Residents of the Westlake Village Mobile Park at 2400 Midvalley Avenue in Visalia – which bills itself as a lake-dotted “nature paradise” for seniors – say their peaceful community is facing a threat to its half century of tranquility. Developers hope to construct a Sam’s Club – including a 28-pump gas station, drive-thru restaurant and car wash – next door. The store will be within 100 yards of the nearest mobile homes.
Despite objections, the project appears to be moving ahead. The Visalia Planning Commission gave the proposal its final OK in a 4-1 vote on Monday, October 14. Opponents, however, have filed an appeal of the commission’s decision. The matter will now be taken up by the Visalia City Council at a future meeting.
Box Store Complex to Cover 17-Plus Acres
The Sam’s Club plans call for 200,398 square feet of new construction in total on 17.43 acres. And the developers are seeking permissions beyond just a 172,000-square-foot members-only box store.
The shopping center will include a 28-pump gas station with a 9,000-square-foot canopy and small outbuilding, a 7,500-square-foot carwash including 22 drying stations, and a drive-thru restaurant taking up 5,588 square feet and able to accommodate as many as 35 vehicles in its drive-thru lanes. Around 1,100 parking spots are planned for customers and employees.
This represents a project nearly twice the size of the one originally suggested for the sight on the corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway. And the vast size of the project – and its unexpected growth – is of great concern to Westlake Village resident Claudia Lenoir.
Lenoir says the development plans for the site, which is immediately north of the mobile home park where she lives, changed suddenly and dramatically with little notice.
“The problem as we see it is that the developers submitted a request to develop a piece of land, and it was very different,” she said. “Everything was proceeding smoothly, then for some reason they decided that wasn’t what they wanted to do.”
Development Plan Growth Caught Neighbors by Surprise
Plans to develop the former cropland at the southwest corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway were originally for a 58,000-square-foot convenience store with only 12 gas pumps. That proposal was submitted for the city’s consideration in 2019. But it changed.
The request to construct what will be one of the city’s biggest box stores – the size of an average Costco, by comparison, is about 140,000 square feet – comes from Fresno-based civil engineering firm Lars Andersen and Associates. The company handles similar projects throughout the Western US.
According to Lenoir, the public and the planning commission didn’t get enough time to properly review the new development plan.
“They presented this new plan at the planning commission (meeting) on September 23, and the commission asked very few questions,” she said. “It’s surrounded on two sides by a community that’s been there for 50 years.”
Sam’s Clubs are owned and operated by Walmart. Visalia has two Walmart stores, as well as a Walmart-owned neighborhood grocery store. The city is also home to two Costco Warehouses, as well as two Target box stores, one of which is across Visalia Parkway from the future home of Sam’s Club. Its parent corporation, Walmart, did not respond to a request for comment.
Neighbors Fear Heath Threat from Gas Fumes
The residents of Westlake Village, said Lenoir, could be compromised by fumes from the gas station, if it opens. The shortest distance between the gas pumps and the nearest homes is about 160 feet. The state’s air quality protection agency recommends – but does not enforce – a 300-foot offset from sensitive populations. Residents of Westlake are not only elderly, many are also disabled and suffer from breathing problems. Most are low-income, living on fixed amounts, and cannot move.
Jill Faenza, Linoir’s housemate, said they spent $200,000 to buy their home and renovate it just six months ago. They had no inkling a Sam’s Club was in the works.
“We spent the money we have to spend on the housing, for the repairs. So, we’re pretty much stuck here,” Faenza said. “It’s wonderful. It’s peaceful. It’s got lakes, and ducks, and turtles. It’s a wonderful place to live, for now. It’s going to turn into hell after this.”
The city assigned an air-pollution impingement rating of 8.3 out of 10 to the project. A score of 10 would have triggered a more rigorous study of the project’s impact, and Faenza and Lenoir believe the city did not perform the assessment correctly.
“We have asked repeatedly to be presented with the data to arrive at a score of 8.3 out of 10,” said Linoir. “A score of 10 would have triggered dispersion modeling. We believe that would have demonstrated we are in the zone of danger.”
Opponents Claim Greed is Causing Environmental Problems
Lenoir claims the city – in its assessment of the project’s impact on air quality – failed to take into account other pollution factors, such as venting of fumes from the gasoline storage tanks, the exhaust from idling cars and up to 20 delivery trucks a day, and the coming and going of the location’s other customers. Sam’s Club plans to sell 7.5 million gallons of gasoline and 1.2 million gallons of diesel fuel annually.
“We’ve found there are incredible toxic risks living next to such a large gas station,” Lenoir said.
She and Faenza question why the city did not require a full environmental impact report for the project. And Lenoir said the city does not maintain the pollution control standards already on the books.
“The city is not in compliance with its own environmental protection plan,” she said. “They have no one on city staff who has been monitoring and implementing the plan. We feel the city is derelict in its duty.”
And they are angry with city leaders. They claim they’ve been repeatedly told the Sam’s Club plan is a “done deal.” Greed, they claim, is driving decisions at City Hall.
“I think that people on the city council and planning commission need to start doing their jobs,” said Faenza. “They have a duty of protecting our health, safety and welfare. In fact, they’re endangering us because they want the tax revenue.”
She believes the amount of money involved in the project, both to construct it and the revenue it will generate, have clouded the judgment of those making the decisions.
“There’s no reason, otherwise, to do it,” she said. “Common sense defies the building of this project otherwise.”
Council Candidate Joins the Fight
April Lancaster – who is seeking to unseat incumbent council member Brett Taylor in District 3, where the Sam’s Club is planned – has taken up the Westlake residents’ cause. Her aim here is to highlight where the city has made mistakes in the planning and approval process.
“No 1 for me is their impact score is 8.3 out of 10 is only taking in consideration of delivery of gas to the station,” Lancaster said. “They’re not taking into account the exhaust from the trucks coming and going right next to the seniors.”
She and the other opponents also spotted a problem with paperwork filed with the state by the planning department. A notice of determination telling the state offices about the project’s approval was submitted on September 25, yet the project’s final OK from the planning commission wasn’t made until its October 14 meeting.
Cristobal Carrillo, the associate city planner overseeing the project for the city, said the filing was an error on his department’s part. The notice of determination must be filed within a short deadline, and the city was attempting to meet that requirement. But they acted on an incorrect assumption, that the project had received an OK from the city.
“There’s usually a rush on that,” Carrillo said. “So we filed it on the fifth day, again under the assumption it was approved.”
At a meeting of the planning commission on September 23, the project received conditional approval, provided developers altered their plans to address aspects of them the commission said did not meet city standards.
“That was our understanding, that this project had been approved,” Carrillo said. “In our mind, the changes they wanted to see weren’t going to affect their decision.”
Ultimately, they did not, and the plan was approved. However, Carrillo said the city acted prematurely in forwarding the notice of determination. He credits the plan’s opponents for spotting the error, which has been corrected.
“They rightfully pointed out it was early,” he said.
Project Opponents Say Developer Mislead Planning Commission
Candidate Lancaster claims the developer’s representative at planning commission meetings misled the commissioners. She said he incorrectly claimed the project had approval from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) while addressing the board.
“But that was categorically incorrect,” Lancaster said. “When I called [SJVAPCD representative Ryan] Grossman on the phone two days later, I found that wasn’t true.”
Carrillo said the state was notified of the city’s plans and had 30 days to respond. Grossman, however, still hadn’t received the information he needed for his agency’s review by September 16, just days before the September 23 commission meeting. He requested an extension to review the hundreds of pages of material about the project. It was denied.
“The day of the hearing, September 23 at 5:30 p.m., he emailed asking for an extension for time,” said Carrillo. “That’s not unusual. What is unusual is to ask for an extension after the decision has been made.”
The planning commission was scheduled to meet at 7 p.m. that night. The staff recommendation to approve the project had already been sent to the commissioners. Carrillo said he did not tell Grossman he could not address the commissioners regarding the project.
“I just said it’s too late [to request more time to review documentation,]” Carrillo said. “I didn’t say he couldn’t make a comment.”
Comments made at that meeting or at the meeting of October 14, or even after that would have been included in the commission’s official records, Carillo said.
City Hall Says Project Plans Meet All Requirements
However, because of the lack of a more thorough review by the air pollution control board and the early filing of the notice of determination, Lenoir said she and other opponents of the project have lost faith in the City Hall.
“So we don’t trust the city,” she said. “We don’t trust them at all.”
Because of their appeal, it will now be reviewed by the city council, which will have the final say at the municipal level.
There was one change of opinion on the planning commission. Member Charlie Norman, after the amended project plan returned for a second review, voted against it. Opponents of the project claim Norman, who is chief of the Tulare County Fire Department, changed his vote over concern about exposure to benzene compounds outgassing from the project. Norman, however, said that was not the reason for changing his vote.
While he realizes the danger benzenes pose to human health, his concerns have been put to rest.
“I asked the question,” he said. “I’m OK with the project. I just wanted some more information from their environmental guy. He answered all my questions. Everything was in compliance.”
But he wasn’t OK with issuing a conditional use permit as a safety valve for a project of this size and nature. Issuing a conditional use permit, he said, doesn’t give the city enough protection in the future.
“The problem I have is with the conditional use permit,” he said. “If there’s something wrong with it, you can revoke it. But if you put a carwash and gas pumps, there’s no revoking millions of dollars in car wash equipment and gas pumps. We need to have full rights if it’s not working out best for everybody.”
Even though he realizes the developers have a right to build their project and have met all the city’s requirements, Norman also sympathizes with those who will have to live next to a project of this scale. But he has to take all residents’ interests into account when acting as a public official, he said.
“We have to do what’s right for the city,” he said. “It pulls my heartstrings. Granted, if I’m living there, I don’t want it.”