0.08 24,787 24,768 26,345
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 194

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
El Dorado
Placerville 0.12 10,517 10,530 10,540
South Lake Tahoe 0.42 20,703 20,790 20,790
Unincorporated 0.25 156,754 157,143 157,253
County Total 0.26 187,974 188,463 188,583
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 195

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Fresno
Clovis
Coalinga
Firebaugh
Fowler
Fresno
Huron
Kerman
Kingsburg
Mendota
Orange Cove
Parlier
Reedley
Sanger
San Joaquin
Selma
Unincorporated

1.42 -0.13
-0.77

2.85 0.71

3.74 1.81

1.04 0.55

0.67 -0.10

1.09 0.27
-0.11
-0.10

0.06 124,361
13,291
8,480
7,163
542,600
6,119
16,950
12,908
12,462
9,453
14,382
25,376
26,286
3,620
24,395
157,158
126,133
13,274
8,415
7,367
546,467
6,348
17,256
13,042
12,531
9,516
14,368
25,653
26,357
3,616
24,371
157,254
126,133
17,107
8,415
7,367
546,971
6,348
17,256
13,042
12,531
9,516
14,368
25,653
26,357
3,616
24,371
158,380
County Total 0.69 1,005,004 1,011,968 1,017,431
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 196

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Glenn
Orland 4.86 8,141 8,537 8,537
Willows 0.06 6,317 6,321 6,321
Unincorporated 0.04 13,872 13,878 13,878
County Total 1.43 28,330 28,736 28,736
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 197

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Humboldt
Arcata
Blue Lake
Eureka
Ferndale
Fortuna
Rio Dell
Trinidad
Unincorporated
-1.54
-1.29
-0.80
-1.45
-1.11
-1.49
-1.34
-1.07
18,830
1,164
26,116
1,376
12,318
3,290
298
70,959
18,540
1,149
25,906
1,356
12,181
3,241
294
70,199
18,540
1,149
26,073
1,356
12,181
3,241
294
70,266
County Total -1.11 134,351 132,866 133,100
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 198

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Imperial
Brawley
Calexico
Calipatria
El Centro
Holtville
Imperial
Westmorland
Unincorporated

2.58 1.70

4.60 1.37

1.27 2.59

2.86 1.65
27,633
38,606
6,063
44,305
5,513
21,583
1,993
30,586
28,345
39,262
6,342
44,911
5,583
22,141
2,050
31,091
28,345
39,262
6,342
44,952
5,583
22,141
2,050
34,206
County Total 1.95 176,282 179,725 182,881
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 199

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Inyo
Bishop -0.13 3,853 3,848 3,848
Unincorporated -0.17 14,973 14,948 15,008
County Total -0.16 18,826 18,796 18,856
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 200

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Kern
Arvin
Bakersfield
California City
Delano
Maricopa
McFarland
Ridgecrest
Shafter
Taft
Tehachapi
Wasco
Unincorporated

0.98 0.80

0.60 0.96

0.00 1.45

0.75 4.31

0.13 0.48

1.35 0.39
19,460
407,835
13,001
45,119
1,004
13,765
27,098
21,266
6,944
9,297
22,945
300,172
19,651
411,109
13,079
45,554
1,004
13,965
27,300
22,183
6,953
9,342
23,254
301,340
19,651
411,109
13,079
52,484
1,004
13,965
27,940
22,226
6,953
11,092
27,028
303,769
County Total 0.77 887,906 894,734 910,300
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 201

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Kings
Avenal -0.28 9,373 9,347 13,981
Corcoran 0.07 13,405 13,415 21,633
Hanford 0.43 59,034 59,286 59,286
Lemoore -0.27 26,929 26,855 26,855
Unincorporated -0.42 24,775 24,672 30,872
County Total 0.04 133,516 133,575 152,627
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 202

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Lake
Clearlake 1.14 16,367 16,553 16,553
Lakeport 0.12 4,976 4,982 4,982
Unincorporated 0.27 45,276 45,398 45,466
County Total 0.47 66,619 66,933 67,001
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 203

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Lassen
Susanville -0.22 9,355 9,334 11,639
Unincorporated 0.01 14,950 14,952 16,558
County Total -0.08 24,305 24,286 28,197
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 204

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Los Angeles
Agoura Hills -0.44 19,928 19,841 19,841
Alhambra 0.05 81,753 81,790 81,811
Arcadia -0.13 55,855 55,783 55,783
Artesia -0.21 16,053 16,019 16,019
Avalon -0.57 3,332 3,313 3,313
Azusa -0.35 49,595 49,420 49,420
Baldwin Park -0.06 70,700 70,660 70,660
Bell -0.34 33,414 33,301 33,301
Bellflower -0.03 77,014 76,990 76,990
Bell Gardens -0.49 38,569 38,381 38,381
Beverly Hills -0.45 31,950 31,806 31,806
Bradbury -0.77 905 898 898
Burbank 0.11 105,484 105,603 105,603
Calabasas -0.50 22,857 22,742 22,742
Carson -0.52 92,399 91,920 91,924
Cerritos -0.53 48,063 47,806 47,806
Claremont 0.03 37,673 37,686 37,686
Commerce 0.57 12,055 12,124 12,124
Compton -0.37 94,016 93,671 93,671
Covina 0.19 50,390 50,485 50,485
Cudahy -0.52 22,327 22,210 22,210
Culver City 0.89 39,859 40,213 40,213
Diamond Bar -0.43 53,566 53,335 53,335
Downey -0.15 111,656 111,493 111,493
Duarte 3.04 22,958 23,656 23,656
El Monte 0.08 106,649 106,738 106,786
El Segundo -0.08 16,953 16,939 16,964
Gardena 0.22 59,896 60,028 60,028
Glendale -0.25 192,072 191,586 191,586
Glendora -0.32 51,374 51,209 51,209
Hawaiian Gardens -0.29 13,600 13,560 13,560
Hawthorne -0.37 85,886 85,566 85,566
Hermosa Beach -0.42 19,169 19,088 19,088
Hidden Hills 0.17 1,724 1,727 1,727
Huntington Park -0.31 53,374 53,209 53,219
Industry -0.23 427 426 426
Inglewood -0.53 106,628 106,065 106,065
Irwindale 0.74 1,488 1,499 1,499
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 205

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
La Canada Flintridge -0.20 20,089 20,048 20,048
La Habra Heights -0.45 5,513 5,488 5,488
Lakewood -0.25 80,365 80,162 80,162
La Mirada -0.40 48,271 48,077 48,077
Lancaster -0.10 169,939 169,776 172,631
La Puente -0.19 37,530 37,459 37,459
La Verne 0.06 31,678 31,697 31,697
Lawndale -0.55 31,026 30,855 30,855
Lomita -0.38 20,397 20,320 20,320
Long Beach -0.18 459,315 458,498 458,813
Los Angeles 0.27 3,800,438 3,810,548 3,814,318
Lynwood -0.23 66,424 66,271 66,271
Malibu -0.18 10,640 10,621 10,621
Manhattan Beach -0.50 34,367 34,195 34,195
Maywood -0.49 24,572 24,451 24,451
Monrovia 1.39 37,563 38,087 38,087
Montebello 0.32 61,730 61,930 61,930
Monterey Park -0.42 59,592 59,340 59,347
Norwalk -0.39 100,732 100,341 101,172
Palmdale -0.02 166,089 166,055 166,055
Palos Verdes Estates -0.44 13,031 12,974 12,974
Paramount -0.34 52,331 52,153 52,153
Pasadena 1.09 138,187 139,692 139,692
Pico Rivera -0.32 61,014 60,820 60,820
Pomona 0.68 151,132 152,166 152,166
Rancho Palos Verdes -0.50 41,106 40,902 40,919
Redondo Beach -0.27 68,424 68,239 68,239
Rolling Hills -0.53 1,686 1,677 1,677
Rolling Hills Estates 0.46 8,495 8,534 8,534
Rosemead 0.08 50,503 50,541 50,541
San Dimas -0.31 34,027 33,920 33,920
San Fernando 0.04 23,633 23,643 23,643
San Gabriel -0.09 38,648 38,613 38,613
San Marino 0.23 12,350 12,379 12,379
Santa Clarita -0.27 231,045 230,428 230,428
Santa Fe Springs -0.34 18,574 18,511 18,640
Santa Monica 0.34 92,598 92,912 92,912
Sierra Madre -0.15 10,925 10,909 10,909
Signal Hill -0.35 11,488 11,448 11,448
South El Monte -0.21 19,482 19,441 19,441
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 206

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
South Gate
South Pasadena
Temple City
Torrance
Vernon

0.03 -0.37
-0.18
-0.36
-0.49
92,701
26,367
36,040
143,433
206
92,729
26,270
35,975
142,910
205
92,729
26,270
35,975
142,910
205
Walnut
West Covina
West Hollywood
Westlake Village
Whittier
Unincorporated
-0.10

0.65 -0.44
-0.45

0.22 -0.19
27,896
108,404
35,229
7,938
87,333
998,818
27,867
109,105
35,075
7,902
87,527
996,956
27,867
109,105
35,075
7,902
87,527
997,587
County Total 0.05 9,810,925 9,815,428 9,824,091
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 207

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Madera
Chowchilla -0.47 13,600 13,536 18,930
Madera 0.44 66,269 66,560 66,560
Unincorporated 1.34 72,865 73,838 73,838
County Total 0.79 152,734 153,934 159,328
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 208

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Marin
Belvedere
Corte Madera
Fairfax
Larkspur
Mill Valley
Novato
Ross
San Anselmo
San Rafael
Sausalito
Tiburon
Unincorporated
-0.15
-0.44
-0.38

0.13 -0.44
-1.08
-0.26
-0.14
-0.45
-0.55
-0.36
-0.45
2,046
9,916
7,399
12,638
13,695
51,415
2,278
12,443
59,855
6,894
8,841
62,940
2,043
9,872
7,371
12,655
13,635
50,861
2,272
12,426
59,585
6,856
8,809
62,656
2,043
9,882
7,371
12,655
13,635
51,140
2,272
12,426
59,585
6,856
8,809
66,170
County Total -0.53 250,360 249,041 252,844
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 209

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Mariposa
Unincorporated -0.04 16,912 16,905 16,966
County Total -0.04 16,912 16,905 16,966
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 210

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Mendocino
Fort Bragg 2.16 7,027 7,179 7,179
Point Arena -0.45 447 445 445
Ukiah -0.42 16,176 16,108 16,108
Willits -0.10 4,835 4,830 4,830
Unincorporated -0.24 61,011 60,862 60,914
County Total -0.08 89,496 89,424 89,476
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 211

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Merced
Atwater 0.02 31,390 31,397 31,397
Dos Palos -0.02 5,634 5,633 5,633
Gustine -0.07 5,940 5,936 5,936
Livingston 0.09 14,273 14,286 14,286
Los Banos 0.25 47,300 47,419 47,419
Merced 1.91 90,120 91,837 91,837
Unincorporated 0.23 89,424 89,630 90,795
County Total 0.72 284,081 286,138 287,303
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 212

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Modoc
Alturas -0.19 2,664 2,659 2,659
Unincorporated -0.21 5,837 5,825 5,825
County Total -0.20 8,501 8,484 8,484
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 213

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Mono
Mammoth Lakes -2.67 7,305 7,110 7,110
Unincorporated -2.37 5,792 5,655 5,751
County Total -2.53 13,097 12,765 12,861
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 214

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Monterey
Carmel-By-The-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
King City
Marina
Monterey
Pacific Grove
Salinas
Sand City
Seaside
Soledad
Unincorporated

0.55 0.64

0.98 2.01

1.78 1.91

0.56 0.63

0.73 0.26

0.04 2.94

0.75 3,105
1,559
8,384
20,155
13,968
22,269
24,096
14,872
160,870
378
28,075
19,565
104,372
3,122
1,569
8,466
20,561
14,216
22,695
24,232
14,966
162,037
379
28,085
20,140
105,157
3,122
1,569
8,466
20,561
14,216
22,695
27,106
14,966
162,037
379
30,197
26,966
105,334
County Total 0.94 421,668 425,625 437,614
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 215

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Napa
American Canyon 1.77 21,379 21,758 21,758
Calistoga 0.29 5,127 5,142 5,142
Napa 0.13 77,074 77,174 77,174
St Helena 0.57 5,284 5,314 5,314
Yountville 0.09 2,180 2,182 2,781
Unincorporated -0.08 21,772 21,754 22,860
County Total 0.38 132,816 133,324 135,029
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 216

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Nevada
Grass Valley -0.58 13,478 13,400 13,400
Nevada City -0.09 3,350 3,347 3,347
Truckee 0.46 16,702 16,778 16,778
Unincorporated -0.45 66,891 66,590 66,652
County Total -0.30 100,421 100,115 100,177
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 217

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Orange
Aliso Viejo -0.43 50,284 50,068 50,068
Anaheim 0.29 339,105 340,090 340,160
Brea -0.34 47,886 47,725 47,725
Buena Park 0.07 82,632 82,689 82,689
Costa Mesa -0.31 109,765 109,423 109,423
Cypress 0.11 49,291 49,345 49,345
Dana Point -0.38 32,721 32,596 32,596
Fountain Valley 0.18 56,233 56,333 56,333
Fullerton -0.32 140,756 140,311 140,311
Garden Grove 1.17 169,024 171,002 171,024
Huntington Beach -0.30 193,078 192,503 192,503
Irvine 0.97 311,537 314,550 314,550
Laguna Beach 0.07 22,433 22,449 22,449
Laguna Hills -0.42 30,442 30,315 30,315
Laguna Niguel 0.67 63,865 64,291 64,291
Laguna Woods -0.43 17,222 17,148 17,148
La Habra -0.21 61,028 60,901 60,901
Lake Forest 0.70 86,311 86,917 86,917
La Palma -0.40 15,131 15,071 15,071
Los Alamitos -0.19 11,970 11,947 11,947
Mission Viejo 0.09 91,221 91,304 91,304
Newport Beach -0.35 82,707 82,419 82,419
Orange -0.16 138,842 138,621 138,621
Placentia 0.08 52,182 52,226 52,226
Rancho Santa Margarita -0.43 46,507 46,305 46,305
San Clemente -0.29 62,481 62,297 62,297
San Juan Capistrano 1.05 34,627 34,992 34,992
Santa Ana 0.89 308,041 310,797 310,797
Seal Beach -0.37 24,200 24,110 24,350
Stanton 3.55 38,914 40,297 40,297
Tustin 0.42 78,515 78,844 78,844
Villa Park -0.19 5,716 5,705 5,705
Westminster 0.10 89,400 89,490 89,490
Yorba Linda -0.27 66,268 66,087 66,087
Unincorporated 0.72 130,381 131,325 131,335
County Total 0.31 3,140,716 3,150,493 3,150,835
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 218

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Placer
Auburn -0.94 13,344 13,218 13,218
Colfax -1.09 2,010 1,988 1,988
Lincoln 1.79 52,296 53,231 53,231
Loomis 0.06 6,597 6,601 6,601
Rocklin 0.26 71,420 71,609 71,609
Roseville 1.05 152,726 154,329 154,329
Unincorporated 0.16 111,692 111,868 111,868
County Total 0.67 410,085 412,844 412,844
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 219

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Plumas
Portola -1.14 2,099 2,075 2,075
Unincorporated -0.76 16,894 16,766 16,766
County Total -0.80 18,993 18,841 18,841
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 220

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Riverside
Banning 0.54 31,046 31,213 31,213
Beaumont 2.03 56,275 57,416 57,416
Blythe -0.33 12,566 12,524 17,378
Calimesa -0.39 10,909 10,867 10,867
Canyon Lake -0.13 10,846 10,832 10,832
Cathedral City -0.27 51,012 50,873 50,911
Coachella 2.36 42,179 43,173 43,173
Corona 0.22 156,268 156,615 156,615
Desert Hot Springs 0.85 32,380 32,654 32,654
Eastvale -0.35 69,123 68,884 68,884
Hemet 0.37 89,333 89,663 89,663
Indian Wells 1.35 4,733 4,797 4,797
Indio 0.78 89,978 90,680 90,680
Jurupa Valley 0.12 104,541 104,663 104,721
Lake Elsinore 0.14 71,351 71,452 71,452
La Quinta 1.44 37,824 38,370 38,370
Menifee 1.97 109,401 111,560 111,560
Moreno Valley 0.12 206,903 207,146 207,146
Murrieta -0.17 109,364 109,177 109,177
Norco -0.15 22,084 22,050 25,068
Palm Desert 1.22 50,274 50,889 50,889
Palm Springs -0.03 43,802 43,791 43,791
Perris 1.13 78,424 79,311 79,311
Rancho Mirage 0.74 16,868 16,992 16,992
Riverside 0.30 315,747 316,690 316,690
San Jacinto -0.39 53,746 53,538 53,538
Temecula 0.49 108,173 108,700 108,700
Wildomar 0.65 36,093 36,327 36,327
Unincorporated 0.95 399,653 403,438 403,563
County Total 0.55 2,420,896 2,434,285 2,442,378
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 221

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Sacramento
Citrus Heights -0.58 86,056 85,554 85,554
Elk Grove 0.69 177,446 178,679 178,679
Folsom 2.41 81,478 83,443 88,023
Galt 0.69 25,608 25,785 25,785
Isleton -0.65 772 767 767
Rancho Cordova 0.62 81,604 82,109 82,109
Sacramento 0.18 519,466 520,407 520,407
Unincorporated -0.40 599,989 597,614 597,614
County Total 0.12 1,572,419 1,574,358 1,578,938
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 222

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
San Benito
Hollister 0.76 42,547 42,872 42,872
San Juan Bautista 0.00 2,032 2,032 2,032
Unincorporated 1.76 20,586 20,949 20,949
County Total 1.06 65,165 65,853 65,853
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 223

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
San Bernardino
Adelanto -0.80 36,422 36,131 36,131
Apple Valley -0.24 74,500 74,322 74,322
Barstow -0.34 24,124 24,043 24,669
Big Bear Lake 0.20 4,948 4,958 4,958
Chino 0.57 88,580 89,088 92,585
Chino Hills -0.17 76,547 76,414 76,414
Colton -0.12 52,841 52,778 52,778
Fontana 0.68 212,772 214,223 214,223
Grand Terrace -0.17 12,793 12,771 12,771
Hesperia 0.75 99,338 100,087 100,087
Highland 0.12 55,612 55,676 55,676
Loma Linda -0.02 24,923 24,919 24,965
Montclair -0.09 37,246 37,211 37,211
Needles -0.23 4,780 4,769 4,769
Ontario 0.93 179,555 181,224 181,224
Rancho Cucamonga 0.56 172,344 173,316 173,316
Redlands 1.28 71,776 72,696 72,696
Rialto 0.71 102,367 103,097 103,097
San Bernardino 0.39 224,316 225,188 226,541
Twentynine Palms -1.12 15,397 15,224 25,346
Upland 0.56 77,849 78,285 78,285
Victorville 0.96 132,537 133,805 138,202
Yucaipa 0.33 53,635 53,810 53,810
Yucca Valley 0.40 21,509 21,594 21,594
Unincorporated 0.02 286,864 286,926 295,763
County Total 0.42 2,143,575 2,152,555 2,181,433
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 224

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
San Diego
Carlsbad -0.63 115,045 114,319 114,319
Chula Vista 0.54 276,517 277,997 278,247
Coronado -0.54 17,332 17,238 21,589
Del Mar 0.03 3,918 3,919 3,919
El Cajon -0.60 104,804 104,180 104,180
Encinitas -0.37 61,254 61,028 61,028
Escondido -0.38 150,571 150,002 150,002
Imperial Beach -0.05 26,109 26,096 26,096
La Mesa -0.22 60,753 60,620 60,620
Lemon Grove 0.19 27,517 27,568 27,568
National City 0.32 56,350 56,531 58,555
Oceanside -0.41 172,186 171,483 171,483
Poway 1.34 48,620 49,273 49,273
San Diego 0.08 1,368,583 1,369,714 1,385,379
San Marcos 1.24 94,823 95,998 95,998
Santee -0.64 59,574 59,195 59,195
Solana Beach 0.44 12,831 12,887 12,887
Vista -0.39 100,113 99,723 99,723
Unincorporated 0.31 478,424 479,928 511,040
County Total 0.07 3,235,324 3,237,699 3,291,101
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 225

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
San Francisco
San Francisco 0.11 841,745 842,644 843,071
County Total 0.11 841,745 842,644 843,071
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 226

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
San Joaquin
Escalon
Lathrop
Lodi
Manteca
Ripon
Stockton
Tracy
Unincorporated

0.07 5.39

0.50 2.67

0.10 0.48

1.33 0.29
7,244
35,138
66,164
88,552
15,726
315,655
95,341
157,407
7,249
37,033
66,492
90,917
15,741
317,174
96,609
157,866
7,249
37,033
66,492
90,917
15,741
317,204
96,609
160,163
County Total 1.01 781,227 789,081 791,408
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 227

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
San Luis Obispo
Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
El Paso De Robles
Grover Beach
Morro Bay
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
Unincorporated
-0.54
-0.15

0.37 -0.49
-0.52
-0.29

0.90 -0.42
18,039
29,278
30,792
12,542
10,315
7,869
48,249
118,457
17,941
29,233
30,907
12,481
10,261
7,846
48,684
117,954
17,941
30,279
30,907
12,481
10,261
7,846
48,684
120,070
County Total -0.08 275,541 275,307 278,469
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 228

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
San Mateo
Atherton 0.06 6,972 6,976 6,976
Belmont -0.92 27,180 26,931 26,931
Brisbane -0.72 4,695 4,661 4,661
Burlingame 0.34 30,410 30,513 30,513
Colma -1.12 1,426 1,410 1,410
Daly City -1.03 102,513 101,458 101,458
East Palo Alto 0.42 28,957 29,078 29,078
Foster City -1.03 32,921 32,581 32,581
Half Moon Bay -0.79 11,328 11,238 11,238
Hillsborough -0.19 11,137 11,116 11,116
Menlo Park 0.61 32,814 33,015 33,140
Millbrae 1.79 22,687 23,093 23,093
Pacifica -0.89 37,388 37,057 37,062
Portola Valley -0.79 4,283 4,249 4,249
Redwood City -0.34 82,144 81,863 81,863
San Bruno -0.94 42,550 42,152 42,152
San Carlos -0.94 29,700 29,420 29,420
San Mateo -0.79 104,180 103,352 103,352
South San Francisco -0.25 64,765 64,601 64,601
Woodside -0.83 5,176 5,133 5,133
Unincorporated -0.65 61,942 61,538 61,538
County Total -0.50 745,168 741,435 741,565
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 229

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Santa Barbara
Buellton
Carpinteria
Goleta
Guadalupe
Lompoc
Santa Barbara
Santa Maria
Solvang
Unincorporated

0.04 0.08

0.04 1.10
-0.06

0.35 0.84

0.05 -0.07
4,968
12,734
32,503
8,582
40,571
85,362
109,687
5,660
136,235
4,970
12,744
32,515
8,676
40,545
85,659
110,608
5,663
136,144
4,970
12,744
32,515
8,676
43,610
85,679
110,608
5,663
139,158
County Total 0.28 436,302 437,524 443,623
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 230

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Santa Clara
Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Unincorporated
-0.22
-0.31

0.80 -0.19
-0.01
-0.41

0.17 0.51

0.11 2.45
-0.21
-0.13
-0.26
-0.08

0.24 -0.53
43,191
59,656
60,419
31,316
8,477
33,368
81,635
3,564
46,333
84,463
68,093
970,772
132,386
30,845
157,187
90,063
43,095
59,471
60,904
31,255
8,476
33,230
81,773
3,582
46,384
86,535
67,953
969,491
132,048
30,819
157,566
89,584
43,095
59,471
61,033
31,255
8,476
33,230
81,773
3,582
46,384
86,535
67,973
969,491
132,048
30,819
157,566
90,467
County Total 0.02 1,901,768 1,902,166 1,903,198
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 231

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Santa Cruz
Capitola -0.64 9,558 9,497 9,497
Santa Cruz -0.24 62,929 62,776 62,776
Scotts Valley -0.47 11,872 11,816 11,816
Watsonville 0.42 50,820 51,032 51,032
Unincorporated -0.56 128,103 127,388 127,451
County Total -0.29 263,282 262,509 262,572
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 232

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Shasta
Anderson -0.46 10,994 10,943 10,943
Redding 0.31 92,039 92,323 92,446
Shasta Lake -0.31 10,162 10,131 10,131
Unincorporated -0.16 65,728 65,622 65,675
County Total 0.05 178,923 179,019 179,195
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 233

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Sierra
Loyalton -0.41 727 724 724
Unincorporated -0.53 2,460 2,447 2,447
County Total -0.50 3,187 3,171 3,171
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 234

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Siskiyou
Dorris
Dunsmuir
Etna
Fort Jones
Montague
Mount Shasta
Tulelake
Weed
Yreka
Unincorporated
-0.24
-0.42
-0.30
-0.30
-0.25
-0.25
-0.23

0.67 -0.19
-0.18
838
1,658
667
676
1,202
3,211
872
2,692
7,820
23,794
836
1,651
665
674
1,199
3,203
870
2,710
7,805
23,750
836
1,651
665
674
1,199
3,203
870
2,710
7,805
23,796
County Total -0.15 43,430 43,363 43,409
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 235

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Solano
Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Rio Vista
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Unincorporated
-0.85

1.80 0.32

0.35 1.04

0.10 -0.54
-0.52
26,255
19,060
115,266
9,969
28,543
96,096
122,220
17,392
26,033
19,403
115,632
10,004
28,840
96,192
121,558
17,301
26,033
19,403
120,339
10,004
28,840
102,173
121,558
18,076
County Total 0.04 434,801 434,963 446,426
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 236

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Sonoma
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
Unincorporated
-1.11
-1.06
-0.32
-0.02
-0.04
-0.07
-0.96
-0.98
-0.91
-0.40
8,808
7,381
11,020
58,457
43,838
175,013
7,366
10,636
25,628
130,333
8,710
7,303
10,985
58,445
43,821
174,890
7,295
10,532
25,394
129,812
8,710
7,303
10,985
58,445
43,821
174,890
7,295
10,532
25,394
130,777
County Total -0.27 478,480 477,187 478,152
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 237

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Stanislaus
Ceres
Hughson
Modesto
Newman
Oakdale
Patterson
Riverbank
Turlock
Waterford
Unincorporated

0.58 2.28

0.52 0.15

0.29 1.49

1.59 0.55

0.08 0.16
49,035
7,539
216,734
12,103
22,942
24,426
24,614
70,885
9,103
108,372
49,319
7,711
217,862
12,121
23,008
24,790
25,006
71,273
9,110
108,544
49,319
7,711
217,862
12,121
23,008
24,790
25,006
71,273
9,110
108,544
County Total 0.55 545,753 548,744 548,744
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 238

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Sutter
Live Oak 2.33 9,448 9,668 9,668
Yuba City 1.84 68,984 70,256 70,256
Unincorporated 1.87 19,816 20,186 20,186
County Total 1.90 98,248 100,110 100,110
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 239

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Tehama
Corning 0.29 8,053 8,076 8,076
Red Bluff -0.94 14,435 14,300 14,300
Tehama -0.71 425 422 422
Unincorporated -0.67 41,665 41,384 41,510
County Total -0.61 64,578 64,182 64,308
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 240

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Trinity
Unincorporated -0.11 15,878 15,860 15,915
County Total -0.11 15,878 15,860 15,915
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 241

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Tulare
Dinuba
Exeter
Farmersville
Lindsay
Porterville
Tulare
Visalia
Woodlake
Unincorporated

0.45 0.08

1.78 1.07

0.70 1.77

1.10 0.17

0.42 25,458
10,171
10,146
12,461
62,320
69,565
142,821
7,700
133,652
25,573
10,179
10,327
12,594
62,758
70,799
144,385
7,713
134,219
25,573
10,179
10,327
12,594
62,934
70,799
144,532
7,713
134,267
County Total 0.90 474,294 478,547 478,918
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 242

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Tuolumne
Sonora 0.25 5,119 5,132 5,132
Unincorporated -0.15 47,088 47,016 49,275
County Total -0.11 52,207 52,148 54,407
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 243

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Ventura
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
-0.35

0.57 -0.49
-0.05
-0.10
-0.69
-0.20
-0.14
-0.11
-0.38
-0.44
69,256
16,965
35,286
7,537
197,737
19,168
107,723
31,400
124,165
123,111
89,813
69,014
17,061
35,114
7,533
197,536
19,036
107,512
31,355
124,029
122,643
89,421
69,014
17,061
35,114
7,533
197,536
20,916
107,569
31,355
124,029
122,643
91,093
County Total -0.23 822,161 820,254 823,863
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 244

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Yolo
Davis 0.20 64,922 65,054 65,054
West Sacramento 0.05 54,251 54,278 54,278
Winters 0.65 7,538 7,587 7,587
Woodland 1.03 60,052 60,672 60,672
Unincorporated 1.14 33,691 34,075 34,075
County Total 0.55 220,454 221,666 221,666
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 245

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 Total
Population County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - City 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24 1-1-24
Yuba
Marysville 0.68 12,666 12,752 12,752
Wheatland 1.75 3,826 3,893 3,893
Unincorporated 1.33 64,180 65,034 67,076
County Total 1.25 80,672 81,679 83,721
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 246

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024
County Percent Change
23-24
--- Population
1-1-23
Minus Exclusions -- -
1-1-24
Alameda
Incorporated
County Total
-0.48
-0.54
1,500,626
1,648,369
1,493,403
1,639,409
Alpine
Incorporated
County Total

0.00 -0.34
0 1,183
0 1,179
Amador
Incorporated
County Total
-0.80
-0.89
13,813
36,091
13,703
35,770
Butte
Incorporated
County Total

1.61 -0.32
144,871
206,579
147,197
205,928
Calaveras
Incorporated
County Total
-0.47
-0.15
3,604
44,853
3,587
44,786
Colusa
Incorporated
County Total
-0.18
-0.40
11,997
21,831
11,975
21,743
Contra Costa
Incorporated
County Total

0.11 0.12
971,251
1,145,274
972,337
1,146,626
Del Norte
Incorporated
County Total

0.52 -0.08
4,019
24,787
4,040
24,768
El Dorado
Incorporated
County Total

0.32 0.26
31,220
187,974
31,320
188,463
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 247

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024
County Percent Change
23-24
--- Population
1-1-23
Minus Exclusions -- -
1-1-24
Fresno
Incorporated
County Total

0.81 0.69
847,846
1,005,004
854,714
1,011,968
Glenn
Incorporated
County Total

2.77 1.43
14,458
28,330
14,858
28,736
Humboldt
Incorporated
County Total
-1.14
-1.11
63,392
134,351
62,667
132,866
Imperial
Incorporated
County Total

2.02 1.95
145,696
176,282
148,634
179,725
Inyo
Incorporated
County Total
-0.13
-0.16
3,853
18,826
3,848
18,796
Kern
Incorporated
County Total

0.96 0.77
587,734
887,906
593,394
894,734
Kings
Incorporated
County Total

0.15 0.04
108,741
133,516
108,903
133,575
Lake
Incorporated
County Total

0.90 0.47
21,343
66,619
21,535
66,933
Lassen
Incorporated
County Total
-0.22
-0.08
9,355
24,305
9,334
24,286
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 248

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024
County Percent Change
23-24
--- Population
1-1-23
Minus Exclusions -- -
1-1-24
Los Angeles
Incorporated
County Total

0.07 0.05
8,812,107
9,810,925
8,818,472
9,815,428
Madera
Incorporated
County Total

0.28 0.79
79,869
152,734
80,096
153,934
Marin
Incorporated
County Total
-0.55
-0.53
187,420
250,360
186,385
249,041
Mariposa
Incorporated
County Total

0.00 -0.04
0 16,912
0 16,905
Mendocino
Incorporated
County Total

0.27 -0.08
28,485
89,496
28,562
89,424
Merced
Incorporated
County Total

0.95 0.72
194,657
284,081
196,508
286,138
Modoc
Incorporated
County Total
-0.19
-0.20
2,664
8,501
2,659
8,484
Mono
Incorporated
County Total
-2.67
-2.53
7,305
13,097
7,110
12,765
Monterey
Incorporated
County Total

1.00 0.94
317,296
421,668
320,468
425,625
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 249

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024
County Percent Change
23-24
--- Population
1-1-23
Minus Exclusions -- -
1-1-24
Napa
Incorporated
County Total

0.47 0.38
111,044
132,816
111,570
133,324
Nevada
Incorporated
County Total
-0.01
-0.30
33,530
100,421
33,525
100,115
Orange
Incorporated
County Total

0.29 0.31
3,010,335
3,140,716
3,019,168
3,150,493
Placer
Incorporated
County Total

0.87 0.67
298,393
410,085
300,976
412,844
Plumas
Incorporated
County Total
-1.14
-0.80
2,099
18,993
2,075
18,841
Riverside
Incorporated
County Total

0.48 0.55
2,021,243
2,420,896
2,030,847
2,434,285
Sacramento
Incorporated
County Total

0.44 0.12
972,430
1,572,419
976,744
1,574,358
San Benito
Incorporated
County Total

0.73 1.06
44,579
65,165
44,904
65,853
San Bernardino
Incorporated
County Total

0.48 0.42
1,856,711
2,143,575
1,865,629
2,152,555
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 250

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024
County Percent Change
23-24
--- Population
1-1-23
Minus Exclusions -- -
1-1-24
San Diego
Incorporated
County Total

0.03 0.07
2,756,900
3,235,324
2,757,771
3,237,699
San Francisco
Incorporated
County Total

0.11 0.11
841,745
841,745
842,644
842,644
San Joaquin
Incorporated
County Total

1.19 1.01
623,820
781,227
631,215
789,081
San Luis Obispo
Incorporated
County Total

0.17 -0.08
157,084
275,541
157,353
275,307
San Mateo
Incorporated
County Total
-0.49
-0.50
683,226
745,168
679,897
741,435
Santa Barbara
Incorporated
County Total

0.44 0.28
300,067
436,302
301,380
437,524
Santa Clara
Incorporated
County Total

0.05 0.02
1,811,705
1,901,768
1,812,582
1,902,166
Santa Cruz
Incorporated
County Total
-0.04
-0.29
135,179
263,282
135,121
262,509
Shasta
Incorporated
County Total

0.18 0.05
113,195
178,923
113,397
179,019
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 251

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024
County Percent Change
23-24
--- Population
1-1-23
Minus Exclusions -- -
1-1-24
Sierra
Incorporated
County Total
-0.41
-0.50
727
3,187
724
3,171
Siskiyou
Incorporated
County Total
-0.12
-0.15
19,636
43,430
19,613
43,363
Solano
Incorporated
County Total

0.06 0.04
417,409
434,801
417,662
434,963
Sonoma
Incorporated
County Total
-0.22
-0.27
348,147
478,480
347,375
477,187
Stanislaus
Incorporated
County Total

0.64 0.55
437,381
545,753
440,200
548,744
Sutter
Incorporated
County Total

1.90 1.90
78,432
98,248
79,924
100,110
Tehama
Incorporated
County Total
-0.50
-0.61
22,913
64,578
22,798
64,182
Trinity
Incorporated
County Total

0.00 -0.11
0 15,878
0 15,860
Tulare
Incorporated
County Total

1.08 0.90
340,642
474,294
344,328
478,547
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 252

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions -- - 23-24 1-1-23 1-1-24
Tuolumne
Incorporated 0.25 5,119 5,132
County Total -0.11 52,207 52,148
Ventura
Incorporated -0.21 732,348 730,833
County Total -0.23 822,161 820,254
Yolo
Incorporated 0.44 186,763 187,591
County Total 0.55 220,454 221,666
Yuba
Incorporated 0.93 16,492 16,645
County Total 1.25 80,672 81,679
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes. 253
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0215 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 4.

Agenda Item Wording:

Abandon Public Utility Easement and Right of Way - Ordering the summary vacation and abandonment of portions of the public utility easements and right of way dedications over Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map No. 4645. Property located on Legacy Ave, approximately 500’ west of American St. Resolution No. 2024-31. APN:
073-220-017 and 073-220-018.

Deadline for Action: N/A
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number: Katlin Rowley -
(559) 713-4474, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Jason Huckleberry, Engineering and Building Department Director - (559) 713-4495, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-31 ordering the summary vacation and abandonment of the portions of the public utility easements and right of way dedications over Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map No. 4645, without the need of a public hearing.

Background Discussion:

In October 2004, the public utility easements and right of way dedications through Parcels 6 and 7 were dedicated to the City under Parcel Map 4645. Portions of the public utility easements and right of way dedications, more clearly shown in Attachments “B”, “C”, “D”, and “E” will be abandoned back to the property owner. The easements and right of way being vacated at this time are related to an industrial cul-de-sac that was not necessary once the westerly adjacent property developed. Improvements associated with Parcel Map 4800 provided a through street, extending Legacy Avenue and making the cul-de-sac, and associated easements and right of way unnecessary.

The vacation and abandonment of the portions of the public utility easements and right of way dedications meet the provisions for use of summary proceedings with no public hearing or public posting as prescribed in the California Streets and Highways Code.

Findings for Easement Vacation
The public utility easements being vacated meet the definition of Streets and Highways Code Section 8306, definition of public service easement:
“Public service easement” includes all or part of, or any right in:
(a) A right-of-way, easement, or use restriction acquired for public use by dedication or otherwise for sewers, pipelines, pole lines, electrical transmission and communication lines, pathways, storm drains, drainage, canal, water transmission lines, light and air, and other limited use public easements other than for street or highway purposes. (b) An easement or right of a type described in Section 8340.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
254
File #: 24-0215 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 4.

The vacation and abandonment portion of the public service easement meets the provisions for use of summary proceedings with no public hearing or public posting as prescribed in the California Streets and Highways Code. A local agency may summarily vacate or terminate the excess public service easement in any of the following cases as stated in Section 8333 under Chapter 4 (Summary Vacation) of Part 3 (Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law) of Division 9 (Change of Grade and Vacation) of the California Streets and Highways Code.

Streets and Highways Code Section 8333:

The legislative body of a local agency, or any public officer or employee authorized by the legislative body as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 8335, may summarily vacate a public service easement in any of the following cases:
(a) The easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. (b) The date of dedication or acquisition is less than five years, and more than one year, immediately preceding the proposed vacation, and the easement was not used continuously since that date.
(c) The easement has been superseded by relocation, or determined to be excess by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement.

Under paragraph “c” of the referenced California Streets and Highways Code; portions of the public utility easements have been superseded by relocation. New public utility easements are in effect under record numbers ____ and ____.

Findings for Right of Way Vacation
The right of way along Legacy Ave being vacated meets the definition of Streets and Highways Code Section 8308, definition of street and highway:
“Street” and “highway” include all or part of, or any right in, a state highway or other public highway, road, street, avenue, alley, lane, driveway, place, court, trail, or other public right-of-way or easement, or purported public street or highway, and rights connected therewith, including, but not limited to, restrictions of access or abutters’ rights, sloping easements, or other incidents to a street or highway.

The vacation of the portions of right of way along Legacy Ave meets the provisions for use of summary proceedings with no public hearing or public posting as prescribed in the California Streets and Highways Code. The Legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street or highway that has been superseded by relocation as stated in Section 8330 under Chapter 4 (Summary Vacation) of Part 3 (Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law) of Division 9 (Change of Grade and Vacation) of the California Streets and Highways Code.

Streets and Highways Code Section 8330:
(a) The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street or highway that has been superseded by relocation.
(b) A street or highway shall not be summarily vacated pursuant to this section if vacation would do either of the following:
(1) Cut off all access to a person’s property which, prior to relocation, adjoined the street or highway.
(2) Terminate a public service easement, unless the easement satisfies the requirements of Section Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
255
File #: 24-0215 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 4.
8333.

Under paragraph (a) of the referenced California Streets and Highways Code, Section 8330, the right of way dedications have been superseded by relocation as the right of way in question was for a cul-de-sac that was ultimately made a through street per Parcel Map 4800 in book 49 of parcel maps at page 5.

Fiscal Impact:

N/A
Prior Council Action: October 18, 2004, Council approved for recordation Parcel Map 4645. December 11, 2006, Council approved for recordation Parcel Map 4800.

Other: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
“I move to authorize the adoption of Resolution No. 2024-31, ordering the summary vacation and abandonment of portions of the public utility easements and right of way dedications over Parcel 6 and 7 of Parcel Map No. 4645.”
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: : Attachment A - Parcel Map 4645, Attachment B - Parcel 6 Public Utilities Easement Abandonment Location, Attachment C - Parcel 6 Right of Way Abandonment Location, Attachment D - Parcel 7 Public Utilities Easement Abandonment Location, Attachment E - Parcel 7 Right of Way Abandonment Location, Location Map, Resolution No. 2024 - 31
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
256
257
APN 073-220-017
1 of 2
EXHIBIT ‘A’
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION-PARCEL 6

LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
Lane Project No. 23334
April 16, 2024
A strip of land 6.00 feet wide, being a portion of the Public Utilities Easement within Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 4645, recorded in Book 47 of Parcel Maps, at Page 50, T.C.R., situated in the NE1/4 of Section 30, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California, the southerly line of said strip described as follows:

BEGINNING at the northeast corner of that portion of land dedicated to the City of Visalia per Grant Deed recorded as Instrument No. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R., said northeast corner being the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the South having a radius of 53.00 feet, to which beginning of curve a radial line bears North 52°50'44" West, said beginning of curve also being on the existing northerly Right of Way line of Legacy Court as shown on said Parcel Map; Thence northeasterly 61.65 feet along said curve and northerly Right of Way line through a central angle of 66°38'45";
Thence South 76°11'59" East 89.95 feet to an angle point in said northerly Right of Way line, said angle point being 30.00 feet North of the centerline of said Legacy Court as measured at right angles thereto and the POINT OF TERMINATION.

The sidelines of said strip should be prolonged or shortened so as to terminate at a line running parallel with and 6.00 feet northerly of the North line of said portion of land dedicated to the City of Visalia and the easterly prolongation thereof.

CONTAINING 815 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.

SEE EXHIBIT ‘B’ ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. 04/16/2024
258
N89°59'32"ELEGACY COURTBASIS OF BEARINGS
S00°01'45"E 66.00

30.0030.00
S76°11'59"E 89.95
N52°50'44"W (R)
L=61.65Δ=66°38'45"R=53.00S52°49'49"W (R)
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED1,783 SQ. FT.

POB PARCEL 6R/W VACATIONPOB PARCEL 7R/W VACATION
P. M. 4 8 0 033.0033.00GRANTED TO THE CITY OFVISALIA PER INSTRUMENTNO. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R.

S89°11'45"E 211.73N89°10'49"E 211.71

6.00' WIDE PUE PERPM 4645 TO REMAIN
6' 6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED815 SQ. FT.

6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED815 SQ. FT.
6'
142.25N76°11'03"E 89.95
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED1,783 SQ. FT.

L=61.65Δ=66°38'46"R=53.00
P A R C E L 7P. M. 4 6 4 5P A R C E L 6P. M. 4 6 4 5 PICKETT FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUSTGRANT DEED DOC. NO. 2021-0063012, O.R.T.C.R.142.25 APN 073-220-017
APN 073-220-018
RACE LEASINGGRANT DEED DOC. NO.2018-0050295, O.R.T.C.R.

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BEDEDICATED

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BEDEDICATED6.00' WIDE PUE PERPM 4645 TO REMAIN

69.4969.46
AMERICAN ST.AMERICAN ST.

J:\Jobs\2023\23334\Project Documents\VACATION PACKAGE\DWG\EXHIBIT.dwg3/18/2024 12:28 PM

EXHIBIT B
JOB NO. 233342 OF 2
BASIS OF BEARINGS:THE CENTERLINE OF LEGACY COURT BEARSN89°59'32"E PER PM 4645.ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.NOTE:NORTH 0 3030 15SCALE: 1" = 30'
04/16/2024
259
APN 073-220-017
1 of 2
EXHIBIT ‘A’
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION -PARCEL 6

LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
Lane Project No. 23334
April 16, 2024
Being that portion of the Right of Way of Legacy Court lying within Parcel 6 of Parcel Map No. 4645, recorded in Book 47 of Parcel Maps, at Page 50, T.C.R., situated in the NE1/4 of Section 30, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California, more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at the northeast corner of that portion of land dedicated to the City of Visalia per Grant Deed recorded as Instrument No. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R., said northeast corner being the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the South having a radius of 53.00 feet, to which beginning of curve a radial line bears North 52°50'44" West, said beginning of curve also being on the existing northerly Right of Way line of Legacy Court as shown on said Parcel Map; Thence northeasterly 61.65 feet along said curve and northerly Right of Way line through a central angle of 66°38'45";
Thence South 76°11'59" East 89.95 feet to an angle point in said northerly Right of Way line, said angle point being 30.00 feet North of the centerline of said Legacy Court as measured at right angles thereto;
Thence North 89°11'45" West 142.25 feet along said northerly Right of Way line, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 1,783 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.

SEE EXHIBIT ‘B’ ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. 04/16/2024
260
N89°59'32"ELEGACY COURTBASIS OF BEARINGS
S00°01'45"E 66.00

30.0030.00
S76°11'59"E 89.95
N52°50'44"W (R)
L=61.65Δ=66°38'45"R=53.00S52°49'49"W (R)
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED1,783 SQ. FT.

POB PARCEL 6R/W VACATIONPOB PARCEL 7R/W VACATION
P. M. 4 8 0 033.0033.00GRANTED TO THE CITY OFVISALIA PER INSTRUMENTNO. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R.

S89°11'45"E 211.73N89°10'49"E 211.71

6.00' WIDE PUE PERPM 4645 TO REMAIN
6' 6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED815 SQ. FT.

6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED815 SQ. FT.
6'
142.25N76°11'03"E 89.95
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED1,783 SQ. FT.

L=61.65Δ=66°38'46"R=53.00
P A R C E L 7P. M. 4 6 4 5P A R C E L 6P. M. 4 6 4 5 PICKETT FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUSTGRANT DEED DOC. NO. 2021-0063012, O.R.T.C.R.142.25 APN 073-220-017
APN 073-220-018
RACE LEASINGGRANT DEED DOC. NO.2018-0050295, O.R.T.C.R.

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BEDEDICATED

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BEDEDICATED6.00' WIDE PUE PERPM 4645 TO REMAIN

69.4969.46
AMERICAN ST.AMERICAN ST.

J:\Jobs\2023\23334\Project Documents\VACATION PACKAGE\DWG\EXHIBIT.dwg3/18/2024 12:28 PM

EXHIBIT B
JOB NO. 233342 OF 2
BASIS OF BEARINGS:THE CENTERLINE OF LEGACY COURT BEARSN89°59'32"E PER PM 4645.ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.NOTE:NORTH 0 3030 15SCALE: 1" = 30'
04/16/2024
261
APN 073-220-018
1 of 2
EXHIBIT ‘A’
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION-PARCEL 7

LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
Lane Project No. 23334
April 16, 2024
A strip of land 6.00 feet wide, being a portion of the Public Utilities Easement within Parcel 7 of Parcel Map No. 4645, recorded in Book 47 of Parcel Maps, at Page 50, T.C.R. situated in the NE1/4 of Section 30, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California, the northerly line of said strip described as follows:

BEGINNING at the southeast corner of that portion of land dedicated to the City of Visalia per Grant Deed recorded as Instrument No. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R., said southeast corner being the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the North having a radius of 53.00 feet, to which beginning of curve a radial line bears South 52°49'49" West, said beginning of curve also being on the existing southerly Right of Way line of Legacy Court as shown on said Parcel Map; Thence southeasterly 61.65 feet along said curve and southerly Right of Way line through a central angle of 66°38'46";
Thence North 76°11'03" East 89.95 feet to an angle point in said southerly Right of Way line, said angle point being 30.00 feet south of the centerline of said Legacy Court as measured at right angles thereto and the POINT OF TERMINATION.

The sidelines of said strip should be prolonged or shortened so as to terminate at a line running parallel with and 6.00 feet southerly of the South line of said portion of land dedicated to the City of Visalia and the easterly prolongation thereof.

CONTAINING 815 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS
SEE EXHIBIT ‘B’ ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. 04/16/2024
262
N89°59'32"E

LEGACY COURT

BASIS OF BEARINGS
S00°01'45"E 66.00

30.0030.00
S76°11'59"E 89.95
N52°50'44"W (R)
L=61.65
Δ=66°38'45"
R=53.00
S52°49'49"W (R)

RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED
1,783 SQ. FT.

POB PARCEL 6

R/W VACATION
POB PARCEL 7

R/W VACATION
P. M. 4 8 0 0

33.00 33.00

GRANTED TO THE CITY OF

VISALIA PER INSTRUMENT
NO. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R.

S89°11'45"E 211.73N89°10'49"E 211.71

6.00' WIDE PUE PER
PM 4645 TO REMAIN
6'

6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED
815 SQ. FT.

6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED
815 SQ. FT.
6'
142.25
N76°11'03"E 89.95

RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED
1,783 SQ. FT.

L=61.65
Δ=66°38'46"
R=53.00
P A R C E L 7P. M. 4 6 4 5
P A R C E L 6P. M. 4 6 4 5

PICKETT FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
GRANT DEED DOC. NO. 2021-0063012, O.R.T.C.R.
142.25
APN 073-220-017
APN 073-220-018

RACE LEASING
GRANT DEED DOC. NO.
2018-0050295, O.R.T.C.R.

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BE

DEDICATED

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BE

DEDICATED

6.00' WIDE PUE PER
PM 4645 TO REMAIN

69.4969.46
AMERICAN ST.AMERICAN ST.

J:\Jobs\2023\23334\Project Documents\VACATION PACKAGE\DWG\EXHIBIT.dwg3/18/2024 12:28 PM

EXHIBIT B
JOB NO. 23334
2 OF 2
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

THE CENTERLINE OF LEGACY COURT BEARS
N89°59'32"E PER PM 4645.

ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

NOTE:

NORTH
0 3030 15
SCALE: 1" = 30'
04/16/2024
263
APN 073-220-018
1 of 2
EXHIBIT ‘A’
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION -PARCEL 7

LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
Lane Project No. 23334
April 16, 2024
Being that portion of the Right of Way of Legacy Court lying within Parcel 7 of Parcel Map No. 4645, recorded in Book 47 of Parcel Maps, at Page 50, T.C.R., situated in the NE1/4 of Section 30, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California, more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at the southeast corner of that portion of land dedicated to the City of Visalia per Grant Deed recorded as Instrument No. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R., said southeast corner being the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave to the North having a radius of 53.00 feet, to which beginning of curve a radial line bears South 52°49'49" West, said beginning of curve also being on the existing southerly Right of Way line of Legacy Court as shown on said Parcel Map; Thence southeasterly 61.65 feet along said curve and southerly Right of Way line through a central angle of 66°38'46";
Thence North 76°11'03" East 89.95 feet to an angle point in said southerly Right of Way line, said angle point being 30.00 feet south of the centerline of said Legacy Court as measured at right angles thereto;
Thence South 89°10'49" West 142.25 feet along said northerly Right of Way line to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 1,783 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.

SEE EXHIBIT ‘B’ ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. 04/16/2024
264
N89°59'32"E

LEGACY COURT

BASIS OF BEARINGS
S00°01'45"E 66.00

30.0030.00
S76°11'59"E 89.95
N52°50'44"W (R)
L=61.65
Δ=66°38'45"
R=53.00
S52°49'49"W (R)

RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED
1,783 SQ. FT.

POB PARCEL 6

R/W VACATION
POB PARCEL 7

R/W VACATION
P. M. 4 8 0 0

33.00 33.00

GRANTED TO THE CITY OF

VISALIA PER INSTRUMENT
NO. 2018-0033605, O.R.T.C.R.

S89°11'45"E 211.73N89°10'49"E 211.71

6.00' WIDE PUE PER
PM 4645 TO REMAIN
6'

6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED
815 SQ. FT.

6.00' PUE TO BE VACATED
815 SQ. FT.
6'
142.25
N76°11'03"E 89.95

RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED
1,783 SQ. FT.

L=61.65
Δ=66°38'46"
R=53.00
P A R C E L 7P. M. 4 6 4 5
P A R C E L 6P. M. 4 6 4 5

PICKETT FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
GRANT DEED DOC. NO. 2021-0063012, O.R.T.C.R.
142.25
APN 073-220-017
APN 073-220-018

RACE LEASING
GRANT DEED DOC. NO.
2018-0050295, O.R.T.C.R.

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BE

DEDICATED

6.00' WIDE PUE TO BE

DEDICATED

6.00' WIDE PUE PER
PM 4645 TO REMAIN

69.4969.46
AMERICAN ST.AMERICAN ST.

J:\Jobs\2023\23334\Project Documents\VACATION PACKAGE\DWG\EXHIBIT.dwg3/18/2024 12:28 PM

EXHIBIT B
JOB NO. 23334
2 OF 2
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

THE CENTERLINE OF LEGACY COURT BEARS
N89°59'32"E PER PM 4645.

ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

NOTE:

NORTH
0 3030 15
SCALE: 1" = 30'
04/16/2024
265
0 350175 Feet
±
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere 2024
City of Visalia, Fresno County Dept. PWP , California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS, Nearmap US, Esri,

NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Location Map
Legacy Ave Abandonment
M i l l C r e e k D i t c h
N
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
S
t
Nicholas
American
Patriot
Grove
Legacy
Nicholas
Freedom
Freedom
M
i
l
l
e
r
P
a
r
k
Grove
Grove
Camp
Subject
Property
266
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - ____

RESOLUTION ORDERING THE

SUMMARY VACATION AND ABANDONMENT

OF PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS OVER PARCEL 6 AND 7 OF PARCEL MAP 4645 RECORDED IN BOOK 47 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 50, TULARE COUNTY RECORDS

WHEREAS, The City of Visalia, State of California, has an easement for public utilities purposes and a dedication for right of way over Parcel 6 and 7 of parcel map 4645, recorded in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Page 50, Tulare County Records.

WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Visalia may vacate all or part of a street, highway, or public service easement pursuant to the Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law (California Streets & Highways Code, section 8300 et seq.); and

WHEREAS, the summary vacation proceedings are to be conducted pursuant to the provisions in sections 8330 – 8336, Chapter 4 of Part 3, Division 9, entitled “Summary Vacation,” of the California Streets & Highways Code; and

WHEREAS, the summary vacation requirement for the public service easement has been met, pursuant to §8333(c) of the California Streets & Highways Code, the portions of the public service easement being vacated have been superseded by relocation and determined to be in excess by the holder of the easement, in this instance what was formerly a cul-de-sac has been modified into a through street and portions of the former cul-de-sac, including areas of the public service easement, have been determined to be unnecessary.

WHEREAS, the summery vacation requirements for the portions of the street right of way to be abandoned has been met pursuant to §8330(a) of the California Streets & Highways Code, and 8334(a), excess right of way of a street or highway not required for street or highway purposes, specifically that the street right of way has been superseded by relocation, in this instance what was formerly a cul-de-sac has been modified into a through street and portions of the former cul-de-sac have been determined to be unnecessary, it is also noted the areas vacated are under one ownership.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Council of the City of Visalia hereby orders the summary vacation and abandonment of portions of a public utilities easement and right of way dedication over Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 4645, recorded in Book 47 at Page 50, Tulare County Records. In this instance a planned cul-de-sac has been modified into a through street with the former areas of the cul-de-sac dedicated to public service easements and streets and highway usage no longer necessary.

A public hearing is not required, and the use of a summary proceeding is allowed for the vacation of a public service easement by having met at least one of the following cases described in California Streets and Highways Code section 8333, specifically subsection (c) having been superseded by relocation, or determined to be excess by the easement holder and there are no other public facilities located within the easement being vacated:
267
a. The easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation.
b. The date of dedication or acquisition is less than five years, and more than one year, immediately preceding the proposed vacation, and the easement was not continuously used since that date.
c. The easement has been superseded by relocation, or determined to be excess by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement.

2. A public hearing is not required, and the use of a summary proceeding is allowed for the vacation of a public service easement by having met California Streets and Highways Code section 8330(a), when a street or highway has been superseded by relocation:

a. “The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street or highway that has been superseded by relocation.”
b. A street or highway shall not be summarily vacated pursuant to this section if vacation would do either of the following:

1. Cut off all access to a person’s property which, prior to relocation, adjoined the street or highway.

2. Terminate a public service easement, unless the easement satisfies the requirements of Section 8333.

3. A public hearing is not required, and the use of a summary proceeding is allowed for the vacation of a street or highway by having met at least one of the following cases described in California Streets and Highways Code section 8334, which allows for summary vacation when a street or highway has been determined to be in excess and not required for street or highway purposes, in this instance both portions of this section apply as the street or highway of the former cul-de-sac is excess and not required, in addition the portion being vacated lies within one ownership and does not continue through ownership or touch the property of another.

8334. The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate any of the following:

a. An excess right-of-way of a street or highway not required for street or highway purposes.
b. A portion of a street or highway that lies within property under one ownership and that does not continue through such ownership or end touching property of another.

4. From and after the date this resolution is recorded, portions of public service easement and right of way dedication are vacated and abandoned, and no longer constitute an easement or dedication. A map and legal descriptions of the portions of the street and public service easement being vacated are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, and made a part hereof by reference.

268
PASSED AND ADOPTED: June __, 2024 Leslie B Caviglia, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )

I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2024-__ passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on June 17, 2024.

Dated: Leslie B. Caviglia, CITY CLERK

By Michelle E. Nicholson, Chief Deputy City Clerk

269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0216 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.

Agenda Item Wording:

Ordinance Adoption - Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-06, adding Chapter

3.14 (Cannabis Business Tax) to Title 3 of the Visalia Municipal Code to establish a tax on cannabis business activities within the city.

Deadline for Action: 6/17/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Devon Jones, Economic Development Manager, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4190
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2024- 06, adding Chapter 3.14 (Cannabis Business Tax) to Title 3 of the Visalia Municipal Code to establish a tax on cannabis business activities within the city. The Cannabis Business Tax will not take effect unless the tax measure is approved by the voters on November 5th.

Summary:

On June 3, 2024, the City Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-06, adding Chapter 3.14 (Cannabis Business Tax) to Title 3 of the Visalia Municipal Code to establish a tax on cannabis business activities within the city and adopted Resolution 2024-24 to place a cannabis tax measure on the November 2024 general election ballot. After the item was presented and public comments received, the City Council voted 5-0, to introduce and adopted Ordinance No. 2024-06.

Background Discussion:

Senate Bill (SB) 1186, the “MedicinalCannabis Patients’Right of Access Act”was signed into law in late 2022. This state law, which became effective on January 1, 2024, prohibits local agencies from enforcing any local regulations that prohibit the retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis. After this date, “delivery only” (i.e., delivery of medicinal cannabis) businesses will be permitted, subject to reasonable zoning regulations for public health and safety, within the City of Visalia. This means that warehouse-based businesses could legally operate in the City of Visalia as long as they sold medicinal cannabis via delivery only (i.e., no retail store front).

On July 17, 2023, Council authorized staff to initiate a zoning ordinance update to implement reasonable zoning regulations in response to SB 1186. On November 20, 2023, Council conducted the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-13 for Zoning Text Amendment No. 2023- 02, a request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.25, add Section

17.32.167, amend Chapter 8.64, and add Chapter 5.66 in order to address upcoming state mandated changes as a result of the passage of SB 1186, and to establish objective standards for permitting delivery only medical marijuana retail establishments within the City of Visalia. To date, staff is aware of one such business type interested in Visalia and many others amongst storefront retail cannabis Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
278
File #: 24-0216 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.
of one such business type interested in Visalia and many others amongst storefront retail cannabis operators.

Also on July 17, 2023, Council authorized staff to hire a consultant through sole source contract process to assist staff with the preparation of a potential local tax measure specifically for cannabis sales for the 2024 general election and to identify potential revisions to cannabis regulations in Visalia so the City would be ready in the event additional state mandates prevent local agencies from restricting other types of cannabis businesses, or should the Council later decide to permit such businesses to operate in Visalia.

The local tax measure would not be proposing to legalize other types of cannabis sales, the tax would only authorize the City of Visalia to collect additional tax revenue from cannabis sales that state law has authorized to be conducted in Visalia or if the City Council, at a later date, decided to allow cannabis sales. Applicable local taxes can be charged under SB 1186, but no specific excise tax for cannabis currently exists within the city. At this time, should any applicable delivery only medicinal cannabis retailers open in the city only the normal business license fees and general sales tax apply.

In November 2023, Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to HdL Companies for an amount not to exceed $35,000, with a total budget of $40,000, and a contract to Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research) for an amount not to exceed $39,500, with a total budget of $45,000, and appropriate $85,000 from the General Fund. FM3 Research was tasked specifically with public opinion research to inform the potential local tax measure efforts.

FM3 Research presented their survey findings on May 6th and identified, among other things, that the majority of Visalia residents support allowing cannabis businesses to operate in Visalia and support the passage of a local tax measure on cannabis businesses. Council then authorized staff to continue working with HdL on the preparation of the tax measure materials and to appropriate $20,000 from the general fund for the development of informational materials for the potential tax measure.

HdL Companies is tasked specifically with development of the cannabis tax measure, including drafting of the ordinance, preparation of the ballot resolution, revenue estimates, and assistance with the ballot statement. They will also assist with drafting the regulatory framework should the state mandate local agencies to allow other types of cannabis businesses or the council later decide to allow such businesses. HdL Companies conducted their initial presentation to Council on May 20th to gather input to prepare the draft business tax ordinance presented for adoption here tonight. The first reading of this ordinance was conducted on June 3, 2024. Major elements of the cannabis business tax ordinance include:
- The Cannabis Business Tax is a general tax enacted solely for general, governmental purposes of the city and not for specific purposes. All of the proceeds from the tax imposed shall be placed in the city's general fund and be available for any lawful city purpose. - The maximum tax rate is ten percent (10%) of gross receipts. o The actual tax rate can be set lower by Council at a later date and vary by industry segment.
- The tax will apply to retailers both in and outside the city (delivery into the city). - Taxes are to be remitted monthly.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
279
File #: 24-0216 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.
- Audits will be allowed by the city or third party designee. - Personal cultivation for personal consumption is not subject to the tax. - The option for a tax rate per square footage for cultivation businesses should the Council later decide to allow, or the state mandate that the city allow cultivation type businesses as well as retail.

On June 3rd, Council also adopted Resolution 2024-24 to place a cannabis tax measure on the November 2024 general election ballot. The cannabis tax would not have any effect unless the tax measure is approved by the voters on November 5th. The proposed ballot language is:
“Shall the measure to fund general governmental services such as public safety, emergency response, youth programs, addressing homelessness and maintaining public spaces, by taxing cannabis businesses at a rate not exceeding 10% of gross receipts, or up to $10/square foot for cultivation, raising approximately $500,000 annually, requiring spending disclosures, and which would only be levied if state law mandates or the Council approves an ordinance allowing such businesses, lasting until ended by voters, be adopted?”
Fiscal Impact:

None at this time. However, if a local cannabis business tax measure is approved by the voters in November and the state mandates that the city allow other cannabis business types beyond medicinal delivery only/non-storefront retail, or the Council later decides to allow other cannabis business types to operate in the city, initial revenue estimates for retail sales range from $500,000 to $1 million annually (depending on tax rate) plus approx. $200,000 in additional sales tax annually.

These amounts are based on estimated potential cannabis retail sales of $12 million annually.

Prior Council Action:
· On June 3, 2024, Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-06, adding Chapter 3.14 (Cannabis Business Tax) to Title 3 of the Visalia Municipal Code to establish a tax on cannabis business activities within the city and adopted Resolution 2024-24 to place a cannabis tax measure on the November 2024 general election ballot. · On May 20, 2024, Council authorized staff to present an ordinance to include a local cannabis tax measure for voter consideration on the Tulare County November 2024 General Election ballot.
· On May 6, 2024, Council authorized staff to continue working with HdL to develop a local cannabis tax measure and ballot language to be included on the November 2024 ballot and appropriated $20,000 from the general fund for the development of tax measure informational materials.
· On November 20, 2023, Council conducted the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-13 for Zoning Text Amendment No. 2023-02, a request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.25, add Section 17.32.167, amend Chapter 8.64, and add Chapter 5.66 in order to address upcoming state mandated changes as a result of the passage of SB 1186, and to establish objective standards for permitting delivery only medical marijuana retail establishments within the City of Visalia.
· On November 11, 2023, Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to HdL Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
280
File #: 24-0216 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.

Companies for an amount not to exceed $35,000, with a total budget of $40,000. · On November 6, 2023, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to FM3 Research for an amount not to exceed $39,500, with a total budget of $45,000. · On July 17, 2023, Council directed staff to initiate a zoning ordinance update to implement reasonable zoning regulations in response to SB 1186 and hire a consultant, via a sole source contract, to assist staff with the preparation of a potential tax measure specifically for cannabis sales for the 2024 general election and to identify potential revisions to cannabis regulations in Visalia.

Other: N/A
Alternatives: Per Council direction
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to approve second reading and adopt of Ordinance No. 2024-06, adding Chapter 3.14 (Cannabis Business Tax) to Title 3 of the Visalia Municipal Code to establish a tax on cannabis business activities within the city.

Environmental Assessment Status:

Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and 14 Cal. Code Re. Sections 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).

CEQA Review:

This item is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”)and 14 Cal. Code Re. Sections 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The calling and noticing of an election for the submission of a ballot measure to voters is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines 15378. The tax submitted to the voters is a general tax that can be used for any governmental purpose; it is not a commitment to any particular action or actions.

As such, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (b)(4), the tax is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue generated by the tax were used for a purpose that would have such an effect, the City of Visalia would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15060 CEQA analysis is not required.

Attachments:

1. Ordinance No. 2024-06 - Cannabis Business Tax
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
281
File #: 24-0216 Agenda Date: 6/17/2024 Agenda #: 5.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/14/2024Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
282

Cannabis Business Tax Ordinance