Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, December 3, 2024 (part 4 of 6)

Kimley-Horn traffic memorandum, and based on the proximity to nearby residential uses, it was determined that an additional impact discussion for on-site passenger vehicle noise would be warranted.

The following sections of this memorandum contain noise level criteria applied to project onsite operations, a revised impact discussion for parking area movement noise, a new impact discussion for on-site passenger vehicle circulation noise, and a revised cumulative (combined) on-site operations noise impact discussion.

Noise Level Criteria Applied to Project On-Site Operations The Visalia General Plan exterior noise level standards provided in Table 7 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study were applied to project on-site operations noise sources. Additionally, the applied Visalia Municipal Code exterior noise level limits presented in Table 8 of 2024 BAC Noise Study were also used in the assessment of on-site operations noise compliance (these criteria are reproduced in this memorandum in Table 1 below). Finally, the residential interior noise level criteria established in Section 8.36.060 of the Visalia Municipal Code were also applied to project on-site operations noise generation.

Table 1
Adjusted Municipal Code Noise Level Standards Applied to the Project Nearest
Residences1
Average Measured
Noise Levels1 Unadjusted Standards
Adjustment for
Measured Ambient? Applied Standards2
Daytime Nighttime Day/Eve Nighttime Day/Eve Nighttime Day/Eve Nighttime L50 Lmax L50 Lmax L50 Lmax L50 Lmax L50 Lmax L50 Lmax L50 Lmax L50 Lmax Northwest 48 66 43 60 50 70 45 65 N N N N 50 70 45 65
West 47 67 47 63 50 70 45 65 N N Y N 50 70 47 65
Southwest 47 67 47 63 50 70 45 65 N N Y N 50 70 47 65
Southeast 48 68 44 62 50 70 45 65 N N N N 50 70 45 65
1 Lowest average measured hourly noise levels from Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Applied standards based on results from BAC ambient noise level surveys and pursuant to Section 8.36.040.

Parking Operations Noise (2024 BAC Noise Study Impact 2) The project site design utilized in the re-analysis of parking operations noise is presented as Attachment A of this memorandum. This impact discussion also utilizes project trip generation data contained in the revised Kimley-Horn traffic memorandum.

As a means of determining potential noise exposure due to anchor tenant / fueling station parking lot activities, BAC utilized specific parking lot noise level measurements conducted by BAC. Specifically, a series of individual noise measurements were conducted of multiple vehicle types arriving and departing a parking area, including engines starting and stopping, car doors opening and closing, and persons conversing as they entered and exited the vehicles. The results of those measurements revealed that individual parking lot movements 640
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 3 ends

generated mean noise levels of approximately 70 dB SEL at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The maximum noise level associated with parking lot activity typically did not exceed 65 dB Lmax at the same reference distance.

To compute hourly average (Leq) noise levels generated by parking activities, the approximate number of hourly operations in any given area and distance to the effective noise center of those activities is required. Based on trip generation data contained in the Kimley-Horn traffic memorandum, the fueling component of the project is estimated to generate approximately 3,899 daily Weekday vehicle trips with 237 AM peak hour and 270 PM peak hour trips. The Kimley-Horn documentation further indicates that the fueling component is estimated to generate approximately 3,943 daily Saturday vehicle trips with 268 AM peak hour and 201 PM peak hour trips. For the purpose of this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that the fueling component of the project could generate 270 vehicle trips during a worst-case busy daytime hour, and that 50% of those 270 vehicle trips (calculated to be 135) could occur during a worst-case busy nighttime hour. In addition, the revised site design shows traffic circulation associated with two access points. For the purpose of this analysis, the aforementioned fueling component trip generation estimates were assumed to be evenly distributed between the two access points. Finally, it was conservatively assumed that parking area movements associated with the nearest 350 stalls of the anchor tenant parking area could either empty or fill during a worst-case busy hour nearest to a residential use. Parking lot noise exposure was determined using the following equation:

Peak Hour Leq = 70+10*log (N) – 35.6
Where 70 is the SEL for a single automobile parking operation, N is the number of parking lot operations in a peak hour, and 35.6 is 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour. Using the information provided above, and assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance).

The Visalia General Plan noise standards are provided in terms of both hourly average (Leq) and individual maximum (Lmax) noise levels. Because parking activities would occur throughout the course of an hour (i.e., in excess of 30 minutes), the Visalia Municipal Code median (L50) noise level descriptor would be applicable. Based on the BAC file data, reference Kimley-Horn trip generation data, and operations assumptions above, and assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), project parking area noise exposure at the property lines of existing nearby residential uses was calculated and the results of those calculations are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
641
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 4 ends

Table 2
Predicted Parking Area Noise Levels at Nearby Residential Uses – Daytime Hours Receiver
Offset
(dB)1
Predicted Combined Parking Noise Level (dB)2,3
Leq Lmax L50
Residential – Northwest -8 34 47 29
Residential – West -8 27 44 22
Residential – Southwest -8 34 47 29
Residential – Southeast -8 40 55 35
1 An offset of -8 dB was applied to account for shielding that would be provided by an existing solid wall (noise barrier) constructed along the perimeter of the project property boundary. Existing wall illustrated in Attachment A. Offset based on the result from a source specific barrier evaluation. 2 Predicted combined noise levels from anchor tenant parking area and fueling station stalls/lanes. 3 Predicted combined noise level also include screening from proposed intervening buildings where applicable.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 3
Predicted Parking Area Noise Levels at Nearby Residential Uses – Nighttime Hours Receiver
Offset
(dB)1
Predicted Combined Parking Noise Level (dB)2,3,4
Leq Lmax L50
Residential – Northwest -8 31 47 26
Residential – West -8 24 44 <20
Residential – Southwest -8 31 47 26
Residential – Southeast -8 37 55 32
1 An offset of -8 dB was applied to account for shielding that would be provided by an existing solid wall (noise barrier) constructed along the perimeter of the project property boundary. Existing wall illustrated in Attachment A. Offset based on the result from a source specific barrier evaluation. 2 Predicted combined noise levels from anchor tenant parking area and fueling station stalls/lanes. 3 Predicted combined noise level also include screening from proposed intervening buildings where applicable. 4 Predicted nighttime parking area activity noise reasonably assumes 50% of daytime trips.

Source: BAC 2024
As indicated in Tables 2 and 3, project parking activity noise levels are predicted to satisfy the Visalia General Plan hourly average (Leq) and maximum (Lmax) daytime and nighttime noise level standards at the nearest existing residential uses. Tables 2 and 3 data also indicate that project parking activity noise levels are predicted to satisfy the applied Visalia Municipal Code daytime/evening and nighttime median (L50) exterior noise level limits at those nearest existing residential uses.

Page 5 ends

analysis conservatively assumes an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 20 dB. After consideration of an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 20 dB, and based on the predicted exterior property line noise levels presented in Tables 2 and 3, project parking area noise levels are expected to satisfy the strictest Visalia Municipal Code interior noise level criteria within the nearest existing residences (manufactured homes).

Using the average measured hourly daytime and nighttime noise levels at each monitoring location during the BAC ambient noise survey shown in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study, and the predicted noise levels presented in Tables 2 and 3 of this memorandum, ambient plus project parking area noise level increases were calculated at the nearby residential uses. The results of those calculations are provided in Tables 4 and 5 below. As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, the calculated increases in ambient noise levels at the nearby residential uses would be well below the applied increase significance criterion of 5 dB.

Table 4
Calculated Project Parking Increases in Ambient Noise Levels – Daytime Hours Receiver1
Measured Ambient
Noise Level1
Predicted Combined
Parking Noise Level2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level3
Associated Noise
Level Increase (dB)4
Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50
Res – NW 53 67 49 34 47 29 52.7 67.4 49.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Res – W 52 69 48 27 44 22 52.3 69.0 48.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Res – SW 52 69 48 34 47 29 52.4 69.0 48.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Res – SE 51 69 48 40 55 35 51.7 68.8 48.5 0.3 0.2 0.2
1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Predicted combined parking noise levels during daytime hours presented in Table 2 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus project-generated daytime noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 5
Calculated Project Parking Increases in Ambient Noise Levels – Nighttime Hours Receiver1
Measured Ambient
Noise Level1
Predicted Combined
Parking Noise Level2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level3
Associated Noise
Level Increase (dB)4
Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50
Res – NW 47 60 44 31 47 26 47.4 60.5 44.4 0.1 0.2 0.1
Res – W 51 64 48 24 44 <20 50.7 63.7 47.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Res – SW 51 64 48 31 47 26 50.7 63.8 47.7 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 Res – SE 49 63 46 37 55 32 49.6 63.9 45.9 0.3 0.6 0.2
1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Predicted combined parking noise levels during nighttime hours presented in Table 3 of this report. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus project-generated nighttime noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
643
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 6 ends

Because noise exposure from project parking area movements is predicted to satisfy applicable Visalia General Plan and Visalia Municipal Code noise level criteria at the nearest existing residential uses, and because noise exposure from those activities is not calculated to significantly increase ambient noise levels at those uses, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

On-Site Passenger Vehicle Circulation Noise (New Impact Discussion) This impact discussion utilizes project trip generation data contained in the revised KimleyHorn traffic memorandum. The project site design referenced in the analysis of on-site passenger vehicle circulation noise is presented as Attachment A of this memorandum. The site design shown in Attachment A shows two access points.

To quantify project on-site passenger vehicle circulation noise exposure, BAC utilized the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with project trip generation data contained in the revised Kimley-Horn traffic memorandum.

The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions and is considered to be accurate within 1.5 dB in most situations.

According to Kimley-Horn, the fueling component of the project is estimated to generate approximately 3,899 daily Weekday vehicle trips with 237 AM peak hour and 270 PM peak hour trips. The Kimley-Horn documentation further indicates that the fueling component is estimated to generate approximately 3,943 daily Saturday vehicle trips with 268 AM peak hour and 201 PM peak hour trips. For the purpose of this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that the fueling component of the project could generate 270 vehicle trips during a worst-case busy daytime hour, and that 50% of those 270 vehicle trips (calculated to be 135) could occur during a worst-case busy nighttime hour. In addition, the revised site design shows traffic circulation associated with two access points. For the purpose of this analysis, the aforementioned fueling component trip generation estimates were assumed to be evenly distributed between the two access points.

The Visalia General Plan noise standards are provided in terms of both hourly average (Leq) and individual maximum (Lmax) noise levels. Because parking activities would occur throughout the course of an hour (i.e., in excess of 30 minutes), the Visalia Municipal Code median (L50) noise level descriptor would be applicable. Based on the BAC file data, reference Kimley-Horn trip generation data, and operations assumptions above, and assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), project on-site passenger vehicle circulation noise exposure at the property lines of existing nearby residential uses was calculated and the results of those calculations are presented in Tables 6 and 7. 644
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 7 ends

Table 6
Predicted On-Site Vehicle Circulation Noise at Nearby Residential Uses – Daytime Hours Receiver
Offset
(dB)1
Predicted Vehicle Circulation Noise Level (dB)2
Leq Lmax L50
Residential – Northwest -8 37 47 32
Residential – West -8 25 35 20
Residential – Southwest -8 <20 <20 <20
Residential – Southeast -8 <20 25 <20
1 An offset of -8 dB was applied to account for shielding that would be provided by an existing solid wall (noise barrier) constructed along the perimeter of the project property boundary. Existing wall illustrated in Attachment A. Offset based on the result from a source specific barrier evaluation. 2 Predicted noise level from closest on-site circulation lane to receiver location, and includes screening from proposed intervening buildings where applicable.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 7
Predicted On-Site Vehicle Circulation Noise at Nearby Residential Uses – Nighttime Hours Receiver
Offset
(dB)1
Predicted Vehicle Circulation Noise Level (dB)2,3
Leq Lmax L50
Residential – Northwest -8 35 47 30
Residential – West -8 23 35 <20
Residential – Southwest -8 <20 <20 <20
Residential – Southeast -8 <20 25 <20
1 An offset of -8 dB was applied to account for shielding that would be provided by an existing solid wall (noise barrier) constructed along the perimeter of the project property boundary. Existing wall illustrated in Attachment A. Offset based on the result from a source specific barrier evaluation. 2 Predicted noise level from closest on-site circulation lane to receiver location, and includes screening from proposed intervening buildings where applicable.
3 Predicted nighttime vehicle circulation noise reasonably assumes 50% of daytime trips.

Source: BAC 2024
As shown in Tables 6 and 7, project on-site passenger vehicle circulation noise levels are predicted to satisfy the Visalia General Plan hourly average (Leq) and maximum (Lmax) daytime and nighttime noise level standards at the nearest existing residential uses. Tables 6 and 7 data also indicate that project on-site passenger vehicle noise levels are predicted to satisfy the applied Visalia Municipal Code daytime/evening and nighttime median (L50) exterior noise level limits at those nearest existing residential uses.

Page 8 ends

analysis conservatively assumes an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 20 dB. After consideration of an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 20 dB, and based on the predicted exterior property line noise levels presented in Tables 6 and 7, project on-site passenger vehicle circulation noise levels are expected to satisfy the strictest Visalia Municipal Code interior noise level criteria within the nearest existing residences (manufactured homes).

Using the average measured hourly daytime and nighttime noise levels at each monitoring location during the BAC ambient noise survey shown in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study, and the predicted noise levels presented in Tables 6 and 7 of this memorandum, ambient plus project on-site passenger vehicle circulation noise level increases were calculated at the nearby residential uses. The results of those calculations are provided in Tables 8 and 9 below. As indicated in Tables 8 and 9, the calculated increases in ambient noise levels at the nearby residential uses would be well below the applied increase significance criterion of 5 dB.

Table 8
Calculated Project Vehicle Circulation Increases in Ambient Noise Levels – Daytime Hour Receiver1
Measured Ambient
Noise Level1
Predicted Vehicle
Circ. Noise Level2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level3
Associated Noise
Level Increase (dB)4
Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50
Res – NW 53 67 49 37 47 32 52.8 67.4 49.4 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Res – W 52 69 48 25 35 20 52.3 69.0 48.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Res – SW 52 69 48 <20 <20 <20 52.3 69.0 48.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Res – SE 51 69 48 <20 25 <20 51.3 68.7 48.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Predicted vehicle circulation noise levels during daytime hours presented in Table 6 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus project-generated daytime noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 9
Calculated Project Vehicle Circulation Increases in Ambient Noise Levels – Nighttime Hour Receiver1
Measured Ambient
Noise Level1
Predicted Vehicle
Circ. Noise Level2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level3
Associated Noise
Level Increase (dB)4
Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50 Leq Lmax L50
Res – NW 47 60 44 35 47 30 47.6 60.5 44.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
Res – W 51 64 48 23 35 <20 50.7 63.7 47.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Res – SW 51 64 48 <20 <20 <20 50.7 63.7 47.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Res – SE 49 63 46 <20 25 <20 49.3 63.3 45.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Predicted vehicle circulation noise levels during nighttime hours presented in Table 7 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus project-generated nighttime noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
646
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 9 ends

Because noise exposure from project on-site passenger vehicle circulation is predicted to satisfy applicable Visalia General Plan and Visalia Municipal Code noise level criteria at the nearest existing residential uses, and because noise exposure from those activities is not calculated to significantly increase ambient noise levels at those uses, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

Cumulative Project On-Site Operations Noise (2024 BAC Noise Study Impact 8) The calculated cumulative (combined hourly average Leq and median L50) and highest predicted maximum (Lmax) noise levels from analyzed project operations at nearby residential uses are presented in Tables 10-15. The results presented in Tables 10-15 include data from both the 2024 BAC Noise Study and this memorandum.
647
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) | P.O. Box 7968, Auburn, CA 95604 | P: 530-537-2328 | bacnoise.com Table 10
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Daytime Hourly Average (Leq) Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Leq (dB) Calculated
Cumulative,
Leq (dB)3
GP Daytime
Standard,
Parking Leq 1
Vehicle
Circ.1
Loading
Dock2 Truck Circ.2 HVAC2
Car Wash
Dryers2
Car Wash
Vacuums2
Residential – NW 34 37 23 52 40 39 24 53 50 Residential – W 27 25 30 51 42 22 <20 52 50 Residential – SW 34 <20 46 43 40 26 <20 49 50 Residential – SE 40 <20 38 37 41 27 22 45 50 1 Predicted noise levels presented in this memorandum, which include revised predictions (parking) and new predictions (on-site vehicle circulation). 2 Predicted noise levels presented in the 2024 BAC Noise Study (loading dock, on-site truck circulation, HVAC, car wash dryers, vacuums). 3 Calculated cumulative noise levels from the 2024 BAC Noise Study and impact discussions contained in this memorandum.

Red = exceedance of noise standard
Source: BAC 2024
Table 11
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Daytime Maximum (Lmax) Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Lmax (dB)
Highest
Predicted,
Lmax (dB)3
GP
Daytime
Standard,
Lmax
Applied MC
Daytime
Standard,
Parking Lmax 1
Vehicle
Circ.1
Loading
Dock2 Truck Circ.2 HVAC2
Car Wash
Dryers2
Car Wash
Vacuums2
Residential – NW 47 47 35 73 -- -- -- 73 70 70 Residential – W 44 35 42 73 -- -- -- 73 70 70 Residential – SW 47 <20 58 64 -- -- -- 64 70 70 Residential – SE 55 25 50 58 -- -- -- 58 70 70 1 Predicted noise levels presented in this memorandum, which include revised predictions (parking) and new predictions (on-site vehicle circulation). 2 Predicted noise levels presented in the 2024 BAC Noise Study (loading dock, on-site truck circulation, HVAC, car wash dryers, vacuums). 3 Highest predicted noise levels from the 2024 BAC Noise Study and impact discussions contained in this memorandum.

Red = exceedance of noise standard
Source: BAC 2024
648
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024 Page 11
Table 12
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Daytime Median (L50) Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, L50 (dB)
Calculated
Cumulative,
L50 (dB)3
Applied MC
Daytime
Standard,
Parking L50 1
Vehicle
Circ.1
Loading
Dock2 Truck Circ.2 HVAC2
Car Wash
Dryers2
Car Wash
Vacuums2
Residential – NW 29 32 <20 47 40 39 24 49 50 Residential – W 22 20 25 46 42 22 <20 48 50 Residential – SW 29 <20 41 38 40 26 <20 45 50 Residential – SE 35 <20 33 32 41 27 22 43 50 1 Predicted noise levels presented in this memorandum, which include revised predictions (parking) and new predictions (on-site vehicle circulation). 2 Predicted noise levels presented in the 2024 BAC Noise Study (loading dock, on-site truck circulation, HVAC, car wash dryers, vacuums). 3 Calculated cumulative noise levels from the 2024 BAC Noise Study and impact discussions contained in this memorandum.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 13
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Nighttime Hourly Average (Leq) Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Leq (dB)
Calculated
Cumulative,
Leq (dB)3
GP
Nighttime Standard,
Parking Leq 1
Vehicle
Circ.1
Loading
Dock2 Truck Circ.2 HVAC2
Car Wash
Dryers2
Car Wash
Vacuums2
Residential – NW 31 35 23 52 40 39 24 53 45 Residential – W 24 23 30 51 42 22 <20 52 45 Residential – SW 31 <20 46 43 40 26 <20 49 45 Residential – SE 37 <20 38 37 41 27 22 45 45 1 Predicted noise levels presented in this memorandum, which include revised predictions (parking) and new predictions (on-site vehicle circulation). 2 Predicted noise levels presented in the 2024 BAC Noise Study (loading dock, on-site truck circulation, HVAC, car wash dryers, vacuums). 3 Calculated cumulative noise levels from the 2024 BAC Noise Study and impact discussions contained in this memorandum.

Red = exceedance of noise standard
Source: BAC 2024
649
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024 Page 12
Table 14
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Nighttime Maximum (Lmax) Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Lmax (dB)
Highest
Predicted,
Lmax (dB)3
GP
Nighttime Standard,
Lmax
Applied MC
Nighttime Standard,
Parking Lmax 1
Vehicle
Circ.1
Loading
Dock2
Truck
Circ.2 HVAC2
Car Wash
Dryers2
Car Wash
Vacuums2
Residential – NW 47 47 35 73 -- -- -- 73 65 65 Residential – W 44 35 42 73 -- -- -- 73 65 65 Residential – SW 47 <20 58 64 -- -- -- 64 65 65 Residential – SE 55 25 50 58 -- -- -- 58 65 65 1 Predicted noise levels presented in this memorandum, which include revised predictions (parking) and new predictions (on-site vehicle circulation). 2 Predicted noise levels presented in the 2024 BAC Noise Study (loading dock, on-site truck circulation, HVAC, car wash dryers, vacuums). 3 Highest predicted noise levels from the 2024 BAC Noise Study and impact discussions contained in this memorandum.

Red = exceedance of noise standard
Source: BAC 2024
Table 15
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Nighttime Median (L50) Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, L50 (dB)
Calculated
Cumulative,
L50 (dB)3
Applied MC
Nighttime Standard,
Parking L50 1
Vehicle
Circ.1
Loading
Dock2
Truck
Circ.2 HVAC2
Car Wash
Dryers2
Car Wash
Vacuums2
Residential – NW 26 30 <20 47 40 39 24 49 45 Residential – W <20 <20 25 46 42 22 <20 48 47 Residential – SW 26 <20 41 38 40 26 <20 45 47 Residential – SE 32 <20 33 32 41 27 22 43 45 1 Predicted noise levels presented in this memorandum, which include revised predictions (parking) and new predictions (on-site vehicle circulation). 2 Predicted noise levels presented in the 2024 BAC Noise Study (loading dock, on-site truck circulation, HVAC, car wash dryers, vacuums). 3 Calculated cumulative noise levels from the 2024 BAC Noise Study and impact discussions contained in this memorandum.

Red = exceedance of noise standard
Source: BAC 2024
650

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) | P.O. Box 7968, Auburn, CA 95604 | P: 530-537-2328 | bacnoise.com As indicated in Tables 10-15, cumulative and highest predicted noise levels from on-site operations are calculated to exceed the Visalia General Plan daytime and nighttime hourly average (Leq) and maximum (Lmax) noise level standards at a portion of the nearest residential uses. Further, cumulative and highest predicted noise levels from on-site operations are also calculated to exceed a portion of the applied Visalia Municipal Code nighttime median (L50) and maximum (Lmax) exterior noise level limits at the nearest residential uses.

Standard residential construction (e.g., stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weatherstripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof) typically results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open. However, the nearest existing residences appear to be manufactured homes with alternative siding/construction types (e.g., wood) which could potentially have a lesser degree of exterior to interior noise level reduction than stucco siding. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 20 dB. After consideration of an exterior to interior noise level reduction of 20 dB, and based on the predicted exterior property line noise levels presented in Tables 10-15, cumulative and highest predicted project on-site operations noise levels are expected to satisfy the strictest Visalia Municipal Code interior noise level criteria within the nearest existing residences.

Using the average measured hourly daytime and nighttime noise levels at each monitoring location during the BAC ambient noise survey shown in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study, and the calculated cumulative/highest predicted noise levels presented in Tables 10-15 of this memorandum, ambient plus combined (and highest predicted) project on-site operations noise level increases were calculated at the nearby residential uses. The results of those calculations are provided in Tables 16-21.

Table 16
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Daytime Leq Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Leq1
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, Leq2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Leq3
Daytime Noise Level
Increase, Leq (dB)4
Res – NW 53 53 55.9 3.2
Res – W 52 52 55.1 2.8
Res – SW 52 49 53.9 1.6
Res – SE 51 45 52.3 1.0
1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels presented in Table 10 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus cumulative project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
651
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 14 ends

Table 17
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Daytime Lmax Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Lmax1
Highest Predicted
Noise Level, Lmax2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Lmax3
Daytime Noise Level
Increase, Lmax (dB)4
Res – NW 67 73 74.1 6.7
Res – W 69 73 74.1 5.1
Res – SW 69 64 70.2 1.2
Res – SE 69 58 69.0 0.4
1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Highest predicted on-site operations noise levels presented in Table 11 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus highest predicted project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and highest project-generated noise level.

Red = exceedance of increase significance threshold of 5 dB Source: BAC 2024
Table 18
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Daytime L50 Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, L501
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, L502
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, L503
Daytime Noise Level
Increase, L50 (dB)4
Res – NW 49 49 52.1 2.8
Res – W 48 48 50.9 2.9
Res – SW 48 45 49.7 1.7
Res – SE 48 43 49.5 1.1
1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels presented in Table 12 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus cumulative project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 19
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Nighttime Leq Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Leq1
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, Leq2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Leq3
Nighttime Noise Level
Increase, Leq (dB)4
Res – NW 47 53 54.1 6.7
Res – W 51 52 54.3 3.6
Res – SW 51 49 52.8 2.2
Res – SE 49 45 50.6 1.3
1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels presented in Table 13 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus cumulative project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative project-generated noise level.

Red = exceedance of increase significance threshold of 5 dB Source: BAC 2024
652
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 15 ends

Table 20
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Nighttime Lmax Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Lmax1
Highest Predicted
Noise Level, Lmax2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Lmax3
Nighttime Noise Level
Increase, Lmax (dB)4
Res – NW 60 73 73.2 12.9
Res – W 64 73 73.1 9.4
Res – SW 64 64 67.0 3.3
Res – SE 63 58 64.5 1.2
1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Highest predicted on-site operations noise levels presented in Table 14 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus highest predicted project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and highest project-generated noise level.

Red = exceedance of increase significance threshold of 5 dB Source: BAC 2024
Table 21
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Nighttime L50 Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, L501
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, L502
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, L503
Nighttime Noise Level
Increase, L50 (dB)4
Res – NW 44 49 50.2 5.8
Res – W 48 48 50.7 3.0
Res – SW 48 45 49.5 1.8
Res – SE 46 43 47.4 1.8
1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels presented in Table 15 of this memorandum. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus cumulative project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative project-generated noise level.

Red = exceedance of increase significance threshold of 5 dB Source: BAC 2024
As shown in Tables 16-21, calculated increases in ambient noise levels would exceed the applied increase significance criterion of 5 dB at a portion of the closest residential uses.

Because cumulative/highest predicted project on-site operations noise exposure is predicted to exceed Visalia General Plan and applied Visalia Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise level criteria at a portion of the nearby existing residential uses, and because daytime and nighttime increases in ambient noise levels associated with those operations are also calculated to exceed the applied increase significance criterion at a portion of those uses, this impact is identified as potentially significant.
653
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 16 ends

Mitigation Measures:

To comply with Visalia General Plan and applied Visalia Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise level criteria at nearby residential uses, and reduce project-generated increases in ambient daytime and nighttime noise levels to below the applied increase significance criterion at those uses, the following three (3) specific noise mitigation measures would be required of the project:

MM A: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 (MM 1) as outlined in the 2024 BAC Noise Study. Specifically, all project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

MM B: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2A (MM 2A) as outlined in the 2024 BAC Noise Study. Specifically, the height of the existing masonry wall along the western project property boundary shall be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. The location of the required 8-foot-tall masonry wall is illustrated in Figure 4 of the BAC Noise Study, and in Attachment B of this memorandum. It should be noted that Section 17.36.050 of the Visalia Municipal Code limits the height of commercial walls to 7-feet-in-height when located in a rear yard. As a result, the project applicant would be required to file for an Administrative Adjustment. As an alternative, an 8-foot-tall masonry wall may be constructed adjacent to the existing wall (i.e., off the property line).

MM C: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2B (MM 2B) as outlined in the 2024 BAC Noise Study. Specifically, all on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

Tables 22-27 of this memorandum show calculated cumulative (and highest predicted) on-site operations noise levels resulting from implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined above. Tables 28-33 data show the calculated cumulative/highest predicted on-site operations increases in ambient noise levels at the nearby residential uses resulting from implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined above.
654
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) | P.O. Box 7968, Auburn, CA 95604 | P: 530-537-2328 | bacnoise.com Table 22
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Daytime Hourly Average (Leq) – Mitigated Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Leq (dB) Calculated
Cumulative,
Leq (dB)1
GP Daytime
Standard,
Parking Leq
Vehicle
Circ.

Loading
Dock Truck Circ. HVAC
Car Wash
Dryers
Car Wash
Vacuums
Residential – NW 33 35 22 50 39 38 23 50 50 Residential – W 26 24 29 49 41 21 <20 50 50 Residential – SW 33 <20 45 41 39 25 <20 48 50 Residential – SE 39 <20 38 37 40 26 21 45 50 1 Calculated cumulative noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined in this memorandum.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 23
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Daytime Maximum (Lmax) – Mitigated Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Lmax (dB)
Highest
Predicted,
Lmax (dB)1
GP
Daytime
Standard,
Lmax
Applied MC
Daytime
Standard,
Parking Lmax
Vehicle
Circ.

Loading
Dock Truck Circ. HVAC
Car Wash
Dryers
Car Wash
Vacuums
Residential – NW 46 45 34 70 -- -- -- 70 70 70 Residential – W 43 34 41 70 -- -- -- 70 70 70 Residential – SW 46 <20 57 62 -- -- -- 62 70 70 Residential – SE 54 24 50 58 -- -- -- 58 70 70 1 Highest predicted noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined in this memorandum.

Source: BAC 2024
655
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024 Page 18
Table 24
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Daytime Median (L50) – Mitigated Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, L50 (dB)
Calculated
Cumulative,
L50 (dB)1
Applied MC
Daytime
Standard,
Parking L50
Vehicle
Circ.

Loading
Dock Truck Circ. HVAC
Car Wash
Dryers
Car Wash
Vacuums
Residential – NW 28 30 <20 45 39 38 23 47 50 Residential – W 21 <20 24 44 41 21 <20 46 50 Residential – SW 28 <20 40 36 39 25 <20 44 50 Residential – SE 34 <20 33 32 40 26 21 42 50 1 Calculated cumulative noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined in this memorandum.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 25
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Nighttime Hourly Average (Leq) – Mitigated Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Leq (dB)
Calculated
Cumulative,
Leq (dB)1
GP
Nighttime Standard,
Parking Leq
Vehicle
Circ.

Loading
Dock Truck Circ. HVAC
Car Wash
Dryers
Car Wash
Vacuums
Residential – NW 30 33 -- -- 39 38 23 43 45 Residential – W 23 22 -- -- 41 21 <20 41 45 Residential – SW 30 <20 -- -- 39 25 <20 40 45 Residential – SE 36 <20 -- -- 40 26 21 42 45 1 Calculated cumulative noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined in this memorandum.

Source: BAC 2024
656
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024 Page 19
Table 26
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Nighttime Maximum (Lmax) – Mitigated Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, Lmax (dB)
Highest
Predicted,
Lmax (dB)1
GP
Nighttime Standard,
Lmax
Applied MC
Nighttime Standard,
Parking Lmax
Vehicle
Circ.

Loading
Dock Truck Circ. HVAC
Car Wash
Dryers
Car Wash
Vacuums
Residential – NW 46 45 -- -- -- -- -- 46 65 65 Residential – W 43 34 -- -- -- -- -- 43 65 65 Residential – SW 46 <20 -- -- -- -- -- 46 65 65 Residential – SE 54 24 -- -- -- -- -- 54 65 65 1 Highest predicted noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined in this memorandum.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 27
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Noise Levels – Nighttime Median (L50) – Mitigated Receiver
Predicted Noise Levels, L50 (dB)
Calculated
Cumulative,
L50 (dB)1
Applied MC
Nighttime Standard,
Parking L50
Vehicle
Circ.

Loading
Dock Truck Circ. HVAC
Car Wash
Dryers
Car Wash
Vacuums
Residential – NW 25 28 -- -- 39 38 23 42 45 Residential – W <20 <20 -- -- 41 21 <20 41 47 Residential – SW 25 <20 -- -- 39 25 <20 39 47 Residential – SE 31 <20 -- -- 40 26 21 41 45 1 Calculated cumulative noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C as outlined in this memorandum.

Source: BAC 2024
657

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) | P.O. Box 7968, Auburn, CA 95604 | P: 530-537-2328 | bacnoise.com Table 28
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Daytime Leq – Mitigated Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Leq1
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, Leq2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Leq3
Daytime Noise Level
Increase, Leq (dB)4
Res – NW 53 50 54.7 2.0
Res – W 52 50 54.3 2.0
Res – SW 52 48 53.6 1.3
Res – SE 51 45 52.2 0.9
1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 29
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Daytime Lmax – Mitigated Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Lmax1
Highest Predicted
Noise Level, Lmax2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Lmax3
Daytime Noise Level
Increase, Lmax (dB)4
Res – NW 67 70 71.9 4.5
Res – W 69 70 72.5 3.5
Res – SW 69 62 69.8 0.8
Res – SE 69 58 69.0 0.4
1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Highest predicted on-site operations noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus highest predicted mitigated project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and highest mitigated project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 30
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Daytime L50 – Mitigated Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, L501
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, L502
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, L503
Daytime Noise Level
Increase, L50 (dB)4
Res – NW 49 47 51.4 2.1
Res – W 48 46 50.1 2.1
Res – SW 48 44 49.4 1.4
Res – SE 48 42 49.3 1.0
1 Average measured daytime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of daytime ambient noise level plus cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient daytime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
658
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 21 ends

Table 31
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Nighttime Leq – Mitigated Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Leq1
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, Leq2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Leq3
Nighttime Noise Level
Increase, Leq (dB)4
Res – NW 47 43 48.6 1.3
Res – W 51 41 51.1 0.5
Res – SW 51 40 51.0 0.3
Res – SE 49 42 50.0 0.7
1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 32
Highest Predicted On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Nighttime Lmax – Mitigated Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, Lmax1
Highest Predicted
Noise Level, Lmax2
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, Lmax3
Nighttime Noise Level
Increase, Lmax (dB)4
Res – NW 60 46 60.5 0.2
Res – W 64 43 63.7 <0.1
Res – SW 64 46 63.7 0.1
Res – SE 63 54 63.8 0.5
1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Highest predicted on-site operations noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus highest predicted mitigated project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and highest mitigated project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
Table 33
Calculated Cumulative On-Site Operations Ambient Increases – Nighttime L50 – Mitigated Receiver
Measured Ambient
Noise Level, L501
Calculated Cumulative
Noise Level, L502
Ambient Plus Project
Noise Level, L503
Nighttime Noise Level
Increase, L50 (dB)4
Res – NW 44 42 46.4 2.0
Res – W 48 41 48.5 0.9
Res – SW 48 39 48.3 0.6
Res – SE 46 41 46.9 1.2
1 Average measured nighttime ambient noise levels assigned to receiver presented in Table 1 of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. 2 Calculated cumulative on-site operations noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures A, B and C. 3 Calculated logarithmic sum of nighttime ambient noise level plus cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level. 4 Calculated increase in ambient nighttime noise level at each receiver location. Calculated increase is the result of the logarithmic addition of measured ambient noise level and cumulative mitigated project-generated noise level.

Source: BAC 2024
659
D. Finnegan
November 19, 2024

Page 22 ends

The mitigated noise levels presented in Tables 22-27 show compliance with Visalia General Plan and applied Visalia Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise level criteria at nearby residential uses. As shown in Tables 28-33, the calculated mitigated increases in ambient noise levels at the nearby residential uses would satisfy the applied increase significance criterion of 5 dB.

Significance of Impact with Implementation of MM A-C: Less than Significant Conclusions
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) completed a noise assessment for the SWC W Visalia Parkway & S Mooney Boulevard project in July 2024 (2024 BAC Noise Study). It was brought to attention of BAC in October/November 2024 that revisions were made to the traffic memorandum prepared for the project by Kimley-Horn (Traffic Memorandum for the Proposed Sam’s Fuel Project in the City of Visalia). After a review of the revised Kimely-Horn traffic memorandum, and revised site design included in that document, it was determined by BAC that the changes identified in the documentation would affect the analysis and associated results contained in the parking movements and cumulative project on-site operations noise impact discussions of the 2024 BAC Noise Study. Further, after a review of a traffic circulation diagram contained in the Kimley-Horn traffic memorandum, and based on the proximity to nearby residential uses, it was determined that an additional impact discussion for on-site passenger vehicle noise would be warranted.

Based on the analyses presented in this memorandum, including the results from a re-analysis of project parking movement noise, a new analysis of on-site traffic circulation, and a reanalysis of cumulative (combined) operations noise, project on-site operations noise is predicted to comply with applicable Visalia General Plan and Municipal Code noise level limits and applied ambient increase significance criteria at nearby residential uses provided that the project include the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in this memorandum.

The mitigation measures identified in this memorandum are identical to those identified in the 2024 BAC Noise Study.

Please contact me at (530) 537-2328 or [email protected] if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Dario Gotchet
Principal
660
Legend
0 100 200 Attachment A
Scale (Feet)
Project Boundary
Fueling Station
Existing Solid Wall (Noise Barrier)
On-Site Delivery Truck Circulation Route
Loading Dock Area
SWC W. Visalia Pkwy & S. Mooney Blvd
Visalia, California
Project Preliminary Site Plan
Car Wash
Anchor Tenant
Site drawing dated 10/9/2024
661
Legend
0 100 200 Attachment B
Scale (Feet)
Project Boundary
Fueling Station
Existing Solid Wall (Noise Barrier)
Car Wash
Anchor Tenant
Required 8’ Solid Wall (Noise Barrier)
SWC W. Visalia Pkwy & S. Mooney Blvd
Visalia, California
Mitigation Measure – 8’ Solid Wall
Site drawing dated 10/9/2024
662
663

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
November 19, 2024
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17
Dear Cristobal Carrillo:

JK Consulting Group prepared the following response to comments associated with the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2024-17. The Project includes the development of a gas station with approximately fourteen (14) multi-pump dispensers/fuel canopy along with a kiosk and underground storage tanks. The Project site is located at the southwest corner of Visalia Parkway and Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63). Approximately 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel will be sold annually. To address comments related to the appeal of CUP No. 2024-17, JK Consulting Group provides the following response(s) to comments as noted in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 attached to this letter.

When evaluating a project’s impact to adjacent sensitive receptors, those who are susceptible to adverse health effects from exposure to toxic air contaminants (children, elderly, the ill, schools, libraries, day care centers, nursing homes, retirement homes, health clinics, and hospitals), the first step is to evaluate the project against available screening tools/methodologies. In evaluating the proposed Project, the first step included a comparison of the Project to Table 1, which provides recommendations for siting ‘new sensitive land uses’ within proximity to facilities known to generate toxic air contaminants (TACs). While the Project proposes a facility known to generate TACs to be located adjacent to sensitive land uses, Table 1 may be used as a screening tool to determine if further analysis of the Project is warranted. In this case, the Project is located within 300 feet of sensitive receptors and does not meet the ‘recommendations’ of Table 1 and must provide a site-specific analysis of impacts to sensitive receptors. It should be noted that the ‘recommendations’ in Table 1 are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility.

The next or second step is to perform a Prioritization Analysis consistent with California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within Tulare County, created a prioritization calculator based on CAPCOA guidelines which may be used to evaluate a projects potential impact to sensitive receptors. “Prioritization” results are a conservative health risk representation and the SJVAPCD recommends a more refined analysis be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater.

664
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 2 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
The storage and combustion of fuel at the Project site poses potential health risks associated with Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes, Ethyl Benzene, Hexane, Naphthalene, Propylene (propene) exposure in addition to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). Toxic emissions associated with Project operations were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, TAC emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further analysis is not required/warranted per SJVAPCD guidance since the Prioritization Score is less than 10.

It should be noted that idling vehicles at the gasoline station would generate criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Considering trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook and criteria pollutant emission factors from EMFAC 2017 and 2021 for Light-Heavy Duty vehicles, the gas station would generate emissions as follows:

Pollutant EMFAC 2017 EMFAC 2021
ROG 0.065706 tons/yr 0.065953 tons/yr
CO 0.550752 tons/yr 0.551055 tons/yr
NOx 0.059816 tons/yr 0.059015 tons/yr
CO2 20.452703 tons/yr 20.453493 tons/yr
SOx 0.000200 tons/yr 0.000201 tons/yr
PM10 0.000638 tons/yr 0.000639 tons/yr
PM2.5 0.000610 tons/yr 0.000611 tons/yr
The SJVAPCD has established a significance threshold of 10 tons/year for ROG, 100 tons/year for CO, 10 tons/year for NOx, 27 tons/year for SOx, and 15 tons/year for PM10 and PM2.5. Results show that emissions from idling will not exceed the established SJVAPCD criteria. It should be noted that EMFAC does not include emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 for gasoline vehicles since the PM contribution to ambient air quality from gasoline vehicles is normally negligible. The SJVAPCD has not established a significance threshold for GHG emissions (CO2).

CARB has established a significance threshold of 7,000 MT CO2eq per year. GHG emissions from idling vehicles at the gas station represent 0.3% of the CARB threshold. “Exhibit 1”
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1
Comment noted. Table 1 of the Health Risk Assessment provides ‘recommendations’ for the siting of new sensitive land uses near the source categories (i.e. gasoline dispensing facilities) presented in the table. It should be noted that the ‘recommendations’ are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. Table 1 can be used as a first step in ‘screening out’ development Projects with uses that generate toxic emissions. In 665
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 3 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
this case, the Project does not meet the ‘recommendations’ of Table 1 and must provide a site-specific analysis of impacts to sensitive receptors. The Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project demonstrates a less than significant impact from toxic emissions generated by Project operations.

Toxic emissions associated with Project operations were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further analysis/modeling is not required per SJVAPCD guidance since the Prioritization (Max) Score is less than 10.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-2
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-3
Comment noted. The SJVAPCD only assesses Heavy-Heavy-Duty Truck (HHDT) Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) for risk assessments. The Health Risk Assessment prepared by JK Consulting Group, LLC focused on truck trips to the gas station. The Big Box Retail Store will generate approximately 15 truck trips per day for deliveries. Utilizing the methodology presented in the Health Risk Assessment, toxic emissions associated with Project (including truck trips to the Big Box Retail Store) operations were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.68 for the Project.

Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project (including truck trips to the Big Box Retail Store) will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.68 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further analysis/modeling is not required per SJVAPCD guidance since the Prioritization (Max) Score is less than 10.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-4
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5
Comment noted. The storage and combustion of gasoline at the Project site poses potential health risks associated with Benzene exposure in addition to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). Toxic emissions associated with Project operations were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) 666
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 4 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further analysis/modeling is not required per SJVAPCD guidance since the Prioritization (Max) Score is less than 10.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-6
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-7
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-8
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-9
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-10
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-11
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-12
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-13
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-14
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-15
Comment noted. The 2017 version of the Emission Factor model (EMFAC), developed by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by the ARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources. It should be noted that EMFAC 2017 is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 667
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 5 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
For comparison purposes only, the analysis was evaluated using EMFAC 2021 considering the same methodologies used in the Health Risk Assessment prepared by JK Consulting Group. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.63 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. The prioritization (max) score increases by 0.01 compared to results from the use of EMFAC 2017.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-16
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1. The Prioritization (Max) Score of 8.62 is based upon the 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel that are projected to be sold annually. The Prioritization (Max) Score of 8.62 is not related to the number of pumps at the gas station but is directly related to the fuel throughput of the station.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-17
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-18
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-19
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-20
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-21
Comment noted. The two adjacent mobile home parks are the nearest sensitive receptors to be impacted by the Project. While the Cottonwood Elementary School that is situated 0.4 miles (640 meters) from the site is also considered a sensitive receptor, impacts to the school would also be deemed insignificant.

Considering the information presented in Table 2 and the distance from the Project to the school (640 meters), a Prioritization (Max) Score of 0.095 would be attributed to sensitive receptors at the school as a result of Project operations.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-22
Comment noted. The analysis provided in the Health Risk Assessment is consistent with SJVAPCD methodology and industry standards.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-23
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.
668
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 6 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-24
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-25
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-26
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-27
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-28
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1 and Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-29
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30
Comment noted. Table 1 of the Health Risk Assessment provides ‘recommendations’ for the siting of new sensitive land uses near the source categories presented in the table. It should be noted that the ‘recommendations’ are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1, and would not supersede sitespecific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. The Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project demonstrates a less than significant impact from toxic emissions generated by Project operations.

Toxic emissions associated with Project operations were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, TAC emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, dispersion modeling is not needed since the Prioritization (Max) Score is less than 10.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-31
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-32
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.
669
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 7 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-33
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-34
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-35
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-36
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-37
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-38
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1. The Prioritization (Max) Score of 8.62 is based upon the 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel that are projected to be sold annually. The Prioritization (Max) Score of 8.62 is not related to the number of pumps at the gas station but is directly related to the fuel throughput of the station.

The length of truck idling at the Project site is consistent with SJVAPCD regulations.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-39
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-40
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-41
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-42
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-43
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.
670
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 8 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-44
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-45
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-46
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-47
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-48
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-49
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-50
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-51
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-52
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-53
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-54
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-55
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.
671
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 9 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-56
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-57
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-58
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-59
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-60
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-61
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-62
Comment noted. The storage and combustion of gasoline at the Project site poses potential health risks associated with Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes, Ethyl Benzene, Hexane, Naphthalene, Propylene (propene) exposure in addition to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as shown in Appendix C of the Health Risk Assessment. Toxic emissions associated with Project operations were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further analysis/modeling is not required per SJVAPCD guidance since the Prioritization (Max) Score is less than 10.

Idling vehicles at the gasoline station would generate criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Considering trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook and criteria pollutant emission factors from EMFAC 2017 and 2021 for Light-Heavy Duty vehicles, the gas station would generate emissions as follows:
672
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 10 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Pollutant EMFAC 2017 EMFAC 2021
ROG 0.065706 tons/yr 0.065953 tons/yr
CO 0.550752 tons/yr 0.551055 tons/yr
NOx 0.059816 tons/yr 0.059015 tons/yr
CO2 20.452703 tons/yr 20.453493 tons/yr
SOx 0.000200 tons/yr 0.000201 tons/yr
PM10 0.000638 tons/yr 0.000639 tons/yr
PM2.5 0.000610 tons/yr 0.000611 tons/yr
The SJVAPCD has established a significance threshold of 10 tons/year for ROG, 100 tons/year for CO, 10 tons/year for NOx, 27 tons/year for SOx, and 15 tons/year for PM10 and PM2.5. Results show that emissions from idling will not exceed the established SJVAPCD criteria. It should be noted that EMFAC does not include emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 for gasoline vehicles since the PM contribution to ambient air quality from gasoline vehicles is normally negligible. The SJVAPCD has not established a significance threshold for GHG emissions (CO2).

CARB has established a significance threshold of 7,000 MT CO2eq per year. GHG emissions from idling vehicles at the gas station represent 0.3% of the CARB threshold.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-63
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-64
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-65
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-66
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-67
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-68
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-69
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.
673
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 11 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-70
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-71
Comment noted. The Prioritization (Max) Score of 8.62 is based upon the 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel that are projected to be sold annually. The Prioritization (Max) Score of 8.62 is not related to the number of pumps at the gas station but is directly related to the fuel throughput of the station.

The length of truck idling at the Project site is consistent with SJVAPCD regulations.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-72
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-73
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-74
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-75
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-76
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-77
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-78
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-79
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.
674
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 12 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-80
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-81
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-82
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-83
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-84
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-85
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-86
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-87
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-88
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-89
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-90
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-91
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements. 675
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 13 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-92
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-93
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-94
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-95
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-96
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-97
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-98
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-99
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5, Exhibit 1/Comment-30 and Exhibit 1/Comment71.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-100
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-101
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-102
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-103
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements. 676
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 14 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-104
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-105
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-106
Comment noted. The Health Risk Assessment identifies residences surrounding the Project as sensitive receptors.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107
Comment noted. Table 1 of the Health Risk Assessment provides ‘recommendations’ for the siting of new sensitive land uses near the source categories presented in the table. It is agreed that the information presented in Table 1 can also be used as ‘guidance’ on siting new facilities, such as gas stations, near sensitive receptors. It should be noted that the ‘recommendations’ are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. The Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project demonstrates a less than significant impact from toxic emissions generated by Project operations.

Toxic emissions associated with Project operations were used as inputs to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, TAC emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, dispersion modeling is not needed since the Prioritization (Max) Score is less than 10.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-108
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-109
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-110
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-111
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.
677
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 15 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-112
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-113
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-114
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-115
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-107.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-116
Comment noted. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ‘ALL’ sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project as determined by SJVAPCD methodology. The score is not based upon a 328-foot distance, but all sensitive receptors that fall between 0 and 328-feet.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-117
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-116.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-118
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-116.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-119
Comment noted. The comment raised is not within the scope of the HRA Study per guidelines established by the SJVAPCD.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-120
Comment noted. The comment raised is not within the scope of the HRA Study per guidelines established by the SJVAPCD.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-121
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-122
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements. 678
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 16 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-123
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-124
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-125
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-126
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-1 and Exhibit 1/Comment-5.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-127
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-128
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-129
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-130
Comment noted. The comment raised is not within the scope of the HRA Study per guidelines established by the SJVAPCD.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-131
Comment noted. The comment raised is not within the scope of the HRA Study per guidelines established by the SJVAPCD.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-132
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-133
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-134
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-5 and Exhibit 1/Comment-30. 679
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 17 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-135
Comment noted. Table 1 of the Health Risk Assessment provides ‘recommendations’ for the siting of new sensitive land uses near the source categories (i.e. gasoline dispensing facilities) presented in the table. It should be noted that the ‘recommendations’ are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. The Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project demonstrates a less than significant impact from toxic emissions generated by Project operations.

Toxic emissions associated with Project operations were used as inputs to the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator which generated a prioritization score of 8.62 for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a prioritization (max) score of 8.62 for ALL sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (0 to 328 feet) of the Project. Based upon SJVAPCD guidance, TAC emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, dispersion modeling is not needed since the Prioritization (Max) Score is less than 10.

Response to Exhibit 1/Comment-136
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements. “Exhibit 2”
Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-1
Comment noted. The comment raised is not within the scope of the HRA Study per guidelines established by the SJVAPCD.

Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-2
Comment noted. The Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project demonstrates a less than significant impact from toxic emissions generated by Project operations.

Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-3
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements. 680
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
November 19, 2024

Page 18 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-4
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-5
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-6
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-2
Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-7
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-2
Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-8
Comment noted. As noted in the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015, there are various tools that can be used to screen toxic sources impacting sensitive receptors.

The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects (July 2009) references Table 1 (RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES SUCH AS RESIDENCES, SCHOOLS, DAYCARE CENTERS, PLAYGROUNDS, OR MEDICAL FACILITIES) of the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project as one of several screening tools. The July 2009 guidance document goes on to indicate that if a screening risk assessment shows that risk is a concern, a more refined analysis may be prepared to provide more accurate information for decision makers.

Screening assessments use more conservative assumptions and thus gives higher risk than refined assessments.

Table 1 of the Health Risk Assessment provides ‘recommendations’ for the siting of new sensitive land uses near the source categories (i.e. gasoline dispensing facilities) presented in the table. It should be noted that the ‘recommendations’ are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. Table 1 can be used as a first step in ‘screening out’ development Projects with uses that generate toxic emissions. In this case, the Project does not meet the ‘recommendations’ of Table 1 and must provide a site-specific analysis of impacts to sensitive receptors. The Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project demonstrates a less than significant impact from toxic emissions generated by Project operations.

Page 19 of 19 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-9
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-8
Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-10
Comment noted. The comment raised is not within the scope of the HRA Study per guidelines established by the SJVAPCD.

Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-11
Comment noted. The comment raised is not within the scope of the HRA Study per guidelines established by the SJVAPCD.

Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-12
Comment noted. The Project complies with local and state requirements.

Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-13
Comment noted. See Response to Exhibit 2/Comment-8.

Should you have any further questions or comments, please contact me by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jason Ellard, Principal
JK Consulting Group, LLC
Attachment
682
EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3
733
734
735
736
737
EVCA
EVCA

EVCA CA CA

EVCA CAEV

CA CAEV

CA CA TRASH RECYCLE GREASE TANK

EVCS STATION
(VAN ACCESSIBLE) EVCSSTATION
EVCS

STATION
EVCS

STATION DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

DO NOT ENTER

STOP STOP EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT

PROPOSED SAM'S CLUB

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN NORTH

PROPOSED RETAIL BUILDING
738
City of Visalia
To: Planning Commission
From: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
Ph: (559-713-4443)
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: October 14, 2024
Re: Approval of Revised Resolution and Exhibits for the September 23, 2024, Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 10:

Background:

At the September 23, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved Agenda Item No. 10, a conditional use permit request to establish a service station and carwash within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center. As part of the motion to approve the item, the Planning Commission requested that revisions be made to the site plan (i.e., shifting the service station further to the east) and that modifications be made to the resolution clarifying or adding requirements, as listed below.

The Planning Commission requested that the revised resolution and exhibits be added to the Consent Calendar for consideration at its next regular meeting on October 14, 2024.

Revised Resolution
Per the request of the Planning Commission, Resolution No. 2024-48 has been revised to clarify City requirements, or to add additional conditions requested by the Commission.

The modified conditions are listed below in italics. Additions to the text are underlined.

Text that has been removed is striked through:
• Modified Condition No. 3 – That the project will be developed in substantial compliance with the revised exhibits reviewed by the Visalia Planning Commission on October 14, 2024, as follows: revised site plan in Exhibit "A", street improvements/cross sections in Exhibit “C”, revised conceptual landscaping plan in Exhibit “D”, conceptual photometric plan and lighting information in Exhibit “E”, revised building elevations in Exhibit “F”, phasing plan in Exhibit “G”, pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Exhibit “I”, revised floor plans in Exhibit “J”, anchor tenant roof plan and revised sight lines exhibit in Exhibit “K”, operational statement in Exhibit “L”, and queuing analysis’ in Exhibit “M”, and fuel truck circulation exhibit in Exhibit “N”. Any subsequent changes to the plans Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17: A request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot commercial building for the sale of general retail merchandise with a fuel dispensing service station and a car wash, within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. The project site is located on the southwest corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).
739
depicted in Exhibits “A”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, “M", and “N” shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan Review Committee and may be subject to an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.

This condition has been modified to reference the revised exhibits provided by the applicant for the October 14, 2024 meeting.
• Modified Condition No. 12 – That the applicant shall install an eight-foot-tall block wall along the southern and western boundary of the project site adjacent to residential zonings. The height of the block wall shall be measured from the adjacent property grade.

The addition of “property” assists in clarifying where the height of required block walls will be measured.
• Modified Condition No. 15 – That monument signage for the proposed service station and car wash shall be developed consistent with Visalia Municipal Code standards for monument signs pertaining to commercial uses, specified in Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.48.110, and with the master sign program established via Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-13.

The addition of a reference to the master sign program for the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center ensures compliance with its requirements and those of the Visalia Municipal Code Sign Ordinance.
• Modified Condition No. 16 – That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024080917) are hereby incorporated as conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, listed below as follows:
a. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.1: All project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). b. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.2: The height of the existing 7-foot-tall masonry wall along the western project property boundary shall be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. The location of the required 8-foot-tall masonry wall is illustrated in Figure 4. It should be noted that Section 17.36.050 of the Visalia Municipal Code limits the height of commercial walls to 7-feet-in-height when located in a rear yard, such as the existing 7-foot-tall wall adjacent to the project site. As a result, the project applicant would be required to file for an Administrative Adjustment to permit the additional 1-foot of wall required for compliance. As an alternative, an 8-foot-tall masonry wall may be constructed adjacent to the existing 7-foot-tall wall (i.e., off the property line). c. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.3: All on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m.). d. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.4: To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction operations:
• All on-site noise-generating construction activities should occur pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050.
740
• All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity. • Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive uses. • Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
• Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

The modification adds the specific mitigation measures required for the project to the resolution.
• Modified Condition No. 18 – All on-site truck deliveries, including trucks delivery fuel, for the big box retail membership club store and associated service station shall be limited to daytime hours only from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Fuel deliveries shall follow the route identified in the fuel truck circulation exhibit in Exhibit “N”.

The modifications strike “daytime” from the language of the condition, to remove confusion over when truck deliveries can occur onsite. Please note that additional language has also been included with this condition, requiring compliance with Exhibit “N” (found under Attachment “D”), a new plan provided by the applicant which delineates fuel truck circulation for the service station.
• Added Condition No. 20 – That evergreen screening trees shall be placed along the entire western boundary of the project site.

The added condition requires the planting of screening trees along the western project site boundary to assist in reducing impacts to neighboring residences.

The revised resolution is included as Attachment “A”.

Revised Exhibits
At the September 23, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission also requested the applicant submit a revised site plan that depicted the service station shifted eastward, to address concerns expressed by the public over the facility’s proximity to existing residential uses west of the project site. The revised site plan is included in Exhibit “A” of Attachment “D”.

In the site plan reviewed at the September 23, 2024 meeting (see Attachment “C”), the fuel dispenser closest to residential uses to the west was set back approximately 99 feet from the shared property boundary. Under the revised site plan, an 80 to 90 foot wide 741
landscape island and approximately 17 foot landscape strip have been placed between the nearest fuel dispenser and western property boundary, creating a fuel dispenser setback of approximately 160 feet from the shared property boundary, and approximately 187 feet from the nearest residence. A revised conceptual landscape plan that has also been provided by the applicant (see Exhibit “E” of Attachment “D”) indicates that screening trees and shrubbery will be planted in the landscape areas, to assist with reducing potential adverse impacts.

The modified site plan was also reviewed on October 9, 2024 by City Traffic Engineering staff, who confirmed that modifications would not significantly affect service station queuing or onsite circulation for traffic and truck deliveries. Lastly, the site plans shows that the trash enclosure previously located at the southwest corner of the project site has been relocated to the southwest corner of the anchor retail store, approximately 79 feet away from the southern property boundary shared with residential uses. Given the above, staff believes that the modified site plan is in conformance with analysis provided in the September 23, 2024 Planning Commission staff report in Attachment “F”.

The applicant has also provided additional revised exhibits for building elevations, monument signage, floor plans, and building sight lines. Of note, the monument signage exhibit depicts a new design for proposed service station monument signage, designed in conformance with Visalia Municipal Code and master sign program requirements.

These revised plans are included as Exhibits “F”, “H”, “J”, and “K” of Attachment “D”.

Health Risk Assessment Addendum
The applicant has provided a brief addendum and revised Health Risk Assessment (HRA), analyzing the effects of the relocated service station to nearby sensitive receptors. The analysis in the materials remains fundamentally unchanged, and concludes that there will still be a “less than significant impact” from the proposed service station on nearby residences.

The materials also clarify that guidelines provided within Table 1 of the HRA (Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such as Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities) are advisory, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. The addendum and revised HRA are provided in Attachment “E” of this memo.

CEQA Notice of Determination
During the public comment portion of the October 7, 2024 meeting of the Visalia City Council, members of the public alleged that the City of Visalia had illegally filed a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 prior to its official approval date.

City staff had in fact filed a NOD for the project on September 26, 2024, under the determination that, while the project would return to the Planning Commission on October 14, 2024 as a consent item, the project had for all intents and purposes been approved on September 23, 2024.

However, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21152(c), it has been determined that the NOD must be filed only when a final approval has been given, following the expiration of any appeal period or the processing of any appeal action. In this instance, the final approval would be considered approval of the Consent Calendar item for the revised resolution and site plan on October 14, 2024. Based on this statute, if the Planning Commission approves the item on 742
October 14, 2024 and no appeal is filed within ten business days, staff will file an amended NOD. Should the item be appealed to the Visalia City Council and approved, then the NOD must be refiled again, as the final approval date would be considered the date of action taken by City Council.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Revised Resolution No. 2024-48 and Exhibits for Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, based upon the findings and conditions in revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-48.

Attachments
• Attachment “A” – Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-48 • Attachment “B” – Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan, April 13, 2020 • Attachment “C” – Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan, September 23, 2024 • Attachment “D” – Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan Exhibits, October 14, 2024 o Exhibit "A" – Revised Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan o Exhibit “B” – Original Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan o Exhibit “C” – Street Improvements / Cross Sections
o Exhibit “D” – Revised Conceptual Landscaping Plan
o Exhibit “E” – Conceptual Photometric Plan and Lighting Information o Exhibit “F” – Revised Building Elevations
o Exhibit “G” – Phasing Plan
o Exhibit “H” – Revised Proposed Master Sign Program Modifications o Exhibit “I” – Pedestrian Connectivity Exhibit
o Exhibit “J” – Revised Floor Plans
o Exhibit “K” – Anchor Tenant Roof Plan and Revised Sight Lines Exhibit o Exhibit “L” – Operational Statement
o Exhibit “M” – Queuing Analysis’ (Service Station, Carwash, Fast Food Restaurant) o Exhibit “N” – Fuel Truck Circulation Exhibit
• Attachment “E” – Revised Gas Station Health Risk Assessment and Addendum, JK Consulting Group, LLC, October 9 & 10, 2024
• Attachment “F” – Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 Planning Commission Staff Report, September 23, 2024
743
Revised Resolution No. 2024-48
REVISED RESOLUTION NO. 2024-48

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2024-17, A REQUEST BY DEREK

FINNEGAN / LARS ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-31, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 172,000 SQUARE FOOT

COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL RETAIL MERCHANDISE

WITH A FUEL DISPENSING SERVICE STATION AND A CAR WASH, WITHIN THE

COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED IN THE C-R (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD AND WEST VISALIA PARKWAY (APNS: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).

WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 is a request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot commercial building for the sale of general retail merchandise with a fuel dispensing service station and a car wash, within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone.

The project site is located on the southwest corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014); and WHEREAS, after published notice, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 23, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia found the Conditional Use Permit to be in accordance with Chapter 17.38.110 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission tentatively approved the project by a vote of 4-0 (Commissioner Tavarez absent), but requested that staff submit a modified resolution incorporating revisions requested by the Commission, and that the applicant submit a revised site plan relocating the proposed service station further eastward, and that the revised resolution and site plan exhibit be considered as a Consent Calendar item at the next regular meeting of the Commission, on October 14, 2024; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2024 the Planning Commission reviewed revised Resolution No. 2024-48 and the revised site plan exhibit as a Consent Calendar item; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Conditional Use Permit to be in accordance with Chapter 17.38.110 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
744
Revised Resolution No. 2024-48
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse 2024080917) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, which was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:

1. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
a. The proposed location of the conditional use permit is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The proposed retail building and fast-food restaurant meeting all drive-thru performance standards are permitted uses “by right” within the CR Zone. Ancillary uses conducted within the general retail store, such as the sale of merchandise, groceries, tire sales & service (excluding major repairs), optical exams and sales, hearing aid testing and sales, fast food, specialty food (i.e. butcher), alcohol sales, and propane sales are all permitted as standalone or incidental uses in this zone. The service station and carwash uses are also permitted through approval of a CUP. All proposed uses identified in the site plan exhibit will be situated within an established shopping center and will be compatible with the surrounding commercial areas to the north and east which contain either fully developed and/or developing shopping centers (Packwood Shopping Center to the north, Oaks Marketplace to the east). Furthermore, the General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”. The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation.
b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”. The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation. The project is conditioned properly to ensure that all impacts have been properly mitigated.

3. That an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant 745
Revised Resolution No. 2024-48
with mitigation, and therefore Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024080917) can be adopted for this project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit on the real property here described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Section 17.38.110 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the project shall comply with all conditions of approval and mitigation measures required by Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-13, except as modified or superseded by conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures listed below.

2. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with Site Plan Review No. 2023-202.

3. That the project will be developed in substantial compliance with the revised exhibits reviewed by the Visalia Planning Commission on October 14, 2024, as follows: revised site plan in Exhibit "A", street improvements/cross sections in Exhibit “C”, revised conceptual landscaping plan in Exhibit “D”, conceptual photometric plan and lighting information in Exhibit “E”, revised building elevations in Exhibit “F”, phasing plan in Exhibit “G”, pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Exhibit “I”, revised floor plans in Exhibit “J”, anchor tenant roof plan and revised sight lines exhibit in Exhibit “K”, operational statement in Exhibit “L”, queuing analysis’ in Exhibit “M”, and fuel truck circulation exhibit in Exhibit “N”. Any subsequent changes to the plans depicted in Exhibits “A”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, “M", and “N” shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan Review Committee and may be subject to an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.

4. That the project will be developed in substantial compliance with the revised monument signage and master sign program modifications in Exhibit “H”, except as modified by the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17.

5. That solid landscape screening, such as a 3-foot-high solid hedge, or a screening wall shall be installed where parking areas or drive-thru lanes and landscape setbacks meet.

6. That any CC&R’s, shared access, and shared parking agreements applicable to the overall shopping center complex shall be revised to address the inclusion of the proposed facilities, approved by City staff, and recorded with the Tulare County Recorder, prior to issuance of issuance of Building Permits for the proposed uses.

7. That prior to final occupancy of the big box retail store, service station, and carwash facility, the applicant/developer shall verify that the uses do not exceed Community Noise levels as identified in the noise analysis (Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., May 2024 Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024). The applicant/developer shall have their acoustical noise consultant conduct noise measurements for the uses and the measurement shall be submitted and verified by Planning staff for acceptance. Failure to meet the noise requirements as specified in the acoustical analysis shall result in the 746
Revised Resolution No. 2024-48
applicant/developer implementing additional measures as needed to achieve noise level standards for the residences.

8. That prior to final occupancy of any building proposed in Exhibit “A”, the applicant/developer shall verify that the parking lot lighting does not exceed an output of 0.5-foot candles measured at property line, in accordance with the site photometric plan submitted in Exhibit “E”. The applicant/developer shall have their electrical or construction contractor conduct a light measurement to be submitted and verified by Planning staff prior to final occupancy. Failure to meet requirements as specified in the photometric plan shall result in non-operation of the site until light levels are met.

9. Parking lot pole lighting and building wall pack lighting on the building exteriors shall be designed and screened so as to direct light downward and shall not produce glare onto adjacent residential areas to the south and west of the project site.

10.That flat lens fixtures be utilized for the service station under canopy lights to preclude direct light glare beyond the fuel islands.

11.That not more than ten consecutive parking stalls shall be allowed without an approved landscaped tree well of eighty (80) square feet or more. All new parking areas as depicted in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “D” shall be revised to reflect this requirement.

12.That the applicant shall install an eight-foot-tall block wall along the southern and western boundary of the project site adjacent to residential zonings. The height of the block wall shall be measured from the adjacent property grade.

13.That the applicant shall relocate the proposed trash enclosure at the southwest corner of the project site, away from residential uses. The proposed new location of the trash enclosure shall be finalized during Building Permit review.

14.That all buildings shall comply with the building and landscape setbacks for the CR (Regional Commercial) Zone specified in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.18.

15.That monument signage for the proposed service station and car wash shall be developed consistent with Visalia Municipal Code standards for monument signs pertaining to commercial uses, specified in Visalia Municipal Code Section

17.48.110, and with the master sign program established via Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-13.

16.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024080917) are hereby incorporated as conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, listed below as follows:
a. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.1: All project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). b. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.2: The height of the existing 7-foot-tall masonry wall along the western project property boundary shall be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. The location of the required 8-foot-tall masonry 747
Revised Resolution No. 2024-48
wall is illustrated in Figure 4. It should be noted that Section 17.36.050 of the Visalia Municipal Code limits the height of commercial walls to 7-feet-in-height when located in a rear yard, such as the existing 7-foot-tall wall adjacent to the project site. As a result, the project applicant would be required to file for an Administrative Adjustment to permit the additional 1-foot of wall required for compliance. As an alternative, an 8-foot-tall masonry wall may be constructed adjacent to the existing 7-foot-tall wall (i.e., off the property line). c. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.3: All on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m.). d. Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.4: To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction operations:
• All on-site noise-generating construction activities should occur pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050.
• All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity. • Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive uses. • Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
• Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

17.That all of the conditions and responsibilities of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024- 17 shall run with the land and subsequent owners/operators shall also be subject to all of the conditions herein, unless amended or revoked.

18.All on-site truck deliveries, including trucks delivery fuel, for the big box retail membership club store and associated service station shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Fuel deliveries shall follow the route identified in the fuel truck circulation exhibit in Exhibit “N”.

19.That the applicant and all successors in interest shall comply with all applicable federal, state and city codes and ordinances.

20.That evergreen screening trees shall be placed along the entire western boundary of the project site.
748
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 1.10.2020 SHEET 2 OF 21 SITE PLAN 749

S S D D D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE
CA
EV
CA
EV
CA
EV

CA CA CA

EV CAEV
IW IW

CA CAEV

CA CA S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S S S D D D BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE

35.5' DIRECTION OF TRAVEL CUSTOMER SIDE REAR SIDE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL CUSTOMER SIDE REAR SIDE CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 815 PARKING STALLS 379' CAR STACKING 327' CAR STACKING 155' TO ORDER POINT 22 15 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 TRASH RECYCLE GREASE TANK EVCS STAION(VAN ACCESIBLE) EVCS STAION NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS
STAION
EVCS
STAION
EVCS
STAION
EVCS
STAION 1 2 3 4 5 8761211109 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 1098765 11 12 13 14 15 16 213 19 20212423 22 4 7 10 15 16 5 8 11 14 17 6 9 12 13 18 19

DO NOT ENTER
STOP STOP S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 2 OF 23 SITE PLAN 0 NORTH 80 120 40 20 160 SCALE: 1"=40'-0" ANCHOR TENANT LAND AREA SUMMARY 18.79 AC CAR WASH 1.24 AC FAST FOOD 2.15 AC RESTAURANT 1 1.53 AC RESTAURANT 2 0.76 AC DRIVE-THRU 0.85 AC AUTOMOTIVE 1.40 AC TOTAL LAND AREA 26.72 AC EVCA LEGEND LANDSCAPE SETBACK EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED PROPERTY TRANSFORMER LONG TERM BIKE RACK SHORT TERM BIKE RACK ELECTRIC VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL ACCESSIBLE STALL 750
Attachment “D”
Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan Exhibits
October 14, 2024
751
CA

EV CAEV CA

EV CA CA CA

EV CAEV

CA CAEV

CA CA TRASH RECYCLE TANK GREASE

EVCS STATION
(VAN ACCESSIBLE) EVCSSTATION
EVCS

STATION
EVCS

STATION DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

DO NOT ENTER

STOP STOP EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

PROPOSED SAM'S CLUB NORTH

PROPOSED RETAIL BUILDING
752
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 1.10.2020 SHEET 2 OF 21 SITE PLAN 753
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE STOP
S DANS ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE STOP
S DANS ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D S COUNTY CENTER DR.

WOODLAND ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D S COUNTY CENTER DR.

WOODLAND ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE VISALIA PARKWAY SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 3 OF 23 STREET PLAN S DANS ST.
754

DO NOT ENTERSTOP STOP

EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT CAEV CAEV CAEV CA CA CAEV CA
EV CA
CA

EV CA CA
TRASH

RECYCLE

TANK GREASE

EVCS STATION
(VAN ACCESSIBLE) EVCS STATION EVCS STATION EVCS STATION

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE

CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

VISALIA PKWY S MOONEY BLVD

PROPOSED
168,645 SF

BUILDING

18.79 AC

PROPOSED FUEL CANOPY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING

RESTAURANT

EXISTING

RESTAURANT

EXISTING TIRE
CENTER
SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT HEIGHT/SPREAD CAL. WUCOLS TREES
29 CEDRUS DEODARA / DEODAR CEDAR 24" BOX 8`-10` HT. X 4`-5` SPR. 0.75" CAL. LOW 28 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN - - - -
21 GEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24" BOX 9`-10` HT. X 3`-4` SPR. 0.75" CAL. MODERATE 10 LAGERSTROEMIA X 'NATCHEZ' / CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GAL. 7`-8` HT. X 2`-3` SPR. 0.75" CAL. LOW 40 PINUS ELDARICA / AFGHAN PINE 24" BOX 8`-10` HT. X 4`-5` SPR. 0.75" CAL. LOW 92 PISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX 9`-11` HT. X 4`-5` SPR. 1" CAL. LOW 57 ULMUS PARVIFOLIA / LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX 9`-11` HT. X 4`-5` SPR. 1" CAL. MODERATE SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT. SPACING WUCOLS MATURE SIZE SHRUBS
97 CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GAL. 6` O.C. LOW 186 DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY 5 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW
174 ELYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' / CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE 1 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 163 FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE' / ELIJAH BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 38 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 115 MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS 5 GAL. 4` O.C. LOW 166 OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' / LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 15 GAL. 6` O.C. VERY LOW 88 PYRACANTHA FORTUNEANA / FIRETHORN 15 GAL. 8` O.C. LOW 139 RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA' / BALLERINA INDIAN HAWTHORN 15 GAL. 6` O.C. LOW 54 SALVIA GREGGII / AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW
112 SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' / SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 15 GAL. 6` O.C. LOW 80 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT' / MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL. 6` O.C. LOW 149 XYLOSMA CONGESTUM / SHINY XYLOSMA 15 GAL. 8` O.C. LOW

INERT MATERIAL
21 EQUAL.

PALE SUNSET BOULDER` BY SOUTHWEST BOULDER AND STONE OR APPROVED ROCK BOULDERS / 3` DIAMETER

ROCK AS SHOWN - -
14 EQUAL.

PALE SUNSET BOULDER` BY SOUTHWEST BOULDER AND STONE OR APPROVED ROCK BOULDERS / 4` DIAMETER
ROCK AS SHOWN - - SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT. SPACING WUCOLS

GROUND COVERS
100 BACCHARIS X 'CENTENNIAL' / CENTENNIAL COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL. 6` O.C. LOW 221 LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS / PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA 5 GAL. 8` O.C. LOW 39 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'HUNTINGTON BLUE' / HUNTINGTON BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL. 6` O.C. LOW INERTS
2,163 SF
FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT.

BARRIER FABRIC. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SAMPLE TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DEPTH APACHE SUNSET 3/4" ROCK MULCH OVER COMMERCIAL-GRADE WEED 6" DEPTH MIN. OF INDIAN SUMMER 2"-4" CRUSHED ROCK DIAMETER ROCK WITH 1"

CRUSHED ROCK
- - -

PLANT SCHEDULE

SEPARATE SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY IMPORTED SOIL CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPORT CLEAN, SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL, SUITABLE FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS. A MOUNDS TO BE GRADED SMOOTH USING SITE SOIL IF AVAILABLE. IF SITE SOIL IS NOT AVAILABLE, LANDSCAPE MOUNDS - EACH CONTOUR LINE REPRESENTS A 12" RISE IN THE GRADE. LANDSCAPE 75,795 SF 3" DEPTH WOOD BARK MULCH
NORTH
VISALIA, CA | SITE PLAN
FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF VISALIA MUNICIPAL CODE.

THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED DESIGN PARAMETERS. ALL IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. ALL POINT SOURCE SYSTEM SHALL BE ADEQUATELY FILTERED AND REGULATED PER

WATER FOR PLANT GROWTH WITH NO WATER LOSS DUE TO WATER CONTROLLERS, AND OTHER NECESSARY DEDICATED IRRIGATION METER WILL BE PROVIDED. LOW VOLUME EQUIPMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE WATER SUPPLY FOR THIS SITE IS A POTABLE WATER CONNECTION AND A AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE 100% COVERAGE FOR ALL PLANTING IRRIGATION NOTE:

PRELIM/ENTITLEMENTS NOTE
RANDALL A. KOPFF JR, LLA 6633
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN.

THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE

EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER
FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF VISALIA MUNICIPAL CODE.

SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GROW IN THEIR NATURAL FORMS. ALL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL TO A 3" DEPTH TO HELP CONSERVE WATER, LOWER SOIL TEMPERATURE, AND REDUCE WEED GROWTH. THE SHIELD THE SOIL FROM THE SUN, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, AND RUN-OFF. ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED SUITABILITY SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE SITE. DECOMPOSED GRANITE SHALL FILL IN BETWEEN SHRUBS TO

FERTILIZERS AND APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTS BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM AN AGRICULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED WITH APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS,

THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS BASED ON CLIMATIC, AESTHETIC, AND MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPE NOTE:

PROPERTY LINE (TYP)

LINE (TYP)

PROPERTY
25' UTILITY EASEMENT

SCG PIPELINE AND CONDUIT EASEMENT

LIMIT OF WORK (TYP)

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
- SEE CIVIL PLANS

PROPERTY LINE (TYP)

STORAGE - SEE CIVIL

PROPOSED BATTERY

PLANS (TYP)
3" DEPTH WOOD
BARK MULCH (TYP.)

LIMIT OF WORK (TYP)

PROPOSED SITE LIGHT -

SEE CIVIL PLANS (TYP)
755
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 4 OF 23 LANDSCAPING PLAN CONCEPTUAL 756
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 9 OF 23 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL 757
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 10 OF 23 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL 758
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 5 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 759
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 6 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 760
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 7 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 761
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 8.16.2024 SHEET 8 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 762

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
TOP
129' - 4"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
BEYOND
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CORNICE - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
BEYOND
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"

BOLLARD SLEEVES - MATCH
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"
EIFS - PAINT SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TOP
TOP
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
130' - 8"
126' - 8"
TOP
128' - 0"

SCREEN WALL
10' TALL PRECAST

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
SW 7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

CANOPY - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW 6959 "BLUE CHIP"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
TYP
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
TYP
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE" (BEYOND)

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
132' - 0"
122' - 0"
TOM
122' - 0"
TOS
126' - 0"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CAP FLASHING - PAINT
130' - 6"
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

METAL TRELLIS - PAINT
TOS

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
BRONZE" (TYP.)
SW #7048 "URBANE
H.M. DOORS
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL

WITH SCREENING SLATS
120" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE

TOP RAILS ON SIDE OF TRUCK WELL
42" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"
H.M. DOOR
SW # 7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TOP

WALL AT TRUCK WELL

PRECAST SCREEN
10' TALL SMOOTH
126' - 8"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL

PANEL SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TYP
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
128' - 0"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TOP

PAINT BLACK

JIB CRANE

WALL AT TRUCK WELL

PRECAST SCREEN
10'-0" TALL SMOOTH

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CAP FLASHING - PAINT
BRONZE"
SW #7048 "URBANE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
127' - 4"
128' - 0"
126' - 8"

PANEL SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TOP
TOP
TOP
128' - 0"
TOP
BRONZE" (TYP.)
SW #7048 "URBANE
H.M. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
BRONZE"
SW #7048 "URBANE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
126' - 8"
TOP
129' - 4"
TOP

WALL AT COMPACTOR

PRECAST SCREEN
10'-0" TALL SMOOTH

SCREENING SLATS

FENCE WITH
120" HIGH CHAIN LINK

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"

BOLLARD SLEEVES - MATCH
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
TYP.

PREFINISHED WHITE
O.H. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

CORNICE - PAINT
TOS

SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TOP
TOP
128' - 0"
127' - 4"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"
EIFS - PAINT 132' - 0"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (BEYOND)

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL -
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE" (BEYOND)

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL -
122' - 0"
TOS
DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Th

EAST FRONT ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 2

SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 3

WEST REAR ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 4

NORTH SIDE ELEVATION
(BEYOND)
(BEYOND) (BEYOND)
10/09/24
763

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE DIGITAL PRICE READER
CLEAR
14'-0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL
(BEYOND)
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU

DIGITAL PRICE READER
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE
09/26/24
VISALIA, CA - Elevations - Fuel Canopy 7
1/8" = 1'-0" 6 1 1

NORTH FRONT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 2

WEST SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 3

EAST SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 4

SOUTH REAR ELEVATION
DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Th
10/01/24
e Building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials, or final design detailing. 10/09/24
764
DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Th

VISALIA, CA -
e Building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials, or final design detailing. 10/01/24
Materials 10
SW 6959 Blue Chip
Sherwin Williams
Paint
SW 7668 March Wind
Sherwin Williams
Paint
SW 7670 Gray Shingle
Sherwin Williams
Paint
SW 7048 Urbane Bronze
Sherwin Williams
Paint
Typical Precast Concrete Texture
Typical Split Face CMU Texture
Typical EIFS Texture
Typical Smooth Face CMU Texture
10/09/24
765
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 15 OF 23 ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL FAST FOOD ELEVATIONS 766
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 16 OF 23 ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL CAR WASH ELEVATIONS 767

S S D D D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE
CA
EV
CA
EV
CA
EV

CA CA CA

EV CAEV
IW

CA CAEV

CA CA S S D Y H D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S S D D D BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL CUSTOMER SIDE REAR SIDE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL CUSTOMER SIDE REAR SIDE CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 815 PARKING STALLS 379' CAR STACKING 327' CAR STACKING 155' TO ORDER POINT 22 15 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 TRASH RECYCLE GREASE TANK EVCS STAION(VAN ACCESIBLE) EVCS STAION NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS STAION EVCS
STAION
EVCS
STAION
EVCS
STAION
EVCS
STAION

DO NOT ENTER
STOP STOP S S D Y H D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 17 OF 23 PHASING PLAN CONCEPTUAL 768
Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup

BAIL OUT

TRASH RECYCLE

GREASE TANK

EVCS STATION(VANACCESSIBLE)
EVCS

STATION

EVCSSTATION

EVCSSTATION
AC
VE
AC
VE
AC
VE

AC AC AC
VE
CA
EV
AC
CA
EV
AC AC
31'

NO PARKING

ESCAPE LANE ESCAPE LANE ESCAPE LANE
DO NOT
ENTER
ON

GNI KRAP

D R EC T O N O F TR AV EL

C U STO M E R SID E

R E AR SID E

D R EC T O N O F TR AV EL

C U STO M E R SID E

R E AR SID E

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

DRIVE THRU

ENTRANCE

D R EC T O N O F TR AV EL
AC
VE
AC AC
VE
D
D
D
D

EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

POTS POTS POTS POTS POTS

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

POTS POTS POTS POTS

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
POTS
TON OD
RETNE

STOP STOP
S
S
D

VISALIA PARKWAY
S. M
O
O
N
E
Y
B
L
V
D
3'-2" 5'-10"

ALUMINUM SKIRT TEXTURED AND

COLORED TO MATCH DEVELOPER
SIGN
MASTER SIGN PLAN REQ'TS"
70 SF MAX. SIGN STRUCTURE

65.25 SF PROPOSED
35 SF MAX. COPY AREA
35 SF PROPOSED
7'-3"
1'-3"
(35 SF. MAX COPY AREA ALLOWED PER MASTER SIGN PROGRAM)
6'-0"

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED

SIGN CABINET
3M BLUE (PANTONE 2384 C)

DIGITAL PRICE SIGN
12'-0" M
AX. A
L
L
O
W
E
D
P
E
R
M
A
S
T
E
R
SIG
N
P
R
O
G
RA
M
9'-0"

VISALIA, CA -
DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The Building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials, or final design detailing. 10/09/24
Site Signage 5
NOT TO SCALE 2

OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SIGN
Approved Multi-Tenant Sign - 50 SF Overall Sign Area, 100 SF Overall Structure (Max. Allowed per Master Sign Program)
Proposed Single Tenant Sign - 35 SF Sign Area, 65.25 SF Overall Structure (Max. Allowed per Master Sign Program - 35 SF Sign Area, 70 SF Overall Structure) 769
770
PAGE 5
JAS

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

LARS ANDERSEN

ROSALYN HOLDERFIELD

LARS ANDERSEN-VISALIA CA-SIGN EXHIBIT
11/12/19
R1 01/20/20 JAS

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’
2X BUILDING FRONTAGE, MAXIMUM 150 SQUARE FEET.

NOT TO EXCEED 80% OF STOREFRONT WIDTH
.063 STAPLED ALUM. RETURN
(PAINTED SATIN WHITE)

TYPICAL CHANNEL LETTER DESIGN
1” JEWELITE
3MM ACM LETTER BACKS

TOGGLE SWITCH

POWER SUPPLY
WHITE LEDs
.150 LEXAN LETTER FACES
MINIMUM (2) WEEP HOLES

PER LETTER W/ COVER
5”
(B

PRIMARY POWER IN

Y GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
2” x 4” JUNCTION BOX
150’- 0”
B
A

TYPICAL MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable
R2 02/27/20 JAS
771
JAS

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

LARS ANDERSEN

ROSALYN HOLDERFIELD

LARS ANDERSEN-VISALIA CA-SIGN EXHIBIT
11/12/19
R1 01/20/20 JAS
PAGE 6

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’
.063 STAPLED ALUM. RETURN
(PAINTED SATIN WHITE)

TYPICAL CHANNEL LETTER DESIGN
1” JEWELITE
3MM ACM LETTER BACKS

TOGGLE SWITCH

POWER SUPPLY
WHITE LEDs
.150 LEXAN LETTER FACES
MINIMUM (2) WEEP HOLES

PER LETTER W/ COVER
5”
(B

PRIMARY POWER IN

Y GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
2” x 4” JUNCTION BOX
86’- 0”
B
A

TYPICAL TENANT RETAIL BUILDING

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable
R2 02/27/20 JAS
2X BUILDING FRONTAGE, MAXIMUM 150 SQUARE FEET.

NOT TO EXCEED 80% OF STOREFRONT WIDTH
772
JAS

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

LARS ANDERSEN

ROSALYN HOLDERFIELD

LARS ANDERSEN-VISALIA CA-SIGN EXHIBIT
11/12/19
R1 01/20/20 JAS
PAGE 7

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/24” = 1’
.063 STAPLED ALUM. RETURN
(PAINTED SATIN WHITE)

TYPICAL CHANNEL LETTER DESIGN
1” JEWELITE
3MM ACM LETTER BACKS

TOGGLE SWITCH

POWER SUPPLY
WHITE LEDs
.150 LEXAN LETTER FACES
MINIMUM (2) WEEP HOLES

PER LETTER W/ COVER
5”
(B

PRIMARY POWER IN

Y GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
2” x 4” JUNCTION BOX
355’- 0”
B
A

TYPICAL MAJOR TENANT RETAIL BUILDING

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable
R2 02/27/20 JAS
2X BUILDING FRONTAGE, MAXIMUM 250 SQUARE FEET.

NOT TO EXCEED 80% OF STOREFRONT WIDTH
773

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
TOP
129' - 4"
TOP
129' - 4"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CORNICE - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"

BOLLARD SLEEVES - MATCH
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"
EIFS - PAINT SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TOP
TOP
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
130' - 8"
TOP
131' - 4"
128' - 0"

SCREEN WALL
10' TALL PRECAST

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
SW 7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

CANOPY - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW 6959 "BLUE CHIP"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
TYP
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
TYP
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

SPLIT FACE CMU
(BEYOND)
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
132' - 0"
122' - 0"
TOM
124' - 0"
TOP
126' - 0"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CAP FLASHING - PAINT
130' - 6"
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

METAL TRELLIS - PAINT

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
BRONZE" (TYP.)
SW #7048 "URBANE
H.M. DOORS
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
10'-0" HIGH PRECAST SCREEN WALL

TOP RAILS ON SIDE OF TRUCK WELL
42" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"
H.M. DOOR
SW # 7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TOP

WALL AT TRUCK WELL

PRECAST SCREEN
10' TALL SMOOTH
131' - 4" SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL

PANEL SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TYP
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
128' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TYP
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS (CORNICE) - PAINT
TOP

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CAP FLASHING - PAINT
BRONZE"
SW #7048 "URBANE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
127' - 4"
128' - 0"
126' - 8"

PANEL SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TOP
TOP
TOP
128' - 0"
TOP
BRONZE" (TYP.)
SW #7048 "URBANE
H.M. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
BRONZE"
SW #7048 "URBANE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
126' - 8"
TOP
129' - 4"
TOP

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"

BOLLARD SLEEVES - MATCH
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT

PAINT BLACK

JIB CRANE
TYP.

PREFINISHED WHITE
O.H. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

CORNICE - PAINT
TOP
126' - 0"

SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TOP
TOP
128' - 0"
127' - 4"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"
EIFS - PAINT 124' - 0"
132' - 0"
06/06/24
VISALIA, CA - Elevations 4
1" = 20'-0" A1B 1 1

EAST FRONT ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 2

SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 3

WEST REAR ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 4

NORTH SIDE ELEVATION
06/25/24 06/27/24
774

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE DIGITAL PRICE READER

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL

DIGITAL PRICE READER

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL
(BEYOND)
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU

DIGITAL PRICE READER
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE DIGITAL PRICE READER 06/25/24
VISALIA, CA - Elevations - Fuel Canopy 7
1/8" = 1'-0" 6 1 1

NORTH FRONT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 2

WEST SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 3

EAST SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 4

SOUTH REAR ELEVATION
06/27/24
775

S S D D D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE
CA
EV
CA
EV
CA
EV

CA CA CA

EV CAEV
IW IW

CA CAEV

CA CA S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S S S D D D BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE

DO NOT ENTER
STOP STOP S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 19 OF 23 EXHIBIT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY 0 NORTH 80 120 40 20 160 SCALE: 1"=40'-0" LEGEND PEDESTRIAN EXIT ACCESSIBLE STALL 776
????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?
??????????????????????
?
???????????????????????
?????????????????
?? ? ? ? ? ?
?? ? ? ?
?????
18 96 9018 96 90
18 96 9018 96 90
? 44 168 144 S4
? ?
???
? 44 168 144 S4
?
?
??????
SALES
100

CLUB CAFE
400

TIRE DISPLAY
600

RECEIVING DOCK
121

CURBSIDE
PICKUP
128

DELIVERY FROM
CLUB
129
BAKERY
900

SHOP-IN

PRODUCE
COOLER
908

SHOP-IN DAIRY
COOLER
916

CART STORAGE
101

VESTIBULE
102

MEMBERSHIP/

RETURNS
110
CENTER

BATTERY

TIRE AND
601

TIRE STORAGE
606

PIZZA PREP
401

SNACK PREP
402

UTILITY ROOM
403

FREEZER
405
COOLER
404

DRY STORAGE
406

BEVERAGE
CLOSET
407

AP ROOM
106

CASH ROOM
105

CASH RECYCLING
103

STORAGE
206

QUIET ROOM
207

DISPLAY

BATTERY
604

TBC ALCOVE
607

TBC TOILET
603

LOCKERS
202
ALCOVE
208

EMPLOYEE

BREAKROOM
201

MOTHERS PREP
203
RM

MOTHER RM
204
JANITOR 2
117

VC VESTIBULE
711

ELECTRICAL
115

USED TIRE AND

STORAGE

BATTERY
605

POS COOLER
911
POS FREEZER 1
910
POS FREEZER 2
909

SERVICE SUSHI
921

PRODUCE WASH
142
20' H. CPU
COOLER
131

FREEZER
20' H. CPU
132

FREEZER
BAKERY
902 BAKERY COOLER
901

STAGING
120

MEAT COOLER
905

MEAT PREP
906

UTILITY ROOM
127

ASSOCIATE'S
TOILET
119
JANITOR 1
108

ROTISSERIE

DISPLAY
903

ROTISSERIE
PREP
904
COOLER

POULTRY
914

HMS PREP
907

DELI COOLER
915

DEMO ROOM
912

REFRIGERATION

ENCLOSURE
118

RECEIVING
OFFICE
124

RECEIVING
TOILET
122

WAITING ROOM
123
WOMEN
114
113
MEN
ALCOVE
111

FAMILY TOILET
112

PHARMACY

HEALTH SERVICE
300
ROOM 1
301

HEALTH SERVICE
ROOM 2
302

HEARING CENTER
710

MANAGER
104

COMPUTER
107

OPTICAL SALES
700

TRAINING
200
205
CBL
EXAM ROOM #1
705

CONTACTS
702
EXAM ROOM #2
706

STORAGE
709
09/24/24
VISALIA, CA - Floor Plan 3
DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Th
09/25/24
09/26/24 10/01/24
e Building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials, or final design detailing. 10/09/24
777
1 5
5 3
5 2
5 4
06/25/24
VISALIA, CA - Fuel Station - Floor Plan 6
7 7
7 7
06/27/24
DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Th
09/09/24 09/25/24
09/24/24 09/26/24 10/01/24
e Building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials, or final design detailing. 10/09/24
778
DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Th

ENTRY PERSPECTIVE
The Landscape images shown reflect design intent only and are not reflective of exact species or size.

Refer to landscaping plan by others for species, size and location. 779 Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup

BAIL OUT

TRASH RECYCLE

G REASE TANK

EVCS STATION (VAN ACCESSIBLE)

EVCS STATION EVCS STATION EVCS STATION
AC
VE
AC
VE
AC
VE

AC AC AC
VE
CA
EV
AC
CA
EV
AC AC
31'

N O P A R K I N G

E S C A P E L A N E E S C A P E L A N E E S C A P E L A N E DO NOT
ENTER

ON GNI KRAP

D RECTO N O FTRAVEL

CU STO MERS ID E

R E ARSIDE

D RECTO N O FTRAVEL

CU STO MERS ID E

R E ARSIDE

C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V

C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V

DRIVE THRU ENTRANCE

D RECTO N O FTRAVEL
AC
VE
AC AC
VE
D
D
D
D
PB

EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

POTS POTS POTS POTS POTS

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

POTS POTS POTS POTS

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
POTS
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
TON OD
RETNE

STOP STOP
S
S
V
D

ISALIA PARKWAY
S. M
O
O
N
E
Y
B
L
V
D
2 1

Refer to landscaping plan by others for species, size and location. 780 Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup

BAIL OUT

TRASH RECYCLE

G REASE TANK

EVCS STATION (VAN ACCESSIBLE)

EVCS STATION EVCS STATION EVCS STATION
AC
VE
AC
VE
AC
VE

AC AC AC
VE
CA
EV
AC
CA
EV
AC AC
31'

N O P A R K I N G

E S C A P E L A N E E S C A P E L A N E E S C A P E L A N E DO NOT
ENTER

ON GNI KRAP

D RECTO N O FTRAVEL

CU STO MERS ID E

R E ARSIDE

D RECTO N O FTRAVEL

CU STO MERS ID E

R E ARSIDE

C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V

C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V

DRIVE THRU ENTRANCE

D RECTO N O FTRAVEL
AC
VE
AC AC
VE
D
D
D
D

EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

POTS POTS POTS POTS POTS

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

POTS POTS POTS POTS

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
POTS
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
TON OD
RETNE

STOP STOP
S
S
V
D

ISALIA PARKWAY
S. M
O
O
N
E
Y
B
L
V
D
2 1

Refer to landscaping plan by others for species, size and location. 781 OPERATIONAL STATEMENT FOR PAGE 1 OF 3
THE COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY (CUP2019-31)

THE OPERATIONAL STATEMENT
FOR
THE COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY (CUP 2019-31)
✓ DESCRIBE, IN DETAIL, THE PROPOSED USE(S)
• The Corner Parcel drive-through is proposed as a fast-food user with dual drive-through access. The gross floor area for this building is approximately 5,600 square feet, and a parcel size of 2.15 acres.

The fast-food user operates by providing quick-service dining options through a streamlined assembly-line approach to food preparation and service. • The Car Wash Parcel is proposed as a full-service car wash facility with drying stations. The gross floor area for this building is approximately 7,500 square feet, and a parcel size of 1.24 acres. The car wash operates by cleaning vehicles using automated or manual washing systems, ensuring thorough cleanliness and often offering additional services such as waxing or detailing. • Anchor Tenant is being proposed as a big box retail store with a gross floor area of 172,000 square feet, and a parcel size of 18.79 acres. The site will also sell gasoline and diesel fuels, with 14 fueling stations underneath a 9,000 SF canopy and a 200 SF fueling station building. A big box retail membership club store operates by offering bulk merchandise at discounted prices to members, typically requiring annual subscriptions for access to exclusive products and services.
✓ DESCRIBE, IN DETAIL, THE KNOWN USE(S)
• Texas Roadhouse is now open, with a gross floor area of 7,600 square feet, and a parcel size of 1.56 acres.
• Les Schwab Tires is now open, with a gross floor area of 4,088 square feet, and a parcel size of 1.07 acres.
• Panda Express is now open, with a gross floor area of 2,600 square feet, and a parcel size of 0.76 acres.
• Dutch Brothers is now open, with a gross floor area of 960 square feet, and a parcel size of 0.85 acres.
✓ POTENTIAL TENANTS
• With this amendment, all available parcels have specific designated uses, therefore no future tenants are proposed at this time.
✓ HOURS OF OPERATIONS
• The following is a table showing the Hours of operations for the Anchor Tenant and accompanying Fuel Center.
✓ OPERATIONAL INFORMATION
• To be determined at the time of development or future entitlement submittals.

TYPE OF

OPERATION
MONDAYFRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY

BIG BOX
RETAIL
10:00 A.M –
08:00 P.M
09:00 A.M –
08:00 P.M
10:00 A.M –
06:00 P.M
EARLY

SHOPPING
08:00 A.M –
10:00 A.M
08:00 A.M –
09:00 A.M N/A
CAFE 10:00 A.M –
07:00 P.M
10:00 A.M –
07:00 P.M
10:00 A.M –
06:00 P.M
FUEL
CENTER
06:00 A.M –
09:00 P.M
06:00 A.M –
09:00 P.M
09:00 A.M –
07:00 P.M
782
OPERATIONAL STATEMENT FOR PAGE 2 OF 3
THE COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY (CUP2019-31)
✓ LOADING TIMES
• The Fuel Center receives deliveries around the clock unless restricted by the AHJ. • The Anchor tenant receives deliveries from 07:00 A.M – 10:00 P.M, 7 days a week. ✓ PARCEL BOUNDRY RECONFIGURATION
• The interior parcel boundaries will be reconfigured according to lot line adjustment permit LLA24-007 and LLA24-008
✓ ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORK
• The road improvements to be conducted at the driveway entrance located north of the property, which is currently the most eastern. This involves demolishing the existing entrance to construct a new sidewalk and creating a new drive aisle west of the old one, necessitating the demolition of the current sidewalk to facilitate these changes ✓ BUILDING AREA BREAK DOWN
• The following is a Table showing the building square footages from what was originally approved with the commons at Visalia Parkway master plan and the amended master plan:

ORIGINAL AMMENDED
C-STORE 4,088 SF ANCHOR 165,459 SF
MAJOR 1 56,800 SF CAR WASH 6,215 SF
MAJOR 2 29,800 SF FAST FOOD 5,588 SF
SHOP A 10,000 SF RESTAURANT 1 7,646 SF
SHOP B 10,000 SF RESTAURANT 2 2,540 SF
RESTAURANT 7,500 SF DRIVE-THRU 950 SF
DRIVE THROU 2 3,000 SF AUTOMOTIVE 12,000 SF
DRIVE THRU 3 5,000 SF - -
AUTOMOTIVE 12,000 SF - -
TOTAL 138,188 SF TOTAL 200,398 SF
✓ PARKING COUNT BREAK DOWN
• The following is a Table showing the parking count from what was originally approved with the commons at Visalia Parkway master plan and the amended master plan.

ORIGINAL AMMENDED
C-STORE 30 ANCHOR 815
MAJOR 1 276 CAR WASH 20
MAJOR 2 100 FAST FOOD 137
SHOP A 63 RESTAURANT 1 90
SHOP B 70 RESTAURANT 2 29
RESTAURANT 106 DRIVE-THRU 4
DRIVE THROU 1 30 AUTOMOTIVE 46
DRIVE THRU 2 25 - -
AUTOMOTIVE 44 - -
TOTAL 744 TOTAL 1,141
783
OPERATIONAL STATEMENT FOR PAGE 3 OF 3
THE COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY (CUP2019-31)
✓ SITE SECURITY MEASURES
Retail Store Security Measures
• Internal Alarm systems
o Provided throughout the building and communicates/alerts local authorities. • Communication mechanisms with local authorities
• Fire Alarm systems
o Part of the standard building design and approved by the local fire authority. • CO2 alarms if applicable
• Security/Emergency training of staff
o Staff goes through safety training upon hiring and internal teams trained for emergency situations.

Fuel Station
• Emergency Security Shut offs
• Emergency Stop Buttons, fire extinguishers, emergency telephone, and an attendant call button. • Spill kits and spill training
o Spill kits to clean up any gas spills at the site
o Staff is trained on how to clean up localized spills and prevent future spills • Communication mechanisms to the Retail store
o Telecommunication line provided to retail store
Site/Parking lot
• Shopping cart containment system
o Only if required by the city
Site Lighting
o Provided across the site to meet local code to properly illuminate the site and not have any “dark” spots across the site.
o The lights will follow store hours and can be adjusted to accommodate city timing requirements o Adjusted at property lines to not have light “spillage” onto other properties. 784
785
- 2 -
786
- 3 -
787
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
6 97 97 98
7 128 124 130
8 141 149 145
9 142 149 151
10 148 160 158
Daily Peak Average
(6-10 AM) 131 139 136
135.54

8.47 Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
4 174 175 173
5 176 174 175
6 165 169 167
7 149 149 153
8 103 106 108
Daily Peak Average
(4-8 PM) 154 154 155
154.39

9.65 Daily Total 2,163 2,255 2,266
2,228.04
139.25
Notes:

TABLE 1
Average of Daily Peak Average
AM
PM
Average of Daily Peak Average
Average of Daily Total
Daily Rate
AM Trip Rate
PM Trip Rate

SAM'S FUEL BAKERSFIELD

TRIP GENERATION DERIVATION - WEEKDAY
Daily Peak Average - Average number of transactions in the AM or PM peak period per day
AM Trip Rate - Estimated number of morning peak trips per fueling position
Daily Rate - Estimated number of daily trips per fueling position PM Trip Rate - Estimated number of evening peak trips per fueling position
Sam's Fuel Visalia - 4 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 788 Time Saturday
6 85
7 127
8 171
9 188
10 193
Peak Average
(6-10 AM) 153

9.56 Time Saturday
4 168
5 158
6 147
7 122
8 74
Peak Average
(4-8 PM) 115

7.19 2,253
141
Notes:

TABLE 2
AM
PM
Daily Total
Daily Rate
AM Trip Rate
PM Trip Rate

SAM'S FUEL BAKERSFIELD

TRIP GENERATION DERIVATION - SATURDAY
Peak Average - Average number of transactions in the
AM or PM peak period
AM Trip Rate - Estimated number of morning peak
trips per fueling position
PM Trip Rate - Estimated number of evening peak trips
per fueling position
Daily Rate - Estimated number of daily trips per fueling position
Sam's Fuel Visalia - 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 789 Mr. Finnegan, June 28, 2024, Page 6
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 The project is estimated to generate 3,899 daily trips, 237 morning peak hour trips, and 270 evening peak hour trips on a weekday. The project is estimated to generate 3,943 daily trips, 268 morning peak hour trips, and 201 evening peak hour trips on a Saturday. Trip generation estimates for the proposed fueling positions are summarized on Table 3.

DRIVE-THROUGH ANALYSIS
A drive-through queueing analysis for the proposed fueling positions was conducted. The queueing analysis takes into consideration the potential impacts to the on-site circulation as a result of excessive queueing.

To determine the queue for the proposed project, the queueing analysis assumes that the queue at the pumps follows a multi-channel queueing model with Poisson arrival and exponential service times (M/M/C model). This allows for an average queue length to be forecasted.

The following equation was used and is applicable to calculate M/M/C queues. (݁ݑ݁ݑݍ ݅݊ & ݅ܿ݁ݒݎ݁ݏ ݅݊) ݁݉ݐݏݕݏ ݁ℎݐ ݅݊ ݏ݈݅ܿ݁ℎ݁ݒ ݂݋ ݎܾ݉݁ݑ݊ ܽ݃݁ݎ݁ݒܣ ܳ =
ߩ଴ܲ
ேାଵ
ܰ! ܰ
൤
1 (/ܰߩ 1−)
ଶ
൨ Where ܲ଴ is the probability of not having a queue, ߩ is the utilization factor, and ܰ is the number of service channels.

The weekday evening peak hour trip generation for the Sam’s Fuel Visalia was chosen to represent the worst-case scenario. The drive-through generates the inbound trips as shown in Table 1, presented previously. All inbound project trips are expected to utilize the drive-through.

The service rate, μ, was calculated based on the assumption that a typical customer spends three and a half minutes at a fueling position. This fueling time can be used to calculate the service rate via the following equation.
= ݓ
ܳ + ߩ
ߣ
−
1 ߤ
Where ݓ is the average waiting time in queue and being served.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4. Based on these calculations, the average queue that is anticipated at the drive-through would not exceed four vehicles at a given time. This assessment takes into consideration a worst-case trip generation estimate of 10 inbound trips per pump during the evening peak hour. The proposed drive-through aisles have approximately 110 feet of stacking distance behind the vehicle at the fuel pump, as shown on Figure 3. Assuming that a stationary vehicle occupies 20-25 feet of length, there is no queue anticipated to spill out into the parking lot drive aisle during normal conditions. While there is a potential for a longer queue to be experienced on a less frequent basis, the average queue would be accommodated by the available stacking distance. There is capacity for up to five vehicles behind the vehicle being serviced.
790
Mr. Finnegan, June 28, 2024, Page 7
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 TABLE 3

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES

SAM'S FUEL VISALIA

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TRIPS
Trip Generation Rates
Daily AM PM
Weekday 139 8.47 9.65
Saturday 141 9.56 7.19
Trip Generation Estimates
Quantity Unit Daily AM PM
Weekday 28 FP 3,899 237 270
Saturday 28 FP 3,943 268 201
Notes:

FP = Fueling Positions
TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF DRIVE-THROUGH ANALYSIS

SINGLE FUEL PUMP DRIVE-THROUGH
Weekday Peak Inbound Trips 10
Arrival Rate λ (veh/hr) 20
Service Rate μ (sec/veh) 300
Average # of Vehicles in System (vehicles in queue) 3.79 Queueing Space Provided 110’
Queueing Capacity (veh) 5
791

DO NOT ENTER

STOP STOP
- 8 -
792
Mr. Finnegan, June 28, 2024, Page 9
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

CONCLUSIONS
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. completed the traffic analysis for the proposed Sam’s Club Fuel Project located within the proposed Sam’s Club Fuel Center at southwest corner of W Visalia Parkway and S Mooney Boulevard in the City of Visalia. This traffic memorandum has been prepared to summarize the analysis results. Kimley-Horn has provided an assessment of traffic generated by the proposed project and of queueing within the drive-through component.

Daily and peak hour trips were estimated for the proposed project. The project is estimated to generate 3,899 daily trips, 237 morning peak hour trips, and 270 evening peak hour trips on a weekday. The project is estimated to generate 3,943 daily trips, 268 morning peak hour trips, and 201 evening peak hour trips on a Saturday.

Furthermore, the analysis included an assessment of projected queueing lengths at the fuel pump drive-through. The results of the analysis indicate that the queuing capacity currently proposed is adequate to accommodate the average queue lengths forecasted at the fuel pump drivethrough. 793
If you are in a high demand/high traffic situation at the fuel pumps, the process below can assist with safety and security.

Associate Staffing
o All associates working the area must be in company approved yellow safety vests o Minimum 2 associates working fuel station
▪ One trained and certified, working the pump area
▪ One (or more, based on needs) to work the line of cars o Welcome members and validate membership cards
o Communicate status of fuel
o Remind all members we do not accept cash for fuel
o Coordinate which pumps are open/operational and communicate to members Control the Flow
o Create queue line depending on the site differences
o Create one way in and one way out for ease of traffic flow o Funnel the exit to allow 2 cars wide to exit (preventing cars from entering the exit area) ▪ Use pallets or cones to create a traffic funnel
o Associates always wearing yellow vest and maintain control of line o Ensure the Fuel Station Associate has the club-use gas card for members who have membership card issues o If you have more than 50 cars in line, notify the MAPM. MAPM’s will direct 3rd Party Security requests to the Risk Mitigation Team for additional support.

Approved Containers
o Validate members are using approved containers only for fuel Monitor Tank Gauge
o At 1,500 gallons, we need to start communicating to all members in line that fuel is running low. ▪ You can allow approximately 20-25 additional vehicles to get fuel prior to closing (including vehicles & gas cans for generators)
o At 500 gallons, close the station and stop pumping.
o Running the tanks lower than 500 gallons brings the risk of overheating and destroying the tank motor, which would take the entire fuel station offline for several days. o If there are safety concerns with upset members, engage 3 rd Party Security personnel and/or
Management immediately. If there is a life safety concern, contact 911.

Out of Fuel
o Use pallets, cardboard bales, caution tape to block pumps o Create a sign and post it in an area that is very visible from the road to prevent traffic from entering.

Note: If a driver has waited in line but is not a member, do not turn them away. Use the club use gas card to initiate the transaction for them at the pump.

Fuel Station Staffing and Line Control
794
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Jim Shehadey June 21, 2024
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
405 North Palm Avenue
Fresno, California 93701
Subject: Drive-Through Queue Analysis
Proposed Car Wash in The Commons at Visalia Parkway
Southwest of the Intersection of Mooney Boulevard and Visalia Parkway Visalia, California
Dear Mr. Shehadey:

This report presents the results of limited traffic analyses for the subject project. The analysis focuses on the anticipated length of queues in the proposed car wash drive-through.

The proposed car wash building includes one wash tunnel and a total queue storage length of approximately 675 feet (storage for approximately 33 vehicles assuming an average storage length of 20 feet per vehicle). The car wash is expected to utilize an average chain speed of 150 vehicles per hour. The chain speed can be increased to 200 vehicles per hour during peak periods.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Calculations
Land
Use Units
Peak Hour
Rate In:Out In Out Total
948 1 tunnel 77.50 50:50 39 39 78
Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition, Institute of
Transportation Engineers 2021
Rates are reported in trips per car wash tunnel.
795
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 2 In queuing theory, an M/M/1 queue represents the queue length in a system having one server where arrivals follow a Poisson process and service times are exponentially distributed. The following formulas apply to the M/M/1 queue analyses:

N = λ
2 / (μ(μ - λ)) = I2/ (1-I)
P(N) = (1-I)IN
where:

N = the average number of vehicles in the queue
λ = the average number of vehicle arrivals per hour
μ = the average service rate in vehicles per hour
I = traffic intensity = λ / μ
P = the probability of the number of vehicles in the queue being N The trip generation analyses suggest that the Project will generate up to 39 trips per peak hour of the generator. Based on 39 vehicles per hour using the car wash with a service rate of 150 vehicles per hour, the average queue length in the drive through during the peak hour is calculated as approximately zero to one vehicle as follows:

N = λ
2 / (μ(μ - λ)) = 392/(150(150-39)) = 0.1 vehicles
The probability of the queue length containing a given number of vehicles is presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Probability of Queue Length During Weekend Peak Hour
Number of Vehicles
in Queue (N)
Probability of N
Vehicles in Queue
Cumulative
Probability
0 74.0% 74.0%
1 19.2% 93.2%
2 5.0% 98.2%
3 1.3% 99.5%
4 0.3% 99.9%
5 0.1% 100.0%
The analyses suggest that the proposed car wash storage length is adequate to accommodate the anticipated queues.

In the event that queues are observed filling the three payment lanes, it is recommended that the proposed car wash implement a traffic action plan consisting of increasing the chain speed.
796
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to perform these analyses. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
797
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Jim Shehadey June 21, 2024
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
405 North Palm Avenue
Fresno, California 93701
Subject: Drive-Through Queue Analysis
Proposed Chick-Fil-A Restaurant in The Commons at Visalia Parkway Southwest of the Intersection of Mooney Boulevard and Visalia Parkway Visalia, California
Dear Mr. Shehadey:

This report presents the results of limited traffic analyses for the subject project. The analysis focuses on the anticipated length of queues in the proposed Chick-Fil-A drivethrough.

The proposed Chick-Fil-A building covers approximately 5,588 square feet and includes two drive through lanes with a combined storage length of 706 feet (storage for approximately 35 vehicles assuming an average storage length of 20 feet per vehicle). Chick-Fil-A reports that 60 percent of sales are typically in the drive through. The drive through service rate for an established Chick-Fil-A restaurant is 150 vehicles per hour.

Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition, were used to estimate the peak number of trips expected to be generated by the restaurant. Table 1 presents the results of the trip generation calculations based on ITE Land Use 934, Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window, using the data sets for peak hour of generator on both weekdays and weekends. A comparison of Saturday and Sunday data revealed that Saturday peak hour of generator governs on the weekend. As discussed previously with the City of Visalia, the City recognizes Chick-Fil-A is above average in terms of trip generation, and the rate utilized is one standard deviation above the average.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Calculations
Land
Use Units
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
of Generator
Saturday Peak Hour
of Generator
Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total
934 5,588 sf 75.85 51:49 216 208 424 79.87 51:49 228 219 447 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021
Rates are reported in trips per 1,000 square feet of building area. 798
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 2 In queuing theory, an M/M/1 queue represents the queue length in a system having one server where arrivals follow a Poisson process and service times are exponentially distributed. The following formulas apply to the M/M/1 queue analyses:

N = λ
2 / (μ(μ - λ)) = I2/ (1-I)
P(N) = (1-I)IN
where:

N = the average number of vehicles in the queue
λ = the average number of vehicle arrivals per hour
μ = the average service rate in vehicles per hour
I = traffic intensity = λ / μ
P = the probability of the number of vehicles in the queue being N The trip generation analyses suggest that the Project will generate up to 228 trips per peak hour of the generator, and it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of those will use the drive through (approximately 137 drive through trips per peak hour).

Based on 137 vehicles per hour using the drive through with a service rate of 150 vehicles per hour and assuming one server, the average queue length in the drive through during the peak hour is calculated as approximately 10 vehicles as follows:

N = λ2/ (μ(μ - λ)) = 1372/(150(150-137)) = 9.6 vehicles The probability of the queue length containing a given number of vehicles is presented in Table 2.

The analyses suggest that the proposed drive-through storage length is adequate to accommodate the 96th-percentile queue during the maximum peak hour of the generator, which is likely to occur on a Saturday. In other words, the probability that the queue would exceed the storage capacity at any time during the restaurant’s maximum peak hour is less than four percent.
799
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 3 Table 2
Probability of Queue Length During Weekend Peak Hour
Number of Vehicles
in Queue (N)
Probability of N
Vehicles in Queue
Cumulative
Probability
0 8.7% 8.7%
1 7.9% 16.6%
2 7.2% 23.8%
3 6.6% 30.4%
4 6.0% 36.4%
5 5.5% 42.0%
6 5.0% 47.0%
7 4.6% 51.6%
8 4.2% 55.8%
9 3.8% 59.6%
10 3.5% 63.1%
11 3.2% 66.3%
12 2.9% 69.2%
13 2.7% 71.9%
14 2.4% 74.3%
15 2.2% 76.6%
16 2.0% 78.6%
17 1.9% 80.4%
18 1.7% 82.1%
19 1.5% 83.7%
20 1.4% 85.1%
21 1.3% 86.4%
22 1.2% 87.6%
23 1.1% 88.6%
24 1.0% 89.6%
25 0.9% 90.5%
26 0.8% 91.4%
27 0.7% 92.1%
28 0.7% 92.8%
29 0.6% 93.4%
30 0.6% 94.0%
31 0.5% 94.5%
32 0.5% 95.0%
33 0.4% 95.4%
34 0.4% 95.8%
35 0.4% 96.2%
800
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 4 It is recommended that the proposed Chick-Fil-A implement a traffic action plan as described below.

1. For typical service (non-peak), guests will place their order at the menu boards, then pull forward to pay and have food delivered at the order delivery window.

2. As traffic increases, Chick-Fil-A will add two team members (employees) to take orders electronically from vehicles in the drive-through lanes in advance of the order boards. This will allow meal assembly to begin earlier in the drive-through process.

3. As traffic increases, Chick-Fil-A will add another team member to the drive-through to take payments ahead of the meal delivery window.

4. At peak service time, full deployment of upstream meal delivery in the drive-through queue will take place. This includes team members taking orders and payments ahead of the menu board location and delivery window. Meal delivery would continue to occur at the delivery window, as well additional team members delivering food upstream in the drive-through queue (prior to the delivery window) to help expedite service and throughput.

5. At any time during either typical service or peak service times, vehicles that arrive at the delivery window may be asked to pull into a parking stall if it is anticipated that the delivery would be delayed. A team member would deliver the meal to the parked vehicle.

Thank you for the opportunity to perform these analyses. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
801
CA

EV CAEV CA

EV CA CA CA

EV CAEV

CA CAEV

CA CA TRASH RECYCLE TANK GREASE

EVCS STATION
(VAN ACCESSIBLE) EVCSSTATION
EVCS

STATION
EVCS

STATION DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

CUSTOMER SIDE

REAR SIDE

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV

CLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

DO NOT ENTER

STOP STOP EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

PROPOSED SAM'S CLUB NORTH

PROPOSED RETAIL BUILDING
802
JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
October 9, 2024
Mr. Jim Shehadey
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
405 N Palm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93701
RE: Big Box Retailer Gas Station Health Risk Assessment / City of Visalia Dear Mr. Jim Shehadey:

JK Consulting Group prepared the following Health Risk Assessment for the proposed Big Box Retailer Gas Station (Project) in the City of Visalia. The Project includes the development of a gas station with approximately twelve (12) multi-pump dispensers/fuel canopy along with a kiosk and underground storage tanks. The Project site is located at the southwest corner of Visalia Parkway and Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63). The Project location and site plan are depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 3.

Approximately 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel will be sold annually.

AIR QUALITY
Air quality in a region is determined by the region’s topography, meteorology, and existing air pollutant sources. These factors are discussed below, along with the current regulatory structure that applies to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which encompasses the Project site, pursuant to the regulatory authority of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Climate and Meteorology
Air quality is affected by the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by climatic conditions that influence the movement and dispersion of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions, such as wind speed, wind direction and air temperature gradients, along with local and regional topography, mediate the relationship between air pollutant emissions and air quality. As noted above, the Project is located within the SJVAB, which includes Fresno, Kern (western portion), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties.

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and 35 miles in width and is bordered by the Coast Range Mountains on the west, the Sierra Nevada mountains on the east, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. Marine air, which often enters the Basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, causes the wind patterns found inside the SJVAB. The Tehachapi Mountains block airflow in from the south, the Coastal Range blocks wind entry into the Valley from the west, and the tall Sierra Nevada Mountain Range acts as a formidable barrier to the east. Weak airflow caused by these topographical factors is vertically constrained by high atmospheric pressure above the Valley. The SJVAB is hence extremely vulnerable to pollutant buildup over time. The majority of the mountains in the area are higher than summer inversion layers.
803
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 2 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
The SJVAB has a Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by infrequent rainfall and hot, dry summers. The SJVAB offers ideal ozone generation conditions given an average of 260 sunny days per year. Precipitation and fog in the Winter create optimal circumstances for particulate matter generation, even though they shield sunlight and reduce ozone levels.

Sources of Air Pollution
Air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB are generally caused by man-made sources, which encompass stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources include point sources which are generally identified by an exhaust vent or stack (i.e., boilers). Area sources, such as residential and commercial water heaters, lawn mowers, and agricultural fields, are also categorized as stationary sources. Emissions from motor vehicles are characterized as mobile sources and include on-road (i.e., automobiles, trucks) and off-road (i.e., aircrafts, ships, trains) sources. Air pollutants can also be generated by natural means, such as the suspending of fine dust particles via high winds.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) refer to a broad category of air pollutants that could result in an increase in fatalities or serious illnesses, potential risk to human health, or any combination of these. TACs are both organic and inorganic chemical substances that can be released from a range of everyday sources, such as gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and educational facilities. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Non-carcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur.

Most of the estimated health risk from TACs, according to the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (2005), can be attributable to a small number of compounds. The most significant of which is PM from diesel-fueled engines, which is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Diesel exhaust has hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are harmful, and has been classified as a human carcinogen. Diesel particles are so small that they penetrate deep into the lungs. According to studies, diesel PM concentrations are significantly greater near busy intersections and roads. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) provides recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses within proximity to facilities known to generate TACs, as depicted in Table 1.

Table 1 provides recommendations for the siting of new sensitive land uses near various source categories (i.e. gasoline dispensing facilities) presented in the table. It should be noted that the recommendations are advisory, as noted in the footnotes of Table 1, and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. Project related air quality impacts are analyzed and discussed below.
804
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 3 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
Acute diesel exhaust exposure may irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, as well as certain neurological consequences like lightheadedness. A cough or nausea may also be brought on by acute exposure, which can potentially make asthma worse. Experimental animal inhalation studies with chronic exposure have revealed a variety of dose-dependent lung cellular alterations, lung inflammation, and immunological consequences from diesel exhaust. There is substantial data, based on both human and laboratory studies, showing diesel exhaust is almost certainly carcinogenic. Studies on human epidemiology show a link between occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and a higher incidence of lung cancer.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency with significant influence on air quality policy and initiatives. The EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) describing a strategy for the means to attain the federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs.

Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several pollutants. These standards are divided into primary standards and secondary standards.

Primary standards are designed to protect public health, and secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare from effects such as visibility reduction, soiling, nuisance, and other forms of damage. The Clean Air Act requires that regional plans be prepared for nonattainment areas that illustrate how the federal air quality standards could be met.

Regulation of TACs is achieved through federal and state controls on individual sources. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments offered a comprehensive plan for achieving significant reduction in both mobile and stationary source emissions of certain designated hazardous air pollutants, with a goal of achieving the EPA’s one in 1 million cancer risk from TACs.
1990 Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act
The 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act included a provision to address air toxics. Under Title III of the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA establishes and enforces National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which are national uniform standards oriented toward controlling particular hazardous air pollutants. Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act identifies 189 “Air Toxics” (hazardous air pollutants), directs U.S. EPA to identify sources of the 189 pollutants, and establishes a 10-year time period for the U.S. EPA to issue technology-based emissions standards for each source category. Title III 805
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 4 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
of the federal Clean Air Act provides for a second phase under which the U.S. EPA is to assess residual risk after the implementation of the first phase of standards and impose new standards, when appropriate, to protect public health.

State
The State of California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets the laws and regulations for air quality on the state level. In this capacity, CARB conducts research and sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB also establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (i.e., hairspray, aerosol paints), and various types of commercial equipment.

California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code Section 39000 et seq.) and amended in 1992. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. Air basins or areas that exceed the CAAQS are designated non-attainment until compliance is disclosed in an attainment plan. In California, CARB is responsible for meeting the State requirements of the federal CAA, administering the California CAA, and establishing the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). The California CAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level.

Regional
The SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within Tulare County and throughout the SJVAB. The SJVAPCD also has responsibility for monitoring air quality and setting and enforcing limits for source emissions. CARB is the agency with the legal responsibility for regulating mobile source emissions. The SJVAPCD is precluded from such activities under State law.

District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibition)
The purpose of Regulation VIII (Reg. VIII) is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions. Reg.

VIII requires property owners, contractors, developers, equipment operators, farmers and public agencies to control fugitive dust emissions from specified outdoor fugitive dust sources. It specifies the following measures to control fugitive dust:
 Apply water to unpaved surfaces and area
 Use non-toxic chemical or organic dust suppressants on unpaved roads and traffic areas  Limit or reduce vehicle speed on unpaved roads and traffic areas 806
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 5 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
 Maintain areas in a stabilized condition by restricting vehicle access  Install wind barriers
 During high winds, cease outdoor activities that disturb the soil.  Keep bulk materials sufficiently wet when handling
 Store and handle materials in a three-sided structure  When storing bulk materials, apply water to the surface or cover the storage pile with a tarp  Don’t overload haul trucks. Overloaded trucks are likely to spill bulk materials  Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover. Or, wet the top of the load enough to limit visible dust emissions
 Clean the interior of cargo compartments on emptied haul trucks prior to leaving a site  Prevent trackout by installing a trackout control device  Clean up trackout at least once a day. If along a busy road or highway, clean up trackout immediately  Monitor dust-generating activities and implement appropriate measures for maximum dust control Regulation of TACs is achieved through federal and state controls on individual sources. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments offered a comprehensive plan for achieving significant reduction in both mobile and stationary source emissions of certain designated hazardous air pollutants, with a goal of achieving the EPA’s one in 1 million cancer risk from TACs.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases section of the City of Visalia’s General Plan provides air quality policies and programs to achieve desired improvements to air quality. Listed below are objectives and policies from the City of Visalia General Plan Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases section that would be applicable to the Project:
 Objective AQ-O-1 - Coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies.
 Objective AQ-O-2 - Strive to improve air quality by implementing emissions reduction efforts targeting mobile sources, stationary sources and construction-related sources.  Policy AQ-P-2 - Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule.  Policy AQ-P-9 - Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.

807
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 6 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
808
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 7 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
809
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 8 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
810
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 9 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
TABLE 1

RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES SUCH AS RESIDENCES, SCHOOLS, DAYCARE CENTERS, PLAYGROUNDS, OR MEDICAL FACILITIES*

SOURCE CATEGORY ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Freeways and HighTraffic Roads1
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Distribution Centers
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week). - Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. - Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports - Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impac ted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries - Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers - Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air distric t.
- Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
1: The recommendation to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway was identified in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook published in 2005. CARB recently published a technical advisory to the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook indicating that new research has demonstrated promising strategies to reduce pollution exposure along transportation corridors. *Notes: • These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
• Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the recommended separation. • The relative risk for these categories varies greatly (see Table 1-2). To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in. • These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to available health risk data (see individual category descriptions).
• Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses. • This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions. • A summary of the basis for the distance recommendations can be found in the ARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Source: SJVAPC D 2024 811
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 10 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763

PROJECT RELATED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of Project impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or applicable standards of other agencies. Under CEQA, TAC’s associated with the Project would be considered significant if the Project exposed sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.

Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts identifies the need for projects to analyze the potential for adverse air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. From a health risk perspective, the Project is a Type A project in that it may potentially place toxic sources in the vicinity of existing sensitive receptors. The Project is located adjacent to the Westlake Village Community, the Oak Tree Estates, and the Visalia Estates. The SJVAPCD’s current thresholds of significance for TAC emissions from the operations of both permitted and non-permitted sources are presented below:
 Carcinogens: Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 10 in one million  Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual  Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual The characteristics of the proposed Project are consistent with the ‘Gasoline Dispensing Facilities’ TAC source categories presented in Table 1. The nearest vehicle fueling pump is located 160 feet (49 meters) from the nearest sensitive receptor (residence). The underground gasoline storage tanks are located 213 feet (65 meters) from the nearest sensitive receptor (residence). Table 1 indicates that a 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities and that siting ‘new’ sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater) should be avoided. As noted previously, the recommendations provide in Table 1 are advisory and would not supersede site-specific analysis which determines the actual risk from a particular facility. Figure 4 depicts the sensitive receptor setback from the Project underground storage tanks and dispensing facilities.

VOC emissions from the operation of the gasoline service station in addition to diesel emissions from truck traffic and idling have the potential to emit TAC’s and impact sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site. The Project will generate a maximum of three (3) daily truck trips, or approximately 20 truck deliveries per week for the purpose of refilling the underground storage tanks. Exposure to various TAC’s primarily occurs through inhalation. Cancer and non-cancer health risks are related to the exposure concentration of TACs that will be generated on the Project site. The ambient concentration of TACs at the Project site is influenced by factors such as the emission rate, the distance from the emission source, the local wind speed and direction, the local topography, the land use, etc. 812
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 11 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
Vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using emission factors for particulate matter less than 10μm in diameter (PM10) generated with the 2017 version of the Emission Factor model (EMFAC) developed by the ARB. EMFAC 2017 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by the ARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources. It incorporates regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding the distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by speed, and number of starts per day.

For this Project, annual average PM10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC 2017 for vehicles in Tulare County. The EMFAC model generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of temperature, relative humidity, and vehicle speed. The model was run for speeds traveled in the vicinity of the Project. To conservatively estimate air quality emissions associated with the Project, it was assumed that trucks idled for no more than five (5) minutes while onsite. In addition, it was assumed that trucks traveled at 10 miles per hour while performing onsite driving and maneuvering. Emissions estimates for diesel operated vehicles and other supporting documentation are provided in the appendices.

The emission rates provided in the California Air Resources Board and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guide (February 18, 2022) were also used to estimate Project emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline service station. Evaporation losses due to vehicle refueling operations, underground tank breathing and emptying, and other processes were estimated for purposes of determining the Projects impact to nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, AB2588 methodology and the SJVAPCD’s emission factor(s) were used for diesel storage tank emission estimates.

The SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator was used to determine the “Total Max Score” of Project specific toxic emissions as discussed above. Projects with a Prioritization score of 10 or higher require a Health Risk Assessment with dispersion modeling. Toxic emissions associated with the Project were used as inputs to the Prioritization Calculator which generated the prioritization score for the Project as shown in Table 2. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a max score of 8.62 for sensitive receptors within 0 to 100 meters (328 feet) of the Project. Project emissions associated with the Project will not trigger dispersion modeling since the Total Max Score is less than 10. As a result, dispersion modeling is not required for the Project considering the SJVAPCD’s methodology/threshold.

TAC emissions generated during Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted since there is a less than significant impact from Project operational emissions.

813
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 12 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
814
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
October 9, 2024

Page 13 of 13 ends

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
TABLE 2

TOTAL MAX SCORE FOR PROJECT EMISSIONS
Should you have any further questions or comments, please contact me by phone at (559) 246-4204 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jason Ellard, Principal
JK Consulting Group
Attachment
Diesel Storage
Tank Fugitives
Gasoline Storage
Tank Fugitives
Gasoline
Dispensing
Operations
Onsite Truck
Idling/Mobile
Sources
Max Score Max Score Max Score Max Score
0< R<100 1.000 0.00707 0.28136 8.32245 0.00716 8.61804
100≤R<250 0.250 0.00177 0.07034 2.08061 0.00179 2.15451 250≤R<500 0.040 0.00028 0.01125 0.33290 0.00029 0.34472 500≤R<1000 0.011 0.00008 0.00309 0.09155 0.00008 0.09480 1000≤R<1500 0.003 0.00002 0.00084 0.02497 0.00002 0.02585 1500≤R<2000 0.002 0.00001 0.00056 0.01664 0.00001 0.01724 2000<R 0.001 0.00001 0.00028 0.00832 0.00001 0.00862
Receptor Proximity
and Proximity Factors
Total Max
Score
815

APPENDIX A

EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR DIESEL OPERATED VEHICLES
816
Pollutant Vehicle Type
EMFAC
Vehicle Class Trips (trips/day)
Maximum Daily
Round-Trips
Total Annual
(trips/yr)
Round-Trip
Distance
(miles)
Factors
Emission
(1)
(gms/mile)
Emission
Factors
(lbs/VMT)
Annual
Emissions
(lbs/mile/yr)
Maximum Daily Emission
Estimate (lbs/day)
Average
Annual
(tons/yr)
Estimate
Emission lbs/year lbs/hr
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 0.066 1.462E-04 0.2 0.000110 0.000010 0.020011 1.1E-05

0.2 0.000110 0.000010 0.020011 1.1E-05
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 0.075 1.664E-04 0.2 0.000125 0.000011 0.022781 1.25E-05

0.2 0.000125 0.000011 0.022781 1.25E-05
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 0.028 6.216E-05 0.1 0.000047 0.000004 0.008509 4.66E-06

0.1 0.000047 0.000004 0.008509 4.66E-06
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 1.109 2.445E-03 2.7 0.001834 0.000167 0.334658 0.000183

2.7 0.001834 0.000167 0.334658 0.000183
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 7.608 1.677E-02 18.4 0.012580 0.001148 2.295902 0.001258

18.4 0.012580 0.001148 2.295902 0.001258
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 2984.576 6.580E+00 7,205.0 4.934898 0.450309 900.6189 0.49349 7,205.0 4.934898 0.450309 900.6189 0.49349
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 0.007 1.525E-05 0.0 0.000011 0.000001 0.002087 1.14E-06

0.0 0.000011 0.000001 0.002087 1.14E-06
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.25 0.007 1.459E-05 0.0 0.000011 0.000001 0.001997 1.09E-06

0.0 0.000011 0.000001 0.001997 1.09E-06
Maximum 3 Daily Truck Trips
Assumptions:
(1) Emission Factors source: EMFAC2017 for Tulare County Year 2023, for speed distribution of 10 mph References:

PM10
Exhaust Total PM10
Emissions
PM2.5
Exhaust Total PM2.5
Emissions
CO
Exhaust Total CO Emissions
NOX
Exhaust Total NOX
Emissions
CO2
Exhaust Total CO2
Emissions
Onsite On-Road Mobile Sources
ROG
Exhaust Total ROG Emissions
TOG
Exhaust Total TOG Emissions
SOx
Exhaust Total SOx
Emissions
817
Pollutant Vehicle Type
EMFAC
Vehicle Class Trips (trips/day)
Maximum Daily
Round-Trips
Total Annual
(trips/yr)
Idle Time per
Trip
(1)
(hrs/trip)
Idle Emission
Factors
(2)
(g/hr-veh)
Idle Emission
Factors (lbs/hrveh)
Maximum Daily Emission
Estimate (lbs/day)
Average
Annual
(tons/yr)
Estimate
Emission lbs/year lbs/hr
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 2.186 4.82E-03 0.001301 0.000119 0.237483 5.42198E-05

0.001301 0.000119 0.237483 5.42198E-05
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 2.489 5.49E-03 0.001481 0.000135 0.270356 6.17251E-05

0.001481 0.000135 0.270356 6.17251E-05
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 32.301 7.12E-02 0.019227 0.001754 3.508999 0.000801141

0.019227 0.001754 3.508999 0.000801141
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 25.833 5.70E-02 0.015377 0.001403 2.806316 0.000640711

0.015377 0.001403 2.806316 0.000640711
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 5648.173 1.25E+01 3.362065 0.306788 613.5768 0.140086024

3.362065 0.306788 613.5768 0.140086024
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 0.053 1.18E-04 0.000032 0.000003 0.005797 1.32346E-06

0.000032 0.000003 0.005797 1.32346E-06
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 0.009 2.05E-05 0.000006 0.000001 0.001011 2.3075E-07

0.000006 0.000001 0.001011 2.3075E-07
Product Trucks - Outside Sales T7 3 1095 0.09 0.009 1.96E-05 0.000005 0.000000 0.000967 2.20768E-07

0.000005 0.000000 0.000967 2.20768E-07
Maximum 3 Daily Truck Trips
Assumptions:
(2) Emission Factors source: EMFAC2017 for Tulare County Year 2023. (1) Assumes 5 minute idle time
References:

SOX
Total SOX Emissions
PM10
Total PM10 Emissions
PM2.5
Total PM2.5 Emissions
NOX
Total NOX Emissions
CO2
Total CO2 Emissions
Onsite Idling Sources
ROG
Total ROG Emissions
TOG
Total TOG Emissions
CO
Total CO Emissions
818

APPENDIX B

BIG BOX RETAIL SERVICE STATION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
819
8,800 Gallon Tank Trucks (Typical Size) - Gasoline
52,000 Gallon Storage Tank - Gasoline 8,800 Gallons/Hr MAX* (Phase I Loading Operation) 625,000 Gallons Sold Per Month 2,680 Gallons/Hr MAX* (Phase II Dispensing Operations) 7,500,000 Gallons Sold Per Year
Emission Rate
lb/1,000 Gal
Resulting lbs/year Resulting lbs / hr
Filling Underground Tank
Submerged Filling/Loading 0.150 1,125 1.3200
Underground Tank Breathing and Emptying 0.024 180 0.0643 Vehicle Refueling Operations
Displacement Losses (Controlled)/Refueling 0.356 2,670 0.9541 Spillage 0.240 1,800 0.6432
Hose Permeation 0.009 68 0.0241
* Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance - Mega Blitz Data Gasoline Dispensing Operations

LB/HR LB/YR
Benzene 71432 0.015344049 31.20251
Ethyl Benzene 100414 0.010825155 27.54601
Hexane 110543 0.05496102 107.0626
Naphthalene 91203 0.001129681 3.149991
Propylene (propene) 115071 8.5693E-05 0.147501
Toluene 108883 0.06243591 146.2173
Xylenes 1330207 0.052049505 135.1559
Storage Tank Gasoline Fugitives

LB/HR LB/YR
Benzene 71432 0.0004501 1.26
Toluene 108883 0.000643 1.8
Xylenes 1330207 0.000643 1.8
Bakersfield Big Box Hours 6am - 9pm M-Sa 15 hrs
9am - 7pm Sun 10 hrs

14.3 hrs/day X 365 = 5,220 hrs/yr
7,500,000 Gallons Sold Per Year
820
8,800 Gallon Tank Trucks (Typical Size) - Diesel
8,000 Gallon Storage Tank - Diesel
3,300 Gallons Sold Per Day
100,000 Gallons Sold Per Month
1,200,000 Gallons Sold Per Year
Emission Rate
lb/1,000 Gal lbs/hr lbs/day lbs / yr
Hourly 0.030 0.004
Daily 0.030 0.099
Annual 0.030 36.000
Storage Tank Diesel Fugitives

LB/HR LB/YR
Benzene 71432 3.52E-06 0.03168
Toluene 108883 1.93E-05 0.17352
Xylenes 1330207 1.68E-05 0.1512
1,200,000 Gallons Sold
821

APPENDIX C

SJVAPCD EMISSION FACTOR/CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
822
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Big Box Retail City of Visalia
Inputs
Project #:

ID#:
lb /hr lb /yr
VOC Rate 4.00E-03 36
Benzene 71432 8.80E-04 3.52E-06 3.17E-02
Toluene 108883 4.82E-03 1.93E-05 1.74E-01
Xylenes 1330207 4.20E-03 1.68E-05 1.51E-01
oil storage tanks in the southern region.
* The emission factors are from the 1993 District memo "Diesel Storage Weight Fractions", test data from source tests of 75 crude References:

Formula
Emissions are calculated by the multiplication of VOC
Rates and Emission Factors.

Storage Tank Diesel Fugitives
Substances CAS# lbs/ lb VOC LB/HR LB/YR
Use this spreadsheet for VOC fugitive emission from Diesel Storge Tanks. Entries required in yellow areas, output in grey areas.

Matthew Cegielski February 23, 2022
823
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Big Box Retail City of Visalia
Inputs
Project #:

ID#:
lb /hr lb /yr
VOC Rate 6.43E-02 180
Benzene 71432 7.00E-03 4.50E-04 1.26E+00
Toluene 108883 1.00E-02 6.43E-04 1.80E+00
Xylenes 1330207 1.00E-02 6.43E-04 1.80E+00
References:

March 11, 2016
Weight Fractions"
* The emission factors are from the 1995 District memo "Toxic Emissions Inventory Plan Regarding Diesel and Gasoline Storage Storage Tank Gasoline Fugitives
Substances CAS# lbs/ lb VOC LB/HR LB/YR
Formula
Emissions are calculated by the multiplication of VOC
Rates and Emission Factors.

Use this spreadsheet for VOC fugitive emission from Gasoline Storge Tanks. Entries required in yellow areas, output in grey areas.

Matthew Cegielski
824
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Big Box Retail City of Visalia
Inputs
Project #:

ID#:
lb /hr lb /yr
VOC Rate 1.32E+00 1.13E+03
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 6.03E-03 5.14E+00
Ethyl Benzene 100414 1.07E-03 1.41E-03 1.20E+00
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 2.40E-02 2.05E+01
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 5.87E-06 5.01E-03
Propylene (propene) 115071 3.59E-05 4.74E-05 4.04E-02
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 1.47E-02 1.25E+01
Xylenes 1330207 4.09E-03 5.40E-03 4.60E+00
References:

Matthew Cegielski April 28, 2022
Winter/Summer) in CARB’s 2022
*These emission factors are from table 11, "Content of Gasoline for Substances with OEHHA Chronic Health Factor (Combined Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidanc e.

Formula
Emissions are calculated by the multiplication of VOC
Rates and Emission Factors.

Gasoline Dispensing Operations VOC from Vapor Tank
Filling Loss
Substances CAS# lbs/ lb VOC LB/HR LB/YR
Use this spreadsheet for vapor VOC emissions from Vapor Tank Filling Loss. Entries required in yellow areas, output in gray areas.
825
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Big Box Retail City of Visalia
Inputs
Project #:

ID#:
lb /hr lb /yr
VOC Rate 2.41E-02 6.80E+01
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 1.10E-04 3.11E-01
Ethyl Benzene 100414 1.07E-03 2.58E-05 7.28E-02
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 4.39E-04 1.24E+00
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 1.07E-07 3.03E-04
Propylene (propene) 115071 3.59E-05 8.66E-07 2.44E-03
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 2.68E-04 7.55E-01
Xylenes 1330207 4.09E-03 9.86E-05 2.78E-01
References:

Substances CAS# lbs/ lb VOC LB/HR LB/YR
Winter/Summer) in CARB’s 2022
*These emission factors are from table 11, "Content of Gasoline for Substances with OEHHA Chronic Health Factor (Combined Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidanc e.

Gasoline Dispensing Operations VOC from Vapor Hose
Permeation Loss
Use this spreadsheet for vapor VOC emissions from Vapor Hose Permeation Loss.

Entries required in yellow areas, output in gray areas.

Matthew Cegielski April 28, 2022
Formula
Emissions are calculated by the multiplication of VOC
Rates and Emission Factors.
826
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Big Box Retail City of Visalia
Inputs
Project #:

ID#:
lb /hr lb /yr
VOC Rate 9.54E-01 2.67E+03
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 4.36E-03 1.22E+01
Ethyl Benzene 100414 1.07E-03 1.02E-03 2.86E+00
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 1.74E-02 4.86E+01
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 4.25E-06 1.19E-02
Propylene (propene) 115071 3.59E-05 3.43E-05 9.60E-02
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 1.06E-02 2.96E+01
Xylenes 1330207 4.09E-03 3.90E-03 1.09E+01
References:

Gasoline Dispensing Operations VOC from Vapor Vehicle
Refueling
Use this spreadsheet for vapor VOC emissions from Vapor Vehicle Refueling. Entries required in yellow areas, output in gray areas.

Matthew Cegielski April 28, 2022
Formula
Emissions are calculated by the multiplication of VOC
Rates and Emission Factors.
827
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Big Box Retail City of Visalia
Inputs
Project #:

ID#:
lb /hr lb /yr
VOC Rate 6.43E-02 1.80E+02
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 2.94E-04 8.23E-01
Ethyl Benzene 100414 1.07E-03 6.88E-05 1.93E-01
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 1.17E-03 3.28E+00
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 2.86E-07 8.01E-04
Propylene (propene) 115071 3.59E-05 2.31E-06 6.47E-03
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 7.14E-04 2.00E+00
Xylenes 1330207 4.09E-03 2.63E-04 7.36E-01
References:

Gasoline Dispensing Operations VOC from Vapor
Breathing Loss
Use this spreadsheet for vapor VOC emissions from Vapor Breathing Loss. Entries required in yellow areas, output in gray areas.

Matthew Cegielski April 28, 2022
Formula
Emissions are calculated by the multiplication of VOC
Rates and Emission Factors.
828
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Big Box Retail City of Visalia
Inputs
Project #:

ID#:
lb /hr lb/yr
VOC Rate 6.43E-01 1.80E+03
Benzene 71432 7.07E-03 4.55E-03 1.27E+01
Ethyl Benzene 100414 1.29E-02 8.30E-03 2.32E+01
Hexane 110543 1.86E-02 1.20E-02 3.35E+01
Naphthalene 91203 1.74E-03 1.12E-03 3.13E+00
Propylene (propene) 115071 1.22E-06 7.85E-07 2.20E-03
Toluene 108883 5.63E-02 3.62E-02 1.01E+02
Xylenes 1330207 6.59E-02 4.24E-02 1.19E+02
References:

Use this spreadsheet for liquid VOC emissions from gasoline dispensing operations' spillage processes. Entries required in yellow areas, output in gray areas.

Gasoline Dispensing Operations VOC from Liquid
Substances CAS#
lbs/ liquid
vapor LB/HR LB/YR
Formula
Emissions are calculated by the multiplication of VOC
Rates and Emission Factors.
829
1 JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
RESUME
Jason Ellard
Owner/Principal
Jason Ellard is an engineering professional who is devoted to the success of clients and their objectives. Since receiving his BS Degree in Civil Engineering from Fresno State University, he has worked in the environmental planning and traffic engineering/planning industry for 20+ years and uses that invaluable experience to prepare air quality and greenhouse gas, energy, health risk, and noise impact assessments to the satisfaction of CEQA and NEPA requirements. At a previous firm, Jason completed numerous (300+) environmental assessments, including traffic, throughout the San Joaquin Valley in addition to the successful creation of traffic signal and signal interconnect design drawings. Jason has completed impact assessments in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Riverside, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Tulare, and other Counties.

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Education
 California State University, Fresno 2000‐2005, Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Civil Engineering) Years of Experience
 Twenty (20) Years; Seventeen (17) Years with VRPA Technologies, Inc. in Fresno, CA Computer Program Proficiency
 Environmental Planning: CalEEMod, HARP, AermodView, TNM2.5  Traffic Operations: Synchro, HCS, LOSPLAN
 Travel Demand Forecasting: Viper
 Others: AutoCAD, MicroStation, CorelDraw, Microsoft Office

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
 Josan Development – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Selma  Nebraska Truck Parking Development – Greenhouse Gas Assessment / Fresno County  Nightpeak Matador BESS Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Imperial County  West‐Shields Gas Station Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Dairy Expansion Project – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Fresno County  76 Gas Station Development – Noise Impact and VMT Assessment / City of Fresno  CV Alliance Event Center – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Fresno County  Peach Avenue Starbucks Development – Air Quality Impact Assessment and Indirect Source Review Application / City of Fresno
 Central Point III Industrial Development – Indirect Source Review Application / City of Visalia  Waterfly Express Carwash Development – VMT‐Driveway Assessment / City of Indio 830
2 JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
 Yosemite Commercial Development – Noise Impact Assessment / Madera County  Sunny Market (Grocery Store) – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Fresno County  H2B2 USA Solar Field – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Fresno County  Gill Truck Parking Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Fresno County  Evergreen Development – Energy Assessment / City of Lake Elsinore  Rally’s Fast‐Food Restaurant – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Visalia  Duplex Development – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Woodville Landfill Expansion – Noise Impact Assessment / Tulare County  Kaiser Permanente Medical Office Building – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Iron Ridge Development – Air Quality Impact Assessment / City of Visalia  Avila Packing House – Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment / Stanislaus County  Yosemite West Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Mariposa County  Reedley Health Clinic Annexation Project – Air Quality Impact Assessment / City of Reedley  Sessions Family Foundation Development – Air Quality Impact Assessment / City of Chowchilla  Surf Ranch Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Kings County  Miles Chemical Expansion – Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment / Madera County  Lindsay Well Site Project – Air Quality Impact Assessment / City of Lindsay  Deer Creek Rock Co. Expansion – Noise Impact Assessment / Tulare County  Cutler‐Orosi Community Plan Update – Noise Impact Assessment / Tulare County  Wastewater Facility Improvement Project – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Planada Community Services District
 Portola Avenue & I‐10 Interchange Project – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Riverside County
 Indian Canyon Road Widening – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Riverside County  Running Horse Development – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Stonefield Development – Air Quality, Health Risk, and Noise Impact Assessment / City of McFarland  UP Imperial County Transfer Facility – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Imperial County  Hanford Downtown East Precise Plan – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / City of Hanford  Golden State Corridor Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Fresno County  Kern River Valley Specific Plan – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Kern County  Fairfax Union School District – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Kern County  North Fork Hotel and Casino – Noise Impact Assessment / Madera County  Peach Avenue Road Widening – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Grant Line Road Improvement Project – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Elk Grove  Madera School – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Madera  Zinkin’s Fresno 40 Development – Noise Impact Assessment  Home Depot Development – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Visalia  Fig Garden Corporation Center – Air Quality Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Gettysburg & Willow Multi‐Family Development – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Clovis  Strathmore High School – Air Quality Impact Assessment / City of Strathmore  Eastgate Estates – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Fresno County  Avenue 13 & Raymond Road – Air Quality Impact Assessment / City of Madera  Cal‐Kern III Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Kern County 831
3 JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
 Bond Road Improvement Project – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / City of Elk Grove  West McFarland Annexation – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / City of McFarland  Paladino and Morning Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Kern County  San Joaquin Gardens Development – Noise Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Stallion Springs Development – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Kern County  Tract 5558 Development – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / City of Fresno  Baker Lawson Development – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Fresno County  Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) 2015/2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Fresno County  Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) 2015/2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Air Quality and Noise Impact Assessment / Madera County  Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) – Air Quality Impact Assessment / Tulare County 832
833

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: September 23, 2024
PROJECT PLANNER: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
Phone: (559) 713-4443
E-Mail: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17: A request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot commercial building for the sale of general retail merchandise with a fuel dispensing service station and a car wash, within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. The project site is located on the southwest corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, as conditioned, based upon the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2024-48. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center Master Plan

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2024-48.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 is a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, which established the Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center. The original conditional use permit (CUP) conditionally facilitated the development of

17.43 acres of a 28.7 acre site, consisting of approximately 138,188 sq. ft. of commercial uses, including the establishment of four retail buildings of varying sizes (56,800 sq. ft., 29,800 sq. ft. and two 10,000 sq. ft. buildings), a 4,088 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store with six fueling stations and a 3,060 sq. ft. canopy, a 7,500 sq. ft. sit-down restaurant, two 3,000 sq. ft. drive-thru restaurants, and a 5,000 sq. ft. automotive repair shop. The amendment to the CUP proposes consolidation of the retail and office uses, removal of the convenience store, and relocation and expansion of the service station, to accommodate the establishment of the following:
• A 172,000 square foot big box retail membership club store. – Per the Operational Statement in Exhibit “L”, the store will offer “…bulk merchandise at discounted prices to members, typically requiring annual subscriptions for access to exclusive products and services”. Additional services include a tire shop and a service station (discussed below).

The use will operate seven days a week, 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Saturdays, and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sundays. Specialized “early shopping” hours will also be provided, 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. on Saturday. Delivery activities would occur 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., seven days a week. The number of employees proposed was not provided. 834
The building will be located east and north of an existing senior mobile home park. Loading docks will be situated at the south end of the retail store, approximately 90 feet from the southern property boundary shared with residential uses, with 10-foot-tall screening walls placed in between. A trash enclosure is proposed at the southwest corner of the project site, setback between 5 to 10 feet from property boundaries shared with residential uses, with landscaping proposed in between. A trash compactor is also proposed along the western wall of the building, near the southwest corner of the retail store. • An expanded service station containing 14 fueling stations, a 9,000 square foot fueling station canopy, and 200 square foot fueling station building – Per Exhibit “L”, this use will operate in conjunction with the big box retail store, and will maintain similar hours of operation. The facility will sell gasoline and diesel fuels, exclusively to store members.

Deliveries of fuel would be received “around the clock unless restricted by the authority having jurisdiction (City of Visalia)”. Employee numbers specific to this use were not provided. Per the Site Plan in Exhibit “A”, the facility will provide vehicle queuing for up to 70 vehicles. Per the Site Plan, the closest fuel station will be setback approximately 100 feet from the western property boundary shared with residential uses. • A 7,500 square foot carwash facility. – The applicant proposes an automated and manual full-service car wash facility with 22 drying stations. Additional services such as waxing and detailing will also be provided. The hours of operation and employee numbers have not been provided by the applicant. Per Exhibit “A”, the facility will provide vehicle queuing for up to 24 vehicles. The Site Plan indicates that the carwash will be set back approximately 470 feet from the nearest residential uses to the west. Per Building Elevations in Exhibit “F”, the tenant is identified as a Mister Car Wash. • A 5,588 square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru lane for 35 vehicles. – The applicant proposes a fast-food restaurant with a dual drive-thru lane. Per Exhibit “L”, the user will provide “…quick service dining options through a streamlined assembly-line approach to food preparation and service.” The hours of operation or employee numbers have not been provided by the applicant. Per Exhibit “A”, the dual drive-thru lane will provide vehicle queuing for up to 35 vehicles. Please note that this use is permitted byright in the C-R Zone, as its design and location comply with all drive-thru performance standards listed within Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.32.162.

As a result of the proposed changes, the total building square footage of the shopping center will increase from 138,188 square feet to 200,398 square feet, primarily due to the addition of the big box retail store. The application materials submitted by the applicant, including the Operational Statement (Exhibit “L”) do not specifically list the proposed tenant for the big box retail store/service station or fast-food restaurant. Both the big box retail store and fast-food restaurant are permitted by right in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. Only the expanded service station and addition of a carwash require discretionary approval in the C-R Zone, necessitating the CUP amendment.

The area affected by the new uses is composed of seven parcels totaling 22.2 acres out of the

28.7-acre shopping center. The parcels will be reconfigured as part of an ongoing Lot Line Adjustment (see Related Projects) that will consolidate the seven parcels into three parcels, the largest containing the retail store and service station. The parcels are currently primarily vacant, with portions developed with a parking field, drive-aisles, curb/gutter/sidewalk, parking lot lighting, and landscaping. New on and off-site improvements to support the proposed changes are depicted in Exhibit “A” and consist of the following:
835
• Relocation of the existing easternmost Visalia Parkway drive approach and drive aisle approximately 250 feet to the west, installation of additional curb/gutter/sidewalk at the northwest corner of the project site and at the location of the relocated drive approach. • Development of the parking field, increasing stalls provided from 744 to 1,141. • Installation of on-site parking lot lighting, consisting of 30-foot-tall light poles and wall pack lighting at a height of 24 feet.
• Installation of onsite landscaping.
• Installation of underground storage tanks for the service station use. • Installation of accompanying utilities for all proposed uses.

The project will also be responsible for completing the widening of the southern half of West Visalia Parkway, from the project site westerly to South Dans Street (approximately 0.4 miles), as required by the original Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center approval. Per the Phasing Plan in Exhibit “G”, the project will be developed in two phases, with the drive-thru restaurant, carwash, and related improvements proposed during the first phase, and the big box retail store, service station, majority of the parking field, and related improvements proposed for the second phase. Timeframes for when development will occur have not been provided. The remainder of the shopping center has been developed, and includes a sit-down restaurant (Texas Roadhouse), two drive-thru restaurants (Dutch Bros. Coffee and Panda Express), and a tire shop (Les Schwab Tires). Accompanying onsite parking, lighting, landscaping, block walls, and on/offsite infrastructure improvements (including the widening of both Visalia Parkway and Mooney Boulevard across the project frontages, and improvement of the Visalia/Mooney intersection) have also been previously completed.

Building elevations for the proposed uses are provided in Exhibit “F”. Both the carwash and fastfood restaurant will feature treatments typical of other franchise locations. The retail store and service station will feature blue, gray, and “urbane bronze” colorations, with smooth/split face CMU and precast panel walls, and parapet walls of varying heights along the front façade.

The applicant also seeks to alter provisions of the Master Sign Program approved with the original shopping center application. Modifications include the following:
• Relocation of a proposed service station monument sign from the northeast corner of the project site (the original location of the convenience store and service station), to the northwest corner of the project site, west of the westernmost Visalia Parkway drive-aisle, adjacent to the relocated service station. The monument sign would be used for the big box membership club retail store and service station.
• Enlargement of the proposed big box membership club retail store/service station monument sign faces, from 35 square feet to 46 square feet, located on each side of the structure.
• Addition of a 25-foot tall, 258 square foot pylon sign, with 98 square foot sign faces, located at the northeast corner of the parcel to contain the proposed Mister Car Wash.

Proposed Master Sign Program modifications are depicted and described in Exhibit “H”. 836

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial Regional
Zoning: C-R (Regional Commercial)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: C-R / Packwood Creek Shopping Center.

South: C-R, R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000
sq. ft. minimum site area) / Westlake Village
senior mobile home park, mixed office and
commercial uses.

East: C-R / Oaks Marketplace Shopping Center,
Aldi, vacant commercial land.

West: R-1-5 / Westlake Village senior mobile home
park.

Environmental Review No.: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024080917)
Special Districts: Not applicable.

Site Plan Review No.: 2023-202

RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
See separate Municipal Ordinance chapter pertaining to conditional use permits.

RELATED PROJECTS
Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31: A request by Lars Anderson & Associates to establish a master planned commercial development consisting of approximately 138,188 sq. ft. of commercial uses, including the establishment of three retail buildings of varying sizes (56,800 sq. ft., 29,800 sq. ft., and 10,000 sq. ft.), a 10,000 sq. ft. credit union building, a 4,088 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store with a 3,060 sq. ft. canopy, a 7,500 sq. ft. sit-down restaurant, two 3,000 sq. ft. drive-thru restaurants, and a 5,000 sq. ft. automotive repair store, on parcels with less than the minimum five acre site area requirement, including a parcel with no public street frontage, affecting 17.43 acres of a 28.7 acre site in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. The project site is located on the southwest corner of S. Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63). (APN:
126-960-001). The Visalia Planning Commission reviewed and approved the proposal on April 13, 2020. This development is called the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center and is located on the southwest corner of W. Visalia Parkway and S. Mooney Blvd., west of the project site.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-13: A request by Lars Anderson & Associates, Inc. to subdivide a 28.7-acre site into an 11-lot commercial subdivision in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone.

The project site is located on the southwest corner of S. Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63). (APN: 126-960-001). The Visalia Planning Commission reviewed and approved the proposal on April 13, 2020. This project is associated with the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center and is located on the southwest corner of W. Visalia Parkway and S. Mooney Blvd., west of the project site.

Lot Line Adjustment Nos. 2024-07 and 2024-08: A request by Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC to merge a total of six parcels into three parcels, located within the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. The parcels are at the southwest corner of West Visalia Parkway and South Mooney Boulevard (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 013, 014). 837

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, as conditioned, based on the project’s consistency with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center master plan.

Land Use Compatibility
The proposed retail building and fast-food restaurant meets all drive-thru performance standards are permitted uses “by right” within the C-R Zone. Ancillary uses conducted within the general retail store, such as the sale of merchandise, groceries, tire sales & service (excluding major repairs), optical exams and sales, hearing aid testing and sales, fast food, specialty food (i.e. butcher), alcohol sales, and propane sales are all permitted as standalone or incidental uses in this zone. The service station and carwash uses are also permitted through approval of a CUP.

The proposed uses identified in Exhibit “A” will be situated within an established shopping center and will be compatible with the surrounding commercial areas to the north and east which contain either fully developed and/or developing shopping centers (Packwood Shopping Center to the north, Oaks Marketplace to the east). Furthermore, the General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big-box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”. The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation.

Areas to the south and west are primarily residential, containing the Westlake Village senior mobile home park. Potential impacts to residential areas from air quality, noise, and lighting will be addressed through a combination of design, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval.

Mitigation measures include placement of an eight-foot-tall block wall along the western property boundary shared with residential uses and restricted delivery/loading dock hours of operation to limit noise impacts from the retail store and service station (Condition No. 16). Conditions of approval will also require the placement of an eight-foot-tall block wall along the southern and western property boundary shared with residential uses (Condition No. 12), and adjustments to onsite lighting to reduce glare, including verification of compliance with photometric plans submitted (see Exhibit “E”) prior to occupancy of any proposed building (Condition Nos. 8, 9, and 10). Staff also recommends Condition No. 13 requiring relocation of the proposed trash enclosure for the retail building, further away from the adjacent residential uses. The applicant has also included design elements such as screening walls for the loading docks, parapet walls to screen HVAC equipment, orientation of the carwash so that blowers face eastward towards Mooney Boulevard away from residences, and installation of parking lot light poles no closer than 50 feet to residential areas. Previous mitigation measures and conditions of approval applied during the original approval of the shopping center shall continue to be applicable via Condition No. 1. With all the identified measures in place, the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding land uses.

Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment
Residences located to the west and south of the proposed project are considered sensitive receptors susceptible to air quality impacts from the proposed use. As a result, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was submitted and is included with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The HRA analyzed potential impacts from carcinogenic, chronic, and acute toxic air contaminants (TAC) produced by the proposed service station on nearby sensitive receptors. The HRA identified residences located within 92 feet of the underground gasoline storage tanks as the nearest sensitive receptors. The HRA noted that a 50- foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities and that siting ‘new’ sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas 838
station (facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater) should be avoided.

The HRA noted that while the service station is anticipated to sell 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel annually, the recommendation related to 300 feet is related to siting new sensitive receptors adjacent to exiting gasoline dispensing facilities. The fuel dispensing area is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest existing sensitive receptor (residence).

The HRA analyzed volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, diesel emissions from truck traffic and idling, and emission rates provided in the California Air Resources Board and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guide (February 18, 2022), to estimate emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline service station.

Lastly, the HRA employed the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator to determine the “Total Max Score” of Project specific toxic emissions as discussed above. Projects with a Prioritization score of 10 or higher require a Health Risk Assessment with dispersion modeling. Toxic emissions associated with the Project were used as inputs to the Prioritization Calculator which generated the prioritization score for the Project. Results indicated that toxic emissions associated with the Project would generate a max score of 8.62 for sensitive receptors within 328 feet of the Project.

Project emissions associated with the Project will not trigger dispersion modeling since the Total Max Score is less than 10. As a result, dispersion modeling was not required for the Project considering the SJVAPCD’s methodology/threshold.

Overall, the HRA concluded that TAC emissions generated during service station operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted since there is a less than significant impact from Project operational emissions.

Noise
The amended project will result in noise generation typical of urban development. The Visalia Noise Element and City Ordinance contain criterion for acceptable noise levels inside and outside residential living spaces. This standard is 65 dB DNL for outdoor activity areas associated with residences and 45 dB DNL for indoor areas.

An Acoustical Analysis was prepared for the proposed project, addressing the proposed commercial retail building, service station, and automated car wash uses [Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024]. Impacts from the proposed drive-thru restaurant were not included given its lack of proximity to residential uses (approximately 750-foot separation at its closest point), and the fact that it is a use permitted by right in the C-R Zone.

The purpose of the study was to determine if noise levels associated with the project would comply with the City’s applicable noise level standards, particularly upon the existing single-family residential mobile home park uses to the west and south. The acoustical analysis was intended to determine project‐related noise levels for all aspects of the proposed project.

The Acoustical Analysis concluded that an exterior noise level in excess of the 65 dB DNL standard for noise-sensitive land uses, specified in the City’s Noise Element, exists on the project site. To ensure that community noise standards are met for the development, the project developers have proposed an increase in height of an existing block wall located on the west side of the main project site to an overall height of eight feet, limited hours of operation to loading dock and truck delivery activities, and construction related compliance with Visalia Municipal Code Noise Ordinance measures and best practices to reduce impacts. The recommendations are included as mitigation measures (see Condition No. 16) and will allow for development of the 839
proposal in accordance with the standards contained in the City’s Noise Element and Ordinance.

As described in the analyses, the mitigation measures are as follows:

1. All project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

2. The height of the existing 7-foot-tall masonry wall along the western project property boundary shall be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. Related to this, please note the following:
a. VMC Section 17.36.050 (Fences, Walls and Hedges – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones) limits the height of commercial walls to seven feet when located in a rear yard.

The VMC permits 20% deviations in height limitations when special circumstances are identified, through the Administrative Adjustment process. Approvals are typically administrative, provided by the Planning and Community Preservation Director. As a result, it is recommended that the Planning Commission include as part of its decision, an approval to permit the height of the block wall to eight feet, as recommended by the Noise Study.
b. To further mitigate impacts, staff recommends inclusion of Condition No. 12, requiring placement of an eight-foot-tall block wall along the southern property boundary shared with residential zonings. As above, it is recommended that the Planning Commission include approval of the height deviation in its decision.

3. All on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

4. To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction operations:
a. All on-site noise-generating construction activities should occur pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050 (Noise - Exterior noise standards--Mobile noise sources prohibition against use).
b. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
c. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
d. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
e. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive uses. f. Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
g. Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.
840
The acoustical analysis also notes that noise levels will increase temporarily during the construction of the project. However, analysis indicates that construction related noise levels shall remain within the limits defined by the City of Visalia Noise Ordinance. The temporary increase in ambient noise levels associated with construction are less than significant. Please also note that previous mitigation measures for noise identified during review of the original shopping center request will continue to be applicable via Condition No. 1. Lastly, Condition No. 7 is also included, requiring the applicant/developer to have their acoustical noise consultant conduct noise measurements for the uses upon completion, to verify compliance with the acoustical analysis and VMC noise measures. Failure to meet the noise requirements as specified in the acoustical analysis shall result in the applicant/developer implementing additional measures as needed to achieve noise level standards for the residences.

Street Improvements/Traffic
Right of way improvements originally required for the overall shopping center are largely completed. The off-site improvements that remain to be completed as identified in the original approval is the widening of the southern half of West Visalia Parkway between the project site and South Dans Street, including a portion west of the Dans Street and Visalia Parkway intersection. The right-of-way improvements shall include installation curb, gutter, park strip landscaping, sidewalks, ramps, streetlights, fire hydrants, and other improvements as required.

These improvements will be reimbursed back to the developer via the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. These improvements are still required and are included as Condition No. 1.

Street improvements for this project will consist of the relocation of the existing easternmost driveway providing access onto Visalia Parkway. The relocation of this driveway further west is proposed to accommodate placement of a parking field for the future fast-food restaurant.

Additional minor improvements to the westernmost Visalia Parkway driveway are also proposed, to accommodate truck and vehicle traffic. Installation of missing sidewalk and landscaping shall occur as well.

A Traffic Memo [Technical Memorandum: Trip Generation Comparison, Visalia Commons Shopping Center, Visalia California. Peters Engineering Group, August 19, 2024] was provided by the applicant, comparing potential trip generation from the amended project to what was originally analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) conducted for the overall shopping center (ref.: Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center.

Peters Engineering Group, January 10, 2020). Based on the analysis provided in the Traffic Memo, trips generated by the revised project will be less than the vehicle trips identified in the original TIA.

As previously stated, required street improvements identified in the original TIA have been largely completed, which included the widening of West Visalia Parkway and South Mooney Boulevard to their ultimate widths along the project site frontage, and improvement of the Visalia Parkway/Mooney Boulevard intersection. Due to the completion of improvements and conclusions of the Traffic Memo, and update to the TIA was not required nor new street improvements or mitigation measures recommended. The original TIA performed remains applicable and covers the projected trip generation for the amended project.

Comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was received from Caltrans on September 3, 2024, and is included with the report under “Environmental Review Comments Received”. Per the e-mail provided, Caltrans agreed with the findings of the Traffic Memo/Technical Memorandum and had no further comments.
841
Access and Circulation
With the proposed project, the shopping center will continue to have a total of five access drive points: three along Visalia Parkway and two along Mooney Boulevard. Only the easternmost driveway along Visalia Parkway will change locations. As such, onsite circulation will remain largely unaltered from its original design. Per the Phasing Plan, four of the drive-aisles have already been constructed. Phase 1 of the proposed development will relocate the easternmost Visalia Parkway driveway to the west. The fifth driveway, at the northwest corner of the project site, will be developed with Phase 2.

The driveways will be connected by 25- to 30-foot-wide drive aisles that will function as the main thoroughfares for the shopping center. The drive aisles will be fully installed upon completion of the 2
nd Phase of the development. Condition No. 6 is included requiring all existing CC&R’s and shared use/access/parking agreements to be updated and recorded to reflect the proposed shopping center alterations. This shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for the uses proposed.

Vehicle Queuing for the Service Station, Car Wash, and Fast-Food Restaurant At the City’s request during the project’s consideration through Site Plan Review, three studies have been prepared to address the management of vehicles queuing at the proposed fuel station and car wash (see Exhibit “M”). The studies provide data verifying that vehicle queuing will rarely exceed the available queuing amounts provided in each lane. The study for the drive-thru restaurant also provides various “lane busting” tactics to be employed to expediently move vehicles through queuing lanes in the event capacity is exceeded. This includes staff taking and receiving payment for orders from customers while they are in queuing lanes and providing greater staff numbers when there is an increase of customers, and asking customers to park if an order is expected to be delayed. Enforcement of the studies is addressed in the CUP’s recommended Condition No. 3.

Parking
Per VMC Chapter 17.34 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities) the required number of parking stalls for a major shopping center is one stall for every 225 sq. ft. of building area. Total square footage for all buildings proposed is 200,398 sq. ft., requiring 890 parking stalls. Per Exhibits “A” and “L”, a total of 1,141 parking stalls are proposed, thereby exceeding the VMC requirement. The applicant has indicated that the site will have shared parking, which will accommodate minor variations in parking demand between the commercial uses.

The overall parking layout of the shopping center meets City parking design standards, with the exception that some areas of the parking field, such as for the fast-food restaurant, do not contain sufficient tree wells. The VMC requires one 80 square foot tree well for every 10 contiguous parking stalls. Condition No. 11 is recommended requiring compliance with the tree well parking standard.

Development Standards
The proposed development largely complies with building and landscape setbacks for the C-R Zone. Mooney Boulevard landscaping setbacks will be consistent with the Packwood Creek commercial developments to the north. Only the proposed fast-food restaurant drive-thru lane appears to encroach into the 20-foot landscape setback along South Mooney Boulevard. Staff recommends the inclusion of Condition No. 14, requiring compliance with all building and landscape setbacks for the C-R Zone.
842
Please note that a fast-food restaurant, with a drive-thru lane in compliance with all VMC performance standards, is not subject to discretionary review. As such, issues relating to the setback encroachment of the fast-food restaurant drive-thru lane will be addressed during Building Permit review.

Architectural Theme
A common architectural theme and color palette was adopted for the retail, drive-thru, and office buildings proposed with the original shopping center development. Despite this, individual users identified at the time of the original approval (Texas Roadhouse, 7-11 convenience store, and Les Schwab Tires) were permitted to retain typical franchise building exteriors, in contrast to the common theme. As such, the shopping center was never fully planned to maintain a unified appearance. This submittal removes the previously approved common architectural theme, as none of the original identified uses will be carried over. New Building Elevations provided in Exhibit “F” permit the new users to apply franchise design elements, in keeping with what was permitted for the existing tenants of the shopping center. Please also note, although it is encouraged that all buildings within a shopping center have a unified architectural theme, it is not a VMC requirement for a master planned development.

Lighting
The project will create new sources of light that are typically associated with commercial retail use. The applicant has prepared a photometric study (Exhibit “E”) showing the installation of wall pack lighting for the retail store and 30-foot-tall parking lot pole lights. The plan demonstrates that the use will meet the standard of producing no more than 0.5-foot candles crossing at property line, in particular along the boundaries shared with the existing residential development to the south and west.

Staff has addressed lighting compliance in the CUP’s recommended Condition Nos. 8, 9, and 10.

The conditions require the developer to conduct a lighting measurement verifying compliance with the photometric plan prior to occupancy of the proposed buildings and requires any onsite lighting to be designed so as to screen lighting and direct it downward, reducing impacts to nearby residential areas.

Master Sign Program
A master sign program was adopted with the original commercial center approval. The program included standards for wall and monument signage that largely matched existing requirements for signage in the VMC. Larger wall sign faces for the major anchor buildings were permitted as part of the program, up to 250 square feet shared amongst all building exteriors. This will be applied to any signage for the big box retail store.

The sign program previously permitted the placement of four monument signs (three multi-tenant and one service station pricing sign) and included a provision allowing for a monument sign on each parcel within the shopping center. Relocation of the previously approved service station monument sign is considered consistent with the plan, as the signage was always intended to be located adjacent to the service station use. Similarly, placement of a fifth monument sign on the parcel planned for a car wash is also consistent with the master sign program and VMC signage standards.

The applicant proposes that the relocated retail store/service station monument sign and new car wash monument sign be built at sizes exceeding monument sign development standards and master sign program allocations. Per VMC Chapter 17.48 (Signs), monument signs are permitted to be 12 feet tall and contain 35 square feet of sign area per side (70 square feet in total), with 843
the overall structure not exceeding a size of 140 square feet. These provisions were incorporated into the original master sign program.

For the relocated retail store/service station monument sign, the applicant proposes an eightfoot-tall monument sign, with sign faces of up to 46 square feet per face (totaling 92 square feet of sign face area), at an overall structural size of 128 square feet. For the new car wash monument sign, the applicant proposes a 25-foot-tall monument sign, with 98 square foot sign faces (totaling 196 square feet of sign face area), at an overall structural size of 258 square feet.

Neither structure meets all VMC standards or master sign program requirements. The proposed sign face and total sign face area for the retail store/service station monument sign will exceed the maximum sign face allowances of the Sign Ordinance. The proposed height, sign face area, and structure size of the car wash monument sign exceeds all maximum allowances for monument signage prescribed in the Sign Ordinance.

VMC Section 17.48.140 allows master sign programs to deviate from the dimensional standards and other limitations of the Sign Ordinance, provided they achieve a result that is superior to what would otherwise be allowed. To determine a superior design the following findings must be made:

1. That the proposed signs are in harmony and visually related to other signs in the master sign program, their respective buildings, and surrounding development; and

2. That the proposed signs will comply with all the provisions of the sign ordinance, except with regard to number of signs allowed and location and height of signs.

Staff concludes that the two proposed monument signs do not meet the provisions of the Sign Ordinance, nor do they comply with the master sign program originally adopted for the shopping center. Neither monument sign, as depicted in Exhibit “H”, are designed in a manner that is visually related to the established signs for the shopping center. In particular, the carwash monument sign drastically exceeds all sign allowances of the master sign program, Sign Ordinance, and monument sign approvals previously provided to stand-alone uses in the City of Visalia. Furthermore, the shopping center already provides three monument signs with available area for the display of advertising by the proposed retailer/service station and car wash. The applicant has not provided a justification for the increase in sign area and monument sign height.

Given the above, staff does not support the request for monument signage as proposed. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Condition No. 15, requiring that all monument signage be developed consistent with VMC standards for commercial monument signs.

Public Comment
Public comment (one phone call, two e-mails) was received from three individuals associated with or residing within the Westlake Village senior mobile home park located south and west of the project site. The individuals shared concerns from residents of the mobile home community, citing potential negative impacts from the uses relating to late hours of operation, noise production, location of the solid waste enclosure, insufficient wall heights (listed as currently five feet, seven inches tall, as measured from Westlake Village properties), impairment of aesthetic scenery, and reduction to air quality. The individuals made requests further limiting proposed hours of operation, requiring 9- to 10-foot-tall screening walls, planting of trees and greenery along shared property boundaries, and relocation of proposed trash enclosures. Concerns were also shared regarding the timeframe given to provide public comment on the contents of the Planning Commission staff report, which is typically published the Friday before a Monday public hearing date. Comments noted that too little time was given for members of the public to review reports and provide comment.
844
Staff notes that a Noise Study has been conducted by the applicant as part of this project, which is included in the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration attached to this report. Mitigation measures identified in the study, including construction of an eight-foot-tall wall and limited hours of operation for loading/delivery activities, have been incorporated into the project via Condition No. 16 and are considered adequate to address any potential impacts from the proposed uses.

A Health Risk Assessment was also prepared which evaluated potential air impacts from the proposed service station use and concluded the service station operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted since there is a less than significant impact from Project operational emissions. Staff also notes that a public notice was published, and individual notices mailed over 30 days prior to the public hearing date, in compliance with State requirements for projects affecting State facilities (Mooney Boulevard/State Route 63).

Staff has also included Condition No. 13, requiring relocation of the trash enclosure. Per the Landscape Plan in Exhibit “D”, the applicant has already incorporated the installation of trees and shrubbery along the property boundaries shared with the adjacent residential uses. Given the above, staff believes that the comments in the letters have been adequately addressed and conditioned. No other public comment has been received as of the publication of this report.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse 2024080917) that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts to the following resources:
• Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Noise to address impacts to surrounding sensitive land uses.

A 30-day review and comment period through the State Clearinghouse for the Initial Study began on August 22, 2024, and ended on September 20, 2024. Mitigation measures are included as Condition No. 16.

The City of Visalia received one “no comment” e-mail from Caltrans in response to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. The e-mail is included with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

1. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
a. The proposed location of the conditional use permit is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The proposed retail building and fast-food restaurant meeting all drive-thru performance standards are permitted uses “by right” within the C-R Zone. Ancillary uses conducted within the general retail store, such as the sale of merchandise, groceries, tire sales & service (excluding major repairs), optical exams and sales, hearing aid testing and sales, fast food, specialty food (i.e. butcher), alcohol sales, and propane sales are all permitted as standalone or incidental uses in this zone. The service station and carwash uses are also permitted through approval of a CUP. All proposed uses identified in the site plan 845
exhibit will be situated within an established shopping center and will be compatible with the surrounding commercial areas to the north and east which contain either fully developed and/or developing shopping centers (Packwood Shopping Center to the north, Oaks Marketplace to the east). Furthermore, the General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”. The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation. b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”.

The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation. The project is conditioned properly to ensure that all impacts have been properly mitigated.

3. That an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant with mitigation, and therefore Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024080917) can be adopted for this project.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

2. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with Site Plan Review No. 2023-202.

3. That the project will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan in Exhibit "A", street improvements/cross sections in Exhibit “C”, conceptual landscaping plan in Exhibit “D”, conceptual photometric plan and lighting information in Exhibit “E”, building elevations in Exhibit “F”, phasing plan in Exhibit “G”, pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Exhibit “I”, floor plans in Exhibit “J”, anchor tenant roof plan and sight lines exhibit in Exhibit “K”, operational statement in Exhibit “L”, and queuing analysis’ in Exhibit “M”. Any subsequent changes to the plans depicted in Exhibits “A”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, and “M” shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan Review Committee and may be subject to an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.

4. That the project will be developed in substantial compliance with the monument signage and master sign program in Exhibit “H”, except as modified by the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17.

5. That solid landscape screening, such as a 3-foot-high solid hedge, or a screening wall shall be installed where parking areas or drive-thru lanes and landscape setbacks meet.

7. That prior to final occupancy of the big box retail store, service station, and carwash facility, the applicant/developer shall verify that the uses do not exceed Community Noise levels as 846
identified in the noise analysis (Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., May 2024 Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024). The applicant/developer shall have their acoustical noise consultant conduct noise measurements for the uses and the measurement shall be submitted and verified by Planning staff for acceptance. Failure to meet the noise requirements as specified in the acoustical analysis shall result in the applicant/developer implementing additional measures as needed to achieve noise level standards for the residences.

Failure to meet requirements as specified in the photometric plan shall result in non-operation of the site until light levels are met.

10.That flat lens fixtures be utilized for the service station under canopy lights to preclude direct light glare beyond the fuel islands.

14.That all buildings shall comply with the building and landscape setbacks for the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone specified in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.18.

17.That all of the conditions and responsibilities of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 shall run with the land and subsequent owners/operators shall also be subject to all of the conditions herein, unless amended or revoked.

18.All on-site truck deliveries, including trucks delivery fuel, for the big box retail membership club store and associated service station shall be limited to daytime hours only from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

19.The applicant and all successors in interest shall comply with all applicable federal, state and city codes and ordinances.
847

APPEAL INFORMATION
According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 N. Santa Fe Street, Visalia CA 93292. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, or decisions not supported by the evidence in the record.

The appeal form can be found on the city’s website www.visalia.city or from the city clerk.

Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2024-28
• Exhibit "A" – Revised Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan • Exhibit “B” – Original Commons at Visalia Parkway Master Plan • Exhibit “C” – Street Improvements / Cross Sections
• Exhibit “D” – Conceptual Landscaping Plan
• Exhibit “E” – Conceptual Photometric Plan and Lighting Information • Exhibit “F” – Building Elevations
• Exhibit “G” – Phasing Plan
• Exhibit “H” – Proposed Master Sign Program Modifications • Exhibit “I” – Pedestrian Connectivity Exhibit
• Exhibit “J” – Floor Plans
• Exhibit “K” – Anchor Tenant Roof Plan and Sight Lines Exhibit • Exhibit “L” – Operational Statement
• Exhibit “M” – Queuing Analysis’ (Service Station, Carwash, Fast Food Restaurant) • Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2019-55 and 2019-42, for the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center (Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-13)
• Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 • Technical Memorandum: Trip Generation Comparison, Visalia Commons Shopping Center, Visalia California. Peters Engineering Group, August 19, 2024. • Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024. • Sam’s Club Gas Station Health Risk Assessment / City of Visalia. JK Consulting Group, LLC, March 14, 2024.
• Archaeological Letter Report In Consideration of the SWC Visalia Parkway and Mooney Blvd.

Development Project. Culturescape, August 2024.
• Environmental Review Comments Received
• Public Comment Letters
848
• Site Plan Review No. 2023-202 Revise & Proceed Comments, November 15, 2023 • General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Vicinity Map

RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
TITLE 17 – ZONING
Chapter 17.18 Commercial Zones

17.18.010 Purpose and intent.

A. The several types of commercial zones included in this chapter are designed to achieve the following:

1. Provide appropriate areas for various types of retail stores, offices, service establishments and wholesale businesses to be concentrated for the convenience of the public; and to be located and grouped on sites that are in logical proximity to the respective geographical areas and respective categories of patrons that they serve in a manner consistent with the general plan;

2. Maintain and improve Visalia's retail base to serve the needs of local residents and encourage shoppers from outside the community;

3. Accommodate a variety of commercial activities to encourage new and existing business that will employ residents of the city and those of adjacent communities;

4. Maintain Visalia's role as the regional retailing center for Tulare and Kings Counties and ensure the continued viability of the existing commercial areas;

5. Maintain commercial land uses that are responsive to the needs of shoppers, maximizing accessibility and minimizing trip length;

6. Ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses.

B. The purposes of the individual commercial zones are as follows:

1. Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-N). The purpose and intent of the neighborhood commercial zone district is to provide for small-scale commercial development that primarily serves surrounding residential areas, wherein small office uses as well as horizontal or vertical residential mixed use are also supported, and provide standards to ensure that neighborhood commercial uses are economically viable and also integrated into neighborhoods in terms of design, with negative impacts minimized, with multimodal access, and context-sensitive design. Neighborhood Commercial development shall be subject to design review and public input. There should be 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre where residential uses are included. Shopping centers shall be of a total size of 5 to 12 acres and located no closer than one mile from other General Plan designated Neighborhood Commercial locations, or from existing grocery stores, anchored by a grocery store or similar business no larger than 40,000 square feet in size, and include smaller in-line stores of less than 10,000 square feet. Alterations and additions in existing nonconforming centers may be permitted, subject to design review and conditions of approval to minimize neighborhood impacts.

2. Regional Commercial Zone (C-R). The purpose and intent of the regional commercial zone district is to provide areas for retail establishments that are designed to serve a regional service trade area. The uses permitted in this district are to be of a large-scale regional retail nature with supporting goods and services. Uses that are designed to provide service to residential areas and convenience, neighborhood and community level retail are not permitted, while office uses are to be limited. 849

3. Service Commercial Zone (C-S). The purpose and intent of the planned service commercial zone district is to provide areas that accommodate wholesale, heavy commercial uses, such as lumberyards and construction material retail uses, etc., and services such as automotive, plumbing, and sheet metal fabrication. It is intended that uses in this district be those that can be compatible with heavy truck traffic and noise. Uses that would restrict the operation of generally permitted heavy commercial businesses are not provided in this district. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7310)

17.18.015 Applicability.

The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within the C-N, C-R, and C-S zone districts. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017)

17.18.020 Permitted uses.

Permitted uses in the C-N, C-R, and C-S zones shall be determined by Table 17.25.030 in Section

17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017; Ord. 2016-06, 2016; Ord. 2015-04 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2015-01 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2014-07 § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 2012-10, 2012; Ord. 2012-08, 2012; Ord. 2012-02, 2012; Ord. 2011-07 § 2, 2011; Ord. 2010-16, 2010; Ord. 2009-02, 2009; Ord. 2006-17, 2006; Res. 2004-75 (part), 2004; Ord. 2004-08 § 3, 2004; Res. 2004-14 (part), 2004; Res. 2003-95 (part), 2003; Res. 2002-83, 2002; Res. 2002-26, 2002; Res. 2001-40, 2001; Res. 2001-29, 2001; Ord. 2000-01 § 6, 2000; Ord. 9903 § 3, 1999; Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997; amended by council August 13, 1997; amended by council June 3, 1996 and May 20, 1996: prior code § 7328)

17.18.030 Conditional and temporary uses.

Conditional and temporary uses in the C-N, C-R, and C-S zones shall be determined by Table 17.25.030 in Section 17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2016-06, 2016; Ord. 2015-04 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2015- 01 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2014-07 § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 2012-10, 2012; Ord. 2012-08, 2012; Ord. 2012-02, 2012; Ord. 2011-07 § 2, 2011; Ord. 2010-16, 2010; Ord. 2009-02, 2009; Ord. 2006-17, 2006; Res. 2004-75 (part), 2004; Ord. 2004-08 § 3, 2004; Res. 2004-14 (part), 2004; Res. 2003-95 (part), 2003; Res. 2002- 83, 2002; Res. 2002-26, 2002; Res. 2001-40, 2001; Res. 2001-29, 2001; Ord. 2000-01 § 6, 2000; Ord. 9903 § 3, 1999; Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997; amended by council August 13, 1997; amended by council June 3, 1996 and May 20, 1996: prior code § 7328)

17.18.040 Required conditions.

A. A site plan review permit must be obtained for all development in all C-N, C-S, and C-R zones, subject to the requirements and procedures in Chapter 17.28.

B. All businesses, services and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, garden shops, Christmas tree sales lots, bus depots and transit stations, electric distribution substation, and recycling facilities;
C. All products produced on the site of any of the permitted uses shall be sold primarily at retail on the site where produced;
D. All new construction in existing C-N zones not a part of a previously approved planned development shall conform with development standards determined by the site plan review committee. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7319)

17.18.050 Off-street parking and loading facilities.

Off-street parking and off-street loading facilities shall be provided as prescribed in Chapter 17.34. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7325)

17.18.070 Development standards in the C-R zone.

The following development standards shall apply to property located in the C-R zone:

A. Minimum site area: five (5) acres.

B. Maximum building height: fifty (50) feet.

C. Minimum required yards (building setbacks):
850

1. Front: twenty (20) feet;

2. Rear: zero (0) feet;

3. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: fifteen (15) feet;

4. Side: zero (0) feet;

5. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: fifteen (15) feet;

6. Street side yard on corner lot: ten (10) feet.

D. Minimum required landscaped yard (setback) areas:

1. Front: twenty (20) feet;

2. Rear: five (5) feet;

3. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: five (5) feet;

4. Side: five (5) feet (except where a building is located on side property line);

5. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: five (5) feet;

6. Street side on corner lot: ten (10) feet. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017) Excerpt from Chapter 17.32: Special Provisions

17.32.162 Drive-thru lanes performance standards.

A. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this section to specify performance standards applicable to uses that seek to incorporate a drive-thru lane in association with a specified use.

This section does not apply to carwashes and lube and oil changing stations.

B. Performance standards:

1. Separation from residences. The drive-thru lane shall be no less than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the nearest residence or residentially zoned property.

2. Stacking. The drive-thru lane shall contain no less than ten (10) vehicle stacking, measured from pickup window to the designated entrance to the drive-thru lane. There shall be no less than three vehicle spaces distance from the order menu/speaker (or like device) to the designated entrance to the order window.

3. Circulation. No portion of the drive-thru lane shall obstruct any drive aisles or required onsite parking.

The drive-thru shall not take ingress or egress from a local residential road.

4. Noise. No component or aspect of the drive-thru lane or its operation shall generate noise levels in excess of 60 dB between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily.

5. Screening. The entire drive-thru lane shall be screened from adjacent street and residential view to a height of three feet. Screening devices shall be a combination of berming, hedge and landscape materials, and solid walls as approved by the City Planner.

6. Menu boards and signage. Shall be oriented or screened to avoid direct visibility from adjacent public streets.

Excerpt from Chapter 17.36: Fences, Walls and Hedges

17.36.050 Commercial and mixed use zones.

The following standards shall apply to sites within a C-N, C-R, C-S, C-MU, or D-MU zone:

A. Where a site in the C-N, C-R, C-S, C-MU, or D-MU zone adjoins an R-1 or R-M zone, either a concrete block masonry wall not less than seven feet in height shall be located on the property line except in a required front yard and suitably maintained or a landscaped buffer be provided as approved by the planning commission.

B. A use not conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, on a site across a street or alley from an R-1 or R-M zone shall be screened by a concrete block or masonry wall not less than six feet in height, if the city planning commission finds said use to be unsightly. A landscaped buffer can be approved by the planning commission in place of a required wall as an exception.

C. Open storage of materials and equipment, except commercial vehicles and used car sales lots, shall be permitted only within an area surrounded and screened by a concrete block or masonry wall not 851
less than six feet in height; provided, that no materials or equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall or fence.

D. No fence or wall shall exceed seven feet in height if located in a required side or rear yard or three feet in height if located in a required front yard. A fence or wall may be allowed in a required front yard to a height of four feet provided that the additional one-foot height is not of a solid material, upon approval of the city planner.

E. Exceptions may be granted in accordance with Chapter 17.42. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7516)
Chapter 17.38: Conditional Use Permits

17.38.010 Purposes and powers.

In certain zones conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the zoning ordinance and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes and thus give the zone use regulations the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, the planning commission is empowered to grant or deny applications for conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of such permits. (Prior code § 7525)

17.38.020 Application procedures.

A. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the planning commission on a form prescribed by the commission which shall include the following data:

1. Name and address of the applicant;

2. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property or is the authorized agent of the owner;

3. Address and legal description of the property;

4. The application shall be accompanied by such sketches or drawings as may be necessary by the planning division to clearly show the applicant's proposal;

5. The purposes of the conditional use permit and the general description of the use proposed;

6. Additional information as required by the historic preservation advisory committee.

B. The application shall be accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the city council sufficient to cover the cost of handling the application. (Prior code § 7526)

17.38.030 Lapse of conditional use permit.

A conditional use permit shall lapse and shall become void twenty-four (24) months after the date on which it became effective, unless the conditions of the permit allowed a shorter or greater time limit, or unless prior to the expiration of twenty-four (24) months a building permit is issued by the city and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the permit. A permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of twenty-four (24) months from the date the permit originally became effective, an application for renewal is filed with the planning commission. The commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a conditional use permit. In the case of a planned residential development, the recording of a final map and improvements thereto shall be deemed the same as a building permit in relation to this section. (Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7527)

17.38.040 Revocation.

Upon violation of any applicable provision of this title, or, if granted subject to a condition or conditions, upon failure to comply with the condition or conditions, a conditional use permit shall be suspended automatically. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing within sixty (60) days, in accordance 852
with the procedure prescribed in Section 17.38.080, and if not satisfied that the regulation, general provision or condition is being complied with, may revoke the permit or take such action as may be necessary to insure compliance with the regulation, general provision or condition. Appeals of the decision of the planning commission may be made to the city council as provided in Section 17.38.120. (Prior code § 7528)

17.38.050 New application.

Following the denial of a conditional use permit application or the revocation of a conditional use permit, no application for a conditional use permit for the same or substantially the same conditional use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial or revocation of the permit unless such denial was a denial without prejudice by the planning commission or city council. (Prior code § 7530)

17.38.060 Conditional use permit to run with the land.

A conditional use permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure which was the subject of the permit application subject to the provisions of Section 17.38.065. (Prior code § 7531)

17.38.065 Abandonment of conditional use permit.

If the use for which a conditional use permit was approved is discontinued for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days, the use shall be considered abandoned and any future use of the site as a conditional use will require the approval of a new conditional use permit.

17.38.070 Temporary uses or structures.

A. Conditional use permits for temporary uses or structures may be processed as administrative matters by the city planner and/or planning division staff. However, the city planner may, at his/her discretion, refer such application to the planning commission for consideration.

B. The city planner and/or planning division staff is authorized to review applications and to issue such temporary permits, subject to the following conditions:

1. Conditional use permits granted pursuant to this section shall be for a fixed period not to exceed thirty (30) days for each temporary use not occupying a structure, including promotional enterprises, or six months for all other uses or structures.

2. Ingress and egress shall be limited to that designated by the planning division. Appropriate directional signing, barricades, fences or landscaping shall be provided where required. A security officer may be required for promotional events.

3. Off-street parking facilities shall be provided on the site of each temporary use as prescribed in Section 17.34.020.

4. Upon termination of the temporary permit, or abandonment of the site, the applicant shall remove all materials and equipment and restore the premises to their original condition.

5. Opening and closing times for promotional enterprises shall coincide with the hours of operation of the sponsoring commercial establishment. Reasonable time limits for other uses may be set by the city planner and planning division staff.

6. Applicants for a temporary conditional use permit shall have all applicable licenses and permits prior to issuance of a conditional use permit.

7. Signing for temporary uses shall be subject to the approval of the city planner.

8. Notwithstanding underlying zoning, temporary conditional use permits may be granted for fruit and vegetable stands on properties primarily within undeveloped agricultural areas. In reviewing applications for such stands, issues of traffic safety and land use compatibility shall be evaluated 853
and mitigation measures and conditions may be imposed to ensure that the stands are built and are operated consistent with appropriate construction standards, vehicular access and off-street parking. All fruits and vegetables sold at such stands shall be grown by the owner/operator or purchased by said party directly from a grower/farmer.

C. The applicant may appeal an administrative decision to the planning commission. (Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7532)

17.38.080 Public hearing--Notice.

A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit.

B. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing a notice of the time and place of the hearing to property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the area occupied or to be occupied by the use which is the subject of the hearing, and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. (Prior code § 7533)

17.38.090 Investigation and report.

The planning staff shall make an investigation of the application and shall prepare a report thereon which shall be submitted to the planning commission. (Prior code § 7534)

17.38.100 Public hearing--Procedure.

At the public hearing the planning commission shall review the application and the statement and drawing submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, particularly with respect to the findings prescribed in Section 17.38.110. The planning commission may continue a public hearing from time to time as it deems necessary. (Prior code § 7535)

17.38.110 Action by planning commission.

A. The planning commission may grant an application for a conditional use permit as requested or in modified form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the commission makes the following findings:

1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located;

2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

B. A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the commission may prescribe. The commission may grant conditional approval for a permit subject to the effective date of a change of zone or other ordinance amendment.

C. The commission may deny an application for a conditional use permit. (Prior code § 7536)

17.38.120 Appeal to city council.

The decision of the City planning commission on a conditional use permit shall be subject to the appeal provisions of Section 17.02.145. (Prior code § 7537) (Ord. 2006-18 § 6, 2007) 854

17.38.130 Effective date of conditional use permit.

A conditional use permit shall become effective immediately when granted or affirmed by the council, or upon the sixth working day following the granting of the conditional use permit by the planning commission if no appeal has been filed. (Prior code § 7539)
855
Resolution No. 2024-48
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-48

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2024-17, A REQUEST BY DEREK

FINNEGAN / LARS ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-31, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 172,000 SQUARE FOOT

COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL RETAIL MERCHANDISE

WITH A FUEL DISPENSING SERVICE STATION AND A CAR WASH, WITHIN THE

COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED IN THE C-R (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD AND WEST VISALIA PARKWAY (APNS: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-26 (State Clearinghouse 2024080917) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17, which was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:

1. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
856
Resolution No. 2024-48
a. The proposed location of the conditional use permit is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The proposed retail building and fast-food restaurant meeting all drive-thru performance standards are permitted uses “by right” within the CR Zone. Ancillary uses conducted within the general retail store, such as the sale of merchandise, groceries, tire sales & service (excluding major repairs), optical exams and sales, hearing aid testing and sales, fast food, specialty food (i.e. butcher), alcohol sales, and propane sales are all permitted as standalone or incidental uses in this zone. The service station and carwash uses are also permitted through approval of a CUP. All proposed uses identified in the site plan exhibit will be situated within an established shopping center and will be compatible with the surrounding commercial areas to the north and east which contain either fully developed and/or developing shopping centers (Packwood Shopping Center to the north, Oaks Marketplace to the east). Furthermore, the General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”. The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation.
b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The General Plan identifies the Regional Commercial designation as one which allows for “Shopping malls, large format, or “big box” retail” [and] “…supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels”. The uses proposed within the revised Commons at Visalia Parkway master planned commercial shopping center fit under the Regional Commercial land use designation. The project is conditioned properly to ensure that all impacts have been properly mitigated.

2. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with Site Plan Review No. 2023-202.

3. That the project will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan in Exhibit "A", street improvements/cross sections in Exhibit “C”, conceptual 857
Resolution No. 2024-48
landscaping plan in Exhibit “D”, conceptual photometric plan and lighting information in Exhibit “E”, building elevations in Exhibit “F”, phasing plan in Exhibit “G”, pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Exhibit “I”, floor plans in Exhibit “J”, anchor tenant roof plan and sight lines exhibit in Exhibit “K”, operational statement in Exhibit “L”, and queuing analysis’ in Exhibit “M”. Any subsequent changes to the plans depicted in Exhibits “A”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, and “M” shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan Review Committee and may be subject to an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.

5. That solid landscape screening, such as a 3-foot-high solid hedge, or a screening wall shall be installed where parking areas or drive-thru lanes and landscape setbacks meet.

7. That prior to final occupancy of the big box retail store, service station, and carwash facility, the applicant/developer shall verify that the uses do not exceed Community Noise levels as identified in the noise analysis (Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., May 2024 Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024). The applicant/developer shall have their acoustical noise consultant conduct noise measurements for the uses and the measurement shall be submitted and verified by Planning staff for acceptance. Failure to meet the noise requirements as specified in the acoustical analysis shall result in the applicant/developer implementing additional measures as needed to achieve noise level standards for the residences.

10.That flat lens fixtures be utilized for the service station under canopy lights to preclude direct light glare beyond the fuel islands.
858
Resolution No. 2024-48

14.That all buildings shall comply with the building and landscape setbacks for the CR (Regional Commercial) Zone specified in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.18.

17.48.110.

19.The applicant and all successors in interest shall comply with all applicable federal, state and city codes and ordinances.
859

S S D D D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE
CA
EV
CA
EV
CA
EV

CA CA CA

EV CAEV
IW IW

CA CAEV

CA CA S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S S S D D D BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE

DO NOT ENTER
STOP STOP S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 2 OF 23 SITE PLAN 0 NORTH 80 120 40 20 160 SCALE: 1"=40'-0" ANCHOR TENANT LAND AREA SUMMARY 18.79 AC CAR WASH 1.24 AC FAST FOOD 2.15 AC RESTAURANT 1 1.53 AC RESTAURANT 2 0.76 AC DRIVE-THRU 0.85 AC AUTOMOTIVE 1.40 AC TOTAL LAND AREA 26.72 AC EVCA LEGEND LANDSCAPE SETBACK EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED PROPERTY TRANSFORMER LONG TERM BIKE RACK SHORT TERM BIKE RACK ELECTRIC VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL ACCESSIBLE STALL 860
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 1.10.2020 SHEET 2 OF 21 SITE PLAN 861
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE STOP
S DANS ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE STOP
S DANS ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D S COUNTY CENTER DR.

WOODLAND ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D S COUNTY CENTER DR.

WOODLAND ST.

BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE VISALIA PARKWAY SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 3 OF 23 STREET PLAN S DANS ST.
862
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 4 OF 23 LANDSCAPING PLAN CONCEPTUAL 863
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 9 OF 23 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL 864
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 10 OF 23 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL 865
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 5 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 866
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 6 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 867
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 7 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 868
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 8.16.2024 SHEET 8 OF 23 CUT SHEET LIGHT FIXTURE 869
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 13 OF 23 ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL ANCHOR TENANT ELEVATIONS 870
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 14 OF 23 ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL ANCHOR TENANT GAS STATION ELEVATIONS 871
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 15 OF 23 ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL FAST FOOD ELEVATIONS 872
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 16 OF 23 ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL CAR WASH ELEVATIONS 873

S S D D D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE
CA
EV
CA
EV
CA
EV

CA CA CA

EV CAEV
IW

CA CAEV

CA CA S S D Y H D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S S D D D BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

LARS ANDERSEN

ROSALYN HOLDERFIELD

LARS ANDERSEN-VISALIA CA-SIGN EXHIBIT
11/12/19
R1 01/20/20 JAS

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’
2X BUILDING FRONTAGE, MAXIMUM 150 SQUARE FEET.

NOT TO EXCEED 80% OF STOREFRONT WIDTH
.063 STAPLED ALUM. RETURN
(PAINTED SATIN WHITE)

TYPICAL CHANNEL LETTER DESIGN
1” JEWELITE
3MM ACM LETTER BACKS

TOGGLE SWITCH

POWER SUPPLY
WHITE LEDs
.150 LEXAN LETTER FACES
MINIMUM (2) WEEP HOLES

PER LETTER W/ COVER
5”
(B

PRIMARY POWER IN

Y GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
2” x 4” JUNCTION BOX
150’- 0”
B
A

TYPICAL MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable
R2 02/27/20 JAS
879
JAS

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

LARS ANDERSEN

ROSALYN HOLDERFIELD

LARS ANDERSEN-VISALIA CA-SIGN EXHIBIT
11/12/19
R1 01/20/20 JAS
PAGE 6

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’
.063 STAPLED ALUM. RETURN
(PAINTED SATIN WHITE)

TYPICAL CHANNEL LETTER DESIGN
1” JEWELITE
3MM ACM LETTER BACKS

TOGGLE SWITCH

POWER SUPPLY
WHITE LEDs
.150 LEXAN LETTER FACES
MINIMUM (2) WEEP HOLES

PER LETTER W/ COVER
5”
(B

PRIMARY POWER IN

Y GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
2” x 4” JUNCTION BOX
86’- 0”
B
A

TYPICAL TENANT RETAIL BUILDING

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable
R2 02/27/20 JAS
2X BUILDING FRONTAGE, MAXIMUM 150 SQUARE FEET.

NOT TO EXCEED 80% OF STOREFRONT WIDTH
880
JAS

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

LARS ANDERSEN

ROSALYN HOLDERFIELD

LARS ANDERSEN-VISALIA CA-SIGN EXHIBIT
11/12/19
R1 01/20/20 JAS
PAGE 7

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/24” = 1’
.063 STAPLED ALUM. RETURN
(PAINTED SATIN WHITE)

TYPICAL CHANNEL LETTER DESIGN
1” JEWELITE
3MM ACM LETTER BACKS

TOGGLE SWITCH

POWER SUPPLY
WHITE LEDs
.150 LEXAN LETTER FACES
MINIMUM (2) WEEP HOLES

PER LETTER W/ COVER
5”
(B

PRIMARY POWER IN

Y GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
2” x 4” JUNCTION BOX
355’- 0”
B
A

TYPICAL MAJOR TENANT RETAIL BUILDING

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS
-Flat White Lexan F
-Illuminated with White LEDs
aces
-Vinyl Graphics First Surface If Applicable
R2 02/27/20 JAS
2X BUILDING FRONTAGE, MAXIMUM 250 SQUARE FEET.

NOT TO EXCEED 80% OF STOREFRONT WIDTH
881

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
TOP
129' - 4"
TOP
129' - 4"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CORNICE - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"

BOLLARD SLEEVES - MATCH
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"
EIFS - PAINT SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TOP
TOP
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
130' - 8"
TOP
131' - 4"
128' - 0"

SCREEN WALL
10' TALL PRECAST

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
SW 7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

CANOPY - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW 6959 "BLUE CHIP"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
TYP
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
TYP
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

SPLIT FACE CMU
(BEYOND)
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
132' - 0"
122' - 0"
TOM
124' - 0"
TOP
126' - 0"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CAP FLASHING - PAINT
130' - 6"
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

METAL TRELLIS - PAINT

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
BRONZE" (TYP.)
SW #7048 "URBANE
H.M. DOORS
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
10'-0" HIGH PRECAST SCREEN WALL

TOP RAILS ON SIDE OF TRUCK WELL
42" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"
H.M. DOOR
SW # 7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TOP

WALL AT TRUCK WELL

PRECAST SCREEN
10' TALL SMOOTH
131' - 4" SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL

PANEL SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TYP
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
128' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
TYP
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS (CORNICE) - PAINT
TOP

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)

CAP FLASHING - PAINT
BRONZE"
SW #7048 "URBANE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
127' - 4"
128' - 0"
126' - 8"

PANEL SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TOP
TOP
TOP
128' - 0"
TOP
BRONZE" (TYP.)
SW #7048 "URBANE
H.M. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
BRONZE"
SW #7048 "URBANE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
126' - 8"
TOP
129' - 4"
TOP

FIN FLR
100' - 0"

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 GRAY SHINGLE

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE" (TYP.)
H.M. DOORS
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SMOOTH PRECAST PANEL
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #6959 "BLUE CHIP"

BOLLARD SLEEVES - MATCH
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

EIFS - PAINT

PAINT BLACK

JIB CRANE
TYP.

PREFINISHED WHITE
O.H. DOORS
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

CORNICE - PAINT
TOP
126' - 0"

SCORE LINES

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE

PANEL JOINTS, TYP

SMOOTH PRECAST CONCRETE
TOP
TOP
128' - 0"
127' - 4"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

EIFS - PAINT
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7668 "MARCH WIND"
EIFS - PAINT 124' - 0"
132' - 0"
06/06/24
VISALIA, CA - Elevations 4
1" = 20'-0" A1B 1 1

EAST FRONT ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 2

SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 3

WEST REAR ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0" A1B1 4

NORTH SIDE ELEVATION
06/25/24 06/27/24
882

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE DIGITAL PRICE READER

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL

DIGITAL PRICE READER

FIN FLR
100' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"

PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL
(BEYOND)
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
(BEYOND)
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU

DIGITAL PRICE READER
B.O. CANOPY
113' - 6"
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

SPLIT FACE CMU
SW #7670 "GRAY SHINGLE"

SMOOTH FACE CMU
SW #7048 "URBANE BRONZE"

PREFINISHED METAL PREFINISHED FASCIA - BLUE DIGITAL PRICE READER 06/25/24
VISALIA, CA - Elevations - Fuel Canopy 7
1/8" = 1'-0" 6 1 1

NORTH FRONT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 2

WEST SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 3

EAST SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0" 61 4

SOUTH REAR ELEVATION
06/27/24
883

S S D D D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE
CA
EV
CA
EV
CA
EV

CA CA CA

EV CAEV
IW IW

CA CAEV

CA CA S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S S S D D D BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE D
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE

LANE BIKE LANEBIKE LANE BIKE LANE D BIKE LANE

DO NOT ENTER
STOP STOP S S D D Y H D D D Y H D D Y H D D D S S S S S VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 19 OF 23 EXHIBIT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY 0 NORTH 80 120 40 20 160 SCALE: 1"=40'-0" LEGEND PEDESTRIAN EXIT ACCESSIBLE STALL 884
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 20 OF 23 FLOOR PLAN ANCHOR TENANT 885
VISALIA PARKWAY SHOPPING CENTER SWC VISALIA PARKWAY & S MOONEY BOULEVARD 18170.00 VISALIA, CA 93722 9.16.2024 SHEET 23 OF 23 SIGHTLINE ANCHOR TENANT 886
OPERATIONAL STATEMENT FOR PAGE 1 OF 3
THE COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY (CUP2019-31)

TYPE OF

OPERATION
MONDAYFRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY

BIG BOX
RETAIL
10:00 A.M –
08:00 P.M
09:00 A.M –
08:00 P.M
10:00 A.M –
06:00 P.M
EARLY

SHOPPING
08:00 A.M –
10:00 A.M
08:00 A.M –
09:00 A.M N/A
CAFE 10:00 A.M –
07:00 P.M
10:00 A.M –
07:00 P.M
10:00 A.M –
06:00 P.M
FUEL
CENTER
06:00 A.M –
09:00 P.M
06:00 A.M –
09:00 P.M
09:00 A.M –
07:00 P.M
887
OPERATIONAL STATEMENT FOR PAGE 2 OF 3
THE COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY (CUP2019-31)
✓ LOADING TIMES
• The Fuel Center receives deliveries around the clock unless restricted by the AHJ. • The Anchor tenant receives deliveries from 07:00 A.M – 10:00 P.M, 7 days a week. ✓ PARCEL BOUNDRY RECONFIGURATION
• The interior parcel boundaries will be reconfigured according to lot line adjustment permit LLA24-007 and LLA24-008
✓ ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORK
• The road improvements to be conducted at the driveway entrance located north of the property, which is currently the most eastern. This involves demolishing the existing entrance to construct a new sidewalk and creating a new drive aisle west of the old one, necessitating the demolition of the current sidewalk to facilitate these changes ✓ BUILDING AREA BREAK DOWN
• The following is a Table showing the building square footages from what was originally approved with the commons at Visalia Parkway master plan and the amended master plan:

ORIGINAL AMMENDED
C-STORE 30 ANCHOR 815
MAJOR 1 276 CAR WASH 20
MAJOR 2 100 FAST FOOD 137
SHOP A 63 RESTAURANT 1 90
SHOP B 70 RESTAURANT 2 29
RESTAURANT 106 DRIVE-THRU 4
DRIVE THROU 1 30 AUTOMOTIVE 46
DRIVE THRU 2 25 - -
AUTOMOTIVE 44 - -
TOTAL 744 TOTAL 1,141
888
OPERATIONAL STATEMENT FOR PAGE 3 OF 3
THE COMMONS AT VISALIA PARKWAY (CUP2019-31)
✓ SITE SECURITY MEASURES
Retail Store Security Measures
• Internal Alarm systems
o Provided throughout the building and communicates/alerts local authorities. • Communication mechanisms with local authorities
• Fire Alarm systems
o Part of the standard building design and approved by the local fire authority. • CO2 alarms if applicable
• Security/Emergency training of staff
o Staff goes through safety training upon hiring and internal teams trained for emergency situations.

Fuel Station
• Emergency Security Shut offs
• Emergency Stop Buttons, fire extinguishers, emergency telephone, and an attendant call button. • Spill kits and spill training
o Spill kits to clean up any gas spills at the site
o Staff is trained on how to clean up localized spills and prevent future spills • Communication mechanisms to the Retail store
o Telecommunication line provided to retail store
Site/Parking lot
• Shopping cart containment system
o Only if required by the city
Site Lighting
o Provided across the site to meet local code to properly illuminate the site and not have any “dark” spots across the site.
o The lights will follow store hours and can be adjusted to accommodate city timing requirements o Adjusted at property lines to not have light “spillage” onto other properties. 889
890
- 2 -
891
- 3 -
892
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
6 97 97 98
7 128 124 130
8 141 149 145
9 142 149 151
10 148 160 158
Daily Peak Average
(6-10 AM) 131 139 136
135.54

8.47 Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
4 174 175 173
5 176 174 175
6 165 169 167
7 149 149 153
8 103 106 108
Daily Peak Average
(4-8 PM) 154 154 155
154.39

9.65 Daily Total 2,163 2,255 2,266
2,228.04
139.25
Notes:

TABLE 1
Average of Daily Peak Average
AM
PM
Average of Daily Peak Average
Average of Daily Total
Daily Rate
AM Trip Rate
PM Trip Rate

SAM'S FUEL BAKERSFIELD

TRIP GENERATION DERIVATION - WEEKDAY
Daily Peak Average - Average number of transactions in the AM or PM peak period per day
AM Trip Rate - Estimated number of morning peak trips per fueling position
Daily Rate - Estimated number of daily trips per fueling position PM Trip Rate - Estimated number of evening peak trips per fueling position
Sam's Fuel Visalia - 4 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 893 Time Saturday
6 85
7 127
8 171
9 188
10 193
Peak Average
(6-10 AM) 153

9.56 Time Saturday
4 168
5 158
6 147
7 122
8 74
Peak Average
(4-8 PM) 115

7.19 2,253
141
Notes:

TABLE 2
AM
PM
Daily Total
Daily Rate
AM Trip Rate
PM Trip Rate

SAM'S FUEL BAKERSFIELD

TRIP GENERATION DERIVATION - SATURDAY
Peak Average - Average number of transactions in the
AM or PM peak period
AM Trip Rate - Estimated number of morning peak
trips per fueling position
PM Trip Rate - Estimated number of evening peak trips
per fueling position
Daily Rate - Estimated number of daily trips per fueling position
Sam's Fuel Visalia - 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 894 Mr. Finnegan, June 28, 2024, Page 6
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 The project is estimated to generate 3,899 daily trips, 237 morning peak hour trips, and 270 evening peak hour trips on a weekday. The project is estimated to generate 3,943 daily trips, 268 morning peak hour trips, and 201 evening peak hour trips on a Saturday. Trip generation estimates for the proposed fueling positions are summarized on Table 3.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4. Based on these calculations, the average queue that is anticipated at the drive-through would not exceed four vehicles at a given time. This assessment takes into consideration a worst-case trip generation estimate of 10 inbound trips per pump during the evening peak hour. The proposed drive-through aisles have approximately 110 feet of stacking distance behind the vehicle at the fuel pump, as shown on Figure 3. Assuming that a stationary vehicle occupies 20-25 feet of length, there is no queue anticipated to spill out into the parking lot drive aisle during normal conditions. While there is a potential for a longer queue to be experienced on a less frequent basis, the average queue would be accommodated by the available stacking distance. There is capacity for up to five vehicles behind the vehicle being serviced.
895
Mr. Finnegan, June 28, 2024, Page 7
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 TABLE 3

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES

SAM'S FUEL VISALIA

FP = Fueling Positions
TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF DRIVE-THROUGH ANALYSIS

DO NOT ENTER

STOP STOP
- 8 -
897
Mr. Finnegan, June 28, 2024, Page 9
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Furthermore, the analysis included an assessment of projected queueing lengths at the fuel pump drive-through. The results of the analysis indicate that the queuing capacity currently proposed is adequate to accommodate the average queue lengths forecasted at the fuel pump drivethrough. 898
If you are in a high demand/high traffic situation at the fuel pumps, the process below can assist with safety and security.

Out of Fuel
o Use pallets, cardboard bales, caution tape to block pumps o Create a sign and post it in an area that is very visible from the road to prevent traffic from entering.

Note: If a driver has waited in line but is not a member, do not turn them away. Use the club use gas card to initiate the transaction for them at the pump.

Fuel Station Staffing and Line Control
899
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Jim Shehadey June 21, 2024
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
405 North Palm Avenue
Fresno, California 93701
Subject: Drive-Through Queue Analysis
Proposed Car Wash in The Commons at Visalia Parkway
Southwest of the Intersection of Mooney Boulevard and Visalia Parkway Visalia, California
Dear Mr. Shehadey:

This report presents the results of limited traffic analyses for the subject project. The analysis focuses on the anticipated length of queues in the proposed car wash drive-through.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Calculations
Land
Use Units
Peak Hour
Rate In:Out In Out Total
948 1 tunnel 77.50 50:50 39 39 78
Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition, Institute of
Transportation Engineers 2021
Rates are reported in trips per car wash tunnel.
900
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 2 In queuing theory, an M/M/1 queue represents the queue length in a system having one server where arrivals follow a Poisson process and service times are exponentially distributed. The following formulas apply to the M/M/1 queue analyses:

N = λ
2 / (μ(μ - λ)) = I2/ (1-I)
P(N) = (1-I)IN
where:

N = λ
2 / (μ(μ - λ)) = 392/(150(150-39)) = 0.1 vehicles
The probability of the queue length containing a given number of vehicles is presented in Table 2.

In the event that queues are observed filling the three payment lanes, it is recommended that the proposed car wash implement a traffic action plan consisting of increasing the chain speed.
901
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to perform these analyses. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
902
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Jim Shehadey June 21, 2024
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
405 North Palm Avenue
Fresno, California 93701
Subject: Drive-Through Queue Analysis
Proposed Chick-Fil-A Restaurant in The Commons at Visalia Parkway Southwest of the Intersection of Mooney Boulevard and Visalia Parkway Visalia, California
Dear Mr. Shehadey:

This report presents the results of limited traffic analyses for the subject project. The analysis focuses on the anticipated length of queues in the proposed Chick-Fil-A drivethrough.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Calculations
Land
Use Units
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
of Generator
Saturday Peak Hour
of Generator
Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total
934 5,588 sf 75.85 51:49 216 208 424 79.87 51:49 228 219 447 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021
Rates are reported in trips per 1,000 square feet of building area. 903
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 2 In queuing theory, an M/M/1 queue represents the queue length in a system having one server where arrivals follow a Poisson process and service times are exponentially distributed. The following formulas apply to the M/M/1 queue analyses:

N = λ
2 / (μ(μ - λ)) = I2/ (1-I)
P(N) = (1-I)IN
where:

N = the average number of vehicles in the queue
λ = the average number of vehicle arrivals per hour
μ = the average service rate in vehicles per hour
I = traffic intensity = λ / μ
P = the probability of the number of vehicles in the queue being N The trip generation analyses suggest that the Project will generate up to 228 trips per peak hour of the generator, and it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of those will use the drive through (approximately 137 drive through trips per peak hour).

N = λ2/ (μ(μ - λ)) = 1372/(150(150-137)) = 9.6 vehicles The probability of the queue length containing a given number of vehicles is presented in Table 2.

The analyses suggest that the proposed drive-through storage length is adequate to accommodate the 96th-percentile queue during the maximum peak hour of the generator, which is likely to occur on a Saturday. In other words, the probability that the queue would exceed the storage capacity at any time during the restaurant’s maximum peak hour is less than four percent.
904
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 3 Table 2
Probability of Queue Length During Weekend Peak Hour
Number of Vehicles
in Queue (N)
Probability of N
Vehicles in Queue
Cumulative
Probability
0 8.7% 8.7%
1 7.9% 16.6%
2 7.2% 23.8%
3 6.6% 30.4%
4 6.0% 36.4%
5 5.5% 42.0%
6 5.0% 47.0%
7 4.6% 51.6%
8 4.2% 55.8%
9 3.8% 59.6%
10 3.5% 63.1%
11 3.2% 66.3%
12 2.9% 69.2%
13 2.7% 71.9%
14 2.4% 74.3%
15 2.2% 76.6%
16 2.0% 78.6%
17 1.9% 80.4%
18 1.7% 82.1%
19 1.5% 83.7%
20 1.4% 85.1%
21 1.3% 86.4%
22 1.2% 87.6%
23 1.1% 88.6%
24 1.0% 89.6%
25 0.9% 90.5%
26 0.8% 91.4%
27 0.7% 92.1%
28 0.7% 92.8%
29 0.6% 93.4%
30 0.6% 94.0%
31 0.5% 94.5%
32 0.5% 95.0%
33 0.4% 95.4%
34 0.4% 95.8%
35 0.4% 96.2%
905
Drive-Through Queue Analysis – Chick-Fil-A Restaurant June 21, 2024 The Commons at Visalia Parkway, Visalia, California Page 4 It is recommended that the proposed Chick-Fil-A implement a traffic action plan as described below.

1. For typical service (non-peak), guests will place their order at the menu boards, then pull forward to pay and have food delivered at the order delivery window.

3. As traffic increases, Chick-Fil-A will add another team member to the drive-through to take payments ahead of the meal delivery window.

Thank you for the opportunity to perform these analyses. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
CITY OF VISALIA ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT NO. 2024-26
315 E. ACEQUIA STREET
VISALIA, CA 93291

NOTICE OF A PROPOSED

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17
Project Description:

Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 is request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot big box retail membership club store, with a service station containing 14 fueling stations, a 9,000 square foot canopy, and 200 square foot fueling station building, and a 7,500 square foot carwash, all within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone.

The development of the project will include on and off-site improvements such as relocation of an access drive, curb/gutter/sidewalk, development of parking lots and lighting, landscaping, additions to noise restricting block walls, underground storage tanks, and installation of utilities.

Project Location: The project site is located on the southwest corner of S. Mooney Blvd. and W. Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).

Contact Person: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner. Phone: (559) 713-4443. Email:
[email protected]
Time and Place of Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on September 23, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 707 West Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California.

Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2388, the Environmental Coordinator of the City of Visalia has reviewed the proposed project described herein and has found that the project will not result in any significant effect upon the environment because of the reasons listed below:

Reasons for Mitigated Negative Declaration: Initial Study No. 2024-26 has identified environmental impact(s) that may occur because of the project; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures identified, impact(s) will be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Copies of the initial study and other documents relating to the subject project may be examined by interested parties at the Planning Division in City Hall East, at 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA, and on the City website at https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_re view.asp
Comments on this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be accepted from August 22, 2024, to September 20, 2024.

Date: 8/21/2024 Signed:

Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
917
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17
Project Description: Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 is request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot big box retail membership club store, with a service station containing 14 fueling stations, a 9,000 square foot canopy, and 200 square foot fueling station building, and a 7,500 square foot carwash, all within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone.

Project Location: The project site is located on the southwest corner of S. Mooney Blvd. and W.

Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).

Project Facts: Refer to Initial Study for project facts, plans and policies, and discussion of environmental effects.

Attachments:

Initial Study (X)
Environmental Checklist (X)
Location Map (X)
Mitigation Measures (X)
Traffic Memo (X)
Noise Study (X)
Health Risk Assessment (X)
Cultural Memo (X)
DECLARATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:

This project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
(a) The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
(b) The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
(c) The project does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (d) The environmental effects of the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
918
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Visalia Planning Division in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. A copy may be obtained from the City of Visalia Planning Division Staff during normal business hours.

APPROVED
Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
By:

Date Approved: August 21, 2024
Review Period: 30 days
919
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation

INITIAL STUDY
I. GENERAL
A. Project Name and Description:

Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17 is request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, which established a master planned commercial development on 17.43 acres of a 28.7 acre site, consisting of approximately 138,188 sq. ft. of commercial uses., including the establishment of four retail buildings of varying sizes (56,800 sq. ft., 29,800 sq. ft. and two 10,000 sq. ft. buildings), a 4,088 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store with six fueling stations and a 3,060 sq. ft. canopy, a 7,500 sq. ft. sit-down restaurant, two 3,000 sq. ft. drive-thru restaurants, and a 5,000 sq. ft. automotive repair store, on parcels with less than the minimum five acre site area requirement, including a parcel with no public street frontage. This development was collectively known as the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center.

The amendment to the Conditional Use Permit proposes consolidation of the retail and office uses, removal of the convenience store, and relocation of the service station, to accommodate the ultimate establishment of a 172,000 square foot big box retail membership club store, with an expanded service station containing 14 fueling stations, a 9,000 square foot canopy, and 200 square foot fueling station building, and addition of a 7,500 square foot carwash to the commercial development. The development will be located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone.

The project site is located on the southwest corner of S. Mooney Blvd. and W. Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620- 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).

B. Identification of the Environmental Setting:

The project area is composed of five parcels totaling 22.2 acres located within the Commons at Visalia Parkway shopping center. The parcels are primarily vacant, with portions developed with a parking field and drive-aisles, and curb/gutter/sidewalk. The remainder of the shopping center has been developed with a sit-down restaurant, two drive-thru restaurants, and a tire shop, with accompanying parking, lighting, landscaping, and on/off-site infrastructure. The project site is directly bounded to the north by West Visalia Parkway, a four-lane minor arterial street, and by South Mooney Boulevard to the east, a six-lane highway designated as State Route 63.

Development surrounding the project site consists of a shopping center to the north, a senior mobile home park to the west, a continuation of the senior mobile home park and mixed commercial uses to the south, and a second shopping center to the east, currently under development.

The surrounding uses, Zoning, and General Plan are as follows:

General Plan (2014
Land Use)
Zoning (2017) Existing uses
North: Commercial Regional C-R (Regional
Commercial)
Packwood Creek Shopping Center.

South: Commercial
Regional, Residential
Low Density
C-R (Regional
Commercial), R-1-5
(Single Family
Residential, 5,000 sq. ft.
minimum site area)
Westlake Village senior mobile home park,
mixed office and commercial buildings.

East: Commercial Regional C-R (Regional
Commercial)
Oaks Marketplace Shopping Center, vacant
commercial land.

West: Residential Low
Density
R-1-5 (Single Family
Residential, 5,000 sq. ft.
minimum site area)
Westlake Village senior mobile home park.
920
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
Fire and police protection services, street maintenance of public streets, refuse collection, and wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Visalia upon the development of the area.

C. Plans and Policies:

The General Plan Land Use Diagram, adopted October 14, 2014, designates the site as Commercial Regional and the Zoning Map, adopted in 2017, designates the site as C-R (Regional Commercial). The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and consistent with the standards for commercial zones development pursuant to the Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapter

17.18. The project is proposed on the site of the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, which was approved on April 13, 2020, via Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-13. The Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map together permitted the establishment of a master planned commercial development on a 28.7-acre parcel split into 11 lots, consisting of approximately 138,188 sq. ft. of commercial uses, including the establishment of three retail buildings of varying sizes (56,800 sq. ft., 29,800 sq. ft., and 10,000 sq. ft.), a 10,000 sq. ft. credit union building, a 4,088 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store with a 3,060 sq. ft. canopy, a 7,500 sq. ft. sit-down restaurant, two 3,000 sq. ft. drive-thru restaurants, and a 5,000 sq. ft. automotive repair store, on parcels with less than the minimum five acre site area requirement, including a parcel with no public street frontage, in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. Mitigation measures related to traffic and noise were adopted with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map and were implemented during development of the shopping center.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified for this project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant impact. The City of Visalia Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance contain policies and regulations that are designed to mitigate impacts to a level of non-significance.

III. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures, which are listed below under IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program, will reduce potential environmental impacts related to noise impacts to a less than significant level as described below:

Noise – An Acoustical Analysis was prepared for the proposed project [ref.: as follows: Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024].

Therefore, to ensure that community noise standards are met for the proposed project, the project site shall be developed in substantial compliance with the mitigation contained in pages 25, 28, 29, 43, 44, and 53 of the Acoustical Analysis. As described in the analyses, the project shall contain the following features:
1) All project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). 921
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
2) The height of the existing 7-foot-tall masonry wall along the western project property boundary shall be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. The location of the required 8-foot-tall masonry wall is illustrated in Figure 4 of the Acoustical Analysis. It should be noted that Section 17.36.050 of the Visalia Municipal Code limits the height of commercial walls to 7-feet in height when located in a rear yard, such as the existing 7-foot-tall wall adjacent to the project site. As a result, the project applicant would be required to file for an Administrative Adjustment to permit the additional 1-foot of wall height required for compliance. As an alternative, an 8-foot-tall masonry wall may be constructed adjacent to the existing 7-foot-tall wall (i.e., off the property line). 3) All on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). 4) To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction operations:
• All on-site noise-generating construction activities should occur pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050.
• All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition. • All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
• Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive uses.
• Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
• Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

Staff has incorporated the above recommendations as required mitigation measures. Therefore, to ensure that noise requirements are met for the proposed project, the project shall be developed and shall operate in substantial compliance with the Mitigation Measures 1.1 through 1.4. These mitigation measures are included in Section IV below as part of this Initial Study.

The City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance also contains guidelines, criteria, and requirements for the mitigation of potential impacts related to light/glare, visibility screening, noise, and traffic/parking to eliminate and/or reduce potential impacts to a level of non-significance.

IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible
Party
Timeline
Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.1:

All project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

Project
Applicant
Mitigation shall be enforced by the
City of Visalia and carried out by
the project applicant during
operation.
922
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.2:

The height of the existing 7-foot-tall masonry wall along the western project property boundary shall be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. The location of the required 8-foot-tall masonry wall is illustrated in Figure 4. It should be noted that Section 17.36.050 of the Visalia Municipal Code limits the height of commercial walls to 7-feet-inheight when located in a rear yard, such as the existing 7- foot-tall wall adjacent to the project site. As a result, the project applicant would be required to file for an
Administrative Adjustment to permit the additional 1-foot of wall required for compliance. As an alternative, an 8- foot-tall masonry wall may be constructed adjacent to the existing 7-foot-tall wall (i.e., off the property line).

Project
Applicant
The sound walls shall be
constructed with development of
the project and shall be completed
prior to the occupation of any
buildings on the project site.

Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.3:

All on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

Project
Applicant
Mitigation shall be enforced by the
City of Visalia and carried out by
the project applicant during
operation.

Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.4:

To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction
operations:
• All on-site noise-generating construction
activities should occur pursuant to Visalia
Municipal Code Section 8.36.050.
• All noise-producing project equipment and
vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall
be equipped with manufacturers-recommended
mufflers and be maintained in good working
condition.
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment
used on the project site that are regulated for
noise output by a federal, state, or local agency
shall comply with such regulations while in the
course of project activity.
• Electrically powered equipment shall be used
instead of pneumatic or internal combustionpowered equipment, where feasible. • Material stockpiles and mobile equipment
staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be
located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive
uses.
• Project area and site access road speed limits
shall be established and enforced during the
construction period.
• Nearby residences shall be notified of
construction schedules so that arrangements
can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to
short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

Project
Applicant
Mitigation shall be enforced by the
City of Visalia and carried out by
the project applicant during
construction.
923
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
IV. PROJECT COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONES AND PLANS The project is compatible with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as the project relates to surrounding properties.

V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are hereby incorporated into this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study by reference:
• Visalia General Plan Update. Dyett & Bhatia, October 2014. • Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-38 (Certifying the Visalia General Plan Update) passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, June 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, March 2014.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-37 (Certifying the EIR for the Visalia General Plan Update) passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
• City of Visalia, California, Climate Action Plan, Draft Final. Strategic Energy Innovations, December 2013. • Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-36 (Certifying the Visalia Climate Action Plan) passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• City of Visalia Storm Water Master Plan. Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 1994. • City of Visalia Sewer System Master Plan. City of Visalia, 1994. • City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Update. City of Visalia, March 2017. • Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31. April 13, 2020.
• Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-13. April 13, 2020.
• Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2019-62. April 13, 2020. • CarMax Development: Noise Study Report, September 2019. VRPA Technologies, Inc., November 19, 2019. • Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Retail Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., January 15, 2020.
• Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center. Peters Engineering Group, January 10, 2020.
• Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney Boulevard Development.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., July 15, 2024.
• Sam’s Club Gas Station Health Risk Assessment / City of Visalia. JK Consulting Group, LLC, March 14, 2024. • Archaeological Letter Report In Consideration of the SWC Visalia Parkway and Mooney Blvd. Development Project.

Culturescape, August 2024.
• Technical Memorandum: Trip Generation Comparison, Visalia Commons Shopping Center, Visalia California.

Peters Engineering Group, August 19, 2024.

VI. NAME OF PERSON WHO PREPARED INITIAL STUDY
Cristobal Carrillo Brandon Smith, AICP
Associate Planner Environmental Coordinator
924
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
NAME OF PROPONENT: Derek Finnegan, Lars Anderson &
Associates, Inc.

NAME OF AGENT: Derek Finnegan, Lars Anderson &
Associates, Inc.

Address of Proponent: 4694 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
Fresno, CA 93722
Address of Agent: 4694 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
Fresno, CA 93722
Telephone Number: (559) 276-2790 Telephone Number: (559) 276-2790 Date of Review August 22, 2024 Lead Agency: City of Visalia The following checklist is used to determine if the proposed project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment.

Explanations and information regarding each question follow the checklist. 1 = No Impact 2 = Less Than Significant Impact
3 = Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 4 = Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
2 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
2 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
1 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? 1 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
1 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
2 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
2 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 2 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
1 d) Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
2 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Name of Proposal Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17
925
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
1 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
1 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
1 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 15064.5?
1 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15064.5?
1 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
2 a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
2 b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
1 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
1 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 iv) Landslides?
1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
1 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
1 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
2 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
2 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
1 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
1 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
1 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
1 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
2 a) Violate any water quality standards of waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
2 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
2 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
2 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 2 ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; or 2 iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
2 e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
1 a) Physically divide an established community?
926
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
1 b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
1 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
1 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
3 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
1 b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
1 a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
1 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1 i) Fire protection?
1 ii) Police protection?
1 iii) Schools?
1 iv) Parks?
1 v) Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
1 a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
2 b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
1 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1 d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1 a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
1 b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
2 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
2 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to service the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
1 c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
1 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
1 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
927
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
1 a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
1 c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
1 d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
2 a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
2 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
2 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections
21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3,
21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code;
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d
296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v.

City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the
Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the
Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

Revised 2019
Authority: Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21083.09 Reference: Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3/ 21084.2 and 21084.3
928
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
a. The proposed project is new commercial construction
which will meet City standards for setbacks, landscaping and height restrictions. This project will not adversely affect the view of any scenic vistas. The Sierra Nevada mountain range may be considered a scenic vista, but views of the range will not be adversely impacted or significantly altered by the project.

Retail uses that include gas stations and carwash uses are considered compatible in commercial areas where potential impacts can be addressed through the Conditional Use
Permit process. The project site is located along Mooney Boulevard and Visalia Parkway, which are designated
arterial roadways. The City’s General Plan Land Use Map designates the site as Commercial Regional. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent in nature and character with existing and future uses surrounding the project site, subject to the inclusion of mitigation measures and the conditions of project approval for this project.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple policies that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to the development of land as designated by the General Plan.

With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to land use development consistent with the General Plan will be less than significant.
b. There are no scenic resources on the site.
c. The proposed project is for a commercial development that will be aesthetically consistent with surrounding
development and with General Plan policies. Furthermore, the city has development standards related to landscaping and other amenities that will ensure that the visual
character of the area is enhanced and not degraded. Thus, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
d. The project will create new sources of light that are typical of commercial development. The City has development
standards that require that light be directed and/or shielded so it does not fall upon adjacent properties.

Conceptual photometric plans and lighting specs for the use have been prepared and provided by the project
proponent, demonstrating the lighting fixtures installed throughout and directed toward the interior of the site. The on-site lighting for the use is directed and focused to avoid direct illumination spilling beyond the site boundaries into the adjacent residential uses, as required under Section

17.30.015.H of the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance standards will be verified upon installation and prior to operation of the use. Therefore, impacts to lighting will be less than significant.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The project is not located on property that is identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance.
b. The project is not located on property that is party to a Williamson Act contract. Existing City zoning for the area is C-R (Regional Commercial). As such zoning for agricultural use will not be affected.
c. There is no forest land or timberland currently located on the site, nor does the site conflict with a zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland
production.
d. There is no forest or timberland currently located on the site.
e. The project will not involve any changes that would promote or result in the conversion of farmland to non-agriculture use. The subject property is currently designated for an urban rather than agricultural land use. Properties that are vacant may develop in a way that is consistent with their zoning and land use designated at any time. The adopted Visalia General Plan’s implementation of a three-tier growth boundary system further assists in protecting open space around the City fringe to ensure that premature conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses does not occur.

III. AIR QUALITY
a. The project site is located in an area that is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The project does not disrupt
implementation of the San Joaquin Regional Air Quality
Management Plan and will therefore be a less than
significant impact.
b. Development under the Visalia General Plan will result in emissions that will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD for PM10 and PM2.5. The project will contribute to a net increase of criteria pollutants and will therefore contribute to exceeding the thresholds. Also, the project could result in short-term air quality impacts related to dust generation and exhaust due to construction and grading
activities. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR for conversion into urban development.

Development under the General Plan will result in
increases of construction and operation-related criteria pollutant impacts, which are considered significant and unavoidable. General Plan policies identified under
Impacts 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 serve as the mitigation which
assists in reducing the severity of the impact to the extent possible while still achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount of growth to occur within the Planning Area.

The project is required to adhere to requirements
administered by the SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to a
level of compliance consistent with the District’s grading regulations. Compliance with the SJVAPCD’s rules and
regulations will reduce potential impacts associated with air quality standard violations to a less than significant level.

In addition, development of the project will be subject to the SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review (Rule 9510) procedures
that became effective on March 1, 2006. The Applicant will 929
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
be required to obtain permits demonstrating compliance
with Rule 9510, or payment of mitigation fees to the
SJVAPCD.
c. Tulare County is designated non-attainment for certain federal ozone and state ozone levels. The project will result in a net increase of criteria pollutants. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR for
conversion into urban development. Development under
the General Plan will result in increases of construction and operation-related criteria pollutant impacts, which are considered significant and unavoidable. General Plan
policies identified under Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3 serve as the mitigation which assists in reducing the
severity of the impact to the extent possible while still achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a
certain amount of growth to occur within the Planning Area.

In addition, development of the project will be subject to the SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review (Rule 9510) procedures
that became effective on March 1, 2006. The Applicant will be required to obtain permits demonstrating compliance
with Rule 9510, or payment of mitigation fees to the
SJVAPCD.

Residences located to the west and south of the proposed project are considered sensitive receptors susceptible to air quality impacts from the proposed use. As a result, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was submitted. Specifically, the
HRA analyzed potential impacts from carcinogenic,
chronic, and acute toxic air contaminants (TAC) produced by the proposed ‘Gasoline Dispensing Facility’ on nearby sensitive receptors. The HRA identifies residences located within 92 feet of the underground gasoline storage tanks as the nearest sensitive receptors. The HRA notes that a 50- foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities and that siting ‘new’ sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater) should be avoided. The HRA notes that while the Project is anticipated to sell 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel annually, the recommendation related to 300 feet is related to siting new sensitive receptors adjacent to exiting gasoline dispensing facilities. The fuel dispensing area is located approximately 200 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor (residence).

The HRA analyzed VOC emissions, diesel emissions from
truck traffic and idling, and emission rates provided in the California Air Resources Board and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guide (February
18, 2022), to estimate Project emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline service station.

Lastly, the HRA employed the SJVAPCD Prioritization
Calculator to determine the “Total Max Score” of Project specific toxic emissions as discussed above. Projects with a Prioritization score of 10 or higher require a Health Risk Assessment with dispersion modeling. Toxic emissions
associated with the Project were used as inputs to the
Prioritization Calculator which generated the prioritization score for the Project. Results indicate that toxic emissions associated with the Project will generate a max score of

8.62 for sensitive receptors within 328 feet of the Project.

Project emissions associated with the Project will not trigger dispersion modeling since the Total Max Score is less than

10. As a result, dispersion modeling was not required for the Project considering the SJVAPCD’s
methodology/threshold. TAC emissions generated during
Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted since there is a less than significant impact from Project operational emissions.
d. The proposed project will not involve the generation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The site has no known species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The project site is part of the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center and has been largely developed
with urban uses. The project would therefore not have a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive, candidate, or special species.

Citywide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that certain special-status species or their habitats may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area. This may be through the removal of or disturbance to habitat.

Such effects would be considered significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple policies, identified under Impact 3.8-1 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on special-status species likely to occur in the Planning Area. With implementation of these polies, impacts on special-status species will be less than significant.
b. The project is not located within an identified sensitive riparian habitat or other natural community. Packwood
Creek is located approximately 1,300 feet west of the
project site and will not be affected by the proposed
development.

City-wide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that certain sensitive natural
communities may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area,
particularly valley oak woodlands and valley oak riparian woodlands. Such effects would be considered significant.

However, the General Plan contains multiple policies,
identified under Impact 3.8-2 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on woodlands located within in the Planning Area. With implementation of these policies and being that the project is not located within or adjacent to an identified sensitive riparian habitat or other natural community, including woodlands, impacts on
woodlands will be less than significant.
c. The project is not located within or adjacent to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
930
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
City-wide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that certain protected wetlands and
other waters may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area. Such effects would be considered significant. However, the
General Plan contains multiple policies, identified under Impact 3.8-3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on wetlands and other waters located within in the Planning Area. With implementation of these policies, impacts on wetlands will be less than significant. d. Citywide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that the movement of wildlife species may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area. Such effects would be considered significant. However, the General Plan
contains multiple policies, identified under Impact 3.8-4 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on wildlife movement corridors located within in the Planning Area. With implementation of these policies,
impacts on wildlife movement corridors will be less than significant.
e. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City of Visalia has a municipal ordinance in place to protect valley oak trees; however, no oak trees exist on the site.
f. There are no local or regional habitat conservation plans for the area.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Per the “Archaeological Letter Report In Consideration of the SWC Visalia Parkway and Mooney Blvd. Development
Project” submitted by Culturescape in August 2024, there are no known historical resources located within the project area. If some potentially historical or cultural resource is unearthed during development all work should cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the finding and make necessary mitigation recommendations.
b. There are no known archaeological resources located
within the project area. If some archaeological resource is unearthed during development all work will cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the
finding and make necessary mitigation recommendations.
c. There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during
development all work should cease until the proper
authorities are notified and a qualified professional
archaeologist can evaluate the finding and make any
necessary mitigation recommendations. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in that area until a qualified Native American Tribal observer, archeologist, or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with Tulare County Museum,
Coroner, and other appropriate agencies and interested
parties.

VI. ENERGY
a. Development of the site will require the use of energy supply and infrastructure. However, the use of energy will be typical of that associated with commercial development associated with the underlying zoning. Furthermore, the use is not considered the type of use or intensity that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation. The project will be required to comply with California Building Code Title 24 standards for energy efficiency.

Policies identified under Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 of the EIR will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to energy will be less than
significant.
b. The project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, based on the discussion in section VI.a above.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. The State Geologist has not issued an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Map for Tulare County. The project area is not located on or near any known earthquake fault lines.

Therefore, the project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts involving
earthquakes.
b. The development of this site will require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division standards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted for review to the City to ensure that off- and on-site
improvements will be designed to meet City standards.
c. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Soils in the Visalia area have few limitations with regard to development. Due to low clay content and limited topographic relief, soils in the Visalia area have low expansion characteristics.
d. Due to low clay content, soils in the Visalia area have an expansion index of 0-20, which is defined as very low
potential expansion.
e. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems since sanitary
sewer lines are available for connection for the disposal of wastewater at this location.
f. There are no known unique paleontological resources or geologic features located within the project area. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in that area until a qualified Native American Tribal observer, archeologist, or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop
appropriate treatment measures in consultation with Tulare County Museum, Coroner, and other appropriate agencies
and interested parties.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. The project is expected to generate Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions in the short-term as a result of the
construction of the project, and long-term as a result of dayto-day operation of the development.

The City has prepared and adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which includes a baseline GHG emissions
inventories, reduction measures, and reduction targets
consistent with local and State goals. The CAP was
931
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
prepared concurrently with the proposed General Plan and its impacts are also evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR.

The Visalia General Plan and the CAP both include policies that aim to reduce the level of GHG emissions emitted in association with buildout conditions under the General
Plan. Although emissions will be generated as a result of the projects, implementation of the General Plan and CAP policies will result in fewer emissions than would be
associated with a continuation of baseline conditions.

Thus, the impact to GHG emissions will be less than
significant.
b. The State of California has enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which included provisions for reducing the GHG emission levels to 1990 “baseline” levels by 2020 and to a level 80% below 1990 baseline
levels by 2050. In addition, the State has enacted SB 32 which included provisions for reducing the GHG emission levels to a level 40% below 1990 baseline levels by 2030.

The proposed project will not impede the State’s ability to meet the GHG emission reduction targets under AB 32 and SB 32. Current and probable future state and local GHG
reduction measures will continue to reduce the project’s contribution to climate change. As a result, the project will not contribute significantly, either individually or
cumulatively, to GHG emissions.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. No hazardous materials are anticipated with the project. b. Construction activities associated with development of the project may include maintenance of on-site construction equipment that could lead to minor fuel and oil spills. The use and handling of any hazardous materials during
construction activities would occur in accordance with
applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws.

Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
c. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile from the project. There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could affect existing or proposed school sites within one-quarter mile of school sites.
d. The project area does not include any sites listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code
Section 65692.5.
e. The City’s adopted Airport Master Plan shows the project area is located outside of all Airport Zones. There are no restrictions for the proposed project related to Airport Zone requirements.

The project area is not located within 2 miles of a public airport.
f. The project will not interfere with the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
g. There are no wild lands within or near the project area.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Development projects associated with buildout under the Visalia General Plan are subject to regulations that serve to ensure that such projects do not violate water quality
standards of waste discharge requirements. These
regulations include the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. State regulations include the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and more specifically
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), of which the project site area falls within the jurisdiction of.

Adherence to these regulations results in projects
incorporating measures that reduce pollutants. The project will be required to adhere to municipal wastewater
requirements set by the Central Valley RWQCB and any
permits issued by the agency.

Furthermore, there are no reasonably foreseeable reasons why the project would result in the degradation of water quality.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple policies,
identified under Impact 3.6-2 and 3.9-3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to water quality. With implementation of these policies and the
existing City standards, impacts to water quality will be less than significant.
b. The project area overlies the southern portion of the San Joaquin unit of the Central Valley groundwater aquifer. The project will result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, which might affect the amount of
precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. However, as the City of Visalia is already largely developed and covered by impervious surfaces, the increase of impervious
surfaces through this project will be small by comparison.

The project therefore might affect the amount of
precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. The City of Visalia’s water conversation measures and explorations for surface water use over groundwater extraction will assist in offsetting the loss in groundwater recharge.
c.
i. The development of this site will require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division standards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted
for review to the City to ensure that off- and on-site
improvements will be designed to meet City standards.
ii. Development of the site will create additional
impervious surfaces. However, existing and planned
improvements to storm water drainage facilities as
required through the Visalia General Plan policies will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Policies identified under Impact 3.6-2 of the EIR will
reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of these policies and the
existing City standards, impacts to groundwater
supplies will be less than significant.
iii. Development of the site will create additional
impervious surfaces. However, existing and planned
improvements to storm water drainage facilities as
required through the Visalia General Plan policies will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Policies identified under Impact 3.6-2 of the EIR will
reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of these policies and the
932
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
existing City standards, impacts to groundwater
supplies will be less than significant.

Existing storm water mains are on site and the
applicant will be connecting to service. Furthermore,
the project will be required to meet the City’s
improvement standards for directing storm water runoff
to the City’s storm water drainage system consistent
with the City’s adopted City Storm Drain Master Plan.

These improvements will not cause significant
environmental impacts.
d. The project area is located sufficiently inland and distant from bodies of water, and outside potentially hazardous areas for seiches and tsunamis. The site is also relatively flat, which will contribute to the lack of impacts by mudflow occurrence.Therefore there will be no impact related to these hazards.
e. Development of the site has the potential to affect drainage patterns in the short term due to erosion and sedimentation during construction activities and in the long term through the expansion of impervious surfaces. Impaired storm
water runoff may then be intercepted and directed to a
storm drain or water body, unless allowed to stand in a detention area. The City’s existing standards may require the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the SWRCB’s General Construction Permit process, which
would address erosion control measures.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple policies,
identified under Impact 3.6-1 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for erosion. With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to erosion will be less than significant.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project will not physically divide an established community. The site is partially developed with a
commercial shopping center and would not result in
development that would split existing urban areas. The
General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the project
area as Regional Commercial. The Zoning Map designates
the site as C-R (Regional Commercial), which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Regional
Commercial as identified in Table 9-1 “Consistency
Between the Plan and Zoning” of the General Plan.

Commercial centers that include retail shops, gas stations and carwashes are considered compatible uses in
commercial areas where potential impacts can be
addressed through the conditional use permit process. The site is located along Mooney Boulevard and Visalia
Parkway, both designated arterial roadways.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple policies,
identified under Impact 3.1-2 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to the development of land as designated by the General Plan. With
implementation of these policies and the existing City
standards, impacts to land use development consistent with the General Plan will be less than significant.
b. The project site is within the Urban Development Tier 1 Boundary. Development of commercial lands in Tier 1 may occur at any time. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Policies LU-P-19 of the General Plan. Policy LUP-19 states; “Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s
phased growth strategy.”
The project as a whole does not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation of the City of Visalia. The site’s General Plan Land Use Designation of Regional
Commercial and the Zoning Designation of C-R (Regional
Commercial) are consistent with each other based on the underlying allowed land uses and density ranges as
identified in Table 9-1 “Consistency between the Plan and Zoning” of the General Plan. The City of Visalia’s Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial development as a
permitted use, though the service station and carwash
identified in the commercial development require a
Conditional Use Permit.

Lastly, the proposed project will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including Policies LU-P62, LU-P-65, and LU-P-69 for Regional Commercial Development, and consistent with the standards for
commercial development pursuant to the Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapters 17.18 and

17.30. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. No mineral areas of regional or statewide importance exist within the Visalia area.
b. There are no mineral resource recovery sites delineated in the Visalia area.

XIII. NOISE
a. The project will result in noise generation typical of urban development. The Visalia Noise Element and City
Ordinance contain criterion for acceptable noise levels inside and outside residential living spaces. This standard is 65 dB DNL for outdoor activity areas associated with residences and 45 dB DNL for indoor areas.

An acoustical analysis was prepared for the proposed
project, addressing the proposed commercial, automated
car wash use [Environmental Noise & Vibration
Assessment: SWC W. Visalia Parkway & S. Mooney
Boulevard Development. Bollard Acoustical Consultants,
Inc., July 15, 2024]. The purpose of the study is to
determine if noise levels associated with the project will comply with the City’s applicable noise level standards, particularly upon the existing single-family residential mobile home park uses to the west and south. The
acoustical analysis is intended to determine project‐related noise levels for all aspects of the proposed project.

The Acoustical Analysis concluded that an exterior noise level in excess of the 65 dB DNL standard for noisesensitive land uses, specified in the City’s Noise Element, exists on the project site. To ensure that community noise standards are met for the development, the project
developers have proposed an increase in height of an
existing block wall located on the west side of the main project site to an overall height of eight feet, limited hours of operation to loading dock and truck delivery activities, and construction related compliance with Visalia Municipal Code Noise Ordinance measures and best practices to
reduce impacts. The recommendations will allow for
development of the proposal in accordance with the
standards contained in the City’s Noise Element and
Ordinance.
933
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
Therefore, to ensure that community noise standards are met for the proposed project, the project site shall be developed in substantial compliance with the mitigation contained in pages 25, 28, 29, 43, 44, and 53 of the
Acoustical Analysis. As described in the analyses, the
project shall contain the following features:
1) All project loading dock activities shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
2) The height of the existing 7-foot-tall masonry wall
along the western project property boundary shall
be increased to a minimum height of 8-feet. The
location of the required 8-foot-tall masonry wall is
illustrated in Figure 4 of the Acoustical Analysis. It
should be noted that Section 17.36.050 of the
Visalia Municipal Code limits the height of
commercial walls to 7-feet-in-height when located
in a rear yard, such as the existing 7-foot-tall wall
adjacent to the project site. As a result, the project
applicant would be required to file for an
Administrative Adjustment to permit the additional
1-foot of wall height required for compliance. As
an alternative, an 8-foot-tall masonry wall may be
constructed adjacent to the existing 7-foot-tall wall
(i.e., off the property line).
3) All on-site delivery truck circulation shall be limited to daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
4) To the maximum extent practical, the following
measures should be incorporated into the project
construction operations:
• All on-site noise-generating construction
activities should occur pursuant to Visalia
Municipal Code Section 8.36.050.
• All noise-producing project equipment and
vehicles using internal-combustion engines
shall be equipped with manufacturersrecommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment
used on the project site that are regulated for
noise output by a federal, state, or local
agency shall comply with such regulations
while in the course of project activity.
• Electrically powered equipment shall be used
instead of pneumatic or internal combustionpowered equipment, where feasible. • Material stockpiles and mobile equipment
staging, parking, and maintenance areas
shall be located as far as practicable from
noise-sensitive uses.
• Project area and site access road speed limits
shall be established and enforced during the
construction period.
• Nearby residences shall be notified of
construction schedules so that arrangements
can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure
to short-term increases in ambient noise
levels.

Staff has incorporated the above recommendations as
required mitigation measures. Therefore, to ensure that noise requirements are met for the proposed project, the project shall be developed and shall operate in substantial compliance with the Mitigation Measures 1.1 through 1.4.

These mitigation measures are included as part of this Initial Study.

Noise levels will increase temporarily during the
construction of the project but shall remain within the limits defined by the City of Visalia Noise Ordinance. Temporary increase in ambient noise levels is less than significant. b. Ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels may occur as part of construction activities associated with the project. Construction activities will be temporary and will not expose persons to such vibration or noise levels for an extended period of time; thus, the impacts will be less than significant. There are no existing uses near the project area that create ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
c. The project area is not within two miles of a public airport, and there is no private airstrip near the project area. The project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from aircraft operations.

XIV.POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project will not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth that is in excess of that planned in the General Plan.
b. Development of the site will not displace any housing or people on the site. The area being developed is currently vacant land within a developed commercial shopping
center.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.
i. Current fire protection facilities are located at the Visalia Station 52, located approximately one mile north of the property, and can adequately serve the site without a
need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on these facilities. ii. Current police protection facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on
these facilities.
iii. The project will not generate new students for which existing schools in the area may accommodate.
iv. Current park facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on these
facilities.
v. Other public facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.

XVI.RECREATION
a. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment. Nor will the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
934
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
parks as no residential uses are proposed.
b. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.

XVII.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Development and operation of the project is not anticipated to conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness of the City’s
circulation system. The project will result in an increase in traffic levels on arterial and collector roadways, although the City of Visalia’s Circulation Element has been prepared to address this increase in traffic.
b. Development of the site will result in increased traffic in the immediate area; but will not cause a substantial increase in traffic Citywide. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for Regional Commercial urban use.

A Traffic Memo [Technical Memorandum: Trip Generation
Comparison, Visalia Commons Shopping Center, Visalia
California. Peters Engineering Group, August 19, 2024] has been provided by the applicant, comparing potential trip generation from the project to that which was originally identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA)
conducted for the overall shopping center development in which the project will be located (ref.: Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Commons at Visalia Parkway
Shopping Center. Peters Engineering Group, January 10,
2020). Based on the analysis provided in the Traffic Memo, trips generated by the project will be less than identified in the original TIA. Improvements identified in the original TIA have been largely implemented, to including widening of W.

Visalia Parkway and S. Mooney Boulevard to their ultimate widths, and improvement of the Visalia Parkway/Mooney
Boulevard intersection. As such an update to the TIA is not required nor new mitigation measures recommended. The
original traffic study performed remains applicable and covers the projected trip projection for the new project.

Furthermore, since the project will operate in conformance with the original TIA, and being that the original project and its respective environmental document and supporting TIA were approved on April 13, 2020, being prior to July 1, 2020 when the current provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3 became effective, no supplemental or subsequent VMT analysis is required, as the criteria for utilizing VMT as a basis for analyzing transportation impacts were not
applicable at the time of original discretionary approval. c. There are no planned geometric designs associated with the project that are considered hazardous.
d. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. a. The site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b. The site has been determined to not be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.

Further, the EIR (SCH 2010041078) for the 2014 General Plan update included a thorough review of sacred lands files through the California Native American Heritage Commission. The sacred lands file did not contain any known cultural resources information for the Visalia Planning Area.

XIX.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. The project will be connecting to existing City sanitary sewer lines, consistent with the City Sewer Master Plan.

The Visalia wastewater treatment plant has a current rated capacity of 22 million gallons per day, but currently treats an average daily maximum month flow of 12.5 million
gallons per day. With the completed project, the plant has more than sufficient capacity to accommodate impacts
associated with the proposed project. The proposed project will therefore not cause significant environmental impacts.

Existing sanitary sewer and storm water mains are on site and the applicant will be connecting to services. Usage of these lines is consistent with the City Sewer System Master Plan and Storm Water Master Plan. These improvements
will not cause significant environmental impacts.
b. The project will not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
c. The City has determined that there is adequate capacity existing to serve the site’s projected wastewater treatment demands at the City wastewater treatment plant.
d. Current solid waste disposal facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.
e. The project will be able to meet the applicable regulations for solid waste. Removal of debris from construction will be subject to the City’s waste disposal requirements.

XX. WILDFIRE
a. The project is located on a site that is adjacent on multiple sides by existing development. The site will be further served by multiple points of access. In the event of an emergency response, coordination would be made with the City’s Engineering, Police, and Fire Divisions to ensure that adequate access to and from the site is maintained.
b. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the site is not in a location that is likely to exacerbate wildfire risks.
c. The project is located on a site that is adjacent on multiple sides by existing development. New project development
will require the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure extending from adjacent off-site locations to the project site; however the infrastructure would be typical 935
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation
of commercial development and would be developed to the standards of the underlying responsible agencies.
d. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the site is not in a location that would expose persons or structures to
significant risks of flooding or landslides.

XXI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project will not affect the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or a plant or animal community. This site was
evaluated in the Program EIR (SCH No. 2010041078) for
the City of Visalia’s Genera Plan Update for conversion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation measures for
conversion to urban development. Where effects were still determined to be significant a statement of overriding
considerations was made.
b. This site was evaluated in the Program EIR (SCH No.
2010041078) for the City of Visalia General Plan Update for the area’s conversion to urban use. The City adopted
mitigation measures for conversion to urban development.

Where effects were still determined to be significant a statement of overriding considerations was made.
c. This site was evaluated in the Program EIR (SCH No.
2010041078) for the City of Visalia General Plan Update for conversion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation
measures for conversion to urban development. Where
effects were still determined to be significant a statement of overriding considerations was made.
936
City of Visalia Environmental Document No. 2024-26
Planning and Community Preservation

DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that as a result of the proposed project no new effects could occur, or new mitigation measures would be required that have not been addressed within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Visalia General Plan was certified by Resolution No. 2014-37 adopted on October 14, 2014. THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE UTILIZED.

August 21, 2024
Brandon Smith, AICP Date
Environmental Coordinator
937
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Jim Shehadey
Visalia Parkway Partners, LLC
From: John Rowland, PE, TE
Subject: Trip Generation Comparison
Visalia Commons Shopping Center
Visalia, California
Date: August 19, 2024
This purpose of this memorandum is to summarize trip generation calculations that were prepared to compare the number of trips expected to be generated by the current version of the Visalia Commons Shopping Center project to the number of trips analyzed in the traffic impact analysis report for the shopping center dated January 10, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the TIA). The trip generation comparisons were submitted to City of Visalia staff for review and comment. The data provided herein are the final calculations that were agreed to by City staff.

The current site plan includes the following uses:
• 171,161-square-foot discount club
• 5,588-square-foot Chick-fil-A
• Automated car wash with one wash tunnel
• 2,450-square-foot Panda Express
• 7,646-square-foot Texas Roadhouse
• 810-square-foot Dutch Bros.
• 12,000-square-foot Les Schwab
The trip generation calculations for the current site plan were performed utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, with the exception that trip generation data developed specifically for Dutch Bros. were utilized for the proposed coffee shop. The Dutch Bros. trip generation data are presented in a report by KD Anderson & Associates dated August 31, 2021 and is attached.

City of Visalia staff requested that a comparison of weekend trip generation values be provided. Weekends were not studied in the TIA; therefore, new weekend trip generation estimates were prepared for both the site plan studied in the TIA and the current site plan.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
938
Technical Memorandum - Trip Generation Comparison August 19, 2024 Visalia Commons Shopping Center, Visalia, California Page 2 In general, the trip generation estimates are based on average rates. However, to account for the possibility that the discount club and Chick-fil-A may generate more trips than an average facility, an additional set of trip generation estimates was prepared considering a rate one standard deviation above the average for these two uses.

Internal capture was maintained at no more than five percent for the entire project.

The trip generation estimates and internal capture calculations are attached for both the current site plan and the original site plan studied in the TIA. Following the calculations, tables presenting the comparisons are attached.

The trip generation comparisons suggest that the proposed site plan will generate fewer trips than the site plan analyzed in the TIA. The new site plan potentially generates more trips during the Saturday peak hour; however, using the increased rates (average plus one standard deviation) the difference amounts to less than one external vehicle trip per minute (entering and exiting combined). This difference is considered to be well within the tolerances anticipated in the trip generation data. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the TIA remains applicable and covers the trips expected to be generated by the current site plan. As such, no additional mitigation measures would be triggered. In addition, the values in Tables 1C through 4C (attached) indicate that the daily external traffic volumes are expected to be fewer than originally estimated. Therefore, no analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is expected to be triggered.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (559) 299-1544, Extension 112, or by email at [email protected].

Attachments: KD Anderson & Associates report dated August 31, 2021 Trip Generation Calculations - Current Site Plan
Internal Capture Calculations - Current Site Plan
Trip Generation Calculations - Original Site Plan
Internal Capture Calculations - Original Site Plan
Trip Generation Comparisons
939
KD Anderson Report
940
Transportation Engineers
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G • Loomis, CA 95650 • (916) 660-1555 August 31, 2021
Mr. Paul Deppe, Partner
Armet Davis Newlove & Associates
1330 Olympic Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90404
RE: CEQA VMT IMPACT AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR MULTITENANTS BUILDING WITH END CAP DRIVE-THRU, KERMAN, CALIFORNIA.

Dear Mr. Deppe:

Thank you for contacting our firm regarding the Multi Tenants Building with End Cap Drive-thru in Kerman, California. As we are aware the project is a 6,640 sf retail building within a center being built on the south side of West Whitesbridge Road (SR 180), as shown in Figure 1. While the tenants in the project are somewhat speculative, a 1,000 sf coffee restaurant with drive-thru is planned as an end cap. This report identifies the project’s Trip Generation and discusses its CEQA VMT impacts. The report also assesses the Drive-Thru Queuing characteristics of the coffee restaurant in order to confirm that the project will not affect local circulation and that further analysis is not needed.

Project Trip Generation
Institute of Transportation Engineers Rates. The amount of vehicular traffic associated with the project has been estimated on a peak hour basis from two perspectives. First, trip generation rates for coffee related uses that are presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition were identified and reviewed to determine whether this data is applicable to the proposed. As indicated in Table 2 rates available for the general retail space and for the fast casual restaurant space.

ITE rates are not generally available for the coffee use as indicated in an assessment we have made previously for Dutch Brothers Coffee. As indicated in Table A which is attached, ITE rates are available for two coffee related uses with drive-thru lanes. Code 938 is Coffee / Donut Shop with Drive-Thru and No Indoor Seating. While that description does match the proposed coffee use, all the data provided by ITE was collected at very small kiosks (100 sf) that generated 10 to 60 peak hour trips. Because these kiosks were so small their “per ksf” trip generation rates would greatly exaggerate a forecast for the larger proposed building. Alternatively, Code 937 is a Coffee / Donut Shop with Drive-Thru at sites where indoor seating is available. In this case the ITE data was collected at sites that ranged from 500 to 5,500 sf, and as the proposed use does not offer indoor seating forecasts these “per ksf” trip rates may not be helpful in understanding the trip generation characteristic of the proposed project.

Dutch Brothers Data. As an alternative method, we have assembled available trip generation information specific to the current prototype Dutch Brothers operation (i.e., 900 sf with dual drive-thru aisles) and determined a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation forecasts from that perspective. As noted in attached Table A, a 2019 report prepared by another firm included a survey of a large Dutch Brothers kiosk in Stockton, California, and our firm surveyed three Dutch Brothers sites in Northern California in 2020 - 2021. Average “per ksf” a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates were created from that data, and 941
Mr. Paul Deppe, Armet Davis Newlove & Associates
August 31, 2021

Page 2 ends

Visalia City CouncilDecember 3, 2024

Visalia City Council
December 3, 2024