Visalia City Council
March 17, 2025

1 2145
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As p
alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened (E, R, or T) on any State or Federal list to be considered E, R, or T under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria for E, R, or T, as specified in the CEQA Guidelines section 15380, CDFW recommends it be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Project.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession, or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.

Objective: The Project applicant proposes to convert existing agricultural lands and develop the approximately 284-acre Project site into an industrial park, consisting of eight industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing; six flex industrial buildings; two drive-through restaurants; a convenience store; a recreational vehicle (RV) and self-storage facility; gas station; and a car wash. The total building footprint is approximately 3,720,149 square feet.

Location: The Project site is located in Tulare County, generally bound by Riggin Avenue to the south, Shirk Street to the east, Kelsey Street to the west, and Modoc Ditch to the north. The (APNs) associated with the Project site are 077-840- 004, 077-840-005, and 077-840-006 (formerly APNs 077-840-001, 077-840-002, and 077-840-003).

Timeframe: N/A
CDFW

2 3
2146
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist Visalia City in significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the DEIR prepared for the Project.

Currently, the DEIR acknowledges that the Project area is within the geographic range of several special status animal species and proposes specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. CDFW has concerns about the ability of some the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and avoid unauthorized take for several special status animal species, including the State Buteo swainsoni) and the State candidate endangered
Crotch Bumble bee (Bombus crotchii).

Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1b
(SWHA) by requiring preconstruction surveys for nesting SWHA following the entire survey methodology developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC Methodology; SWHA TAC 2000). CDFW concurs with this portion of the measure as it follows CDFW guidance. This measure also states the following:

1. Construction activities shall be prohibited within 600 feet of an active and feet of nests under construction to
prevent nest abandonment unless a smaller buffer is approved pursuant to subsection (2) below. This incorporates the maximum avoidance buffer size stated in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and
Central Valley.

2. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the construction activity (e.g., other nearby development, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer, or no buffer at all, could be used, the project developer may seek approval from the qualified Biologist who, in coordination with the CDFW, shall determine the appropriate buffer size, which, once approved, shall govern.

CDFW does not concur with this portion of the measure and implementation of the proposed 600-foot buffer (or smaller buffer based on MM BIO-1b 2.), as it is likely to result in the unauthorized take of SWHA. CDFW would also like to note that the SWHA TAC Methodology requires consultation with CDFW if an active nest is documented CDFW

4 5
2147
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

within ½-mile of Project activities. CDFW would like to further reiterate that it does not concur with MM-BIO 1b, 1. and 2. and recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: SWHA Avoidance Buffer If Project-specific activities will take place during the SWHA nesting season (i.e., March 1 through September 15), and active SWHA nests are present, CDFW recommends a minimum ½-mile no-disturbance buffer be delineated and maintained around each nest, regardless of whether it was detected by surveys or observed incidentally. These buffers would remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, to prevent nest abandonment and other take of SWHA as a result of Project activities.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: SWHA Take Authorization CDFW also recommends that in the event an active SWHA nest is detected, and a ½-mile no-disturbance buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.

Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1d
(CBB) by requiring preconstruction surveys no more than 14 days prior to construction.

CDFW concurs with conducting surveys for CBB during the blooming period immediately prior to ground disturbing activities. CDFW recommends these surveys follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a CBB nest is detected within the Project, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends the Project obtain an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Lake and Streambed Alteration
Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-3 mitigates for potential impacts to streams subject to requiring the Project proponent to
CDFW

5 CONT
7 6
2148
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

coordinate with te regulatory agencies, including CDFW. CDFW concurs with this measure and recommends the Project applicant submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials. CDFW would also like to note that Project activities that substantially change regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation): (c) deposit debris, waste perennial and may include those that are highly modified such as canals and retention basins.

CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA); therefore, if the CEQA document approved for the Project does not adequately describe the Project and its impacts to lakes or streams, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be necessary for LSAA issuance. For information on (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA) or contact CDFW staff in the Central Region Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593.

Cumulative Impacts: CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the Project, including those whose impacts are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the Project, even if those impacts are relatively small (i.e., less than significant). Cumulative impacts are recommended to be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the Project. An appropriate resource study area should also be identified and mapped for each resource being analyzed and utilized for this analysis. CDFW recommends closely evaluating the need for a cumulative impacts analysis for the following species as part of the DEIR due to these species being in poor or declining health or at risk: SWHA and CBB. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA.

California Natural Diversity Database
Please note that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is populated by voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in CDFW

7 CONT
9 8
2149
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record, or lack of recent occurrence records, in the CNDDB does not mean that a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City of Visalia in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Please see the enclosed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) table which corresponds with recommended mitigation measures in this comment letter. More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols).

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to John Riedel, Environmental Scientist, at (559) 807-1453, or [email protected].

CDFW

9 CONT
10 11
12 2150
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager

ec: State Clearinghouse

[email protected]
CDFW

2151
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey considerations for California Endangered Species Act candidate bumble bee species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Hawk Technical Advisory Committee.

CDFW

2152
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024

Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
PROJECT: Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
SCH No.: 2022080658

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

MEASURE

STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
SWHA
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2:

SWHA take authorization
During Construction
SWHA
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1:

SWHA avoidance buffer
CDFW

2153

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2154
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-517
Comments Received after the May 29, 2024 Close of Public Comment Period California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Comment CDFW-1
The commenter offers thanks for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding the proposed project and sets forth CDFW’s scope of regulatory authority with respect to its role as a Trustee Agency. The commenter also acknowledges that the comment letter was submitted after the Draft EIR comment period ended but requests that the City still consider its comments.

Response to CDFW-1
Thank you for your comments. The participation of the CDFW in the public review of this document is appreciated. The comments have been noted for the record.

A lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15088). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (PRC § 21091(d)(1); PRC § 21092.5(c)). Accordingly, although the City, as Lead Agency under CEQA, is not required to provide a written response to late comment letter(s), the City has elected to respond to the late letter submitted by CDFW, but without waiving its position that written responses to late comment letters are not required by law. The commenterdoes not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no response is required.

Comment CDFW-2
The commenter clarifies its role as a Responsible Agency regarding “take,” unlisted species, and nesting birds and provides a related summary.

Response to CDFW-2
The comment does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no response is required.

Comment CDFW-3
The commenter provides a summary regarding the project description.

Response to CDFW-3
The comment does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no response is required.

Comment CDFW-4
The commenter provides introductory remarks regarding the scope of CDFW’s comments. It also notes that CDFW has concerns about the ability of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to several special-status animal species to less than significant and to avoid unauthorized take.

Response to CDFW-4
Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. 2155
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-518
Comment CDFW-5
With respect to proposed mitigation related to impacts on Swainson’s hawk, the commenter states that it concurs with portions of MM BIO-1b, noting that it complies with CDFW guidance. However, the commenter states that it does not concur with those portions of MM BIO-1b (1)(2), regarding the proposed 600-foot buffer (or smaller buffer based on MM BIO-1b (2)), as the commenter believes it is likely to result in the unauthorized take of Swainson’s hawk. The commenter also notes that the TAC Methodology for Swainson’s hawk requires consultation with CDFW if an active nest is documented within 0.25 mile of project activities. Thus, the commenter recommends revised language.

Response to CDFW-5
The Draft EIR, Section 3.4, Biological Resources, provided a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, including disclosing the wildlife species observed or that have the potential to occur within the project site, including, among others, Swainson’s hawk. Specifically, the Draft EIR noted that Swainson’s hawk is known to occur near the project site, and while almond orchards are not considered Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, the analysis recognized that this species is known to forage in alfalfa fields and open low crop and grasslands and these habitat types are present adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the analysis concluded there is a moderate potential for this species to occur on-site.

The Draft EIR’s regulatory setting described the statutory framework governing special-status wildlife species consistent with the commenter’s summary, including noting the relevance of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey Guidelines (TAC Methodology) and the recommended buffer and consultation requirements discussed by the commenter. The impact analysis evaluated potential project-related impacts on Swainson’s hawk and identified feasible avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential project-related impacts to less than significant levels.

The analysis explained that Swainson’s hawks readily habituate to a variety of human disturbances, including construction. Swainson’s hawk nests are often found along busy roadways and in a variety of settings where substantial noise and other disturbances occur, including in agricultural areas.

There are conditions, however, where the potential for nest abandonment is increased. This can occur when new disturbances are introduced to an otherwise open, rural setting. Under these conditions, the Draft EIR noted that no-disturbance buffers are important to avoid nest abandonment. No-disturbance buffers are intended to prevent all ground-disturbing activities and project-related entry of any sort into the buffer area. Although tolerant of human presence and activities, Swainson’s hawk are most sensitive to direct observation of the nest by people. Therefore, restrictions within buffers should prohibit all entry and direct observation of the nest.

The Draft EIR confirmed that the project developer(s) would be responsible for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations protecting Swainson’s hawk, including applicable provisions of CESA, MBTA, and the Fish and Game Code; thus, for example, such compliance with the comprehensive regulatory requirements would ensure that no unauthorized take would occur. The analysis also identified feasible mitigation, including a proposed 600-foot buffer from active nests and those 2156
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-519
under construction. The basis for the proposed 600-foot buffer is further detailed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources.

The commenter also questions the Draft EIR concerning the argument for an insufficient buffer distance for occupied Swainson’s hawk nests. According to Jim Estep, a recognized expert on Swainson’s hawk, a 0.5-mile buffer is not supported by any data driven rationale. Estep argues that this distance was selected to maximally ensure that nesting behavior/success would not be influenced and is therefore a highly conservative buffer distance. Now, 30 years after these guidelines were created, much more is known of Swainson’s hawk, including their high degree of tolerance to noise and disturbances. Although no studies have been conducted to understand the most effective buffer distance, it is understood that a 0.5-mile buffer is unnecessarily large. Many successful nests have been documented in very close proximity to a multitude of disturbances with nest abandonment involving the direct impact to nest trees or disturbances next to active nests.

CDFW’s Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee guidelines identify a 600-foot buffer resulting from the work of Mike Bradbury, a former California Department of Water Resources (DWR) employee. Through monitoring of nesting activity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Bradbury determined that a 600-foot buffer was a reasonable distance in most cases. Ultimately Estep argues that this species is quite tolerant of disturbance events and a 0.5-mile buffer is not necessary in most cases. He supports a 600-foot buffer with the caveat that specific site conditions should be taken into consideration.6
Therefore, based on the data provided by the project’s biological experts, the Lead Agency does not agree that a 600-foot buffer is insufficient. Although Swainson’s hawk may forage within the project area, MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b would sufficiently mitigate for any Swainson’s hawk found within 600 feet of the project site.

The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA. No further analysis or revisions are required.

Comment CDFW-6
The commenter concurs with the portions of MM BIO-1d that require pre-construction surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) be constructed during the blooming period immediately prior to grounddisturbing activities. The commenter recommends that the methodology outlined in specified CDFW protocol be followed when conducting these surveys. The commenter also notes that in the event a CBB nest is detected within the project site, then consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, the commenter recommends the project obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). The commenter then recommends specific edits to MM BIO-1d (Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys). 6 Estep, Jim. Estep Environmental Consulting. Personal communication: email. August 22, 2024. 2157
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-520
Response to CDFW-6
This comment is noted for the record. The Draft EIR considered the potential for CBB to occur within the project site and determined, as explained more fully therein, this is unlikely because the entire project site consists of actively managed orchard and no required habitat elements for this species are present. Moreover, the Draft EIR explained that if it occurred, it would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site to find suitable habitat. Therefore, it was determined that the project site does not include suitable habitat. However, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR identified mitigation that requires a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the project site (MM BIO-1d). Should CBB be detected, MM BIO-1d requires that the qualified Biologist coordinate with the CDFW to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations and further requires that the relevant project developer(s) implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue.

Section 3.4, Biological Resources, MM BIO-1d in of the Draft EIR has been revised to include the changes recommended by the CDFW:

MM BIO-1d Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Surveys conducted for Crotch’s bumblebee shall follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a Crotch’s bumblebee nest is detected within the Project, CDFW shall be consulted to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine how best to implement Project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, an ITP shall be obtained to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081 subdivision (b).

Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, or American badger be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate and to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue. Copies of all reports and communication with the appropriate wildlife agencies shall be submitted to the Lead Agency as evidence of compliance.

See also Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR. The CEQA Guidelines require recirculation only when “significant new information” is added to an EIR after the Draft EIR is released for public review but before certification of the FEIR. (PRC § 21092.1; 14 CCR § 15088.5(a)). The foregoing reflects mere clarifications and amplifications; they would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in 2158
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-521
severity in a previously identified significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Comment CDFW-7
The commenter characterizes its remaining comments (i.e., CDFW Comments 7 through 12) as “editorial comments and/or suggestions.” With respect to Comment CDFW-7, the commenter requests revisions to MM BIO-3 and and recommends the project applicant submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials and then goes on to describe the regulatory requirements of the foregoing and related CEQA review.

Response to CDFW-7
This comment is noted for the record. MM BIO-3 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, has been revised to include the changes recommended by the CDFW:

MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602. Additionally, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, the project applicant shall submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials
See also Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR. The foregoing reflects mere clarifications and amplifications; they would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in severity in a previously identified significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Comment CDFW-8
The commenter recommends closely evaluating the need for a cumulative impacts analysis, particularly with respect to Swainson’s hawk and Crotch’s bumblebee, as part of the EIR due to these species being in poor or declining health or at risk. As part of this analysis, the commenter recommends that an acceptable methodology be utilized to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the project, and that an appropriate resource study area be identified and mapped for each resource being analyzed.

Response to CDFW-8
This comment is noted for the record. Cumulative impacts on biological resources are raised in Comment LIUNA-6. See Response to LIUNA-6. Based on the information previously presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above 2159
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-522
Comment CDFW-9
The commenter notes that because the CNDDB relies on voluntary submissions of species detection, as a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. The commenter goes on to suggest that, in order to adequately assess any potential project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified Biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present.

Response to CDFW-9
This comment is noted for the record.

See also Response to LIUNA-20.

Comment CDFW-10
The commenter states that CEQA requires that information developed in EIRs and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations, and requests that the City report any special-status species and natural communities detected during project surveys to the CNDDB.

Response to CDFW-10
This comment is noted for the record. Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

The City intends to adhere to any and all reporting requirements under CEQA, including those related to the detection of any special- status species and natural communities.

Comment CDFW-11
The commenter notes that because the proposed project would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, it would be required to pay the necessary filing fees due to the CDFW, and then goes on to explain the timing requirements and legal implications of filing these fees.

Response to CDFW-11
The comment is noted for the record. Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. It is reasonable to assume that the project applicant(s) would be required to pay all applicable fees necessary under the law to implement the proposed project.

Comment CDFW-12
The commenter states its appreciation for the ability to comment on the Draft EIR and provides contact information. The commenter also notes the attached MMRP table that corresponds with recommended mitigation measures in the comment letter.

Response to CDFW-12
The comment is noted for the record. Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. 2160
June 6, 2024
Brandon Smith
City of Visalia
Community Development Department
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project District CEQA Reference No: 20240472
Dear Mr. Smith:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Visalia (City). Per the DEIR, the project consists of converting existing agricultural lands to develop approximately 3,720,149 square foot industrial park, consisting of eight industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution and light manufacturing; six flex industrial buildings; two drivethrough restaurants; a convenience store; a recreational vehicle RV and self-storage facility; gas station and car wash on a 284-acre site (Project). The Project is located north of Riggin Avenue, west of Shirk Street, east of Kelsey Street, and south of Modoc Ditch in Visalia, CA.

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

Project Related Construction Emissions
The DEIR, specifically page 3.3-45, indicates construction of the Project is expected to occur between years 2024 and 2028. However, per Appendix A in the DEIR, the construction analyses indicate construction of the Project is expected to occur between years 2024 to 2033. There are inconsistencies with the timeframe of the construction. Therefore, the District recommends that the DEIR be clarified for consistency.

SJVAPCD

1 2
2161
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
The DEIR, specifically Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2g (Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement) Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall consult with the City of Visalia Planning Division about the feasibility of entering into a VERA with the Additionally, the DEIR concludes Project air quality emissions are expected to e . As such, the District
recommends MM AIR-2g be revised to consider requiring one VERA, for the entire Project as a whole.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-forpound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.

Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of agricultural equipment with the latest generation technologies.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The District reviewed the Health Risk Assessment (HRA)/Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for the Project and has the following comments:

The DEIR states NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed ambient air quality standards. However, an AAQA was not performed to verify these determinations. The District recommends conducting an AAQA to support the conclusions presented in the DEIR.

SJVAPCD

3 4
2162
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Variable emission rates were used for the construction activities in the HRA.

The District recommends using a worker adjustment factor (WAF) in HARP2 to prevent underestimating worker risk. HARP2 assumes all sources of emissions are continuous and reduces worker exposure accordingly.

Therefore, the WAF should be used for non-continuous sources.

The DEIR states that there will be two quick serve restaurants (QSR) as part of the Project. Although, the specifics on the type of QSR are unknown at this time, the District recommends that the DEIR evaluate the health risk from potential Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) from commercial cooking operations.

The operational health risk analysis assumed a 30-year residential exposure period for estimating of cancer risk. The District recommends estimating residential cancer risk using a 70-year exposure period.

Modifications to the HRA and/or AAQA based on the deficiencies listed above have the potential to cause the Project to exceed District health risk thresholds and/or cause or contribute to an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard.

Therefore, the District recommends the HRA be revised and an AAQA be conducted potential air quality impacts.

Industrial/Warehouse Emission Reduction Strategies
The District recommends the City incorporate emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts, such as those listed below:

Require cleanest available heavy-duty trucks and off-road equipment (see comment 6)
Require HHD truck routing patterns that limit exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions (see comment 5) Require minimization of heavy-duty truck idling (see comment 8) Orient loading docks away from sensitive receptors unless physically impossible
Require loading docks a minimum of 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptor unless dock is exclusively used for electric trucks Require truck entries be located on streets of a higher commercial classification
Ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the development project

SJVAPCD

5 6
7 8
9a
9g
9f
9e
9d
9c
9b
2163
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Require power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have nged idling while loading and
unloading goods
Designate an area during construction to charge electric powered construction vehicles and equipment, if temporary power is available Prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction
Inform the project proponent of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program) offered to reduce air emissions from the Project
Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for the Project, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Accordingly, to ozone and particulate
matter attainment plans rely on a significant and rapid transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies.

The Project will include warehouse and distribution and is expected to generate a high volume of HHD truck trips traveling to-and-from Project location at longer distribution trip length distances. Therefore, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:

Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.

SJVAPCD

10 11
9k
9j
9i
9h
2164
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Electric Infrastructure
The District recommends that the City require all nonresidential buildings be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support the use of on-road zero emissions vehicles, such as HHD trucks associated with an industrial development for warehouse and distribution.

To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/charge-up for more information.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of HHD trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

Since the Project will result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the DEIR be revised to include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3- minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Under-fired Charbroilers
The Project will include commercial development with the potential for restaurants with under-fired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors.

Since the cooking of meat can release carcinogenic PM2.5 species, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, controlling emissions from new under-fired charbroilers will have a substantial positive impact on public health. The air quality impacts on neighborhoods near restaurants with under-fired charbroilers can be significant on days when meteorological conditions are stable, when dispersion is

SJVAPCD

12 13
14 2165
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
limited and emissions are trapped near the surface within the surrounding neighborhoods. This potential for neighborhood-level concentration of emissions during evening or multi-day stagnation events raises air quality concerns.

Furthermore, reducing commercial charbroiling emissions is essential to achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards. Therefore, the District recommends that the DEIR include a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating under-fired charbroilers.

The District is available to assist the City and project proponents with this assessment. Additionally, the District is currently offering substantial incentive funding that covers the full cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the system during a demonstration period covering two years of operation. Please contact the District at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] for more information, or visit:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/restaurant-charbroiler-technology-partnership/ Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project will include commercial development, gas-powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment.

More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yard-machines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emission-landscaping-equipment-voucherprogram/.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic.

As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

SJVAPCD

14 CONT
15 16
2166
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rulesand-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are
Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 25,000 square feet of industrial development space.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As of the date of this letter, the District has not received an AIA application for this Project. Please inform the project proponent to immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510 so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into Project.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/formsand-applications/ District staff is available to provide assistance, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

SJVAPCD

16 CONT
17 2167
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project propone (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/rule-9410-employer-based-trip-reduction/.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures. To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.

SJVAPCD

18 19
20 2168
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolition-renovation/.

Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

District Comment Letter
Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Jacob Torrez by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-6558.

Sincerely,
Tom Jordan
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager

SJVAPCD

20 CONT
21 22
2169

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2170
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-533
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Comment SJVAPCD-1
This commenter provides introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed project.

Response to SJVAPCD-1
The commenter does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not required; no further response is required.

Comment SJVAPCD-2
The commenter notes a discrepancy in construction sequencing between the air quality appendix and the Draft EIR, wherein the air quality appendix references a construction end year of 2033 instead of 2028 as shown in the Draft EIR, and requests the inconsistencies be rectified.

Response to SJVAPCD-2
The comment is noted for the record. Appendix B of the Draft EIR included a California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output file for Phase 3 that erroneously showed construction through year 2033 instead of year 2028, which did not match the results and information that were contained in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report or the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR. That portion of the appendix was erroneously compiled using an outdated file. However, this inadvertent error in the output file of appendix material did not affect the air quality analysis and finding because the actual modeling, which was relied upon in the analysis in the Draft EIR, was prepared using the correct files. However, for purposes of clarity in the record and in response to the comment, Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Appendix B of the Draft EIR) has been updated; this updated Appendix is included in the Final EIR.

Similarly, although both sequential and concurrent phasing were considered for purposes of a conservative analysis, Tables 3.3-13 and 3.3-14 of the Draft EIR each had one erroneous footnote noting that the emissions represented concurrent phasing, when these tables actually present the calculations for sequential phasing which would last from year 2024 to 2028 as correctly shown in the tables. As noted above, the “Construction Phase 3–Mitigated” CalEEMod Output files on Pages 190-231 of Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Draft EIR Appendix B) were replaced with CalEEMod output files that matched the emissions and construction duration presented in the EIR. The Final EIR Section 3, Errata removes the erroneous footnote in each table for clarification purposes to reflect consistency, as requested by the comment.

The typographical error and subsequent revision do not affect the air quality modeling, analysis, and findings and no substantive revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary. The CEQA Guidelines require recirculation only when “significant new information” is added to an EIR after the Draft EIR is released for public review but before certification of the FEIR. (Public Resources Code § 21092.State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a)). Analysis that is provided only for informational purposes (and that is not legally required) does not qualify as significant new information and would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in severity in a previously identified significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation.
2171
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-534
Comment SJVAPCD-3
The commenter recommends that Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2g in the Draft EIR be revised to include a requirement for the relevant project sponsor to enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for the project and describes that a VERA is a contractual agreement between the project proponent and the SJVAPCD that can properly be characterized as an enforceable mitigation measure to mitigate project-related emissions.

Response to SJVAPCD-3
See Response LIUNA-4.

Comment SJVAPCD-4
The commenter notes that it reviewed the Health Risk Assessment (HRA)/Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) and provides the following comments. The commenter recommends that an AAQA be performed to confirm the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the project would not exceed established ambient air quality standards for NOx, PM10, and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5).

Response to SJVAPCD-4
See Response to LIUNA-14.

The comment has been noted for the record. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment SJVAPCD-5
The commenter notes that variable emission rates were used in the HRA, and requests that a worker adjustment factor (WAF) in HARP27 be used for estimating worker risk to ensure such risk is not underestimated. The commenter notes that HARP2 assumes all emissions are continuous and reduces worker exposure accordingly. The commenter concludes that WAF should be used for noncontinuous sources.

Response to SJVAPCD-5
The commenter is specific to selecting a WAF to be used to prevent underestimating worker risk. It is unclear whether the commenter is referring to on-site or off-site workers. However, neither on-site nor off-site workers need to be specifically analyzed for the following reasons. As discussed in page

3.3-62 of Section 3.3, Air Quality, on-site workers are not required to be addressed through the HRA process, consistent with guidance published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, which indicates that on-site receptors are included in risk assessments if they are persons not employed by the proposed project. The only people who would be on-site for a significant period would be on-site workers.

Therefore, an HRA for on-site receptors consisting of on-site workers is not required.

See Response GSEJA-7.

Therefore, the Draft EIR and related technical appendices adequately disclosed all assumptions and methodologies utilized in the HRA, including, among others, the ASF and FAH, and accurately 7 HARP2 is the Hotspots Analysis Reporting Program, Health Risk Assessment Stand-alone Tool, Version 2. 2172
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-535
evaluated and disclosed the project’s potential health risk impacts. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarification as noted above.

Comment SJVAPCD-6
The commenter notes that the project description contemplates two QSRs and asserts that although the specifics regarding the type of QSR are unknown at this time, the Draft EIR should nonetheless evaluate the health risk from potential polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from commercial cooking operations.

Response to SJVAPCD-6
It would be speculative to attempt this evaluation. Speculation is not required by CEQA because an EIR need not speculate on impacts that are not foreseeable (CEQA Guidelines § 15144 and §15145.) A potential health risk is too speculative to evaluate without knowing the specifics on the type of QSR and CEQA does not require a “worst-case” analysis, but merely what is reasonably foreseeable.

While CEQA Guidelines §15144 acknowledges that some degree of forecasting is involved in preparing an EIR, and that an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can, CEQA also confirms that “foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible.” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15146, the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the Draft EIR. Thus, CEQA limits the requirement for forecasting to that which could be reasonably expected under the circumstances and is part of the effort to provide a general "rule of reason" for EIR contents.

See Response GSEJA-7.

This comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment SJVAPCD-7
The commenter states that Draft EIR’s operational health risk analysis assumed a 30-year residential exposure period for estimating cancer risk and that SJVAPCD recommends estimating residential cancer risk using a 70-year exposure period.

Response to SJVAPCD-7
See response to GSEJA-7.

Comment SJVAPCD-8
The commenter states that modifications to the HRA and/or AAQA based on the deficiencies listed by the comment have the potential to cause the project to exceed District health risk thresholds and/or cause or contribute to an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the comment recommends that the HRA be revised and/or AAQA be conducted to reflect the comments above.

Response to SJVAPCD-8
Responses to each comment are shown in Response to SJVAPCD-4 through SJVAPCD-7, above.

Warranted revisions were made to the HRA per Comment SJVAPCD-7. For the reasons set forth in the responses above and as otherwise documented in the EIR, the City, in its discretion as the Lead 2173
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-536
Agency, has determined that the analysis reflected in the Draft EIR satisfies CEQA’s requirements.

Nonetheless, in order to be responsive to the commenter, the City has incorporated the abovedescribed clarifying revisions, none of which would result in any significant changes to the Draft EIR, including, without limitation, changes to the significance conclusions. These modifications add clarity to the EIR and do not reflect a new or substantially increased significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Comment SJVAPCD-9
The commenter recommends the City incorporate emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts and then lists 11 suggested measures.

Response to SJVAPCD-9
The list of suggested measures and responses to each measure are discussed below. As identified in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and in accordance with the requirements under CEQA, a series of feasible mitigation measures have been identified, which would be imposed on the proposed project to reduce emissions and health risk impacts to the extent practicable. As requested by the commenter, the City and its consultants have considered the feasibility of incorporating the suggested additional measures. As detailed below, many of the recommended measures are required to be implemented by existing laws and regulations and/or are already included as part of the identified mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. The suggested measures that are not included are either not applicable to the proposed project, not required as project impacts related to the recommended measure would not occur, or because the project applicant and the Lead Agency do not have the authority to require or enforce the suggested measure, thereby rendering the recommendation infeasible, as detailed below.

The following responses include discussion of new mitigation measures suggested by the District.

Under Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3)), when information added to the Final EIR consists of a suggested new mitigation measure, recirculation is only required if the mitigation measure meets each of the following criteria (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330):
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR;
• It would clearly lessen the project's significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.

For the reasons described herein, none of the above triggers has occurred with respect to the suggested measures, does not reflect a new or substantially increased significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

See response to GSEJA-3 and AFTE-5.
2174
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-537
Comment SJVAPCD-10
The commenter suggests that the City evaluate HDD truck routing patterns for the project with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. The comment then identifies the suggested components of such an evaluation, including consideration of the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck, trip destination/origin, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall VMT, associated exhaust emissions, and alternative truck routes.

Response to SJVAPCD-10
This suggested measure has been addressed in Response to SJVAPCD-9; the requested analysis is not warranted. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment SJVAPCD-11
The commenter generally summarizes the broad goal of making significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks in order that the San Joaquin Valley be able to attain stringent health-based air quality standards, and thus Air District attainment plans rely on a “significant and rapid transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies.” The comment then suggests that fleets associated with operational activities be required to utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.

Response to SJVAPCD-11
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

With respect to the specific suggested measure, this has been addressed in Response to SJVAPCD-9.

For the reasons set forth therein and in the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR are not warranted. The comment has been noted for the record.

Comment SJVAPCD-12
The commenter suggests that the City require all nonresidential buildings be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support the use of on-road zero emissions vehicles, such as HHD trucks associated with an industrial development for warehouse and distribution. The comment then summarizes generally the incentives offered by SJVAPCD to public agencies, business and property owners to support and accelerate the installation of EV charging equipment, as well as the purpose of SJVAPCD’s Charge Up! Incentive program. The commenter makes a general recommendation that the City and project proponents install EV chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Response to SJVAPCD-12
The comment is noted for the record. Since the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. MM AIR-2d requires installation of infrastructure for EV charging stations for a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable CALGreen Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3).
2175
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-538
Furthermore, MM AIR-2d requires the buildings’ electrical room to be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the site. Therefore, this suggested general measure is similar to identified measures already identified in the Draft EIR that would be imposed on the project. Given the foregoing, the commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR. Revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

Comment SJVAPCD-13
The commenter provides a general summary of the goal of idling restrictions in terms of limiting the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts. It then suggests that the Draft EIR be revised to (1) include measures to ensure compliance of the State anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and (2) discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the commenter recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Response to SJVAPCD-13
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no revisions to the Draft EIR is required.

With respect to the specific suggested measure, State anti-idling regulations are discussed extensively in Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Framework, of Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations including the ones related to anti-idling. Therefore, this requested measure is similar to an existing regulation that would be applied to the proposed project, and thus no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.

With respective to a more stringent three-minute idling limit, the commenter has not demonstrated how the recommended mitigation would clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts compared to the mitigation measure already evaluated in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.3-22, Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would have less than significant combined construction and operation health risk impacts with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Because the suggested measure would not reduce an environmental impact caused by the proposed project, there is no legal nexus of this measure to any identified impacts of the proposed project and thus the Lead Agency does not have the legal authority to impose such a restriction—which goes beyond the already-stringent requirements under State law—on the proposed project. Therefore, the suggested mitigation is not feasible, would not be necessary to reduce any significant impact from the proposed project, and is not required under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment SJVAPCD-14
The commenter notes that the proposed project would include commercial development with the potential for restaurants with underfired char broilers. The comment goes on to make a general statement that such features, if used, may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly 2176
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-539
when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors, given the potential for release of emissions of PM2.5 and PAH. The commenter then notes generally that controlling such emissions will have a positive impact on public health (and is essential for achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards) and provides a general summary of the foregoing issues with respect to neighborhood-level concentrations. Therefore, the commenter recommends a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating underfired char broilers; notes the District’s willingness to assist with this assessment; and confirms the availability of incentive funding to implement same.

Response to SJVAPCD-14
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

As a preliminary matter, as noted in Response to Comment SJVAPCD-6, any underfired and chain driven char broilers installed as part of the project would be subject to any and all applicable SJVAPCD rules (such as Rule 4692, commercial char broiling) and/or any ARB/Statewide control measures in place at the time of construction, and any such emissions would be captured and controlled by provisions under SJVAPCD Stationary Source Rules and permitting processes and risks would be addressed at such time. Furthermore, also as discussed in Response to Comment SJVAPCD9, the potential impacts of commercial cooking operations such as a char broiler, which may or may not be used in the proposed QSRs, are too speculative to analyze at this point as there are parameters currently unknown that are required to prepare a reasonable HRA of the proposed QSRs.

Additionally, the suggested measure is infeasible because there is a lack of evidence to support an essential nexus and rough proportionality between this requirement and the nature and extent of anticipated impacts associated with the project. Public agencies may use their discretionary powers granted by laws other than CEQA to mitigate environmental impacts. CEQA does not, however, expand the powers granted by other laws or otherwise confer an independent grant of authority to impose mitigation measures on a project. When imposing mitigation for a project’s significant environmental effects, a public agency may only exercise those powers provided by legal authority independent of CEQA (PRC § 21004). The CEQA Guidelines specify that CEQA does not grant new or independent powers to public agencies (CEQA Guidelines § 15040). Accordingly, an agency’s exercise of discretionary powers must be within the scope of the power granted by laws and be consistent with express or implied limitations (CEQA Guidelines § 15040(d), (e)). Mitigation measures that are beyond the powers conferred by law on lead agencies are legally infeasible. Here, the City, as Lead Agency, would have no legal authority to impose such a measure and thus it is infeasible.

Accordingly, because conducting such an analysis would require speculation, and any such mitigation would be infeasible in any event. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR. No change is warranted and no further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. Currently, in general, the lack of commercially available and feasibly demonstrated control technologies is the primary barrier for moving forward with control strategies for char broiler emissions, both within the SJVAPCD and other air districts in the State and country. Based on available information from the District, the City understands the 2177
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-540
following. The SJVAPCD has done extensive research and testing on controls for such char broilers, including incentive funding and demonstration programs, with limited participation from eligible food industry sources.8 The District has explored regulatory control requirements for these sources via an amendment to Rule 4692 but has not moved forward with any requirements requiring controls since the technology is not feasible or available. The District has, however, implemented a registration program for underfired char broilers that would meet or exceed a significance threshold based on the amount of meat that would be cooked on these units.

In December 2020, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted a comprehensive strategy to continue to address emissions from commercial underfired char broilers, focusing on continued research and education and Statewide partnership efforts.9 The District is working with the ARB as they consider developing a Statewide Suggested Control Measure, working with the ARB/EPA in making improvements to the emissions inventory for commercial underfired char broiling, and formalizing the restaurant workgroup to stay connected with current industry conditions and to continue to develop and deploy underfired char broiler emissions control technology.

As per the District’s own strategy report, 4,200 restaurants were contacted by the program, 15 restaurants evaluated the potential for control technology and ultimately none of these restaurants considered moving forward after this additional outreach. These evaluations consisted of a lengthy detailed analysis, where all businesses declined to move forward with controls due to feasibility issues related to the installation of the control devices and local permitting challenges, and concerns about the cost of maintenance after the funded 2-year demonstration period concluded under the Restaurant Char Broiler Technology Partnership (RCTP). The comments have been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above
Comment SJVAPCD-15
This comment notes that the proposed project would include commercial development, and then goes on to provide a general summary of how gas powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOX and PM2.5 emissions. It then notes generally that utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The comment suggests the project applicant participate in SJVAPCD’s Clean Green Yard Machines program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment.
8 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. Item Number 11: Adopt Proposed Commercial Underfired Charbroiling Emission Reduction Strategy. November. Website: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/cbyjeiz5/12-20-strategy.pdf.

Accessed July 1, 2024. 9 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. Item Number 11: Adopt Proposed Commercial Underfired Charbroiling Emission Reduction Strategy. November. Website: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/cbyjeiz5/12-20-strategy.pdf.

Accessed July 1, 2024.
2178
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-541
Response to SJVAPCD-15
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

With respect to the specific suggested measure, MM AIR-2c requires that all on-site off-road and onroad service equipment, including lawn and garden equipment, utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is similar to recommended measures already identified in the Draft EIR and thus no change is warranted. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment SJVAPCD-16
The commenter generally notes that the District issues permits for many different types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities that do not require permits. The comment then indicates that projects subject to District rules and regulations would reduce their air quality impacts through compliance with the regulatory framework. The comment goes on to provide a definition of a regulation and a general summary of the various regulations as examples, such as Regulation II, Rules 2010, 2201, and 2520.

Response to SJVAPCD-16
The commenter does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment SJVAPCD-17
This commenter states that the proposed project is submitted to District Rule 9510–Indirect Source Review (ISR) because it will receive a project-level discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceeds 25,000 square feet of light industrial space. This comment provides a general summary of the requirements of District Rule 9510. The commenter states that the ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOX and particulate matter (PM) emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the subject development’s clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emission reductions. The commenter also states that according to Section 5.0 of the ISR rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. The comment states that the District has not received an AIA application for the project, and requests immediate submittal of an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510.

Response to SJVAPCD-17
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable SJVAPCD rules, plans and regulations and, as such, the project proponent would coordinate with the SJVAPCD as necessary. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. 2179
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-542
Comment SJVAPCD-18
The commenter generally summarizes the definition of stationary source emissions, notes relevant District Rules 2010 and 2201, describes the nature of the mitigation that may be imposed generally under District Rule 2201; states that the proposed project may be subject to these rules; and the comment also recommends that the project applicant submit an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC) prior to construction.

Response to SJVAPCD-18
See Response to SJVAPCD-17, above. To the extent the commenter is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations (e.g., page 3.3-25; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1). For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the SJVAPCD’s Regulation II, Rules 2010 and 2201 have been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-25 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata. None of these clarifications and amplifications result in substantial changes to the EIR or any of the conclusions or would otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Comment SJVAPCD-19
The commenter states that the proposed project may be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9410, and then goes on to generally summarize how this rule imposes an obligation on specified employers to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP).

Response to SJVAPCD-19
See Response to SJVAPCD-17 and SJVAPCD-18, above. To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment is noted for the record and no further response is required.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations (e.g., page 3.3-25; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1). For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the SJVAPCD’s Rule 9410 has been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-26 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata. None of these clarifications result in substantial changes to the EIR or any of the conclusions regarding potential impacts or would otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Comment SJVAPCD-20
The commenter states that the proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD’s Rule 4002 since the proposed project would include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures. The comment then generally summarizes the requirements of this rule. 2180
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-543
Response to SJVAPCD-20
See Response to SJVAPCD-17 through SJVAPCD-19, above. To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. In particular, the analysis considers impacts associated with the proposed demolition (see the discussion for Impact AIR-1 and Impact AIR-2). For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the SJVAPCD’s Rule 4002 has been added to Section

3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-25 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata. None of these clarifications and amplifications result in substantial changes to the EIR or any of the conclusions or would otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Comment SJVAPCD-21
The commenter notes that the proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Response to SJVAPCD-21
See Response to SJVAPCD-17 through SJVAPCD-20, above. Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations, including, among others, District Rule 4641 (e.g., pages 3.3-25 through -26 of the Draft EIR; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1). The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment SJVAPCD-22
The commenter states that the SJVAPCD recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the project proponent.

Response to SJVAPCD-22
SJVAPCD’s comments have been provided to the project applicants and are included in the Final EIR for review by decision-makers and have been noted for the record. 2181

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2182
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-1
ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the proposed Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (proposed project). These revisions are minor modifications, amplifications, and clarifications to the document and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are in strikeout (strikeout).

As discussed below, these revisions are intended to clarify and amplify via the provision of additional information. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only requires recirculation of a Draft EIR when the lead agency adds “significant new information” to an EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR for public review but before EIR certification. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; see, e.g., South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330.)
Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).) When information added to the final EIR consists of revisions to mitigation measures and/or replaces mitigation measures, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure meets all of the following criteria:
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR;
• It would clearly lessen the project’s significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.

Recirculation is required only if each of the above tests is met. South County Citizens, 221 CA4th at 330. None of the clarifications or revisions identified below differ considerably from the analysis in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the clarifications and revisions identified below are all recommended for adoption. Accordingly, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Changes in Response to Specific Comments
Executive Summary
Page ES-10–ES-12, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.3—Air Quality The following text has been updated:

MM AIR-2b Super Compliant Architectural Coating During Construction Prior to issuance of a grading permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall submit to the City of Visalia Planning Division construction contracts and/or 2183
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-2
subcontracts reasonably documenting that all architectural coating material utilized in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal would not exceed 10 grams of volatile organic compound (VOC) per liter of coating.

To satisfy the above, the relevant project sponsor shall include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts for the subject individual specific development proposal a requirement that all interior and exterior architectural coatings used in project construction meet the “supercompliant” coating VOC content standard of 10 grams or less of VOC per liter of coating. The relevant project sponsor shall also specify in the subject construction contracts and/or subcontracts the requirement to use high-volume, low-pressure spray guns during coating applications to reduce coating waste.

MM AIR-2c Electric or Zero-emission On-site Off-road and On-road Service Equipment Prior to issuance of the construction grading permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to demonstrate to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment will utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. Additionally, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all proposed buildings in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal that would use on-site service equipment will be designed to include electric outlets to support the use of all-electric or zero-emission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially practicable.

MM AIR-2d Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating that the subject individual specific development proposal shall incorporate infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). To satisfy the foregoing, EV charging spaces must provide electrical vehicle charging infrastructure to support future installation of EV supply equipment and shall meet the applicable design space requirements of California Green Building Standards Code Section 5.106.5.3.

In addition, the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to 2184
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-3
tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the project applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

MM AIR-2e On-Site Signage and Pavement Markings
In connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating signage and pavement marking that show on-site circulation routes have been or will be included along the relevant portions of the project site driveways and internal roadways.

MM AIR-2f Vegetative Barrier
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating the inclusion of a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries of the project site. Prior to issuance of first occupancy permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Visalia Planning Division the installation of the vegetative barrier at the described locations.

MM AIR-2g Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall consult with the City of Visalia Planning Division about the feasibility of entering into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the Valley Air District.

Page ES-16–ES-18, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.4—Biological Resources The following text has been updated:

MM BIO-1d Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Surveys conducted for Crotch’s bumblebee shall follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a Crotch’s bumblebee nest is detected within the project site, CDFW shall be consulted to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine how best to implement project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) shall be obtained to the extent required under 2185
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-4
applicable laws and regulations, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081 subdivision (b).

Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, or American badger be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate and to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue. Copies of all reports and communication with the appropriate wildlife agencies shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

The following standardized recommendations as outlined by the USFWS for the protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox shall be implemented during project construction:

1. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active.

Nighttime construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However, if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.

2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed.

Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below.

3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the Biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
2186
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-5

5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.

6. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.

7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional projectrelated restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.

8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.

9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project.

The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.

10. Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions.

11. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for guidance.

12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.

13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, 2187
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-6
and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.

14. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below.

Page ES-20–ES-21, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, 3.4—Biological Resources The following text has been updated:

MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602. Additionally, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, the project applicant shall submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials.

If Modoc Ditch is considered jurisdictional by the regulating agencies, the relevant project developer shall, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, obtain the relevant permit applications based on coordination with the appropriate regulating agencies, if required prior to impacting any waters.

As part of these authorizations, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulating agencies to offset the loss of aquatic resources. If so, and as part of the permit application process, a qualified professional shall draft a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address implementation and monitoring requirements under the permit(s) to ensure that the subject development proposal would result in no net loss of habitat functions and values. The Plan shall contain, at a minimum, mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation location, a discussion of actions to be implemented to mitigate the impact, monitoring methods and performance criteria, extent of monitoring to be conducted, actions to be taken in the event that the mitigation is not successful, and reporting requirements. The Plan shall be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and compensatory mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an appropriate off-site location, if required. Copies of the Plan and associated report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Any material/spoils generated from project activities containing hazardous materials shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from stormwater runoff using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate and feasible. Protection measures should follow project2188 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-7
specific criteria as developed in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP).

Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.

Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely and in a feasible manner. In the event of any such spillage, the contaminated area shall be cleaned by the party responsible for the spillage, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.

Page ES-30, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.8—Greenhouse Gas Emissions The following text has been updated:

MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.

Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the City of Visalia shall confirm that the subject proposal has been designed to include the following: a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space. Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system pursuant to this MM GHG-2a must also have a battery storage system.

Page ES-31, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.9—Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following text has been updated:

MM HAZ-1 (a) Any known wells on the project site shall be delineated on an engineered site plan with a minimum 10-foot radius no build area.
2189
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-8
(b) In the event that any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM), shall be contacted for requirements and approval; copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Preservation Planning Department. CalGEM may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required.
(c) The following note shall appear on all final maps and grading plans: “If during grading or construction, any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged, CalGEM will be contacted to inspect and approve any remediation required.

Page ES-36, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.13—Public Services The following text has been added:

Impact PUB-3: The proposed project would not 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 or other performance objectives for schools.

No mitigation measures are required.

Less than significant impact.

Page ES-34, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.12—Noise The following text has been revised:

MM NOI-1 (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a drive-through car wash, an indepth acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustic professional shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Visalia Community Development Preservation Department that demonstrates that the design and operations of a proposed drive-through car wash would not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits for residential land uses. The study shall evaluate factors such as:
• The location and orientation of noise-generating equipment, such as dryer blowers and vacuums.
• The location and orientation of the drive-through car wash tunnel. • The hours of operation.
• The location of the drive-through car wash on the project site. (b) Based on the results of the acoustical study, the project applicant shall be required to incorporate, at a minimum, design features or reduction measures to reduce any identified operational noise impact to meet applicable noise 2190
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-9
performance criteria. These reduction measures shall be included on all relevant plans, specifications, and other permitting documents. Measures and design features may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Locating the car wash facility further away from sensitive receptors, therefore reducing its noise impacts at nearby residential land uses. • Orienting the facility so that the carwash exit (where the drying blowers would be located) is located facing away from nearby residential land uses. • Providing sound blankets to hang around the edge of the carwash exit tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Locating the dryer blowers further inside the car wash tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Providing screening, such as a structure or sound wall, to shield the carwash exit where the dryer blowers would be located from nearby residential land uses.

Page ES-37, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic The following text has been revised:

MM TRANS-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall appropriate Storm Drainage and Waterways impact fees.

MM TRANS-3 Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue: Prior to the issuance of grading permits Prior to occupancy of Phae 2, the proposed project shall provide site plans that show modification of the raised median to extend the existing westbound left-turn pocket by 100 feet, to provide a 400-foot left-turn pocket. The existing northbound rightturn stripe shall be extended to 300 feet. These improvements shall occur in the year 2026. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 2 846,920 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-3. The project proponent shall be financially responsible for these improvements. “Financially responsible” shall equate to implementing the project as well as paying for the project.

Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)
2191
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-10
MM TRANS-4 Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the proposed project shall provide dual northbound left-turn pockets (300-foot minimum) and a 300-foot minimum southbound left-turn pocket. Since a 300-foot eastbound right-turn pocket would already be installed by the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project, additional recommendations are not proposed. These improvements shall occur in the year 2025. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 1 1,864,680 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-4. The project’s contribution into the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) will assist in paying for these improvements.

Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)
Page ES-39, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic The following text has been revised:

MM TRANS-10b Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the developer shall construct a bike path along Modoc Ditch, between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street (approximately 1 mile).

The existing Class I bike path along Modoc ditch runs to the east of the proposed project, between Dinuba Boulevard and the St. John’s River Trail. The Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) project also proposed to construct a portion of the Class I path within the site. Therefore, the bike path shall connect to a new path proposed within the CASP site and future segments to the east and west. This mitigation is subject to contractability and approval by the Modoc Ditch CompanyCal Water.

Chapter 2, Project Description

The following text has been updated:

The proposed project would require the certification of the EIR and the following discretionary approvals from the City:
2192
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-11
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of Resolution Initiating Annexation Proceedings • Approval of the Site Plan
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Map
• Conditional Use Permit for the conditionally permitted uses proposed (convenience store, drive-through restaurants), some of the proposed lot sizes in the light industrial zoning, and lots without public street frontage.

In addition to the above required actions and approval, the applicant has elected to pursue a General Plan Amendment for minor adjustment of the Industrial and Light Industrial land use designation to conform with proposed parcel lines.

Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

The following text has been updated:

General Plan policies identified in Impact 3.5-1 of the General Plan EIR assist in reducing the severity of impacts related to the loss of Prime Farmland while still supporting the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount of growth within the Planning Area. In particular, LU-P-34 requires the City to create and adopt a mitigation program to address the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tiers II and III of the UDB. This mitigation program for Tiers II and III requires a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted and also requires agricultural land to be preserved equivalent to agricultural land converted. As noted above, the City adopted the APO [Agriculture Preservation Ordinance] on May 15, 2023, is in the process of adopting an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance pursuant to Policy LU-P34 but has not done so as of the writing of this Draft EIR. Moreover, as noted above, Policy LU-P-34 explicitly exempts conversions of agricultural lands located in UDB Tier I, such as the project site, from the mitigation program. Therefore, the APO mitigation program required in LU-P-34 is not applicable to the proposed project. Although implementation of policies in the General Plan would reduce some agricultural impacts for General Plan buildout, over 14,000 acres of the existing Important Farmland would be lost. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that conversion of farmland from General Plan buildout would be significant and unavoidable.

Although previously addressed in the certified General Plan EIR, for purposes of a comprehensive and conservative analysis, this Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of the construction of the proposed urban uses. Furthermore, despite the fact this conversion was already evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR conservatively concludes that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Farmland. Because, however, Policy LU-P-34 does not apply to Tier 1 lands and further because there is no adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance or the APO exempt Tier I lands, there is no feasible method to mitigate the loss of this Important Farmland. 2193
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-12
However, as noted above, the project site has long been identified for conversion to urban uses. This reflects the City’s overall land use strategy that ensure the areas identified for growth are contiguous to existing development and to each other, and policies clearly require sequencing of growth so that minimal fragmentation of agricultural land will occur.

The General Plan’s three-tier growth management system reinforces Visalia’s compact form, minimizing the interface between farming and urban uses. The General Plan establishes greenbelt buffers along the urban edge in some places, while providing requirements for buffering and screening of private development elsewhere. Furthermore, the City’s urbanized land use vision for the project site vicinity is evident in that the adjacent surrounding uses consist of industrial uses such as an Amazon distribution center and United Parcel Service (UPS) distribution hub. However, as discussed above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The following text has been updated:

All cumulative development would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the General Plan, implement application mitigation required by the General Plan EIR, and adhere to other applicable laws and regulations addressing loss of agricultural resources (i.e., Agricultural Preservation Ordinance, which was adopted on May 15, 2023, when adopted and Right to Farm provisions when adopted). However, even with adherence to the foregoing and General Plan’s overall land use vision and strategy, development of the Cumulative Projects would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact.

Section 3.3 Air Quality

The following text has been updated:

The Valley Air District rules and regulations that are relevant to this analysis consist of the following:

Rule 2010—Permits Required. This rule requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the District.

Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review. This rule requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology, such as requiring a backup generator to meet Tier 4 emission standards.

Rule 2520—Federally Mandated Operating Permits. The purpose of this rule is to issue operating permits for new and modified sources of air contaminants pursuant to the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 70.

Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The purpose of this rule is to protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos by requiring a thorough inspection for asbestos before any demolition or renovation activities occur. 2194
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-13

The following text has been updated:

Rule 9410—Employer Based Trip Reduction. This rule applies to projects that result in the employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees and requires the employer to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips.

Pages 3.3-45–3.3-47, Table 3.3-13: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) The following table notes have been revised:

Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX = sulfur oxides 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. 2 The maximum annual emissions would occur during the 2024 year. 3 This scenario accounts for the overlapping of Phases 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., concurrent phasing).

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.

Pages 3.3-48–3.3-49, Table 3.3-14: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) The following table notes have been revised:

Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX = sulfur oxides 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. 2 The maximum annual emissions would occur during the 2024 year. 3 This scenario accounts for the overlapping of Phases 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., concurrent phasing).

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.

Pages 3.3-67–3.3-68, Table 3.3-21: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
The following table has been revised:
2195
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-14
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Gasoline Fueling Activities 0.10.14 <0.0001 0.06
Operational DPM (On-site) 0.690.97 0.0002 –
Operational DPM (Off-site Trucks) 2.563.61 0.0007 –
Total Risk from Project Operations 3.354.73 0.001 0.06
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.

Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR The following table has been revised:

Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Reasonable Construction + Operation 5.306.68 0.002 0.06 Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Cumulative Threshold? No No No
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources

The following mitigation measure has been updated:

MM BIO-1d Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Surveys conducted for Crotch’s bumblebee shall follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a Crotch’s bumblebee nest is detected within the project, CDFW shall be consulted to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine how best to implement project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, to the extent 2196
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-15
required under applicable laws and regulations, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) will be obtained, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081 subdivision (b).

Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, or American badger be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate and to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue. Copies of all reports and communication with the appropriate wildlife agencies shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

The following mitigation measure has been updated:

MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602. Additionally, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, the project applicant shall submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials.

Section 3.6, Energy

The following text has been updated:

Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 34,152,062 kWh of electricity and an estimated 49,385,262 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project’s buildings and related improvements and infrastructure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. As specified in Chapter 5, Part 11 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to incorporate electrical conduit to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. In addition, as specified in Subchapter 6, Part 6 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to either include rooftop solar systems or design the proposed buildings to structurally accommodate future installation of a rooftop solar system. a photovoltaic system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10. As such, the design of the proposed project would facilitate the future commitment 2197
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-16
to renewable energy resources. Therefore, building energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

The following text has been updated:

While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, these policies would contribute toward less water demand, energyefficient operational uses, and reduce the unnecessary use of fuel. For example, the proposed project would be consistent with Climate Action Plan (CAP) actions related to Energy by including Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-2a, which would require rooftop solar panel systems, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10.

Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The following table has been revised:

Solar PV installations. This action
emphasizes the benefit for
community members to install
solar photovoltaic systems.

Consistent. As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar photovoltaic panels on building rooftops. In addition, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter sent from the Valley Air District recommends that the proposed project include rooftop solar, or solar-ready rooftops, or light colored roofing material. MM GHG-2a would require that the proposed project includes one of the following measures:
rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than

78.a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10. Therefore, with implementation of MM GHG-2a, the proposed project would be consistent with this action.

The following text has been updated:

As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar panels or solar-ready rooftop infrastructure, resulting in a potentially significant impact due to inconsistency with the CAP. However, implementation of MM GHG-2a would require the proposed project to include rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 upon a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10 prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The following table has been revised:
2198
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-17
Decarbonize buildings. All electric appliances
beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed
Statewide by 2030.

Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with
the AB197 commercial timeline. In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with
CALGreen measures for 2022 as part of MM GHG-2a,
which require rooftop PV solar panels with battery
storage for warehouses and heat pumps (in all
climate zones) for office space in warehouses
consistent with decarbonization strategies.

The following text has been updated:

Although not quantified in this analysis, the MM GHG-2a would be required to ensure the implementation of one of the following as feasible: rooftop photovoltaic solar system, solarready rooftop design, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.would require a PV system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code.

The following mitigation measure has been updated:

MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.

Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the Planning Department shall confirm that the subject proposal has been designed to include the following: a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space. Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system must also have a battery storage system.
2199
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-18
Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The following mitigation measure has been revised.

MM HAZ-1 (a) Any known wells on the project site shall be delineated on an engineered site plan with a minimum 10-foot radius no build area.
(b) In the event that any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM), shall be contacted for requirements and approval; copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Development Planning Preservation Department. CalGEM may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required.
(c) The following note shall appear on all final maps and grading plans: “If during grading or construction, any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged, CalGEM will be contacted to inspect and approve any remediation required.

Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality

The following text has been revised:

The majority of the project site is located in Zone X, which is an area with an 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. The southeast corner of the project site is located in Zone X outside of the 0.2 with a 1 percent annual chance of flood hazard. Therefore, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone Special Flood Hazard Area.

Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning

The following table has been revised:

Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gases
Objective AQ-O-3 Reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases that
contribute to global climate
change in accord with federal
and State law.

Consistent: As demonstrated in
Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the proposed project
would be consistent with
applicable State climate laws
and regulations, which are more
stringent than federal laws.

Specifically, in addition to
various project design features
and compliance with the robust
regulatory framework detailed
in this Draft EIR, the proposed
project would be required to
2200
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-19
implement MM AIR-2d and MM
GHG-2a which would contribute
to increase of renewable energy
use and decrease of fossil fuel
consumption, which are the
central themes of the State's
2017 and 2022 scoping plans.

Section 3.12, Noise
MM NOI-1: (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a drive-through car wash, an indepth acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustic professional shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Development Preservation Department that demonstrates that the design and operations of a proposed drive-through car wash would not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits for residential land uses. The study shall evaluate factors such as:
• The location and orientation of noise-generating equipment, such as dryer blowers and vacuums.
• The location and orientation of the drive-through car wash tunnel. • The hours of operation.
• The location of the drive-through car wash on the project site. (b) Based on the results of the acoustical study, the project applicant shall be required to incorporate, at a minimum, design features or reduction measures to reduce any identified operational noise impact to meet applicable noise performance criteria. These reduction measures shall be included on all relevant plans, specifications, and other permitting documents. Measures and design features may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Locating the car wash facility further away from sensitive receptors, therefore reducing its noise impacts at nearby residential land uses. • Orienting the facility so that the carwash exit (where the drying blowers would be located) is located facing away from nearby residential land uses. • Providing sound blankets to hang around the edge of the carwash exit tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Locating the dryer blowers further inside the car wash tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Providing screening, such as a structure or sound wall, to shield the carwash exit where the dryer blowers would be located from nearby residential land uses.
2201
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-20

The following text has been corrected (note that this edit does not affect the cumulative impacts conclusion for Section 3.12 Noise):

As noted above, the geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis would be approximately 1,000 feet surrounding the project site. Cumulative development would be required to comply with all applicable construction hour restrictions and would also be anticipated to incorporate appropriate BMPs to help reduce construction noise. In addition, applicable design review regulations directing the siting, design, and insulation of new development and redevelopment and all applicable noise policies, standards and requirements in the General Plan and Municipal Code would ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. Because there is not a cumulative significant construction noise impact to existing or planned land uses in the project vicinity, the incremental contribution of project construction noise would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to construction noise. This cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact conclusion is consistent with the General Plan EIR, which analyzed full buildout of this area and its impact upon nearby noise sensitive land uses.

Section 3.14, Transportation

The following typo has been corrected:

Construction of the proposed project would not adversely affect or otherwise conflict with the existing LOS conditions. According to the LOS operational analysis, the proposed project would result in queueing deficiencies at several intersections and would require implementation of the improvements recommended in the TIA. These recommendations are incorporated as the following mitigation measures to reduce project impacts related to LOS.

With implementation of MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9, impacts would be less than significant.

The following mitigation measures have been updated:

MM TRANS-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall appropriate Storm Drainage and Waterways impact fees.

MM TRANS-3 Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue: Prior to the issuance of grading permits Prior to occupancy of Phase 2, the proposed project shall provide site plans that show modification of the raised median to extend the existing westbound left-turn pocket by 100 feet, to provide a 400-foot left-turn pocket. The existing northbound rightturn stripe shall be extended to 300 feet. These improvements shall occur in the year 2026. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 2, 846,920 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-3. The project proponent shall be financially responsible for these 2202
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-21
improvements. “Financially responsible” shall equate to implementing the project as well as paying for the project.

Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)
MM TRANS-4 Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the proposed project shall provide dual northbound left-turn pockets (300-foot minimum) and a 300-foot minimum southbound left-turn pocket. Since a 300-foot eastbound right-turn pocket would already be installed by the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project, additional recommendations are not proposed. These improvements shall occur in the year 2025. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 1 1,864,680 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-4. The project’s contribution to the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) will assist in paying for these improvements.

Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)

This section has been revised to include the calculations regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reductions resulting from the implementation of MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b.

MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b would be implemented in order to reduce VMT impact.

Combining these two mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project’s VMT per employee by 1.75 1.61 percent, exceeding the proposed project’s 1.54 percent impact. 2203
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-22
Therefore, the proposed project’s VMT impact would be mitigated. The quantified calculation of the percent reduction resulting from these mitigation measures are included in Table 3.14-5 and Table 3.14-6, below.

Table 3.14-5: VMT Reduction from MM TRANS-10a: End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities ID Variable (Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults) Value Unit B Bike mode adjustment factor 4.86 Unitless
C Existing bicycle trip length for all trips in region 2.3 Miles D Existing vehicle trip length for all trips in region 10.3 Miles E Existing bicycle mode share for work trips in region 1.60 % F Existing vehicle mode share for work trips in region 90.1 % VMT Reduction -1.53%
Notes:

Sources:

Buehler, R. 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 525–531. Website:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/DeterminantsofBicycleCommuting.pdf Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Website: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA. Website: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.

All descriptions and methods from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. Default parameters for the calculations were derived using the average of Southern and Northern California regions provided in the handbook.

Table 3.14-6: VMT Reduction from MM TRANS-10b: Expand Bicycle Network ID Variable Value Unit
User Inputs
B Existing bikeway miles in plan/community 1.0 Miles
C Bikeway miles in plan/community with measure 3.0 Miles Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Bicycle mode share in plan/community 0.6 %
E Vehicle mode share in plan/community 95.0 %
F Average one-way bicycle trip length in plan/community 2.9 Miles G Average one-way vehicle trip length in plan/community 10.9 Miles H Elasticity of bike commuters with respect to bikeway miles per 10,000 population

0.25 Unitless
2204
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-23
ID Variable Value Unit
User Inputs
VMT Reduction -0.08%
Notes:

Sources:

California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Website: https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionToolITHIM/#Home.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Website: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.

Pucher, J., and Buehler, R. 2011. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York. March. Website: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/analysis-bike-final_0.pdf.

All descriptions and methods from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.

The following mitigation measure has been updated:

MM TRANS-10b Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the developer shall construct a bike path along Modoc Ditch, between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street (approximately 1-mile).

The existing Class I bike path along Modoc ditch runs to the east of the proposed project, between Dinuba Boulevard and the St. John’s River Trail.

The Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) project also proposed to construct a portion of the Class I path within the site. Therefore, the bike path shall connect to a new path proposed within the CASP site and future segments to the east and west. This mitigation is subject to contractability and approval by the Modoc Ditch CompanyCal Water.

The following typo has been corrected:

During construction, the proposed project would require the delivery of heavy construction equipment using area roadways, some of which may require transport by oversize vehicles.

Heavy equipment associated with these components would not be hauled to/from the site daily, but rather would be hauled in and out on an as needed basis. Nevertheless, the use of oversize vehicles during construction could create a hazard to the public by limiting motorist views on roadways and by the obstruction of space, which is considered a potentially significant impact. In addition, the project construction activities may result in some temporary lane closures in the area. The proposed project would be required under existing regulations to obtain California Highway Patrol escorts, as well as coordinate the timing of 2205
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-24
transport, in oversize load permits from Caltrans and Kings County Tulare County, as appropriate. Therefore, a reasonable worst-case concurrent construction of all phases would not worsen the LOS or impact traffic movement or create roadway hazards to a greater extent than the project as analyzed in the TIA.

This paragraph has been revised because the sight distance assessment was removed from the study per the City’s direction.

A sight distance analysis for each project driveway was conducted to determine whether outbound vehicles would have adequate sight distance to observe conflicting traffic along the intersecting public roadways. Intersection sight distance for the project driveways were evaluated following methodology outlined by the City of Visalia Design and Improvement Standard SD-3, which is based on guidance outlined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Street, 7th Edition. The proposed project would be required to satisfy the required sight lines and clear zone requirements for all project driveways, to ensure roadway hazards are minimized.

Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Page 8 The following mitigation measure has been updated:

MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.

Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the Planning Department shall confirm that the proposed project is designed to include the following: The building shall be designed to include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space.

Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system must also have a battery storage system.
2206
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-25
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Page 93 The following table has been revised:

Table 1: Worst-case Scenario Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) Year
Emissions (tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(ExhaustTot
al)
PM2.5
(ExhaustTo
tal)
Off-site Improvement 2024 0.15 0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.010.01 <0.01 Overall Site Preparation 2024-2026 0.26 2.01 10.27 0.010.02 0.0312.67 0.0310.96 Phase 1 2024-2025 3.65 9.85 39.10 0.09 0.1803.55 0.1771.09 Phase 2 2024-2025 7.247.79 4.6010.84 15.3814.4
6 0.030.04 0.0722.11 0.0710.82
Phase 3 2024-2025 7.818.58 6.02114.7
7 21.0219.7
3 0.040.05 0.09882.75 0.0961.09
Maximum Annual Construction
Emissions2

17.7918.88 16.8129.1
9 64.2964.4
9 0.15 0.2848.00 0.2802.93
Significance threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact?
Yes Yes No No No No
Entire Construction Duration with Overlapping of Phases 1, 2, and 3 Under the Worst-case Scenario (2024- 20262025)
Worst-case Scenario Total
Construction Emissions3

19.1220.43 22.4937.4
8 85.9783.7
7 0.170.20 0.38111.09 0.3763.96
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX = sulfur oxides 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. 2 The maximum annual emissions would occur during the 2024 year. 3 This scenario accounts for the overlapping of Phases 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., concurrent phasing).

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed September 13, 2022. 2207
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-26
Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Pages 110-111, Table 25: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
The following table has been revised:

Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Gasoline Fueling Activities 0.10.14 <0.0001 0.06
Operational DPM (On-Site) 0.690.97 0.0002 –
Operational DPM (Off-Site Trucks) 2.563.61 0.0007 –
Total Risk from Project Operations 3.354.73 0.001 0.06
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.

Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Page 111, Table 26: Cumulative Health Risks and Hazards During Reasonable Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
The following table has been revised:

Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Reasonable Construction + Operation 5.306.68 0.002 0.06 Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Cumulative Threshold? No No No
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B).

Draft EIR Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information

Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR The following table has been revised.
2208
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-27
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Worst-case Construction + Operation 6.0410.77 0.0025 0.06 Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Cumulative Threshold? No No No
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B).

The following text has been updated:

While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, these policies would contribute toward less water demand, energyefficient operational uses, and reduce the unnecessary use of fuel. For example, the proposed project would be consistent with CAP actions related to Energy by including Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-2a, which would require rooftop solar panel systems, solarready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10.

Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR Consistency with the City of Visalia’s CAP
The following table has been revised:

Solar PV installations. This action emphasizes the
benefit for community members to install solar
photovoltaic systems.

Consistent. As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar photovoltaic panels on building rooftops. In addition, the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
comment letter sent from the Valley Air District
recommends that the proposed project include rooftop
solar, or solar-ready rooftops, or light colored roofing material. MM GHG-2a would require that the proposed
project includes one of the following measures: rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar
reflective index greater than 78. a photovoltaic (PV)
system to be installed in accordance with the Energy
Code Section 140.10. Therefore, with implementation of
MM GHG-2a the proposed project would be consistent
with this action.
2209
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-28

The following text has been updated:

As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar panels or solar-ready rooftop infrastructure, resulting in a potentially significant impact due to inconsistency with the CAP. However, implementation of MM GHG-2a would require the proposed project to include rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 upon a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10 prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The following table has been revised:

Decarbonize buildings. All electric appliances
beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed
Statewide by 2030.

Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with
the AB197 commercial timeline. In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with
CALGreen measures for 2022 as part of MM GHG-2a,
which require rooftop PV solar panels with battery
storage for warehouses and heat pumps (in all
climate zones) for office space in warehouses a
consistent with decarbonization strategies.

The following text has been updated:

Although not quantified in this analysis, the MM GHG-2a would be required to ensure the implementation of one of the following as feasible: rooftop photovoltaic solar system, solarready rooftop design, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78. would require a PV system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code.

The following mitigation measure has been updated:

MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.
2210
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-29
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the Planning Department shall confirm that the project is designed to include the following: The building shall be designed to include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space.

Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system must also have a battery storage system.
2211

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2212
General Plan
Land Use Map
Subject Parcels
Ave 320
N Shirk St
W Riggin Ave
N Kelsey St
N Sidney St
N Kelsey St
MODOC
Vicinity Map
Hwy 198
Ben
Maddox
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Goshen
St
Jo h ns
DemareeNoble
Caldwell
Mooney
Akers Hwy 99 Shirk
Lovers Lane
Pla
za
Betty
.
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
Agriculture
Conservation
Commercial Mixed Use
Industrial
Light Industrial
Parks/Recreation
Residential High Density
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
2213
Zoning Map
Subject Parcels
Ave 320
N Shirk St
W Riggin Ave
N Kelsey St
N Sidney St
N Kelsey St
MODOC
Vicinity Map
Hwy 198
Ben
Maddox
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Goshen
St
Jo h ns
DemareeNoble
Caldwell
Mooney
Akers Hwy 99 Shirk
Lovers Lane
Pla
za
Betty
0 250 500
.
1,000 1,500
Feet
C-MU Mixed Use Commercial
I Industrial
I-L Light Industrial
QP Quasi-Public
R-1-5 Single-family Residenital
R-M-2 Multi-family Residenital
R-M-3 Multi-family Residenital
County Areas
2214
Aerial Photo 2024
Ave 320
N Shirk St
W Riggin Ave
N Kelsey St
N Sidney St
N Kelsey St
MODOC
Vicinity Map
Hwy 198
Ben
Maddox
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Goshen
St
Jo h ns
DemareeNoble
Caldwell
Mooney
Akers Hwy 99 Shirk
Lovers Lane
Pla
za
Betty
.

Project Site
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
2215
Location Map
Subject Parcels
N Shirk St
W Riggin Ave
Ave 320
N Kelsey St
W Sunnyview Ave
W Kibler Ave
W Wren Ave
W Riverway Ave
W Ferguson Ave
N Denton St
W Oriole Ave
N Clancy St
W Lark Ct
N Denton St
W Kibler Ave
W Ferguson Ave
N Kelsey St
MODOC
Vicinity Map
Hwy 198
Ben
Maddox
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Goshen
St
Jo h ns
DemareeNoble
Caldwell
Mooney
Akers Hwy 99 Shirk
Lovers Lane
Pla
za
Betty
0 500 1,000
.
2,000
Feet
2216
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Appeal of Planning Commission Action - An appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the following entitlements pertaining to the Shirk-Riggin Industrial Project:
· Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08: A request to subdivide approximately 284 acres into 14 parcels to facilitate industrial and supportive service-oriented development, and · Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26: A request to allow a planned development that includes the creation of lots without public street frontage, reduced lot sizes, and the establishment of two pads with drive-through lanes, convenience store, and car wash.

Project Applicant: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.

Project Location: The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN:077-840-004, 005, 006) Deadline for Action: 3/17/2025
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner, (559) 713-4636, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Paul Bernal, Planning & Community Preservation Director, (559) 713-4025, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and presentation, hold a public hearing, and adopt Resolution Nos. 2025-14 and 2025-15, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26.

Background Discussion:

The applicants, Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., have filed entitlement applications for the development of a 284-acre industrial park (“Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project”), consisting of a General Plan Amendment, Annexation, Development Agreement, Tentative Parcel Map, and Conditional Use Permit. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has also been prepared to analyze and identify impacts associated with the project. A full description of the project is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5) to this report and is also covered in the separate City Council agenda item included on the agenda for the March 17, 2025 City Council meeting.

Visalia City Council Page 1 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2217
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.

All entitlements were heard by the Visalia Planning Commission at a public hearing on February 10, 2025. The Planning Commission approved the Tentative Parcel Map and the Conditional Use Permit and recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment, Annexation, and Development Agreement, and certification of the Environmental Impact Report, to the Visalia City Council.

Staff noticed the entitlements in the Visalia Times-Delta newspaper for a public hearing before the City Council on March 3, 2025. The public hearing notice was published February 20, 2025.

However, on February 20, 2025, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, citing arguments that the EIR is flawed. Due to the timing of the filing and the required noticing, the public hearing item was withdrawn from the City Council meeting on March 3, 2025, and re-noticed for the meeting of March 17, 2025. Details on the appeal are provided below.

Project Description:

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 is a request to subdivide the 280 gross acres among the three subject parcels into 14 parcels, which includes one parcel created to accommodate a ponding basin (see Attachment 3). The map coincides with the commercial development layout depicted in the site plan (see Attachment 2). This includes the establishment of warehouse buildings on Parcels 1 through 8, flex industrial and self-storage on Parcels 9 and 10, commercial uses on Parcels 11 through 13, and a ponding basin on Parcel 6A. Reciprocal access and utility easements are established between the parcels and for the creation of access points to the adjacent arterial and collector streets. An 84-foot wide irrevocable offer of dedication is also shown for the extension of Clancy Street, which is a planned collector roadway.

Conational Use Permit No. 2024-26 is a request to allow a planned development in conjunction with the development plan and tentative parcel map. The planned development will result in one parcel without public street frontage (Parcel 7) and parcels that are less than the Zoning Ordinance’s minimum site area of five (5) acres in the Light Industrial zone. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Access points will also be provided along Clancy Street, which will be extended to replace the existing private road and would be able to travel south to north of the site.

The conditional use permit further considers two pads with drive-through lanes, a convenience store, and a car wash, which are all conditionally permitted in the Light Industrial zone. An operational statement associated with these uses is included as Attachment 4.

Appeal:

On February 20, 2025, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 (TPM) and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 (CUP). The appeal was filed by Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm, on behalf of the Carpenters Local Union #1109 (“Local Visalia City Council Page 2 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2218
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.
appeal was filed by Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm, on behalf of the Carpenters Local Union #1109 (“Local 1109”).

The full text of the appeal is included in Attachment 1. The appeal argues that the Final EIR remains subject to numerous deficiencies that violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thereby preventing it from being certified by the City in its current form. The deficiencies “include, but are not limited to, the EIR’s failures to adequately analyze the project’s cumulative impacts, to adequately analyze and assess the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan and impacts on future conversion agricultural lands, and to adequately mitigate the Project’s significant impacts on agriculture and air quality.”
The appellant had previously submitted comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report of the Project in a letter dated May 28, 2024. The Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), released on January 17, 2025, includes this letter and responds to the letter’s comments (the Final EIR is included as Attachment 7).

The appeal also includes a letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated February 10, 2025, demonstrating that the Commission’s decision to approve the TPM and CUP violated CEQA in that the project was improperly conditioned upon 1) a finding that the entitlements were consistent with the analysis of the Final EIR for the Project, 2) a finding that the Final EIR was prepared consistent with CEQA and the City’s Environmental Guidelines, and 3) a recommendation that the Final EIR be certified by the City Council based on its consistency with CEQA.

Analysis of Appeal:

City staff has determined, based on the discussion contained in the responses below, that no error or abuse of discretion was exercised by the Planning Commission, and therefore the Planning Commission’s approval of the items shall stand. Furthermore, being that the City Council will consider a separate agenda item on March 17, 2025, for the certification of the Final EIR prior to this agenda item for the appeal, the City Council may utilize the certified Final EIR for approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit.

It should be noted that items raised in the letter primarily relate to the environmental review process and/or the related responses to past comments, and that the items do not appear to directly address errors or abuses surrounding the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 or Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26.

The letter attached to the Appeal of Planning Commission Action (Attachment 1) outlines the flaws in the environmental review process. These items are outlined as follows, along with the City’s response.

A separate memorandum addressing the Appeal and late comment letters has been shared by the preparer of the EIR and is included as Attachment 8.

1. The City’s Municipal Code indicates that the appeal hearing shall be de novo (starting from the beginning).

Response: This comment is noted and is not, in of itself, considered an error or abuse of discretion. The appellant cites Municipal Code Sections 16.04.040(C) and 17.02.145(C) to support the statement that when holding a hearing on the appeal, the City Council may receive and consider any and all information pertinent to the matter, regardless of whether such Visalia City Council Page 3 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2219
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.
and consider any and all information pertinent to the matter, regardless of whether such information was first presented to the Planning Commission.

2. The City should require the use of a local workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment.

Response: This comment is noted and is not, in of itself, considered an error or abuse of discretion. The comment states that having a local workforce has the potential to result in lessened environmental impacts such as a reduction of construction-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As such, the City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate certain environmental impacts.

This comment was also addressed in the Final EIR’s Response to LOCAL 1109 comment #2, starting on page 2-497.

This comment is not wholly consistent with the basic purposes of CEQA, which include informing decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities, and identifying alternatives, means, and mitigation measures that are found by the government agency to be feasible that can avoid or significantly reduce damage to the environment. In fact, the EIR has met these requirements, as found by staff and the Planning Commission and, where feasible, includes mitigation measures that reduce or avoid environmental impacts. Although the suggestion may bring about benefits to the City’s own economic development and employment, there is no obligation under CEQA for a project to incorporate mitigation or other measures that would require a local workforce. In fact, development of the project alone is intended to “generate increased revenue and economic development for the City” according to the project’s objectives as provided in the Draft EIR.

3. The Planning Commission approved project entitlements in violation of CEQA.

A-1. CEQA requires subsequent or supplemental environmental review when substantial changes or new information comes to light.

Response: This comment is noted and is not, in of itself, considered an error or abuse of discretion. While the appellant makes clear the CEQA requirement that the presentation of significant new information presented after notice has been given on a project requires recirculation of an EIR, the appellant has not presented to the City any new information regarding the project or its mitigation measures that would be deemed as significant.

The Project’s Final EIR also address the CEQA requirement of recirculation when a Lead Agency adds “significant new information” to an EIR after notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR for public review but before its certification. The Final EIR confirms, on page 2-2, that its responses to comments (which include one comment letter submitted by the appellant dated May 28, 2024) include discussion providing clarification, amplification and/or minor modifications to specific environmental analyses, none of which constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.

B. The entitlement approvals made by the Planning Commission were premised on its determination of the EIR’s consistence with CEQA.

Response: The appellant makes reference to findings in the Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit’s separate Planning Commission resolutions that the Commission finds that the Final Visalia City Council Page 4 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2220
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.

Use Permit’s separate Planning Commission resolutions that the Commission finds that the Final EIR was prepared consistent with CEQA and the City’s Environmental Guidelines. The appellant then continues to make the assertion, for reasons set forth in the appeal letter and in the prior comments by Local 1109 (i.e., May 28, 2024, and February 10, 2025) and other commenting parties that the Project has not been prepared consistent with CEQA, such that the Planning Commission’s approval of the entitlements is flawed and must be reversed.

While the appellant continues to make such claims, the City maintains its position that the EIR, as a whole, sufficiently analyzes environmental impacts related to the project, and conforms to all requirements of CEQA. The comments submitted by the appellant on behalf of Local 1109 on May 28, 2024 were responded to in the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, and the comments submitted on February 10, 2025 do not present items that are deemed as significant new information or significant environmental issues that require additional analysis, revisions to, or recirculation of the EIR prior to certification, in accordance with CEQA. Further, since the February 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting comments were submitted after the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR, the City is not under the obligation to respond to the correspondence in the context of the EIR and CEQA.

C. The FEIR fails to include necessary information, analysis, and mitigation requested in past comment letters.

Response: The appellant makes the claim that in the Final EIR, “the City declined, without adequate justification, to address the concerns raised by Local 1109 and other interested parties regarding the Project’s Draft EIR”, which include consideration of cumulative impacts from the neighboring, recently approved Shirk & Riggin Annexation Project. This “Annexation Project” refers to the 80-acre annexation of Industrial designed land located at the southwest corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue, which was initiated by the City Council on May 20, 2024, and subsequently annexed into the City limits.

The consideration of all cumulative developments, including the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project, was addressed in the Final EIR’s Response to Local 1109 comment #4, starting on page 2-498 and the Response to LUINA comment #6, starting on page 2-189. This response explains how the City released an environmental report consistent with CEQA for the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project in April 2024, which was past when the proposed Project’s Notice of Preparation was issued in August 2022, which determined the baseline for cumulative impacts.

Furthermore, the Annexation Project was intended only for the annexation of the property and did not propose any specific use on the property in conjunction with the annexation.

This claim asserts that the City chose not to respond to the comments submitted by Local 1109 and other interested parties, when in fact the City did respond to all comments in the Final EIR prepared for the Project and released on January 17, 2025. The findings that were presented to the Visalia Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2025-05, which recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR, included thorough evidence, a finding of fact, and a statement of overriding considerations, which addressed the project’s unavoidable impacts towards agricultural resources and air quality.

The consideration of impacts on agricultural land and secondary impacts related to the further conversion of surrounding areas was addressed in the Final EIR’s Response to Local 1109 Visalia City Council Page 5 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2221
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.
conversion of surrounding areas was addressed in the Final EIR’s Response to Local 1109 comment #6, starting on page 2-500. This response concludes that the potential project and cumulative impacts have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA.

The consideration of additional mitigation measures proposed for agricultural resources and air quality were addressed, respectively, in the Final EIR’s Response to Local 1109 comments #7 and #8, starting on page 2-501. The Final EIR has prepared responses and justification as to why the additional suggested mitigation measures were not warranted. Namely, for agricultural resources, both the responses as well as CEQA Guidelines address the reasons as to why further mitigation measures cannot be legally imposed, and particularly cites the competing interests of the City’s General Plan to allow for orderly growth and a balance of uses, together with the General Plan’s policy toward an agricultural mitigation program that is not applicable to this location being within Growth Tier I. For air quality, existing mitigation measure MM AIR-2C regarding all of the project’s road-based service equipment to utilize zero-emission technology remains enforceable towards reducing the project’s emissions, while also recognizing that such reductions cannot be guaranteed or reliably modeled and that the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Prior Council Action:

A separate City Council public hearing item on the March 17, 2025, agenda pertains to other entitlements related to the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project wherein the City Council has the final authority on the following actions: Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report; adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01; Initiation of Annexation No. 2024-03; and a Development Agreement.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 per Resolution No. 2025-14; and,
I move to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 per Resolution No. 2025-15...end
Alternative Motions:

The City Council may, in lieu of the recommended motion specified above, consider any of the following alternatives:

1. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission; or,

2. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing for additional information.

Environmental Assessment Status / CEQA Review:

A Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared in association with the Shirk and Riggin Visalia City Council Page 6 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2222
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.
incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared in association with the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

It should be noted that this project would not be subject to Assembly Bill 98 pertaining to logistic uses, passed by California Legislature on September 30, 2024, since this project was initiated and had its Draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for review prior to the effective date of the bill, and is therefore considered to be currently in a local entitlement process per the law.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR has determined that all project impacts were either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of the following impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable:
· Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Conversion of prime farmland (project level) · Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Conversion of prime farmland (cumulative level) · Air Quality - Implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan (project level) · Air Quality - Cumulatively considerable net increase of nitrogen oxide (NOX) during construction, and reactive organic gas (ROG), NOX, and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) during operation (project level) · Air Quality - Exceeding certain identified construction and operational significance thresholds (cumulative level)
· Noise - Mobile source operational noise (project level) · Noise - Exceeding certain identified operational significance threshold (cumulative level) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15091 and 15092, the City, as the Lead Agency, may still approve a project for which the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the project. This requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each environmental impact that falls into the category of significant and unavoidable. The decision to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by factual documentation that supports the decision that:

1. There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant impact; and,

2. Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.

The findings and recommended conclusions for each of the seven environmental analysis areas noted above are contained in the resolution recommending certification of the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
The EIR further disclosed mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The measures addresses:
· Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Air Quality for impacts of the project having a considerable net increase of a criterial pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment. · Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources for impacts of the project to special-status wildlife species possible to occur on-site (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, burrowing Visalia City Council Page 7 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2223
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.
to special-status wildlife species possible to occur on-site (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, San Joaquin Kit Fox).
· Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction. · Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Geology and Soils to address potential impacts related to grading, the potential for on-site erosion due to project construction & operation, and the potential of exposing a fossil during construction. · Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Greenhouse Gas Emissions to address the potential for the project to conflict with an agency plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
· One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Hazardous Materials to address the potential presence of abandoned or unrecorded wells.
· Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Noise to address the impacts of drive-through lane and car wash noise upon noise-sensitive land uses, and the potential of any other specific uses that could result in a noise-related conflict.
· Eleven (11) mitigation measures pertaining to Transportation for addressing impacts to Vehicle Miles Travelled, Level Of Service, and construction traffic. · One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Utilities and Service Systems for addressing the potential to attain solid waste reduction goals.

Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed Project. This Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
· Reduced Footprint Alternative: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed in a manner largely similar to the Project, except that the project would have a reduced overall footprint of development consisting of 142 acres of developable land and 142 acres preserved in agriculture use.
· Alternative Location: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed like the Project Concept at a different location, on 290 acres west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue. · No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would not be constructed, and the site would remain in agricultural production.

Public Review and Recommendation
Circulation of the Draft EIR followed a Notice of Availability period wherein the Draft EIR was duly noticed and conducted for the project for a 45-day public review and comment period from April 11 to May 28, 2024. The City of Visalia is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIR. Seven comment letters were received during this public review period. City staff and the preparer of the EIR have prepared responses to the comments received (refer to the Final EIR, dated January 2025). The Draft Program EIR, including the technical appendices, all the comments received and the responses Visalia City Council Page 8 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2224
File #: 25-0060 Agenda Date: 3/17/2025 Agenda #: 2.

Draft Program EIR, including the technical appendices, all the comments received and the responses to these comments, constitute the Final EIR.

The certification of the EIR for this project rests with the final approving body, which is the City Council. A separate City Council agenda item on the March 17, 2025 agenda pertains to certification of the Final EIR.

Attachments:

Resolution No. 2025-14, denying the appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08
Resolution No. 2025-15, denying the appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26

1. Appeal of Planning Commission Action, which includes:
- Letter dated February 20, 2025, listing reasons for appeal - Letter dated February 10, 2025, previously submitted to City and shared with Planning Commission as late correspondence

2. Site Plan.

3. Tentative Parcel Map.

4. Operational Statement

5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 10, 2025.

6. Draft Environmental Impact Report.
• The Draft EIR with Appendices can also be accessed online at <https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55426>

7. Final Environmental Impact Report.
• The Final EIR can also be accessed online at
<https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=57144>

8. Memorandum from First Carbon Solutions dated March 6, 2025, further addressing points in letters submitted by commentors and appellant.

Visalia City Council Page 9 of 9 Printed on 3/13/2025
powered by Legistar™2225
RESOLUTION NO 2025-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA

DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2024- 08: A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES INTO 14 PARCELS TO FACILITATE INDUSTRIAL AND SUPPORTIVE
SERVICE-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS
LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES, ON THE NORTH SIDE

OF RIGGIN AVENUE BETWEEN SHIRK STREET AND KELSEY
STREET. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006)
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 is a request to subdivide approximately 284 acres into 14 parcels to facilitate industrial and supportive serviceoriented development. The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006); and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report and appendices attached thereto (collectively, the “Draft EIR”) for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, which considered impacts from Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08, was released on April 11, 2024, for circulation for a period of 45 days, ending on May 28, 2024; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR was released on January 17, 2025; for purposes herein, the “Final EIR” consists of the Draft EIR and the revisions of, and additions to, the Draft EIR; the written comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; the written responses of the City of Visalia to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; errata to the foregoing; and other information included by the City of Visalia as detailed more fully therein and as specified in the record; and, WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required that, in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identified one or more significant effects, the decision making body makes certain findings regarding those effects, which in full are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-05 pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR prepared for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice did hold a public hearing before said Commission on February 10, 2025; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia found Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 in accordance with Chapter 16.28 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Visalia, based on the evidence contained in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 subject to findings and conditions; and, 2226
Resolution No. 2025-14
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 was received by the City Clerk of the City of Visalia on February 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten (10) days published notice, held a public hearing before said Council on March 17, 2025 to consider said appeal; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia has now considered the appeal of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Section

16.28.080, and more fully in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 16.28, based on the evidence contained in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia has separately found that the Final EIR for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658, was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines, and that in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identified one or more significant effects, the decision making body makes certain findings regarding those effects, which are now, in full, contained in City Council Resolution No. 2025-09 pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR prepared for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project.

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

1. That the proposed location and layout of the tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained are consistent with the relevant policies, provisions, and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.

2. That the proposed tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The project site does not directly abut any existing developed uses, and development standards contained within the City’s Zoning Ordinance such as setbacks and landscaping will address land use conflicts.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is situated on land designated for Industrial and Light Industrial use. 2227
Resolution No. 2025-14

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map which is consistent with the underlying Industrial and Light Industrial Land Use Designation and zone. The design of the proposed parcel map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed industrial / commercial map. The industrial / commercial parcel map is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards.

Areas of dedication will be obtained as part of the tentative map recording for new street improvements, including the construction of curb, gutter, curb return, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and pavement.

5. That the proposed location of the tentative parcel map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the parcel map is in accordance with the applicable objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the relevant purposes of the zone in which the site is located.

Certain General Plan policies, such as LU-P-100, identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new industrial / commercial development will contribute to positive land use compatibility.

6. That there is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the relevant policies, provisions and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and applicable development standards.

7. That the design of the parcel map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

8. That the proposed parcel sizes resulting from the parcel map are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance’s Industrial zone applicable standards since they are part of a master planned development as identified in Site Plan Review Item No. 2024-096 and in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Final EIR.

9. That this Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final EIR (SCH# 2022080658), and for which said Final EIR has been certified by the City Council of the City of Visalia, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and the State CEQA Guidelines and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 on the real property herein above described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Section 16.28.080 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the parcel map be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2024-096 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 be prepared in substantial compliance with the parcel map in Attachment 3, attached herein.
2228
Resolution No. 2025-14

3. That a common access, maintenance, and landscaping agreement be entered into for all project parcels. That CC&R’s including vehicular access, shared parking, landscaping and permanent maintenance of all common areas such as the public street parkways and perimeter landscaping, project identification signage and walls, stormwater basins and related infrastructure, and all similar infrastructure agreements shall be recorded with the final parcel map. The CC&R’s and/or vehicular access agreements shall address property owners’ responsibility for repair and maintenance of the easement, repair and maintenance of shared public or private utilities, and shall be kept free and clear of any structures. All property owners are equally responsible for these requirements. The City Planner and City Engineer shall review for approval these CC&R’s or vehicular access agreements verifying compliance with these requirements prior to the CC&R’s recordation.

4. That Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 be approved, and that requirements of the use permit that relate to this map shall be fulfilled.

5. That approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2024-03, placing the project site within the corporate limits of the City of Visalia, is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and is fully executed to include all conditions contained in the Pre-Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2024-03.

6. That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.

7. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.

8. That the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Final EIR certified for the project (State Clearinghouse 2022080658) and all conditions of this project be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED: March 17, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2025-14 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2025.

Dated: March 18, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
2229
RESOLUTION NO 2025-15

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA

DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2024-26: A REQUEST TO ALLOW A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT

INCLUDES THE CREATION OF LOTS WITHOUT PUBLIC STREET

FRONTAGE, REDUCED LOT SIZES, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

TWO PADS WITH DRIVE-THROUGH LANES, CONVENIENCE STORE,
AND CAR WASH. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED ON
APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIGGIN
AVENUE BETWEEN SHIRK STREET AND KELSEY STREET. (APN:
077-840-004, 005, 006)
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 is a request to allow a planned development that includes the creation of lots without public street frontage, reduced lot sizes, and the establishment of two pads with drive-through lanes, convenience store, and car wash. The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006); and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report and appendices attached thereto (collectively, the “Draft EIR”) for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, which considered impacts from Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, was released on April 11, 2024, for circulation for a period of 45 days, ending on May 28, 2024; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR was released on January 17, 2025; for purposes herein, the “Final EIR” consists of the Draft EIR and the revisions of, and additions to, the Draft EIR; the written comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; the written responses of the City of Visalia to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; errata to the foregoing; and other information included by the City of Visalia as detailed more fully therein and as specified in the record; and, WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required that, in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identified one or more significant effects, the decision making body makes certain findings regarding those effects, which in full are contained in Planning Condition Resolution No. 2025-05 pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR prepared for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice did hold a public hearing before said Commission on February 10, 2025; and 2230
Resolution No. 2025-15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia found Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 in accordance with Section 17.38.110 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia, based on the evidence contained in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, and approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 subject to findings and conditions; and, WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 was received by the City Clerk of the City of Visalia on February 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten (10) days published notice, held a public hearing before said Council on March 17, 2025 to consider said appeal; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia has now considered the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Section

17.38.120, and more fully in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.38, based on the evidence contained in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia has separately found that the Final EIR for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658, was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines, and that in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identified one or more significant effects, the decision making body makes certain findings regarding those effects, which are now, in full, contained in City Council Resolution No. 2025-09 pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR prepared for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council 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 applicable 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.
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. 2231
Resolution No. 2025-15

3. That this Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final EIR (SCH# 2022080658), and for which said Final EIR has been certified by the City Council of the City of Visalia, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 on the real property herein above 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 be developed in substantial compliance with Site Plan Review No. 2024-096.

2. That the commercial uses illustrated on the site plan in Attachment 2, attached herein, and described in the operational statement in Attachment 4, attached herein, consisting of a convenience store with drive-through lane, gas station, car wash, and restaurant pad with drive-through lane, shall be separately submitted to and evaluated by the Site Plan Review group as described in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 prior to proceeding with applying for the necessary city permits. No additional conditional use permit nor an amendment to a conditional use permit is required for these uses if they are developed at the same quantity and scale shown on the site plan and described in the operational statement.

3. That the project shall be developed in general conformity with the site plan in Attachment 2, with specific details of the development layout to be confirmed through Site Plan Review as described in Condition No. 2. Any subsequent changes to the development plan layout depicted in Attachment 2, attached herein, 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 a queuing analysis shall be submitted, accepted, and implemented for each of the drive-through lanes associated with the commercial uses.

5. That CC&R’s including vehicular access, shared parking, landscaping and permanent maintenance of all common areas such as the public street parkways and perimeter landscaping, project identification signage and walls, stormwater basins and related infrastructure, and all similar infrastructure agreements shall be recorded with the final parcel map. The CC&R’s and/or vehicular access agreements shall address property owners’ responsibility for repair and maintenance of the easement, repair and maintenance of shared public or private utilities, and shall be kept free and clear of any structures. All property owners are equally responsible for these requirements. The City Planner and City Engineer shall review for approval these CC&R’s or vehicular access agreements verifying compliance with these requirements prior to the CC&R’s recordation.

6. That the car wash and drive-through queue lanes shall not be visible from the public right-of-way. This shall be achieved by designing the site in a manner such that the queue lane is not located parallel with public street frontages, or by incorporating 2232
Resolution No. 2025-15
screening along a queue lane to a minimum height of three feet utilizing a combination of berms, hedges, and/or landscape materials, or solid walls if necessary.

7. That a noise analysis addressing noise impacts pertaining to the car wash, in conformance with the City of Visalia’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.36) shall be required and accepted by the City Planner prior to issuance of any building permit. Compliance of the noise levels, subject to the Visalia Noise Ordinance, shall be verified by the acoustical consultant or their designee prior to operation and building final for the carwash use.

8. That any car wash hours of operation beyond 7:00 p.m. shall only be permissible if supported by a noise analysis that confirms the car wash will not be inconsistent with the City of Visalia’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.36).

9. That adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems shall be incorporated into the car wash facility, such as through the installation of a sand-oil separator.

10.That a separate Conditional Use Permit shall be obtained for any additional conditionally-allowed uses not already shown on the site plan attached as Attachment 2 that subsequently locate on the site.

11.That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.

12.That all applicable federal, state, and city laws and codes and ordinances be met.

13.That all of the conditions and responsibilities of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 shall run with the land and subsequent owners/operators shall also be subject to all of the conditions herein, unless amended or revoked.

14.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Final EIR (SCH# 2022080658) are hereby incorporated as conditions of this Conditional Use Permit.

PASSED AND ADOPTED: March 17, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2025-15 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2025.

Dated: March 18, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
(PLANNED COLLECTOR) DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASINDETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN INDUSTRIAL BLDG 1 FOOTPRINT: 786,240 SF CLR. HGT: 40' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 2 FOOTPRINT: 1,078,440 SF CLR. HGT: 40' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 3 FOOTPRINT: 144,300 SF CLR. HGT: 36' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 5 FOOTPRINT: 156,140 SF CLR. HGT: 36' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 6 FOOTPRINT: 109,890 SF CLR. HGT: 36' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 7
FOOTPRINT: 513,240 SF
CLR. HGT: 40'
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 8
FOOTPRINT: 513,240 SF
CLR. HGT: 40' OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN INDUSTRIAL BLDG 4 FOOTPRINT: 173,160 SF CLR. HGT: 36' C-STORE 6300 SF

CAR WASH
6580 SF

FLEX INDUSTRIAL
17250 SF

FLEX INDUSTRIAL
15680 SF

FLEX INDUSTRIAL
17250 SF

FLEX INDUSTRIAL
13800 SF

FLEX INDUSTRIAL
15839 SF 205' 506' 473' 541' 525' 384' 417' 421' 434'

FLEX INDUSTRIAL
15680 SF 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 30' 30' 25' (TYP) 20' (TYP) 40' 40' 9' (TYP) 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 55' 84' 84'42' 40' 25' 40' 25' 40' SELF STORAGE 5600 SF SELF STORAGE 5600 SF SELF STORAGE 5600 SF SELF STORAGE 8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF

SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8000 SF SELF STORAGE
8400 SF SELF STORAGE
6600 SF SELF STORAGE 7200 SF SELF STORAGE
5600 SF
1200 SF 281' 281' DETENTION BASIN 367' DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN 25' 25' DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV DRIVE-THRU
5185 SF 16' 26' 26' 30' 38' 14' 24' 68' 54'30' 25' 26' 17' 25' DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN END AC DIKE CAUTIONCAUTION CAUTIONCAUTION CAUTIONCAUTION CAUTION CAUTIONCAUTION SP_FF_TANK_ 40K_US_0317 SP_FF_TANK_ 40K_US_0317 SP_FF_TANK_ 40K_US_0317 CAUTIONCAUTION

FRONT EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE ROLL-TOP DRUM SPILL CONTAINMENT CABINET PULL BOX EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE V EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE V RESTRICTED ELECTRIC VEHICLES ONLY

ELECTRIC VEHICLES ONLY PULL BOX
(E) 48'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 21'' SD 21'' SD 21'' SD 21'' SD 21'' SD 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 48'' SS CIP IS INSTALLING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND FIBER OPTIC PULLBOXES IN ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CLASS IV BIKE LANE TO BE ACCOMODATED WITH CIP ENGiNEERING 150' RIGHT TURN POCKET CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. STREETLIGHT WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED TO BE BEHIND RIGHT TURN POCKET CURRENTLY SHOWN AT 150' PER THE APPROVED CARLTON ACRES COMMERCIAL PLANS. 200' CANNOT BE ACCOMODATED WITHOUT SHORTENING THE SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN POCKET ONTO RIGGIN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BIKE PATH ON WEST SIDE OF SHIRK 150' RIGHT TURN POCKET CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT INBOUND/OUTBOUND TRUCK TURNING PATHS CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 150' RIGHT TURN POCKET CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NO MEDIAN OPENING PROPOSED SEE CARLTON ACRES COMMERCIAL APPROVED PLANS 150' RIGHT TURN LANE CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION INBOUND/OUTBOUND TRUCK TURNING PATHS CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 150' MINIMUM RIGHT TURN POCKET, PLANNED STREETLIGHT WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED BEHIND RIGHT TURN POCKET INBOUND/OUTBOUND TRUCK TURNING PATHS CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CURRENT CIP SHOWS THIS AS A 300' LEFT TURN POCKET 2% 2% CL 1.5% 1.5% R/W RIGGIN AVE. PER CIP PROJECT STA: 10+86.28 - 12+25.89 (LOOKING EAST) ±2% ±36' ±10' ±5' EXIST. CITY STD. SIDEWALK EXIST. CITY STD. EXIST. PAVEMENT CURB & GUTTER CITY STD. SIDEWALK CITY STD. CURB & GUTTER 2% 7' 7' CITY STD. MEDIAN CURB 2' 68' 12" SUBGRADE @ 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION 7" ASPHALT CONCRETE 15.4" AGGREGATE BASE CL CITY STD. SIDEWALK 5' 57' R/W T.I.: 11.0 MAX. 1.5%6' MAX. 1.5% ±35' ±3' CITY STD. SIDEWALK CITY STD. CURB & GUTTER 12" SUBGRADE @ 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION 7" ASPHALT CONCRETE 15.4" AGGREGATE BASE CITY STD. CURB & GUTTER ±45' ±3' ±7' ±6' T.I.: 11.0 ±11' CITY STD. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE CITY STD. RAMP ±11' CITY STD. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE CITY STD. RAMP CITY STD. SIDEWALK SHIRK ST. PER CIP PROJECT STA. 10+53.59 TO STA. 10+73.12 (LOOKING NORTH) BACK OF SIDEWALK TO NORTH BACK OF SIDEWALK TO NORTH 55.0' PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE ST., STE. A P.O. BOX 7593 SITE DATA: VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION RIGGIN AVE PLAZA DRIVE TULARE COUNTY SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PARK APN: 077-840-001, 077-840-002, 003 ACRES: +/- 280 ACRES ZONING (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN (EXISTING): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL UTILITIES SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA WATER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA STORMWATER: ON-SITE BIOSWALES/BASINS GAS SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ELEC. SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON REFUSE SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA TELEPHONE: SBC FLOOD ZONE: X CITY OF VISALIA SEP 2024 RIGGIN AVE 250 250 OTHER ENTITLEMENTS · Tentative Parcel Map · CUP for proposed drive-thru restaurants and C-Store · Master CUP for reduced parcel size from City Standard SITE PLAN 2268

PROJECT LOCATION

W RIGGIN AVENUE N KELSEY STREET N SHIRK STREET
50' IOD TO THE

CITY OF VISALIA
84' IOD TO THE

CITY OF VISALIA
55' IOD TO THE

CITY OF VISALIA

W RIGGIN AVENUE N SHIRK STREET N KELSEY STREET
550'
315' 192'
71'
59'
106'
72' 39'
241'
144' 800' 57'
135'
532'
501'
325'
100' 84'
233'
84'
2030'
90'
125'
249' 104'
773'
1261'
510' 254'
133'
76412 S.F.
13 149580 S.F.
11 617166 S.F.
5 1588310 S.F.
6 1602741 S.F.
7 441575 S.F.
9 411273 S.F.
10 102397 S.F.
12 577608 S.F.
3 640651 S.F.
4 2587224 S.F.
2 2400582 S.F.
1 241540 S.F.
6A
351109 S.F.
8 278'
14 9 ' 602' 1072' 479'
231'
28'
21'
236'
28'
31'
33'
205'
41'
28'
21'
392'
28'
31'
33'
74'
172'
28'
21'
93'
38'
38'
32'
42'
179'
5'
9'
160' 557' 299' 107' 39'
1350' 27' 4'
237'
28'
31'
32'
157'
40'
25'
25' 1162'
28'
31'
32'
196'
25'
25'
193' 254'
970'
110'
115'
63'
1592'
156'
779'
207'
206'
128'
1799' 249'
1069'
25'
25'
36'
160'
32'
31'
28'
891'
68'
42'
41'
38'
56'
33'
150' 160' 948' 1241' 27' 4' 1010' 504' 313'
153'
16 6 ' 579' 96' NORTH
240' 0' 240'

VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1"=
1 2
MILE
SEP 2024
SITE DATA:

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PARK
APN: 077-840-001, 077-840-002, 003
ACRES: +/- 280 ACRES
ZONING (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PLAN (EXISTING): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PLAN (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL

UTILITIES
SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
WATER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
STORMWATER: ON-SITE BIOSWALES/BASINS
GAS SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS

COMPANY
ELEC. SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
REFUSE SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
TELEPHONE: SBC
FLOOD ZONE: X

RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT SUBJECT

TO CHANGE

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com
2269
Operational Statement for
Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park
APN’s: 077-840-004, 077-840-005, 077-840-006
Project Overview:

The Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park will be located in central California on the northern edge of the City of Visalia. The project will provide for a mix of industrial and commercial uses within the western entry to the City. The Project is situated just north of the existing Visalia City Limits, at the northwest corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue. The City of Visalia General Plan designates the site as Industrial and Light Industrial. The City of Visalia’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance intend industrial land use areas be used to provide appropriate industrial areas to accommodate enterprises engaged in manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment. The Zoning Ordinance provides development standards for projects in the Industrial zones, including a maximum building height of 75 feet, minimum site area of 5 acres, and building setbacks ranging from 0-20 feet depending on adjacent land uses. The Project includes annexation of the project into the City Limits, as well as a Master Conditional Use Permit to allow the proposed convenience store (with drive thru) and drive thru restaurant, and for a reduction in minimum parcel size from the City standard. It is proposed that the Master CUP apply to all parcels involved in the Project.

Entitlements:

The Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park will require the following entitlements:
• Annexation 2024-03: to annex +/- 280 acres of property located withing the City’s Sphere of Influence into City Limits; upon annexation the property will be zone Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation.
• Tentative Parcel Map 2024-08: to subdivide +/-208 acres into 13 total lots, varying in size • Conditional Use Permit 2024-26: to allow a planned development that includes the creation of lots without public street frontage, reduces minimum lot sizes, and allows the development of a quick serve restaurant (QSR) with drive-thru, a convenience store with drive-thru, and car wash.

Proposed Uses:

Proposed Uses within the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park include warehouses, a drive-thru restaurant, a convenience store with a drive thru, a car wash, and other uses permitted within the City of Visalia Industrial Zone. A separate Conditional Use Permit will be required if additional non-permitted uses are proposed in the future.

Light Industrial
Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 will be zoned Light Industrial consistent with the land use designation of the Planned Land Use Map.

It is anticipated, and conceptually shown on the site plan, Lots 9 and 10 will develop with light industrial uses, such as light Manufacturing/Assembling (Lot 9) and self/mini storage (Lot 10). Both uses are permitted by right in the I-L zone district subject to the development standards outlined in Section 17.22.060 of the Visalia Municipal Code.

Lots 11, 12, and 13 are anticipated to be developed by uses that are permitted subject to a conditional use permit, as addressed by CUP 2024-26. Lot 11 is anticipated to be developed as a convenience store of 7,000 square feet or less. Lot 12 is anticipated to be developed with an automated car wash with drive thru. Lot 13 is anticipated to be developed with two pads, each with drive-thus. Although no end-users or tenants have been identified, these uses are assumed to operate similarly to other uses of the same kind. Additionally, these uses will be required to comply with all the development standards outlined in Section 17.22.060 of the Visalia Municipal Code, as well as any applicable special use standards.

Industrial
Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 will be zoned Industrial, consistent with the land use designation of the Planned Land Use Map.

Each of these lots is anticipated to develop with a use that is permitted by right pursuant to Section 17.25.030 and Table

17.25.030, generally warehousing uses.
2270
Each lot will be subject to site plan review at the time of development. Any use outside of these parameters will be required to obtain any additional entitlements that may be applicable.

Planned Development:

As part of the CUP 2024-26, the project is requesting a planned development to allow a reduction in lot sizes to facilitate the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park as proposed, as well as allow for the creation of lots without direct access to public streets. However, it is important to note that a reciprocal access easement will be obtained for pedestrian and vehicular traffic for the shared internal circulation system and driveways.

Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.22.060 (A) requires that lots within both the I-L and I zones be a minimum of five (5) acres, or 217,800 square feet. The following table outlines the lots that require a reduction in minimum size and do not have direct access to a public roadway.

Lot # Square Footage Meets Minimum Lot Size Requirements (217,800 sf)
Public Street Frontage
1 2,400,582 Yes Yes
2 2,587,224 Yes Yes
3 577,608 Yes Yes
4 640,651 Yes Yes
5 617,166 Yes Yes
6 1,588,310 Yes No
7 1,602,741 Yes No
8 351,109 Yes Yes
9 411,575 Yes Yes
10 411,273 Yes Yes
11 149,580 No Yes
12 102,397 No Yes
13 76,412 No Yes
Parking Calculations:

Section 17.34.020 of the City of Visalia Municipal Code requires the following number of spaces for each applicable use within the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park:

Industrial (Parcels 9 and 10): Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses require one parking space for each employee during the shift of maximum employment, plus one space for each vehicle used in conjunction with the use. The “Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses” parking designation was used because the light industrial uses are anticipated for self-storage, which are not high parking generating uses. While self-storage does notreally fit this definition because such uses are generally minimally staffed, this definition is being utilized as there is no other definition that fits the requirements.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides employment data, including median square feet per worker.

Pursuant to the latest data table that was released in September 2021 and revised in December 2022, the mean square foot per worker for warehouse and storage uses is 2,222.

The total square footage of Parcel 9 is 95,499 which results in a total of 42.98 parking spaces, or 43 parking spaces.

The total square footage of Parcel 10 is 133,000 which results in a total of 59.32 parking spaces, or 60 parking spaces.

Convenience Store (Parcel 11): The convenience store use will utilize the “General Retail Store” use classification, which requires 1 parking space for every 300 square feet. At 6,300 square feet, the total required parking spaces is 21. The drivethru for the convenience store will be associated with a branded QSR whose end user is not known at this time. Since it is 2271
associated with the convenience store, it is not anticipated that there will be significant dine-in operations, nor will the QSR be a high volume drive thru since those require stand alone shell buildings.

Car Wash (Parcel 12): The car wash use will utilize the “Commercial Service Establishment” use classification, which requires 1 parking space for every 500 square feet. At 6,580 square feet, the total required parking spaces is 13.

Restaurant with Drive-thru (Parcel 13): The restaurant with drive-thru use will utilize the “Restaurant” use classification, which requires 1 parking space for every 150 square feet. At 5,185 square feetre, the total required parking spaces for is

34.6, or 35 parking stalls. There is no end user at this time, and as such, the CUP is requested to be processed assuming there may be a 24-hour drive thru, though we can’t confirm at this time.

Warehousing/Industrial (Parcels 1-8): Utilizing the “Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses”, the employment density is estimated to be 1,500 square feet per employee, because these uses are generally a higher employment generating use. Because the sum of heavy industrial building space is 3,474,650 square feet, it is estimated that there will be approximately 2,316 employees.

The table below summarizes the parking requirements, and the number of stalls provided for each use and parcel.

Land Use Building
Area (SF)
Parking Requirements
Parking Required (# Spaces) Parking Proposed (# Spaces) SF / Employee Spaces / Building Area Industrial (Parcels 1-8) 3,474,650 1500 N/A 2,317 3,482 Light Industrial/Flex
Industrial (Parcel 9) 95,499 2,222 N/A 43 298
Self-Storage (Parcel
10) 133,000 2,222 N/A 60 41+32 trailer parking stalls73 C-Store (Parcel 11) 6,300 N/A 1 space/300 SF 21 16 + 12 spaces at fuel pumps 28 Car Wash (Parcel 12) 6,580 N/A 1 Space/500 SF 13 65
Drive-Thru Restaurant
(Parcel 13) 5,185 N/A 1 space/150 SF 35 37
TOTAL 2,489 3,983
2272

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: February 10, 2025
PROJECT PLANNER: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4636
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Shirk-Riggin Industrial Project, for the development of an industrial park with a total building footprint of approximately 3,720,149 square feet on 284 acres, and consisting of the following actions:

Recommend Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658).

Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2024-03: A request to annex three parcels totaling approximately 284 acres into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area will be zoned Industrial (I) and I-L (Light Industrial) consistent with the land use designations of the Visalia General Plan Land Use Map. The annexation request includes authorizing the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements and authorizing the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement and a Development Agreement.

General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01: A request to decrease the Light Industrial land use designation and to increase the Industrial land use designation on the project site consisting of approximately 284 acres.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08: A request to subdivide approximately 284 acres into 14 parcels to facilitate industrial and supportive service-oriented development.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26: A request to allow a planned development that includes the creation of lots without public street frontage, reduced lot sizes, and the establishment of two pads with drive-through lanes, convenience store, and car wash.

Project Applicant: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.

Project Location: The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN: 077-840- 004, 005, 006)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions.

Final Environmental Impact Report: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), including a Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the project, based upon the findings in said resolution.

General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01: Recommend that City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-08. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings.
2273
Annexation No. 2024-03: Recommend that City Council initiate the Annexation, as conditioned, including authorization to enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-06. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and the required findings.

Development Agreement: Recommend that City Council authorize to enter into the Development Agreement attached herein, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-07.

Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08: Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-09. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the required findings.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-10. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend that the City Council certify the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), according to Resolution No. 2025-05.

I move to recommend the initiation of Annexation No. 2024-03, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-06.

I move to recommend the initiation of a Development Agreement pertaining to the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-07.

I move to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-08.

I move to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-09.

I move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-10.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants, Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., have filed entitlement applications for the development of a 284-acre industrial park, containing primary industrial uses as well as commercial elements, on property located outside of City limits and within the Tier I urban development boundary.

The property is planned to be developed with industrial buildings of varying sizes and functions.

According to the site plan, attached as Exhibit “A”, a majority of the site will be developed with eight industrial buildings intended for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing use, with building sizes shown between 109,890 and 1,078,440 square feet. Other uses shown on the site plan are flex industrial space consisting of six identical buildings totaling 80,960 square feet, a self-storage facility totaling 133,000 square feet, and a commercial cluster consisting of a convenience store with drive-through lane, gas station, car wash, and restaurant pad with drivethrough lane. Entitlements for this project consist of an annexation, development agreement, commercial tentative parcel map, conditional use permit, and a general plan amendment.

Development is anticipated to occur over three phases as shown in Exhibit “B”. The project site is currently vacant.
2274
The land use entitlement issues are addressed and incorporated into the project’s Environmental Impact Report, and the land use entitlements are being processed concurrently with the CEQA review process. No entitlement is required for the industrial buildings in accordance with the Industrial and Light Industrial zoning designations, which allow such uses as permitted by right.

Annexation No. 2024-03 is a request to annex three parcels totaling approximately 284 acres located outside the city limits and within Tulare County (see Annexation Plat Map included in the Resolution). Upon annexation, the Zoning designations for the project area will consist of Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zones, consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation as proposed through the General Plan Amendment. The site also includes area designated as Conservation, though upon annexation, the property’s zoning will conform to the adjacent land use designations.

In conjunction with the annexation, the property will be subject to a Pre-Annexation Agreement, and is being entered into a Development Agreement at the discretion of the applicant. The Development Agreement seeks to establish terms and understandings on subjects including but not limited to post-entitlement approvals, vested rights, commitments toward providing infrastructure, project phasing, and establishment of project fees.

General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 is requested to change land use designations between the Industrial and Light Industrial land use designations. The objective of the General Plan Amendment is to align the property’s existing land use split between Industrial and Light Industrial with the tentative parcel map’s proposed property lines that separate the large-scale industrial uses from the small-scale industrial and commercial uses. This results in an overall reduction of

21.12 acres of Light Industrial designation and an equal increase in the Industrial designation. All acreage is located within the Tier I urban development boundary.

Current and proposed land use designations for parcels being annexed are summarized as follows:

Land Use Designation Zoning Designation Existing ac. Proposed ac.

Industrial I designation 225.79 246.91
Light Industrial I-L designation 50.35 29.23
Conservation N/A 8.44 8.44
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 is a request to subdivide the 280 gross acres among the three subject parcels into 14 parcels, which includes one parcel created to accommodate a ponding basin (see Exhibit “C”). The map coincides with the commercial development layout depicted in the site plan (Exhibit “A”). This includes establishment of warehouse buildings on Parcels 1 through 8, flex industrial and self-storage on Parcels 9 and 10, commercial uses on Parcels 11 through 13, and a ponding basin on Parcel 6A. Reciprocal access and utility easements are established between the parcels and for the creation of access points to the adjacent arterial and collector streets. An 84-foot wide irrevocable offer of dedication is also shown for the extension of Clancy Street, which is a planned collector roadway.

Public Hearing Notice: The above project description corrects an error discovered in the public hearing notice published and mailed to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site. The notice incorrectly identified the number of parcels being created as 13 instead of 14.

Staff notes that the discrepancy did not result in any deficiencies with notification to members of the public, nor does it affect the analysis provided within this report. 2275
Conational Use Permit No. 2024-26 is a request to allow a planned development in conjunction with the development plan and tentative parcel map. The planned development will result in one parcel without public street frontage (Parcel 7) and parcels that are less than the Zoning Ordinance’s minimum site area of five (5) acres in the Light Industrial zone. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Access points will also be provided along Clancy Street, which will be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site.

The conditional use permit further considers two pads with drive-through lanes, a convenience store, and a car wash, which are all conditionally permitted in the Light Industrial zone. An operational statement associated with these uses is included as Exhibit “D”.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use
Designation:

Industrial, Light Industrial, Conservation
Existing Zoning: County AE-40
Zoning upon annexation to City: Industrial (I), Light Industrial (I-L) Surrounding General Plan &
Land Use:

North: Industrial & Light Industrial / Vacant land, dairy South: Industrial & Light Industrial / Vacant land,
warehouse and distribution centers, non-operational
dairy
East: Low, Medium & High Densit Residential,
Commercial Mixed Use, Parks/Recreation /
Agriculture land entitled for master-planned
community including a 30-acre commercial center
West: Industrial / Warehouse and distribution centers
Environmental Review: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, State Clearinghouse #2022080658 Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 24-096, preceded by SPR 21-074

RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
Please see attached summary of related plans and policies.

RELATED PROJECTS
None.
2276

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

Specifically, Annexation No. 2024-03 will facilitate a new industrial park on a 284-acre acre site in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan land use designations that exist within the project site, and will complement existing development to the south and west.

Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08, Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, and General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01, based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.

Annexation to City limits
The project area is made up of three properties totaling 280 acres. The annexation further includes an additional 4 acres of public right-of-way to capture the remaining overall width of Riggin Avenue located between the existing two-lane roadway and the private property (see plat map included in Resolution).

The proponent of the annexation owns all three parcels. The parcels are surrounded on three sides by the City limits; only the property to the north, across from Modoc Ditch, is outside of the City limits.

A majority of the parcels are currently developed with an orchard, with small portions containing vacant land and a ponding basin. Surrounding land uses include industrial development to the south and west and agricultural operations to the north and east.

The easternmost portion of the site, consisting of about 50 acres, contains a land use and prezoning designation of Light Industrial and is closest to the Residential land use designations as identified in the General Plan. The remaining portion on the westerly side of the site, consisting of about 226 acres, contains a land use and pre-zoning designation of Industrial.

Plan for City Services
City Services, including Police and Fire protection, will be provided to the project site area upon annexation. Sanitary sewer service is available to all three parcels, as is water service through the California Water Service Company. Following annexation and development, the full complement of city services and programs will be provided, including but not limited to Solid Waste and maintenance of any future streets.

General Plan Consistency
Being that the General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the project area as Light Industrial and Industrial, annexation of the area will thus result in the parcels being zoned Light Industrial (IL) and Industrial (I).

All parcels are within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary. Annexation of these parcels is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-20, which states “allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.” 2277
The site can be serviced with all the requisite utility and infrastructure available to serve the site upon development. Cities can approve tentative maps prior to final approval of the annexation by the local agency formation commission (i.e., LAFCO) but cannot approve a final subdivision or parcel map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder. Staff has included this requirement as a condition of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08.

While the City finds the annexation of the parcels totaling 280 acres consistent with City policies, Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will need to analyze that the annexation will not cause an impact towards exceeding a 20-year supply of industrial land within the existing City limits, as a guideline for determining conformance with State Government Code 56377.

The project is otherwise consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the project constitutes a master planned concept for an industrial park located within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-99 calls for allowing warehousing and distribution and other industrial related uses with supporting commercial services within the Industrial land use designation. Furthermore, the project upholds Land Use Policy LU-P-103 which calls for incorporating buffering land uses and is implemented through the planned development of smaller scale flex space, storage, and commercial.

Consistency of General Plan Amendment with City’s General Plan The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in an overall reduction of 21.12 acres of Light Industrial land use designation, wherein this area will be added to the Industrial land use designation.

The Light Industrial land use designation is called out on the General Plan on the west side of Shirk between Doe Avenue and Avenue 320 for the purpose of creating a transition between the Industrial land use designations further to the west and the residential land use designations directly east of Shirk Street. At the project site, the depth of the Light Industrial designation is approximately 1,000 feet from Shirk Street after dedication is taken for the full right-of-way.

The General Plan Amendment will reduce the Light Industrial designation in order to create a separation between the large warehouse / distribution type buildings and the smaller industrial buildings. The area of designation being changed from Light Industrial to Industrial is shown on the project as being planned for warehouse / distribution type buildings, which is a use allowed by right in the Light Industrial zone designation.

Although the area of Light Industrial is being reduced, the site still provides Light Industrial in a manner that assigns with the original intent of this land use at this location. A majority of the remaining Light Industrial designation calls for the use of small-scale flex industrial space, selfstorage, and commercial uses in this space, to provide a transition to residential uses. The inclusion of an arterial road right-of-way, landscape setbacks, and building placement continues to provide separation between the Industrial and Residential land use designations.

Active Agriculture Preserve and Land Conservation Contract The property currently contains Agriculture Preserve No. 293 and Land Conservation Contract No. 2735. In accordance with the Williamson Act (California Government Code Section 51200), the contract must be cancelled or shall expire from its contract prior to development.

In 2022, the property owner applied to the County of Tulare to cancel the portion of the contract that covers the site. Tentative cancellation was granted by the Board of Supervisors on November 29, 2022, in accordance with State law, wherein a full Certificate of Cancellation will be issued upon payment of a cancellation fee and applying for cancellation of the Agricultural Preserve. 2278
The property owner may complete the cancellation process prior to the annexation into City limits, or may be required by the Local Agency Formation Commission to finalize the cancellation prior to the annexation being recorded and taking effect. Staff is therefore recommending conditions of approval in the entitlements stating that no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from the Land Conservation Contract and Agricultural Preserve.

Development Standards for Planned Development
The Conditional Use Permit will allow for the property to be subdivided as a planned development with lots below the minimum site area requirement of five (5) acres and a lot to be developed without public street frontage. Notwithstanding, the existing Zoning Ordinance development standards in the I-L and I zones (Municipal Code Section 17.22.060) adequately address setbacks for all parcels. These setbacks are prescribed as being zero feet from all property lines excepting where parcels are fronting along roadways, wherein the amount of setback is determined by the roadway classification as defined on the Circulation Element Map. The site plan depicts compliance with all setback requirements of the I-L and I zones.

Analysis of Commercial Uses at Shirk & Riggin Intersection The project includes a convenience store with drive-through lane, fueling station, restaurant pad with drive-through lane, and a car wash. All uses are conditionally allowed in the I-L zone excepting the fueling station which is permitted by right. The project’s phasing plan anticipates these uses together with the self-storage facility to be developed in Phase 2, following the Phase 1 development of two large industrial buildings fronting Kelsey Street.

Detailed architectural drawings of the commercial uses have not been prepared given the premature nature of the uses and confirmation of the final tenants, although conceptual design drawings have been submitted by the applicant as Exhibit “E”. Finalized site plans will be required to be submitted to the City and evaluated by Site Plan Review prior to issuing building permits.

Staff has determined that the submittal of actual architectural drawings and an additional noise study, per Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1, may be deferred based upon the circumstances of the proposed project, its location, and the project Environmental Impact Report’s mitigation measure pertaining to noise impacts. The uses are considered supporting commercial uses toward the larger proposed industrial park and are shown on the tentative parcel map and site plan to have substantial lot sizes to accommodate on-site circulation. Recommended conditions of approval in the Conditional Use Permit require the uses to be developed at the same location, quantity and scale as shown on the site plan and described in the operational statement. Further, any deviation to the quantity and scale would require a new or amended conditional use permit.

Surrounding land uses will be future industrial land uses to the north, west, and south, future commercial uses to the east, and existing residential uses to the southeast. The existing residential uses (i.e., an established senior housing community at the southeast corner of Shirk & Riggin) are considered a sensitive receptor and would be located, measuring between property lines, approximately 200 feet to the restaurant with drive-through and approximately 500 feet to the car wash. The project’s acoustic analysis (Appendix H of the EIR) concludes potentially significant impacts from the car wash though not from the drive-through lane. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require an in-depth study of the car wash prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the design, mechanical equipment, and hours of operation would be compatible with Municipal Code requirements.
2279
Subdivision Map Act Findings
California Government Code Section 66474 lists seven findings for which a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map if it is able to make any of these findings.

These seven “negative” findings have come to light through a recent California Court of Appeal decision (Spring Valley Association v. City of Victorville) that has clarified the scope of findings that a city or county must make when approving a tentative map under the California Subdivision Map Act.

Staff has reviewed the seven findings for a cause of denial and finds that none of the findings can be made for the proposed project. The seven findings and staff’s analysis are below.

Recommended finings in response to this Government Code section are included in the recommended findings for the approval of the tentative parcel map.

GC Section 66474 Finding Analysis
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans
as specified in Section 65451.

The proposed map has been found to be consistent with
the City’s General Plan. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 1 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(b) That the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.

The proposed design and improvement of the map has
been found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan.

This is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the
Tentative Parcel Map.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for
the type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed maps and its affiliated development plan, which is designated as Industrial and Light Industrial, and is developed at
densities that are within the allowed ranges of the
specified land use designations. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 3 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable
for the proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed map and its affiliated development plan, which is designated as Industrial and Light Industrial. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 4 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.

The proposed design and improvements of the map has
not been found likely to cause environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This finding is further supported by the project’s determination of no new effects under the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), included as recommended Finding
No. 7 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or
type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.

The proposed design of the map has not been found to
cause serious public health problems. This is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the
type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision.

The proposed design of the map does not conflict with
any existing or proposed easements located on or
adjacent to the subject property. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 4 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
2280
Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the proposed project (ref.: Shirk Riggin Industrial Park, Kimley Horn, February 2024), attached as Appendix I of the EIR. The purpose of the study is to analyze traffic conditions related to buildout of the project and its projected level of service (LOS) at multiple traffic scenarios, including Existing conditions, Near-Term opening year projection, and at Long Term operating scenarios at 5, 10, and 20 years beyond buildout, and the corresponding environmental impact as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The TIS concluded that various intersection improvements are needed at the different buildout scenarios and timeframes. Intersection improvements are summarized in Section 3.14.7 in the EIR.

Mitigation measures have been included in the Environmental Impact Report to address the roadway deficiencies described above, addressing various intersections.

For the Near-Term conditions, the following improvements are specified as mitigation measures, to be completed in association with various phases. Certain improvements, while required to be constructed, would coincide with the City’s Transportation Impact Fee program wherein construction costs can be paid back over time.
• Measures TRANS-3 and TRANS-4 require extending turn lanes or adding turning lanes to the intersections of Plaza Drive / Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street / Riggin Avenue. These improvements will be tied to the completion of project phases 1 and 2. • Measure TRANS-5 requires signalizing the Shirk Street and Ferguson Avenue intersection prior to the issuance of final occupancy of any portion of project area. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project. • Measure TRANS-6 requires that prior to the final occupancy of any portion of Phase 3, a fair share contribution be made towards the signalization of Roeben Street / Ferguson Avenue. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project.
• Measure TRANS-7 requires restriping the Akers Street / Riggin Avenue intersection to incorporate additional turn lanes and through lanes. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project. • Measure TRANS-8 requires restriping the Akers Street / Ferguson Avenue intersection to incorporate additional turn lanes and through lanes. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project. • Measure TRANS-9 requires extending turn lanes in the southbound lanes of the Akers Street / Goshen Avenue intersection. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project.

It should be noted that the City of Visalia is expected to break ground on a grant-funded Riggin Avenue widening project between Kelsey and Shirk Streets (1.0 miles), encompassing all of the project’s Riggin Avenue frontage. Utility pole relocation is expected to occur in the first half of 2025, while the roadway widening will be completed by the end of 2025.

The proposed project is expected to increase VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled) per employee within the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) it is located by approximately 0.15 miles, or 1.54 percent of the total miles traveled. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant VMT impact, requiring additional Mitigation Measures in order to assist with reducing the project’s VMT impact. 2281
These measures consist of dedicating land and constructing a bike path along the south side of Modoc Ditch, installing secured bicycle storage lockers.

As a result, with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project EIR concludes that full buildout of the Project will result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Environmental Review
A Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared in association with the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

It should be noted that this project would not be subject to Assembly Bill 98 pertaining to logistic uses, passed by California Legislature on September 30, 2024, since this project was initiated and had its Draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for review prior to the effective date of the bill, and is therefore considered to be currently in a local entitlement process per the law.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR has determined that all project impacts were either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of the following impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable:
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources – Conversion of prime farmland (project level) • Agriculture & Forestry Resources – Conversion of prime farmland (cumulative level) • Air Quality – Implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan (project level) • Air Quality – Cumulatively considerable net increase of nitrogen oxide (NOX) during construction, and reactive organic gas (ROG), NOX, and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) during operation (project level) • Air Quality – Exceeding certain identified construction and operational significance thresholds (cumulative level)
• Noise – Mobile source operational noise (project level) • Noise – Exceeding certain identified operational significance threshold (cumulative level) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15091 and 15092, the City, as the Lead Agency, may still approve a project for which the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the project. This requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each environmental impact that falls into the category of significant and unavoidable.

The decision to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by factual documentation that supports the decision that:

1. There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant impact; and,

2. Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.

The findings and recommended conclusions for each of the seven environmental analysis areas noted above are contained in the resolution recommending certification of the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
The EIR further disclosed mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project to reduce or 2282
avoid significant effects on the environment. The measures address the following resources:
• Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Air Quality for impacts of the project having a considerable net increase of a criterial pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment.
• Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources for impacts of the project to special-status wildlife species possible to occur on-site (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, San Joaquin Kit Fox).
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction.
• Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Geology and Soils to address potential impacts related to grading, the potential for on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, and the potential of exposing a fossil during construction. • Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Greenhouse Gas Emissions to address the potential for the project to conflict with an agency plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Hazardous Materials to address the potential presence o abandoned or unrecorded wells.
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Noise to address the impacts of drive-through lane and car wash noise upon noise-sensitive land uses, and the potential of any other specific uses that could result in a noise-related conflict. • Eleven (11) mitigation measures pertaining to Transportation for addressing impacts to Vehicle Miles Travelled, Level Of Service, and construction traffic. • One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Utilities and Service Systems for addressing the potential to attain solid waste reduction goals.

Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed Project. This Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
• Reduced Footprint Alternative: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed in a manner largely similar to the Project, except that the project would have a reduced overall footprint of development consisting of 142 acres of developable land and 142 acres preserved in agriculture use.
• Alternative Location: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed like the Project Concept at a different location, on 290 acres west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue. • No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would not be constructed, and the site would remain in agricultural production.

Public Review and Recommendation
Circulation of the Draft EIR followed a Notice of Availability period wherein the Draft EIR was duly noticed and conducted for the project for a 45-day public review and comment period from April 11 to May 28, 2024. The City of Visalia is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIR. Seven comment letters were received during this public review period. City staff and the preparer of the EIR have prepared responses to the comments received (refer to the Final EIR, dated January 2283
2025). The Draft Program EIR, including the technical appendices, all the comments received and the responses to these comments, constitute the Final EIR.

The Planning Commission is asked to review the overall content of the Final EIR, the responses to the comments received to date, and consider any further testimony received during the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make its recommendations on the Final EIR and entitlements, including recommendations to the City Council where they have final authority. The recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council in Resolution form to be included in the materials presented to the City Council for its final determination. The certification of the EIR for this project rests with the final approving body, which is the City Council.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658 The findings are incorporated into Resolution No. 2025-05.

If the Planning Commission finds that the Annexation, GPA, and Agreement are consistent with the intent of the General Plan, staff recommends that the following findings be made:

Annexation No. 2024-03

1. That the Annexation is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re-designate 280 acres of AE-40 (Agricultural Exclusive 40-acre) County zone district to Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zone, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

3. That the parcel is located within an Agricultural Preserve and a Lond Conservation Contract, for which a Notice of Non-Renewal has been filed, and which has been approved for Tentative Cancellation by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors subject to the payment of a penalty fee.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

5. That this Annexation is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this Annexation request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

Development Agreement

1. That the proposed development agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and/or any proposed amendment to the general plan or applicable specific plan submitted simultaneously and in conjunction with the proposed development agreement. The agreement speaks toward the development and operation of the project by the developer in a manner that is consistent with applicable city law in accordance with phasing and the payment of fees as described therein. No specific plans are applicable to the project. 2284

2. That the proposed development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located. The development is predicated upon the project’s underlying General Plan land use designation of Industrial and Light Industrial, and the corresponding pre-zoning of Industrial and Light Industrial that is detailed and confirmed in the project’s Pre-Annexation Agreement.

3. That the proposed development agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. As stated in Recital J of the Agreement, it eliminates or reduces uncertainty regarding project approvals, including the subsequent approvals, thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to the contemplated uses and development of the property as envisioned by the project.

4. That the proposed development agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The City has made the findings, in connection with the project’s entitlements and environmental analysis as required under California Environmental Quality Act, regarding the project as it relates to public health, safety and general welfare, based upon its compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and project mitigation measures.

This development agreement does not enact terms beyond the scope of the project that would put at risk any public health, safety, and general welfare.

5. That the proposed development agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The development agreement reinforces the project phasing as described in Section 5.1 and addresses any potential default against a mortgage lien in Section 8.1.

6. That this Development Agreement is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this General Plan Amendment request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01

1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment, which results in an overall reduction of 21.12 acres of Light Industrial designation and an equal increase in the Industrial designation, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties. While the site already incorporates adjoining residential and industrial land use designations that are separated by an arterial street, the proposed General Plan Amendment does not significantly increase the disparity of the use of Light Industrial land use designation as a buffer from residential uses, based upon the site development plan which calls for the use of small-scale flex industrial space, self storage, and commercial uses.

3. That the General Plan Amendment will continue to help facilitate the development of a master planned industrial park within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary, consistent with General Plan Policies, including Policy LU-P-99 which calls for allowing warehousing and distribution and other industrial related uses with supporting commercial services, and including Policy LU-P-103 which calls for incorporating buffering land uses and is implemented through the planned development of smaller scale flex space, storage, and commercial. 2285

4. That this General Plan Amendment is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this General Plan Amendment request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08

1. That the proposed location and layout of the tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.

2. That the proposed tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The project site does not directly abut any existing developed uses, and development standards contained within the City’s Zoning Ordinance such as setbacks and landscaping will address land use conflicts.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is situated on land designated for Industrial and Light Industrial use.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map which is consistent with the underlying Industrial and Light Industrial Land Use Designation and zone. The design of the proposed parcel map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed industrial / commercial map. The industrial / commercial parcel map is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. Areas of dedication will be obtained as part of the tentative map recording for new street improvements, including the construction of curb, gutter, curb return, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and pavement.

5. That the proposed location of the tentative parcel map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the parcel map is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Certain General Plan policies, such as LU-P-100, identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new industrial / commercial development will contribute to positive land use compatibility.

6. That there is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards.

7. That the design of the parcel map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

8. That the proposed parcel sizes resulting from the parcel map are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance’s Planned Development and Industrial zone standards since they are part of a master planned development as identified in Site Plan Review Item No. 2024-096 and in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Environmental Impact Report. 2286

9. That this Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this Tentative Parcel Map request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26

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. 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.

3. That this Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this Conditional Use Permit request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2024-03

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zone, consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations as proposed through the General Plan Amendment.

2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft PreAnnexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2025-06. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

3. That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08

1. That the parcel map be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2024-096 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 be prepared in substantial compliance with the parcel map in Exhibit “C”.
2287

3. That a common access, maintenance, and landscaping agreement be entered into for all project parcels. That CC&R’s including vehicular access, shared parking, landscaping and permanent maintenance of all common areas such as the public street parkways and perimeter landscaping, project identification signage and walls, stormwater basins and related infrastructure, and all similar infrastructure agreements shall be recorded with the final parcel map. The CC&R’s and/or vehicular access agreements shall address property owners’ responsibility for repair and maintenance of the easement, repair and maintenance of shared public or private utilities, and shall be kept free and clear of any structures. All property owners are equally responsible for these requirements. The City Planner and City Engineer shall review for approval these CC&R’s or vehicular access agreements verifying compliance with these requirements prior to the CC&R’s recordation.

4. That Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 be approved, and that requirements of the use permit that relate to this map shall be fulfilled.

5. That approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2024-03, placing the project site within the corporate limits of the City of Visalia, is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and is fully executed to include all conditions contained in the Pre-Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2024-03.

6. That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.

7. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.

8. That the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Final Environmental Impact Report certified for the project (State Clearinghouse 2022080658) and all conditions of this project be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26

1. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with Site Plan Review No. 2024-096.

2. That the commercial uses illustrated on the site plan in Exhibit “A” and described in the operational statement in Exhibit “D”, consisting of a convenience store with drive-through lane, gas station, car wash, and restaurant pad with drive-through lane, shall be separately submitted to and evaluated by the Site Plan Review group as described in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 prior to proceeding with applying for the necessary city permits. No additional conditional use permit nor an amendment to a conditional use permit is required for these uses if they are developed at the same quantity and scale shown on the site plan and described in the operational statement.

3. That the project shall be developed in general conformity with the site plan in Exhibit “A”, with specific details of the development layout to be confirmed through Site Plan Review as described in Condition No. 2. Any subsequent changes to the development plan layout depicted in Exhibit “A” 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 a queuing analysis shall be submitted, accepted, and implemented for each of the drivethrough lanes associated with the commercial uses. 2288

5. That CC&R’s including vehicular access, shared parking, landscaping and permanent maintenance of all common areas such as the public street parkways and perimeter landscaping, project identification signage and walls, stormwater basins and related infrastructure, and all similar infrastructure agreements shall be recorded with the final parcel map. The CC&R’s and/or vehicular access agreements shall address property owners’ responsibility for repair and maintenance of the easement, repair and maintenance of shared public or private utilities, and shall be kept free and clear of any structures. All property owners are equally responsible for these requirements. The City Planner and City Engineer shall review for approval these CC&R’s or vehicular access agreements verifying compliance with these requirements prior to the CC&R’s recordation.

6. That the car wash and drive-through queue lanes shall not be visible from the public right-ofway. This shall be achieved by designing the site in a manner such that the queue lane is not located parallel with public street frontages, or by incorporating screening along a queue lane to a minimum height of three feet utilizing a combination of berms, hedges, and/or landscape materials, or solid walls if necessary.

7. That a noise analysis addressing noise impacts pertaining to the car wash, in conformance with the City of Visalia’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.36) shall be required and accepted by the City Planner prior to issuance of any building permit. Compliance of the noise levels, subject to the Visalia Noise Ordinance, shall be verified by the acoustical consultant or their designee prior to operation and building final for the carwash use.

8. That any car wash hours of operation beyond 7:00 p.m. shall only be permissible if supported by a noise analysis that confirms the car wash will not be inconsistent with the City of Visalia’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.36).

9. That adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems shall be incorporated into the car wash facility, such as through the installation of a sand-oil separator.

10.That a separate Conditional Use Permit shall be obtained for any additional conditionallyallowed uses not already shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit “A” that subsequently locate on the site.

11.That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.

12.That all applicable federal, state, and city laws and codes and ordinances be met.

13.That all of the conditions and responsibilities of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 shall run with the land and subsequent owners/operators shall also be subject to all of the conditions herein, unless amended or revoked.

14.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2022080658) are hereby incorporated as conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 2289

APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation No. 2024-03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 For the Annexation and General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only. The final decision will be by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing.

Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation in this matter is not appealable.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145 and Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.080, 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 at:
https://www.visalia.city/government/committees/planning_commission/default.asp.

Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2025-05 – Recommendation of certification of Final EIR • Resolution No. 2025-06 – Annexation No. 2024-03
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Pre-Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2025-07 – Development Agreement for Shirk-Riggin Industrial Park • Resolution No. 2025-08 – General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 • Resolution No. 2025-09 – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 • Resolution No. 2025-10 – Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 • Exhibit "A" – Site Plan
• Exhibit “B” – Phasing Map
• Exhibit “C” – Tentative Parcel Map
• Exhibit “D” – Operational Statement
• Exhibit “E” – Conceptual Design Plans
• Draft Environmental Impact Report (for EIR Appendices, refer to website link below) The Draft EIR is also found at https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55426 • Final Environmental Impact Report
The Final EIR is also found at https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=57144 • Comments from Site Plan Review No. 2024-096
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
Available online via City of Visalia Website:
• EIR Appendices: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55428 2290

RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
General Plan and Zoning: The following General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies apply to the proposed project:

General Plan Land Use Policies:

LU-P-19 Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.

LU-P-99 Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Industrial designation on the Land Use Diagram, to allow for primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities including those with outdoor facilities and also accommodate warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services and office space. Retail is not permitted.

LU-P-100 Establish zoning standards to assure high quality design and site planning for largescale industrial development.

Standards should include requirements for landscaping in parking lots, along perimeters and along building foundations visible from the street; visual screening of loading and parking areas visible from the street and adjacent residential neighborhoods; and basic requirements to break up large building masses and provide a unified façade treatment.

LU-P-101 As part of industrial developments, allow secondary uses such as restaurants, cafes, small convenience stores and day care facilities, to serve area employees.

LU-P-102 Ensure the timely completion of necessary infrastructure to support new industrial development.

LU-P-103 Require buffering land uses adjacent to existing or planned residential areas adjacent to industrial designations. Such uses may include parks, drainage ponds, open space, or other such uses.

LU-P-104 Preserve land designated for light and heavy industrial uses by limiting the intrusion of freestanding retail commercial or service commercial uses.

LU-P-105 Assist, on a case by case basis, in the relocation of older, existing service commercial and industrial uses from East Downtown or other redevelopment project areas to areas designated for similar uses.

LU-P-106 Develop performance standards to supplement and augment design standards to minimize the negative impacts (glare, signage, noise, dust, traffic) associated with the establishment of new or expansion of existing service commercial and industrial development.

LU-P-107 Reserve adequate sewage treatment plant capacity and sewerage capacity to meet the projected needs of industrial growth, and allow “package plants” where they represent a more fiscally appropriate solution if approved by the Department of Public Works. 2291
Zoning Ordinance:

Chapter 17.22 INDUSTRIAL ZONES

17.22.010 Purposes.

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

1. Encourage the location of new industries that do not generate substantial amounts of pollutant emissions, impacts on air quality, or other natural resources;

2. Ensure compatibility between industrial lands and adjacent dissimilar land uses;

3. Retain and strengthen the city's role as a regional manufacturing center in the Southern Central San Joaquin Valley;

4. Provide appropriate industrial areas to accommodate enterprises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment;

5. Provide adequate space to meet the needs of industrial development, including off-street parking and loading;

6. Direct industrial uses to and encourage expansion of the northwest industrial areas;

7. Protect areas appropriate for industrial use from intrusion by dwellings and other conflicting uses;

8. Protect residential and commercial properties and nuisance-free nonhazardous industrial uses from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, fire, explosion, noxious fumes, radiation and other hazards and objectionable influence incidental to certain industrial uses;

9. Preserve land designated for light and heavy industrial uses by limiting the intrusion of commercial or service commercial uses.

B. The purpose of the industrial land use zones are as follows:

1. Light Industrial Zone—( I-L). The purpose and intent of the Light Industrial zone district is to provide an area for uses that are characterized by low intensity research and development, warehousing and limited manufacturing and production, processing, assembling and packaging or treatment of food products from previously prepared materials. Uses that may restrict the operation of the above due to sensitivity to noise, truck traffic, etc., are not provided in this district.

2. Industrial Zone—( I). The purpose and intent of the Industrial zone district is to provide an area for uses that are characterized by the manufacturing, processing or assembling of semi-finished or finished products from raw materials. Uses that may restrict the operation of the above due to sensitivity to noise, truck traffic, etc., are not provided in this district. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7392)

17.22.015 Applicability.

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

17.22.020 Permitted uses.

Permitted uses in I and I-L zones shall be determined by Table 17.25.030 in Section 17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7393)

17.22.030 Conditional and temporary uses.

Conditional and temporary uses in the I and I-L zones shall be determined by Table 17.25.030 in Section 17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7393)

17.22.040 Required conditions.
2292
A. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be employed which is determined by the planning commission to be injurious to persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property located in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinder, refuse, noise, vibration, illumination, glare or heavy truck traffic or to involve any hazard of fire or explosion or to emit electrical disturbances that adversely affect commercial or electronic equipment outside the boundaries of the site; B. No use shall emit visible smoke of a shade equal to or darker than No. 2 on a standard Ringelmann Chart issued by the United States Bureau of Mines or smoke of an equivalent opacity, except that smoke of a shade equal to No. 3 on the Ringelmann Chart may be emitted for four minutes in any thirty (30) minute period;
C. A site plan review permit must be obtained for all development in an I-L or I zone, subject to the requirements and procedures in Chapter 17.28. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7395)

17.22.050 Off-street parking and loading facilities.

Off-street parking facilities and off-street loading facilities shall be provided on the site of each use as prescribed in Chapter 17.34. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7396)

17.22.060 Development standards in the I-L and I zones.

A. The I-L and I zone districts include streets of varying width, carrying capacity and intended service.

The development standards vary by type of street in order to maintain a consistent streetscape and achieve a high quality visual impact necessary to sustain an attractive and viable industrial area. The following development standards shall apply to property located in the I-L and I zones:

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

B. Maximum building height: seventy-five (75) feet.

C. Minimum required yards (building setbacks):

1. Frontage on major road: twenty-five (25) feet. (Major roads are defined as roads shown as arterials or collectors on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Goshen Avenue, Plaza Drive, and Avenue 308);

2. Frontage on minor road: fifteen (15) feet. (Minor roads are defined as roads shown as local streets on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Elowin Court, Clancy Drive, and Rasmussen Avenue);

3. Frontage on interior roads: ten (10) feet. (Interior roads provide access only to parcels within a development.);

4. Rear: zero (0) feet;

5. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: twenty (20) feet;

6. Side: zero (0) feet;

7. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: twenty (20) feet;

8. Side abutting railroad right-of-way: twenty-five (25) feet.

D. Minimum required landscaped yard (setback) areas:

1. Frontage on major road: twenty-five (25) feet. (Major roads are defined as roads shown as arterials or collectors on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Goshen Avenue, Plaza Drive, and Avenue 308);

2. Frontage on minor road: fifteen (15) feet. (Minor roads are defined as roads shown as local streets on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Elowin Court, Clancy Drive, and Rasmussen Avenue);

3. Frontage on interior roads: ten (10) feet. (Interior roads provide access only to parcels within a development.);
2293

4. Rear: zero (0) feet;

5. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: ten (10) feet;

6. Side: zero (0) feet;

7. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: ten (10) feet;

8. Side abutting railroad right-of-way: twenty-five (25) feet.

E. Additional standards:

1. Properties subdivided into parcels of less than five acres shall provide a common or joint storm drainage facility or pond, to be maintained through a private property owners' association formed at the time of subdivision.

2. An eight-foot masonry wall is required along property line where a site abuts an R-1 or R-M zone district. (Ord 2017-01 (part), 2017)
2294
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
City of Visalia, Tulare County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
559.713.4636
Contact: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
7726 N. First Street, #413
Fresno, CA 93720
714.508.4100
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Yael Marcus, Project Manager
Date: April 11, 2024
2295

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2296
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
iii
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................................ix Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process....................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 - Scope of the EIR.............................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 - Organization of the Draft EIR.......................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference..........................................................................1-7

1.5 - Review of the Draft EIR................................................................................................... 1-8 Chapter 2: Project Description .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - Overview ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 - Project Location and Setting........................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 - Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 - Project Objectives........................................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 - Project Description......................................................................................................... 2-5

2.6 - Required Actions and Approvals ..................................................................................2-11 Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis.................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare.........................................................................................3.1-1

3.2 - Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources ..........................................................3.2-1

3.3 - Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.4 - Biological Resources.................................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.5 - Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................3.5-1

3.6 - Energy.......................................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.7 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity......................................................................................3.7-1

3.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........................................................................................3.8-1

3.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials...............................................................................3.9-1

3.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................3.10-1

3.11 - Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................3.11-1

3.12 - Noise........................................................................................................................ 3.12-1

3.13 - Public Services.........................................................................................................3.13-1

3.14 - Transportation.........................................................................................................3.14-1

3.15 - Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................3.15-1

3.16 - Wildfire.................................................................................................................... 3.16-1 Chapter 4: Effects Found Not To Be Significant ............................................................................ 4-1

4.1 - Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 - Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant .......................................................4-1 Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations........................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts.................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 - Growth-inducing Impacts............................................................................................... 5-3

5.3 - Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.............................................................5-5 Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project.......................................................................... 6-1

6.1 - Introduction.................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 - Alternative Eliminated from Further Consideration.......................................................6-4

6.3 - Project Objectives........................................................................................................... 6-5

6.4 - Alternative 1—No Project Alternative............................................................................6-6 2297
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
iv

6.5 - Alternative 2—Reduced Footprint Alternative ............................................................ 6-12

6.6 - Alternative 3—Alternative Location ............................................................................ 6-20

6.7 - Environmentally Superior Alternative.......................................................................... 6-28 Chapter 7: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers.............................................. 7-1

7.1 - Persons and Organizations Consulted............................................................................ 7-1

7.2 - Project Sponsor and Project Consultants....................................................................... 7-1

7.3 - City of Visalia Consultants.............................................................................................. 7-2 List of Appendices
Appendix A: EIR Public Involvement (NOP, EIR Public Scoping Comments) Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Appendix C: Biological Resources Supporting Information C.1 - Biological Resources Assessment
C.2 - Jurisdictional Delineation
Appendix D: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information Appendix E: Geology and Soils Supporting Information
E.1 - Geotechnical Evaluation
E.2 - Paleontological Records Search
Appendix F: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information F.1 - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
F.2 - Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G: Agricultural Resources and Forestry Supporting Information G.1 - Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
G.2 - Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
Appendix H: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix I: Transportation Supporting Information
Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix K: Aesthetics Supporting Information
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix..............................................................................................ES-8 Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letters........................................................................................................ 1-3 Table 2-1: Development Summary...................................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-2: Required and Proposed Parking ......................................................................................... 2-8 Table 3-1: Cumulative Projects............................................................................................................ 3-5 Table 3.3-1: Description of Toxic Air Contaminants of National and California Concern................. 3.3-5 Table 3.3-2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status......................................................... 3.3-13 Table 3.3-3: Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................... 3.3-14 2298
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
v
Table 3.3-4: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone .......................................................3.3-15 Table 3.3-5: Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution .....................................3.3-17 Table 3.3-6: Conceptual Construction Schedule.............................................................................3.3-31 Table 3.3-7: Project Construction Equipment Assumptions...........................................................3.3-32 Table 3.3-8: Construction Off-site Trips..........................................................................................3.3-33 Table 3.3-9: Vehicle Trip Generation During Operations................................................................3.3-35 Table 3.3-10: Vehicle Type Classification–Individual Project Runs.................................................3.3-36 Table 3.3-11: Summary of Operational Diesel Emission Source Configurations............................3.3-38 Table 3.3-12: Categories of Emissions at Retail Gasoline Service Stations ....................................3.3-39 Table 3.3-13: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) ................................................3.3-45 Table 3.3-14: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated).....................................................3.3-48 Table 3.3-15: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated)..................................................3.3-50 Table 3.3-16: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Unmitigated).............................................................................................................. 3.3-54 Table 3.3-17: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Mitigated) .................................................................................................................. 3.3-55 Table 3.3-18: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operations (Unmitigated).............................................................................................................. 3.3-56 Table 3.3-19: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)–Reasonable Scenario...............................................................................3.3-66 Table 3.3-20: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)–Worst-Case/Concurrent Construction Scenario......................................3.3-66 Table 3.3-21: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR............................................................................................3.3-67 Table 3.3-22: Cumulative Health Risks and Hazards During Reasonable Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR.................................................3.3-68 Table 3.3-23: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources............................................................3.3-69 Table 3.4-1: Soil Types Present within Project Site...........................................................................3.4-2 Table 3.5-1: Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site .................................................3.5-6 Table 3.5-2: Previous Investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project Site ..........................................3.5-7 Table 3.6-1: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption.........................................................3.6-10 Table 3.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................3.8-2 Table 3.8-2: City of Visalia 2005 Community GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory by Sector............3.8-6 Table 3.8-3: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigation Included) ................................3.8-32 Table 3.8-4: Summary of Applicable Greenhouse Gas Regulations................................................3.8-34 Table 3.8-5: Consistency with City of Visalia’s CAP.........................................................................3.8-36 2299
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
vi
Table 3.8-6: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update.................................................... 3.8-44 Table 3.8-7: Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Update ............................................................. 3.8-48 Table 3.9-1: Project Site Hazardous Materials Search Results......................................................... 3.9-4 Table 3.9-2: Summary of Off-site Facilities of Potential Concern..................................................... 3.9-5 Table 3.10-1: Public Water Systems............................................................................................. 3.10-15 Table 3.10-2: Operational Project Water Demands..................................................................... 3.10-15 Table 3.10-3: Cal Water Visalia District Retail Water Supplies..................................................... 3.10-18 Table 3.10-4: Total Project Demands by Year............................................................................... 3.10-19 Table 3.11-1: LAFCo Consistency Analysis (Government Code § 56668)..................................... 3.11-17 Table 3.11-2: General Plan Consistency Analysis......................................................................... 3.11-24 Table 3.12-1: Sound Terminology................................................................................................... 3.12-2 Table 3.12-2: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels ........................................ 3.12-4 Table 3.12-3: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment............................................................ 3.12-6 Table 3.12-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels...................................................................................... 3.12-9 Table 3.12-5: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria................. 3.12-11 Table 3.12-6: Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels–Grading................................................... 3.12-20 Table 3.12-7: Traffic Noise Increase Summary–Existing Conditions ............................................ 3.12-22 Table 3.12-8 Traffic Noise Increase Summary–Future Conditions............................................... 3.12-23 Table 3.12-9: Parking Lot Activities Noise Levels ......................................................................... 3.12-25 Table 3.12-10: Drive-through Car Wash Noise Levels.................................................................. 3.12-27 Table 3.14-1: Study Intersections................................................................................................... 3.14-3 Table 3.14-2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ............................................. 3.14-4 Table 3.14-3: Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................. 3.14-7 Table 3.14-4: Trip Generation Summary ...................................................................................... 3.14-25 Table 3.15-1: Groundwater Volume Pumped ................................................................................ 3.15-3 Table 3.15-2: Use for Potable and Nonpotable Water–Projected.................................................. 3.15-4 Table 3.15-3: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................................ 3.15-5 Table 3.15-4: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison.................................................... 3.15-5 Table 3.15-5: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison .............................................. 3.15-5 Table 3.15-6: Disposal Site Capacity............................................................................................... 3.15-8 Table 3.15-7: Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011–2021 ............................................. 3.15-9 Table 3.15-8: Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2011–2021 ........................................ 3.15-10 Table 6-1: Summary of Alternatives.................................................................................................. 6-28 2300
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
vii
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1: Regional Location Map................................................................................................... 2-13 Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................... 2-15 Exhibit 2-3: City of Visalia Urban Growth Boundary .........................................................................2-17 Exhibit 2-4: Existing Setting ............................................................................................................... 2-19 Exhibit 2-5a: Site Photographs .......................................................................................................... 2-21 Exhibit 2-6: County of Tulare Zoning Designation .............................................................................2-25 Exhibit 2-7: City of Visalia General Plan Designations.......................................................................2-27 Exhibit 2-8: Site Plan.......................................................................................................................... 2-29 Exhibit 2-9: Project Simulation .......................................................................................................... 2-31 Exhibit 2-10a: Industrial Building Elevation Plans .............................................................................2-33 Exhibit 2-11: Street Dedication.......................................................................................................... 2-37 Exhibit 2-12: Site Photometric Plan................................................................................................... 2-39 Exhibit 2-13: Proposed Water Lines .................................................................................................. 2-41 Exhibit 2-14: Proposed Sewer Lines .................................................................................................. 2-43 Exhibit 2-15: Proposed Storm Drainage System................................................................................2-45 Exhibit 2-16: Project Phasing............................................................................................................. 2-47 Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Projects Map ................................................................................................. 3-7 Exhibit 3.2-1: Important Farmland Map.........................................................................................3.2-19 Exhibit 3.4-1: Land Cover and Vegetation ......................................................................................3.4-37 Exhibit 3.4-2: Impacts on Biological Resources..............................................................................3.4-39 Exhibit 3.7-1: Regional Earthquake Fault Map ...............................................................................3.7-23 Exhibit 6-1: Project Alternatives–Site Boundary ...............................................................................6-31 List of Figures
Figure 1: San Joaquin Valley NOx Emissions Forecast.....................................................................3.3-24 Figure 3.8-1: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors (1990-2020)............3.8-5 Figure 3.8-2: 2020 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector................................................3.8-6 Figure 3.8-3: California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target..........................................................3.8-43 Figure 3.12-1: Visalia General Plan–Transportation Noise Sources..............................................3.12-14 Figure 3.12-2: Visalia General Plan–Stationary Noise Sources.....................................................3.12-15 Figure 3.12-3: Section 8.36.040 Exterior Noise Standards for Fixed Noise Sources.....................3.12-15 Figure 3.12-4: Section 8.36.060 Residential Interior Noise Standards.........................................3.12-16 2301

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2302
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACEP Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACM asbestos-containing material
ACP Alternative Compliance Plan
ACS American Community Survey
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFY acre-feet per year
AIA Airport Influence Area
AIC Archaeological Information Center
AICUZ Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMSL above mean seal level
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ARB California Air Resources Board
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
AST aboveground storage tank
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAU business-as-usual
BCF billion cubic feet
2303
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
x
BCF/year billion cubic feet per year
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BGS below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
BP Before Present
BTU British Thermal Unit
BVOC biogenic volatile organic compound
C2ES Center for Climate and Energy Solution
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalGEM California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Cal/OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal Water California Water Service
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CBC California Building Standards Code
CCAP Climate Change Action Plan
CCCC California Climate Change Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Census Designated Places
CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFL Compact Fluorescent Light
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
2304
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
xi
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRA Cultural Resources Assessment
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBH diameter at breast height
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
du dwelling unit
du/acre dwelling unit per acre
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
EVA Emergency Vehicle Access
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
2305
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
xii
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FRA Federal Responsibility Area
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
ETo evapotranspiration
GAMAQI Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
GMP Groundwater Management Plan
GPD gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
GPS Global Positioning System
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWh/y gigawatt-hours per year
GWP global warming potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HOV/HOT High Occupancy Vehicle/High Occupancy Toll
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRI California Historic Resources Inventory
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
KDWCD Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
kW kilowatts
kWh kilowatt-hour
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day/night average sound level
LED light-emitting diode
Leq equivalent sound level
LEV low-emission vehicle
LOS Level of Service
2306
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
xiii
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSE load-serving entities
M&I Municipal and Industrial
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MJLHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MKGSS Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSR Municipal Services Review
MTS Metropolitan Transportation System
MW megawatt
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
MXD mixed-use development
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NHM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
2307
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
xiv
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 ozone
OAL Office of Administrative Law
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHWM ordinary high water mark
ONAC Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PACE Property Assessed Clean Energy
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PEV plug-in electric vehicle
PFC perfluorocarbon
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PMx particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Recology Integrated Resource Recovery Company
RecycleSmart Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority REL Reference Exposure Level
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMP Risk Management Plan
rms root mean square
RNG renewable natural gas
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sacramento Metro AQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 2308
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
xv
SB Senate Bill
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEI Strategic Energy Innovation
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SNAP California Significant New Alternatives Policy
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOI Sphere of Influence
South Coast AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
TCM transportation control measures
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDS total dissolved solids
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Tg teragram
therms/y therms per year
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TID Tulare Irrigation District
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TMA Transportation Management Association
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOD Transit Oriented Development
2309
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
xvi
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
UAB Urban Area Boundary
UBC Uniform Building Code
UDB Urban Development Boundary
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
UPS United Parcel Service
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UV ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C volume to capacity ratio
Valley Air District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
VECC Visalia Emergency Communication Center
VERA Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements
VFD Visalia Fire Department
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VPD Visalia Police Department
VUSD Visalia Unified School District
WCP Water Conservation Plant
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WUI wildland urban interface
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
2310
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658).

This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000, et seq.).

The purpose of this Draft EIR is to inform decision-makers, representatives of affected and responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project. This Draft EIR describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and methods by which these impacts can be mitigated or avoided.

Project Summary
Project Location
The project site is generally bound by Riggin Avenue to the south, Shirk Street to the east, Kelsey Street to the west, and Modoc Ditch to the north. A private road intersects the project site from south to north. The project site consists of three existing parcels: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 077-840- 004, 077-840-005, and 077-840-006 (formerly APNs 077-840-001, 077-840-002, and 077-840-003).

The project site is within the City’s Planning Area,1 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 1 of the City, and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

Project Description
The project applicant proposes to convert existing agricultural lands and develop the approximately 284-acre project site into an industrial park, consisting of eight industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing; six flex industrial buildings; two drive-through restaurants; a convenience store; a recreational vehicle (RV) and self storage facility; gas station; and a car wash. The total building footprint is approximately 3,720,149 square feet. The project site would include sufficient amounts of trailer stalls and car parking stalls to serve the proposed uses in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project would also involve necessary infrastructure and improvements sufficient to serve the proposed uses. These would include detention basins on the east, west, and central portions of the project site and other necessary stormwater facilities to be sized and installed in accordance with all applicable requirements and standards. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the 1 Planning area refers to the land area addressed by a General Plan, including land within the city limits and land outside the city limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. This area is not all intended for development; the Urban Growth Boundary shows the future development area.
2311
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-2
site. On-site orchards would need to be removed, and that appropriate landscaping and lighting would be incorporated into the overall site design consistent with applicable City requirements and guidelines.

The proposed project would need to be annexed into the city limits, and upon annexation, would be served by the City of Visalia for purposes of water and wastewater. In addition, the other entitlements associated with this project include a Tentative Parcel Map and a Conditional Use Permit for some of the uses proposed (convenience store, drive-through lanes), some of the proposed lot sizes in the light industrial zoning, and lots without public street frontage.

Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a complete description of the proposed project.

Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the proposed project is to accomplish the orderly development of the project site as proposed, consistent with the General Plan’s industrial land use designation, which would provide economic benefits to the City, among others. As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, the objectives of the proposed project are to:
• Ensure that development of the project site is accomplished in an economically viable manner consistent with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the City’s General Plan, including the land use vision set forth therein that contemplates light industrial and industrial uses, taking into account necessary site plan considerations including efficient access and loading. • Maximize development of the existing underutilized project site and generate increased revenue and economic development for the City in order to support the City’s ongoing City operations.
• Develop a mixed-use industrial park, with light manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, and/or flex industrial uses, in the City that is designed to meet market demand and contemporary industry standards, including building size and clear height requirements, modern façades, articulated concrete panels, a natural color palette, and expansive glass entry features.
• Create employment-generating businesses in the City to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and to improve the jobs-tohousing balance. • Maximize placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system (SR-99) and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths, as feasible, on other roadways and to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses or other sensitive receptors.
• Develop innovative industrial uses providing a range of building sizes with cross dock and rear load capability that have ready access to available infrastructure, including major transportation corridors and utilities to be used as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network.
2312
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-3
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
As required under CEQA, the proposed project was analyzed for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental topic areas discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.16. The results of the analysis indicate that the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Project-level conversion of prime farmland: Although the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation and conversion of the project site to industrial use has long been envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan, the proposed project would result in the loss of agricultural land and conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses.

There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this impact. Accordingly, despite the fact that this conversion was previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR has evaluated and hereby discloses that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland identified by Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) mapping to nonagricultural use.
• Cumulative conversion of prime farmland: Much of the City’s UDB consists of Important Farmland that would be converted to nonagricultural uses with implementation of future development already envisioned by the General Plan Land Use Element. Development within Tier II and III of the UDB that would convert Prime Farmland is subject to the 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preservation elsewhere outside of the City’s UDB. Although cumulative projects occurring in Tier II and III of the UDB would be required to preserve agricultural land elsewhere, loss of Prime Farmland would still occur and the cumulative impact remains significant. The development of the proposed project would further contribute to this already significant cumulative impact, due to the loss of approximately 284 acres of Prime Farmland, which has been identified as an individual significant and unavoidable impact due to lack of feasible mitigation. Moreover, the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative effect to agricultural resources would be considered cumulatively considerable. • Project-level impact related to implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation which means the proposed industrial use was accounted for in the Air Quality Plan (AQP) land use projections. However, the proposed project could create a localized violation of State or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative nonattainment pollutant violations, and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g. However, because MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2f would not reduce construction or operational impacts below the applicable thresholds and full implementation of MM AIR-2g cannot be guaranteed due to potential technical and/or financial feasibility, the proposed project’s potentially significant impact is conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable.

Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with Criterion 1 of the AQP even after the incorporation of feasible mitigation. The impact would be significant and unavoidable. 2313
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-4
• Project-level impact related to cumulatively considerable net increase of nitrogen oxide (NOX) during construction, and reactive organic gas (ROG), NOX, and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) during operation: For purposes of a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR evaluated the potential impacts assuming that none of the three anticipated project phases overlapped (sequential), and also considered the potential impacts if the project phases did, in fact, overlap (concurrent). In the sequential phasing scenario, after the incorporation of MM AIR-2a and MM AIR-2b, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) daily emission screening levels for an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA), pursuant to District Rule 2201. However, if the three phases of construction occur concurrently, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and NOX would exceed the applicable Valley Air District’s significance thresholds even after implementation of feasible mitigation. As such, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of identified mitigation.

During operation, unmitigated emissions would exceed applicable Valley Air District thresholds of significance for CO, ROG, and NOX. Therefore, MM AIR-2c through MM AIR-2g would be required to mitigate operational emissions to below Valley Air District thresholds.

However, the full implementation of MM AIR-2c through MM AIR-2f would not reduce emissions below the applicable thresholds and MM AIR-2g cannot be guaranteed during project operation; therefore, the reasonable worst-case operational emissions would exceed the applicable Valley Air District’s significance thresholds for CO, ROG, NOX, and PM10 and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Cumulative significant air quality impact: Because the proposed project would exceed certain identified construction and operational significance thresholds, its emissions would also be cumulatively considerable.
• Project-level impact related to mobile source operational noise: Without development of the proposed project, nearly every roadway segment is estimated to experience noise increases from a minimum 0.9 A-weighted decibel (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) maximum 8.6 dBA Leq by 2028, compared to existing traffic noise levels. The addition of the proposed project’s traffic would increase noise levels up to an additional 3.7 dBA Leq upon full buildout. The proposed project would contribute to increasing traffic volumes—and therefore traffic-related noise levels—in its primary trip distribution area, which is generally bounded by the project site/Riggin Avenue to the north, State Route (SR) 99 to the west, Akers Street to the east, and SR-198 to the south. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this impact to less than significant. The proposed project’s off-site mobile source operational noise impact from traffic generation would be considered significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative noise impact: The proposed project would exceed the identified operational significance threshold, its impact would also be cumulatively considerable.

Summary of Project Alternatives
Below is a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project considered in Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
2314
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-5
No Project Alternative
Under this alternative, development of the project site would not occur, and the project site would remain in its current existing condition.

Reduced Footprint Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed in such a way as to reduce some construction and operational air quality impacts, operational noise impacts, and protect some of the on-site Prime Farmland by reducing the overall footprint of the developed areas. The eastern half of the project site, approximately 142 acres, would be preserved and would remain in agricultural production, and half of the total warehouse and industrial park land uses would be developed. The proposed associated commercial uses would be relocated to the western half of the site. The stormwater basins would be sized accordingly. It is assumed that culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch would be required, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative Location
Under this alternative, the proposed project would be constructed in the approximately 290-acre parcel west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue. This parcel is selected as it is one of the remaining parcels within Tier I of the UDB that is designated as Industrial and therefore generally suitable for the proposed development. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate a portion of the site as Light Industrial for the proposed associated flex industrial/commercial uses conditionally allowed under Light Industrial. This site would be approximately 650 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors located to the southwest.

Areas of Controversy
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), a summary section must address areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and it must also address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on August 30, 2022. The NOP describing the original concept for the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period extending from August 30, 2022, through September 28, 2022. The NOP identified the potential for significant impacts on the environment related to the following topical areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
2315
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-6
Disagreement Among Experts
This Draft EIR contains substantial evidence to support all the conclusions presented herein. It is possible that there will be disagreement among various parties regarding these conclusions, although the City of Visalia is not aware of any disputed conclusions at the time of this writing. Both the CEQA Guidelines and case law clearly provide the standards for treating disagreement among experts. Where evidence and opinions conflict on an issue concerning the environment, and the lead agency knows of these controversies in advance, the EIR must acknowledge the controversies, summarize the conflicting opinions of the experts, and include sufficient information to allow the public and decision-makers to make an informed judgment about the environmental consequences of the proposed project.

Potentially Controversial Issues
Below is a list of potentially controversial issues that may be raised during the public review and hearing process of this Draft EIR:
• Construction and operational emissions and Health Risk Assessment. • Potential impacts to the Swainson’s hawk, Crotch’s bumblebee, and the northern legless lizard.
• Tribal consultation requirements and cultural resource assessment.

It is also possible that evidence will be presented during the 45-day, statutory Draft EIR public review period that may create disagreement. Decision-makers would consider this evidence during the public hearing process.

In rendering a decision on a project where there is disagreement among experts, the decisionmakers are not obligated to select the most environmentally preferable viewpoint. Decision-makers are vested with the ability to choose whatever viewpoint is preferable and need not resolve a dispute among experts. In their proceedings, decision-makers must consider comments received concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR and address any objections raised in these comments.

However, decision-makers are not obligated to follow any directives, recommendations, or suggestions presented in comments on the Draft EIR, and can certify the Final EIR without needing to resolve disagreements among experts.

Public Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Visalia filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (PRC § 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City’s Planning Department. The address is provided below:
2316
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-7
Visalia City Hall
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
The Draft EIR is also available for review at the following website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
559.713.4636
[email protected]
Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City of Visalia on the project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision-makers for the project.

Executive Summary Matrix
Table ES-1 below summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting level of significance after mitigation for the relevant environmental issue areas evaluated for the proposed project. The table is intended to provide an overview; narrative discussions for the issue areas are included in the corresponding section of this EIR. Table ES-1 is included in the EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).
2317
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-8
Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State Scenic Highway.

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

Impact AES-3: The proposed project would not
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).

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact AES-4: The proposed project would not create a
new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a cumulative impact related to aesthetics, light,
and glare.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.2—Agriculture and Forest Resources
Impact AG-1: The proposed project would convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use.

No feasible mitigation measures available. Significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AG-2: The proposed project would not conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact AG-3: The proposed project would not conflict
with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
2318
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-9
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation (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)).

Impact AG-4: The proposed project would not result in
the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

Impact AG-5: The proposed project would not involve
other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have
significant and unavoidable impacts related to
agricultural resources.

No feasible mitigation measures are available. Significant and unavoidable with respect to the loss of Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Section 3.3—Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: The proposed project would conflict with
or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g (see Impact AIR-2). Significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AIR-2: The proposed project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

MM AIR-2a: Use of Tier IV or Tier IV Equivalent Construction Off-Road Equipment
Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed project, the project sponsors shall submit construction emissions minimization plans to the City of Visalia for review and approval. The construction emissions minimization plans shall detail compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Subject to same being commercially available, all off-road equipment utilized in connection with the subject individual development proposal shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission standards. Provided, however, if engines that comply with Tier IV Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier IV Interim) Significant and unavoidable impact.
2319
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-10
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the availability of Tier IV Interim engines taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; (ii) costs of utilizing same are commercially practicable; and (iii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment. The relevant contractor’s provision to the City letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that reasonably documents the lack of commercially available off-road equipment shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of complying with this mitigation measure. The project applicant and contractor shall consider the use of near zero-emission or electric construction equipment if that type of equipment is commercially available at the time of grading permit submittal.
(2) Post signage on the project site stating that construction equipment idling times shall not exceed five minutes.

MM AIR-2b: Super Compliant Architectural Coating During Construction Prior to issuance of a grading permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall submit to the City of Visalia Planning Division construction contracts and/or subcontracts reasonably documenting that all architectural coating material utilized in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal would not exceed 10 grams of volatile organic compound (VOC) per liter of coating.

To satisfy the above, the relevant project sponsor shall include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts for the subject individual specific development proposal a requirement that all interior and exterior architectural coatings used in project construction meet the “supercompliant” coating VOC content standard of 10 grams or less of VOC per liter of coating. The relevant project sponsor shall also specify in the subject construction contracts and/or subcontracts the requirement to use high-volume, low-pressure spray guns during coating applications to reduce coating waste.
2320
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-11
MM AIR-2c: Electric or Zero-Emission On-site Off-Road and On-Road Service Equipment
Prior to issuance of the construction grading permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to demonstrate to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment will utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. Additionally, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all proposed buildings in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal that would use on-site service equipment will be designed to include electric outlets to equipment support the use of all-electric or zero-emission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially practicable.

MM AIR-2d: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating that the subject individual specific development proposal shall incorporate infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). To satisfy the foregoing, EV charging spaces must provide electrical vehicle charging infrastructure to support future installation of EV supply equipment and shall meet the applicable design space requirements of California Green Building Standards Code Section

5.106.5.3.

In addition, the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the project applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this 2321
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-12
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

MM AIR-2e: On-Site Signage and Pavement Markings
In connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating signage and pavement marking that show on-site circulation routes have been or will be included along the relevant portions of the project site driveways and internal roadways.

MM AIR-2f: Vegetative Barrier
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating the inclusion of a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries of the project site. Prior to issuance of first occupancy permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the Visalia Planning Division the installation of the vegetative barrier at the described locations.

MM AIR-2g: Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall consult with the City of Visalia Planning Division about the feasibility of entering into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the Valley Air District.

Impact AIR-3: The proposed project would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact AIR-4: The proposed project would not result in
other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact. 2322
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-13
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to air quality.

Implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g. Significant and unavoidable impact.

Section 3.4—Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on 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 Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

MM BIO-1a: Pre-construction Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk Prior to initial ground disturbance or building permits of any project area, if during the nesting season for Swainson’s hawk (March 20 to July 20), a qualified Biologist shall conduct Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys on-site and within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site to determine whether nests are present and if so, occupied. Occupancy shall be determined through observation of all accessible areas, including from public roads or other publicly accessible observation areas of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) on and near the project site. If ground disturbance occurs outside the nesting season, no further action is required.

A qualified Biologist shall follow the survey protocol outlined in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, which recommends surveys according to the following survey periods:

1.January–March 20: Conduct one survey total.

2. March 20–April 5: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.

3.April 5–April 20: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:30 p.m. to sunset.

4.April 21–June 10: Initiating surveys are not recommended. Monitoring of known nest sites only.

5.June 10–July 30: (post-fledging) Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.

Pre-construction surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to the subject ground-disturbing activities being initiated, with the latest survey no more than 10 days prior to the start of the subject ground-disturbing A copy of the survey results shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2323
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-14
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM BIO-1b: Swainson’s Hawk Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring
If nests are located and determined to be occupied, minimization measures must be implemented by the relevant applicant in connection with a specific individual development application, and construction monitoring conducted as follows:

1. Construction activities shall be prohibited within 600 feet of an active and occupied Swainson’s hawk nest or within 600 feet of nests under construction to prevent nest abandonment unless a smaller buffer is approved pursuant to subsection (2) below. This incorporates the maximum avoidance buffer size stated in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley.

2. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the construction activity (e.g., other nearby development, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer, or no buffer at all, could be used, the project developer may seek approval from the qualified Biologist who, in coordination with the CDFW, shall determine the appropriate buffer size, which, once approved, shall govern.

3.No tree containing an active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be removed.

If (i) no nests are located or (ii) if nests are located and determined not to be occupied, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1b shall be required.

MM BIO-1c: Pre-Construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl (includes avoidance and passive relocation if found)
To determine whether burrowing owl have occupied the project site prior to its development, a qualified Biologist shall perform a pre-construction burrowing owl survey to determine burrow locations within 30 days prior to construction activities using California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Guidelines. If construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the area shall be resurveyed. Surveys for occupied burrows shall be completed within all construction areas and within 300 feet of the proposed project impact area (where possible and appropriate based on locations of barren or ruderal habitats). At least 15 2324
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-15
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation days prior to the expected start, or restart, of any project-related ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall provide a burrowing owl survey report with mapping exhibits to the CDFW. If no burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, no further action is necessary.

If burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, the following actions shall be taken to offset impacts during construction (as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Guidelines):
• During the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), no disturbance shall occur within an approximately 160-foot radius of an occupied burrow. During the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed within a 300-foot radius unless a qualified Biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods that either (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
• If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques (as outlined by the CDFW [i.e., use of one-way doors]) should be used rather than trapping. At least one or more weeks will be necessary to accomplish this and to allow the owls to acclimate to alternate burrows.
• If unpaired owls or paired owls are present in or within 300 feet of areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation (e.g., grading) and nesting is not occurring, owls are to be removed per CDFW-approved passive relocation protocols. Passive relocation requires the use of one-way exclusion doors, which must remain in place at least 48 hours prior to site disturbance to ensure owls have left the burrow prior to construction. A CDFW-approved exclusion plan would be required to implement this measure.
• If paired owls are nesting in areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation, nest(s) shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31 by a minimum 300-foot buffer or until fledging has occurred. Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated.
2325
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-16
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM BIO-1d: Pre-construction Special-status Species Wildlife Surveys and Protective Measures if Found, Including Standard Avoidance Measures for San Joaquin Kit Fox.

Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue. Copies of all reports and communication with the appropriate wildlife agencies shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

The following standardized recommendations as outlined by the USFWS for the protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox shall be implemented during project construction:

1. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20- mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Nighttime construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.

2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below. 2326
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-17
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation

3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the Biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.

5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.

6. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.

7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.

8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.

9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species.

The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain 2327
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-18
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.

10.Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions.

11.In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for guidance.

12.Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.

13.The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.

14.New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below.
2328
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-19
MM BIO-1e: Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).

1. Removal of trees shall occur in compliance with and as required by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

2. If project development requires trees to be removed during the nesting season, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted 7 days prior to tree removal to determine whether active nests are present.

3. If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on species and anticipated disturbance level. The buffer shall be 250 feet for migratory bird species and 500 feet for raptors. That nodisturbance buffer can be reduced if it is determined whether a qualified on-site monitor determines through monitoring the effects of activities on the nest that the buffer can be reduced without nest abandonment or otherwise affecting nest success.

4. The relevant applicant of the proposed development at issue shall physically mark the nest protection zone with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow caution tape. The nest protection zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the nest protection zones until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist.

5. The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest(s) periodically during construction activities to prevent any significant impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project, until the young have fledged. Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

If no active nests are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1e shall be required.

MM BIO-1f: Protection of Roosting Bats (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).

If tree removal or demolition of existing structures is proposed in connection with project development, trees and/or structures with 2329
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-20
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation features capable of supporting roosting bats shall be surveyed by a qualified Biologist for bat roosts or evidence of bat roosting (guano, urine staining and scent, dead bats) not more than 14 days before the start of ground disturbance, including vegetation removal. If active roosts are discovered, a protection zone of no less than 50 feet around the active roost shall be established by the qualified Biologist. Disturbance may occur within the buffer once active roosting ceases, as determined by the qualified Biologist.

If roosts are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats shall be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or structure is removed.

A bat Exclusion Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to implementation.

Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave, but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts shall be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance. If no active roosts are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1f shall be required.

Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

MM BIO-3: The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2330
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-21
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation If Modoc Ditch is considered jurisdictional by the regulating agencies, the relevant project developer shall, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, obtain the relevant permit applications based on coordination with the appropriate regulating agencies, if required prior to impacting any waters.

As part of these authorizations, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulating agencies to offset the loss of aquatic resources. If so, and as part of the permit application process, a qualified professional shall draft a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address implementation and monitoring requirements under the permit(s) to ensure that the subject development proposal would result in no net loss of habitat functions and values. The Plan shall contain, at a minimum, mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation location, a discussion of actions to be implemented to mitigate the impact, monitoring methods and performance criteria, extent of monitoring to be conducted, actions to be taken in the event that the mitigation is not successful, and reporting requirements. The Plan shall be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and compensatory mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an appropriate off-site location, if required. Copies of the Plan and associated report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Any material/spoils generated from project activities containing hazardous materials shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from stormwater runoff using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate and feasible. Protection measures should follow project-specific criteria as developed in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP).

Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.

Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely and in a feasible manner. In the event of any such spillage, the contaminated area shall be cleaned by the party responsible for the spillage, and any 2331
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-22
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.

Impact BIO-4: The proposed project could 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 wildlife nursery sites.

Implement MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact BIO-6: The proposed project would not conflict
with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources with mitigation incorporated.

MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f and MM BIO-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.5—Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

MM CUL-1: Archaeological Spot-Monitoring and Halt of Construction Upon Encountering Historical or Archaeological Materials Prior to any ground disturbance in connection with project development, a surface inspection of the relevant portion(s) of the project site shall be conducted by a qualified Archaeologist; a Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff from a culturally affiliated Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be permitted to observe, subject to an executed agreement between the Tribe and the relevant applicant (as noted below). The Archaeologist (and Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff, subject to an executed agreement with the relevant applicant) shall monitor the relevant portion(s) of the project site during initial ground disturbance activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2332
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-23
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation The relevant applicant shall offer, in good faith and based on commercially reasonable terms, a culturally affiliated Native American tribe identified by the NAHC the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe as well as the parties being able to reach mutually acceptable terms.

In addition, the relevant applicant shall with diligence and good faith coordinate with the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff to enter into an agreement on commercially reasonable terms wherein the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide pre- project-related activities training to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which shall include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are found.

Subject to such an executed agreement, the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide the foregoing activities prior to any ground disturbance in connection with an individual specific development proposal.

In the event that TCRs are discovered during project-related subsurface construction activities, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. In consultation with the City of Visalia and consulting tribes, the qualified Archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related subsurface construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified Archaeologist.

Impact CUL-2: The proposed project could cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
Implement MM CUL-1.

MM CUL-2: Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities for project development, the relevant developer shall ensure that all Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2333
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-24
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.
construction personnel conducting ground disturbance at the project site in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall be provided a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological resources, types of resources that may be found within the project site, and procedures to be followed in the event such resources are encountered. The training shall be conducted by an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Any Native American Monitors or representatives consulting on the proposed project shall be invited to attend and participate in the training session.

MM CUL-3: In the event that prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during construction in connection with an individual specific development proposal, all construction activities associated therewith within 100 feet of the find shall halt and the City of Visalia and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be notified by the relevant applicant. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historicperiod materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and commercially practicable. If it is determined that the construction associated with the subject individual specific development proposal could significantly damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and the relevant applicant 2334
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-25
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation shall implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Visalia. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb
human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

MM CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains during ground disturbance activities in connection with an individual specific development proposal, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 shall be followed by the relevant applicant. Specifically, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.

2. Where any of the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity, either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2335
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-26
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD.
• The identified MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
• The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the identified MLD and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Each relevant applicant in connection with its individual specific development proposal may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.

Impact CUL-4: The proposed project may 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 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).

Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact CUL-5: The proposed project may 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 Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
2336
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-27
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is 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.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project could have a
significant cumulative impact related to cultural
resources.

Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.6—Energy
Impact ENER-1: The proposed project would not result
in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact ENER-2: The proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact related to energy.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.7—Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1a: The proposed project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
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.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-1b: The proposed project could directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

MM GEO-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit for each project development, the final grading, foundation, and construction plans for the subject proposal shall incorporate all the site-specific earthwork, Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2337
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-28
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. foundation, floor slab, lateral earth pressure, and pavement design recommendations, as detailed in a Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. The final grading and construction plans for the subject individual specific development shall be reviewed by the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure. Grading operations performed in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall satisfy all applicable recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation.

During construction performed in connection with the specific development, the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor this construction to ensure the earthwork operations are properly performed in accordance with the foregoing requirements.

Impact GEO-1c: The proposed project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-1d: The proposed project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iv) Landslides.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

MM GEO-2: In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods by a registered civil engineer or certified professional. The erosion control plan shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The erosion component of the plan must at least meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If earth-disturbing activities are proposed between October 15 and April 15, these activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to minimize potential erosion-related impacts. Additional erosion control measures may be implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia.

Prior to the issuance of any permit, the project proponent shall submit detailed plans to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. The components of Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2338
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-29
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the rightof-way of designated access roads; iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion control measures.

Impact GEO-3: The proposed project could be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Implement MM GEO-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact GEO-4: The proposed project could be located
on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Implement MM GEO-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact GEO-5: The proposed project would not 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.

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

MM GEO-3: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction performed in connection with project development, the relevant project developer/contractor shall cease ground-disturbing activities within 15 feet of the find. The qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures which Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2339
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-30
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation shall be implemented by the relevant applicant. In addition, all recovered fossils should be deposited in an appropriate repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, located on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, where they will be properly curated and made accessible for future study.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a significant cumulative impact with mitigation
incorporated.

MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, and MM GEO-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.8—Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would not
generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-2: The proposed project could conflict with
any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

Implement MM AIR-2d and
MM GHG-2a: Rooftop Solar
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solarready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.

MM GHG-2b: Warehouse usage shall be limited to dry storage. If the warehouse is used for cold storage, then prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of Visalia shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the project site be plug-in capable.

Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2340
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-31
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impact: The proposed project could have a
significant cumulative impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Implement MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.9—Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project could create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project could create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment.

MM HAZ-1
(a) Any known wells on the project site shall be delineated on an engineered site plan with a minimum 10-foot
radius no build area.
(b) In the event that any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading
activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic
Energy Management (CalGEM), shall be contacted for
requirements and approval; copies of said approvals
shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Community
Development Department. CalGEM may determine that
remedial plugging operations may be required.
(c) The following note shall appear on all final maps and grading plans: “If during grading or construction, any
plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are
uncovered or damaged, CalGEM will be contacted to
inspect and approve any remediation required.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not be
located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
2341
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-32
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Impact HAZ-5: 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, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-6: The proposed would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-7: The proposed project would not expose
people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact related to hazards and
hazardous materials with mitigation incorporated.

Implement MM HAZ-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.10—Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: The proposed project would not violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Implement MM GEO-2. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact HYD-2: The proposed project would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HYD-3: The proposed project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
Implement MM GEO-2. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2342
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-33
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor off-site; 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; or
iv.impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact HYD-4: The proposed project would not be
located in a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HYD-5: The proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact related to hydrology and
water quality.

Implement MM GEO-2. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.11—Land Use and Planning
Impact LAND-1: The proposed project would not
physically divide an established community.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact LAND-2: The proposed project would not 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.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a cumulative impact related to land use and
planning.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact. 2343
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-34
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.12—Noise
Impact NOI-1: The proposed project would generate 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.

MM NOI-1:
(a) Prior to the issuance of building permit for a drive-through car wash, an in-depth acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustic professional shall be submitted for review and approval to the City Community Development Department that demonstrates that the design and operations of a proposed drive-through car wash would not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits for residential land uses. The study shall evaluate factors such as:
• The location and orientation of noise-generating equipment, such as dryer blowers and vacuums.
• The location and orientation of the drive-through car wash tunnel. • The hours of operation.
• The location of the drive-through car wash on the project site. (b) Based on the results of the acoustical study, the project applicant shall be required to incorporate, at a minimum, design features or reduction measures to reduce any identified operational noise impact to meet applicable noise performance criteria. These reduction measures shall be included on all relevant plans, specifications, and other permitting documents. Measures and design features may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Locating the car wash facility further away from sensitive receptors, therefore reducing its noise impacts at nearby residential land uses. • Orienting the facility so that the carwash exit (where the drying blowers would be located) is located facing away from nearby residential land uses.
• Providing sound blankets to hang around the edge of the carwash exit tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Locating the dryer blowers further inside the car wash tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Providing screening, such as a structure or sound wall, to shield the carwash exit where the dryer blowers would be located from nearby residential land uses.

Significant and unavoidable impact.
2344
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-35
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM NOI-2:
(a) When specific uses within the project area are proposed that could result in a noise-related conflict between an industrial or other stationary noise source and existing or future noise-sensitive receptors, an acoustical analysis shall be required by the City that quantifies the proposed use’s operational noise levels and recommends appropriate reduction measures, as necessary, to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. The analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustic professional. All recommended design features or reduction measures shall be noted on plans, specifications, and other relevant permitting documents prior to the issuance of building permits.
(b) Based on the results of the acoustical study, the project applicant shall be required to incorporate, at a minimum, design features or reduction measures to reduce any identified operational noise impact to meet applicable noise performance criteria. Reduction measures and design features may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Locating the warehouse facility further away from sensitive receptors, therefore reducing its noise impacts at nearby residential land uses.
• Orienting the facility so that the warehouse truck loading/unloading areas are located facing away from nearby residential land uses. • Providing gasket loading dock doors to help shield truck loading and unloading noise.
• Providing screening, such as a structure or sound wall, to shield truck loading and unloading areas from nearby residential land uses.

Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not result in
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact NOI-3: The proposed project would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels 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.

None required. No impact.
2345
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-36
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
significant and unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic noise impacts.

None available. Significant and unavoidable impact.

Section 3.13—Public Services
Impact PUB-1: The proposed project would not 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 fire protection and
emergency medical services.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact PUB-2: The proposed project would not 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 police protection.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact PUB-4: The proposed project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental park 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 parks or other
recreational facilities.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact PUB-5: The proposed project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
library facilities, need for new or physically altered
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact. 2346
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-37
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 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 other public facilities, such as libraries.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
result in cumulative impacts related to public services.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project could conflict
with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the
circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

MM TRANS-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall comply with the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and dedicate 28 feet for a pedestrian trail along the south side of Modoc Ditch.

MM TRANS-2: Prior to the building permits, the developer shall appropriate Storm Drainage and Waterways impact fees.

MM TRANS-3: Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue: Prior to the issuance of grading permits the proposed project shall provide site plans that show modification of the raised median to extend the existing westbound leftturn pocket by 100 feet, to provide a 400-foot left-turn pocket. The existing northbound right-turn stripe shall be extended to 300 feet. These improvements shall occur in the year 2026. The project proponent shall be financially responsible for these improvements. “Financially responsible” shall equate to implementing the project as well as paying for the project.

MM TRANS-4: Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue: The proposed project shall provide dual northbound left-turn pockets (300-foot minimum) and a 300- foot minimum southbound left-turn pocket. Since a 300-foot eastbound right-turn pocket would already be installed by the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project, additional recommendations are not proposed. These improvements shall occur in the year 2025. The project’s contribution into the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) will assist in paying for these improvements.

MM TRANS-5: Shirk Street and Ferguson Avenue: Prior to the issuance of final occupancy of any project area, the proposed project shall signalize the intersection, subject to pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carlton Acres Specific Plan project. This improvement would allow the intersection Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2347
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-38
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for the deficient scenarios, while reducing the vehicles queues for all intersection turn pockets below the storage capacity. Costs of implementing MM TRANS-5 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) and the proposed project as it provides access to both sites.

MM TRANS-6: Roeben Street and Ferguson Avenue: Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 3, the proposed project shall make a

26.2 percent fair share contribution toward signalizing this intersection.

Based on the estimated signalization and interconnect cost of $500,000, the proposed project shall contribute up to $131,000 for these future improvements.

MM TRANS-7: Akers Street and Riggin Avenue: The proposed project shall provide an additional northbound left-turn pocket and through lane and provide an additional eastbound/westbound through lane. Costs of implementing MM TRANS-7 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP), the proposed project, and others as it provides access to multiple sites under development.

MM TRANS-8: Akers Street and Ferguson Avenue: The proposed project shall provide an additional northbound/southbound through lane and right-turn pocket (150-foot minimum) and provide an eastbound right-turn pocket (150-foot minimum). Costs of implementing MM TRANS-8 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) and the proposed project as it provides access to both sites.

MM TRANS-9: Akers Street and Goshen Avenue: The proposed project shall modify the raised median to extend the existing southbound left-turn pocket to 400 feet. It is not recommended to exceed this length further in order to maintain access to the existing driveway north of the intersection.

The existing southbound right-turn stripe shall be extended to 400 feet minimum. Costs of implementing MM TRANS-9 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) and the proposed project as it provides access to both sites.

Impact TRANS-2: The proposed project could conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).

MM TRANS-10a: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the site plan shall include the location of up to six secured bicycle storage lockers near each of the buildings entrances and the future transit stop. Up to 10 Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2348
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-39
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation potential locations shall be included, for a total of up to 60 lockers throughout the site.

Lockers shall be provided for approximately 1.5 percent of the 4,178 site’s daily employees with flexibility to add future lockers based on demand.

MM TRANS-10b: Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the developer shall construct a bike path along Modoc Ditch, between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street (approximately 1-mile).

The existing Class I bike path along Modoc ditch runs to the east of the proposed project, between Dinuba Boulevard and the St. John’s River Trail.

The Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) project also proposed to construct a portion of the Class I path within the site. Therefore, the bike path shall connect to a new path proposed within the CASP site and future segments to the east and west. This mitigation is subject to contractability and approval by Cal Water.

Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project could
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

MM TRANS-11: Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the project developer shall prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to the City of Visalia for approval and implement the approved Construction Traffic Control Plan during construction. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following issues:
a. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials; b. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
c. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;
d. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project site; e. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery, transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility connections;
f. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and,
g. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the AM and PM Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2349
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-40
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation peak-hour, distributing construction traffic flow across alternative routes to access the project sites, and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

Impact TRANS-4: The proposed project could result in
inadequate emergency access.

Implement MM TRANS-11. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impact: Impacts related to transportation
would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Implement MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-11. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.15—Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1: The proposed project would not 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?
None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact UTIL-2: The proposed project would have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact UTIL-3: The proposed project would 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.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact UTIL-4: The proposed project could 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?
MM UTIL 1: Debris and waste generated shall be recycled to the extent feasible.

The provisions listed below shall apply to the project during construction activities in connection with project development.
a. An on-site Recycling Coordinator shall be designated by the project proponent/contractor to facilitate recycling.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
2350
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-41
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation b. The Recycling Coordinator shall facilitate recycling of all construction waste through coordination with contractors, local waste haulers, and/or other facilities that recycle construction/demolition wastes. c. The on-site Recycling Coordinator shall also be responsible for ensuring wastes requiring special disposal are handled according to State and County regulations that are in effect at the time of disposal. d. Contact information of the coordinator shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.
e. The project proponent/operator shall provide a storage area for recyclable materials within the fenced project area that is clearly identified for recycling. This area shall be maintained on the site during construction and operations. A site plan showing the recycling storage area shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the site.

Impact UTIL-5: The proposed project would comply with
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: Impacts related to utilities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Implement MM UTIL-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.16—Wildfire
Impact WILD-1: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ and would not substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact WILD-2: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ, and would not 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.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact WILD-3: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ and would not require the installation or maintenance of No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact. 2351
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary
ES-42
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 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.

Impact WILD-4: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ, and would not 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.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a significant cumulative impact related to wildfire.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact. 2352
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction
1-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022080658) This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC], § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000, et seq.). In accordance with Sections 21067, 15367, and 15050–15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Visalia (City) is the lead agency under whose authority this document has been prepared. As an informational document, this Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision-makers and the public regarding the proposed project.

1.1.1 - Overview
The project applicant proposes to convert existing agricultural lands and develop the approximately 284-acre project site into an industrial park, consisting of eight industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing; six flex industrial buildings; two drive-thru restaurants; a convenience store; a recreational vehicle (RV) and self storage facility; and a car wash.

The total building footprint is approximately 3,720,149 square feet. The project site would include sufficient amounts of trailer stalls and car parking stalls to serve the proposed uses in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project would also involve necessary infrastructure and improvements sufficient to serve the proposed uses. These would include detention basins on the east, west, and central portions of the project site and other necessary stormwater facilities to be sized and installed in accordance with all applicable requirements and standards. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site. On-site orchards would need to be removed, and appropriate landscaping and lighting, consistent with applicable City requirements and guidelines, would be incorporated into the overall site design.

The proposed project would need to be annexed into the City limits and, upon annexation, would be served by the City of Visalia for purposes of water and wastewater. In addition, the other entitlements associated with this project include a Tentative Parcel Map and a Conditional Use Permit for some of the uses proposed (convenience store, drive-thru lanes), some of the proposed lot sizes in the light industrial zoning, and lots without public street frontage.

Chapter 2, Project Description provides a complete description of the proposed project.

1.1.2 - Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR provides a project-level analysis of the environmental effects of the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in the EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. This document 2353
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR
1-2
addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the project. It also identifies appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts.

CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements are contained in this Draft EIR and include:
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Executive Summary
• Project Description
• Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cumulative Impacts
• Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Alternatives to the Proposed Project
• Growth-Inducing Impacts
• Effects Found not to be Significant
• Areas of Known Controversy

1.1.3 - Lead Agency Determination
The City of Visalia is designated as the lead agency for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as “. . . the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Other public agencies may use this Draft EIR in the decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.

This Draft EIR was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), an environmental consultant. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of Visalia. This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Visalia as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel is provided in Section 7 of this Draft EIR.

1.2 - Scope of the EIR
This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The City of Visalia issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project on August 30, 2022, which circulated between August 30, 2022, and September 28, 2022, for the statutory 30-day public review period. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP. The NOP is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Pursuant to Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, the NOP provided notice that the City would hold a public scoping meeting on September 13, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) at the City Hall East Conference Room and via a videoconference platform. At this meeting, attendees were 2354
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction
1-3
given an opportunity to provide comments and express concerns about the potential effects of the proposed project; however, no public comments were received during the scoping meeting.

One comment letter was received in response to the NOP during the 30-day public review period.

Two comment letters were received after the close of the 30-day public review period but were considered, nonetheless. The three letters are listed in Table 1-1 and provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letters
Agency/Organization Author Date Comment Summary
Coverage in the
Draft EIR
Public Agencies
Native American
Heritage
Commission
Cameron
Vela, Cultural
Resources
Analyst

9.8.2022 Compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52
and Senate Bill (SB) 18 regarding the
requirements of tribal consultation as
a result of an EIR and NOP. Author
provides examples of appropriate
mitigation measures if applicable. The
author provides recommendations for
cultural resource assessments and the
necessary steps to follow in order to
fully determine the existence and
significance of tribal cultural resources
on or near the project site.

Section 3.5,
Cultural
Resources and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution
Control District
Brian
Clements,
Director of
Permit
Services

9.30.2022 The commenter provides comments
related to criteria air pollutant
emissions, construction emissions,
operational emissions, recommended
using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Truck
Routing, cleanest available trucks,
reduce idling of heavy-duty trucks, use
of on-site electric road equipment,
voluntary emission reduction
agreement, health risk assessment, a
health impact discussion, ambient air
quality analysis, and cumulative air
impacts.

Section 3.3, Air
Quality, and
Section 3.8,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife
Julie Vance,
Regional
Manager

10.17.2022 The commenter provides comments
related to Swainson’s hawk (Buteo
swainsoni), the Crotch’s bumblebee
(Bombus crotchii), and the northern
legless lizard (Anniella pulchra). The
commenter recommends a qualified
Biologist conduct a habitat assessment
as part of the biological technical
study.

Section 3.4,
Biological
Resources
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2023.
2355
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR
1-4

1.2.1 - Environmental Issues Determined not to be Significant The NOP identified topical areas that were determined not to be significant. An explanation of why each area is determined not to be significant is provided in Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant. These topical areas are as follows:
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Parks and Recreation

1.2.2 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
The NOP found that the following topical areas may contain potentially significant environmental issues that will require further analysis in the Draft EIR. These sections are as follows:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

1.3 - Organization of the Draft EIR
This Draft EIR is organized into the following main sections:
• Chapter ES: Executive Summary. This chapter includes a summary of the proposed project and alternatives to be addressed in the Draft EIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and overview of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), in addition to a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation, are also included in this section. • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of this Draft EIR, its scope and components, and its review and certification process. 2356
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction
1-5
• Chapter 2: Project Description. This chapter includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, site, and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives, intended uses of the Draft EIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed for the proposed project is also provided.
• Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis. This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, methodology, significance criteria, impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topics that are addressed within Chapter 3 are as follows:

Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light, and Glare: Addresses the potential visual impacts of development intensification and the overall increase in illumination produced by the proposed project.

Section 3.2—Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Addresses the potential for conversion of Important Farmland to nonagricultural use and forest land to non-forest use.

Section 3.3—Air Quality: Addresses potential air quality impacts associated with project implementation and emissions of criteria pollutants. The section also evaluates project emissions of toxic air contaminants.

Section 3.4—Biological Resources: Addresses potential impacts on special-status habitat, vegetation, and wildlife; potential degradation or elimination of important habitat for special-status species; and impacts on listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species.

Section 3.5—Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources: Addresses potential impacts on historical resources, archaeological resources, burial sites, and tribal cultural resources.

Section 3.6—Energy: Addresses potential project impacts related to energy usage.

Section 3.7—Geology and Soils: Addresses potential impacts related to soils and assesses effects of project-related development in relation to geologic and seismic conditions. Also addresses potential impacts related to paleontological or unique geologic resources.

Section 3.8—Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Addresses potential project emissions of greenhouse gases.

Section 3.9—Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Addresses potential for presence of hazardous materials or conditions on the project site and in the project area that may have potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Section 3.10—Hydrology and Water Quality: Addresses potential impacts related to local hydrological conditions, including drainage areas and changes in flow rates, as well as the proposed project’s potential impacts to water quality, erosion, and groundwater supplies.

Section 3.11—Land Use and Planning: Addresses the potential land use impacts associated with division of an established community and consistency with relevant land use plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.

Section 3.12—Noise: Addresses potential noise impacts during construction and at project buildout from mobile and stationary sources on sensitive receptors. The section also addresses potential impact related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise. 2357
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR
1-6
Section 3.13—Public Services: Addresses potential impacts of the proposed project upon public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, recreational facilities, and library facilities in terms of the need to provide new or physical alter facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic: Addresses potential impacts related to the local and regional roadway system with respect to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Also includes a non-CEQA operational analysis for informational purposes.

Section 3.15—Utilities and Services Systems: Addresses potential impacts related to service providers, including water supply, stormwater, wastewater, solid waste, and energy (electric and natural gas) providers and telecommunications, with respect to the proposed project’s potential to require or result in the construction of new or expanded infrastructure.

Section 3-16—Wildfire: Addresses potential impacts related to wildfire including lands within State Responsibility Areas and lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. • Chapter 4: Effects Found not to be Significant. This chapter contains analysis of the topical sections not addressed in Chapter 3.
• Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations. This chapter provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts, as well as significant irreversible environmental changes.
• Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This chapter compares the impacts of the proposed project with three land-use project alternatives: the No Project Alternative, Reduced Footprint Alternative, and the Alternative Location. An environmentally superior alternative is identified. In addition, alternatives initially considered but rejected from further consideration are discussed.
• Chapter 7: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers. This chapter also contains a full list of persons and organizations that were consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR. This chapter also contains a full list of the authors who assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by name and affiliation.
• Appendices. The Draft EIR appendices include notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft EIR, as well as supporting technical materials. The following supporting materials and technical studies and analyses were prepared for the proposed project in support of preparation of this Draft EIR:

Appendix A: EIR Public Involvement (NOP, EIR Public Scoping Comments) Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Appendix C: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix D: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information Appendix E: Geology and Soils Supporting Information
Appendix F: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information Appendix G: Agricultural Resources and Forestry Supporting Information Appendix H: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix I: Transportation Supporting Information
2358
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction
1-7
Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix K: Aesthetics

1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. Information from the documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has also been described. The documents and other sources that have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to:
• 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). • CEQA 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 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. City of Visalia, 1994. • 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Visalia District. California Water Service Company, June 2021.
• City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Update. City of Visalia, March 2017.

The City of Visalia General Plan, City of Visalia General Plan EIR, City of Visalia Zoning Code, and the referenced documents and other sources used in preparation of the EIR can be viewed here:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. The above-referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR will also be available to the public for inspection at the addresses shown in Section 1.5 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b).
2359
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR
1-8

1.5 - Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (PRC § 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City’s Planning Department. The address is provided below:

Visalia City Hall
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
The Draft EIR is also available for review at the following website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp.

Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
559.713.4636
[email protected]
Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies, organizations and public at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Visalia City Council on the proposed project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered prior to the Council taking action on the proposed project. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision-makers for the proposed project. 2360
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description
2-1
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance and in compliance with the applicable criteria, standards, and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (California Public Resources Code [PRC], § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000, et seq.) (collectively, CEQA). This Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (proposed project), located in unincorporated Tulare County (County), adjacent to the City of Visalia (City). This section includes all contents required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 including a detailed project site map as well as regional map, a statement of project objectives, a description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, a list of responsible and trustee agencies, a list of approvals and permits required to implement the proposed project, and a summary of review and consultation requirements.

2.1 - Overview
Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc. (applicant) is proposing to develop a mixed-use industrial park and related improvements and infrastructure (proposed project) on an approximately 284-acre site that is currently within unincorporated Tulare County, adjacent to the northern municipal boundary of the City of Visalia, California.

2.2 - Project Location and Setting

2.2.1 - Regional Setting
The City of Visalia, located in the Central Valley, covers an area of approximately 36 square miles (Exhibit 2-1).1 The City is situated in northwestern Tulare County, north of the City of Tulare and west of the City of Farmersville. The City of Hanford, in Kings County, lies 12 miles to the west. Most of the remaining land uses surrounding the City are agricultural in nature. Major roadway networks include Highway 198, which passes east–west through the center of the City; Highway 99, which runs north– south along the western edge of the City; and Highway 63, which passes north–south through the center of the City.

2.2.2 - Local Setting
The project site is generally bound by Riggin Avenue to the south, Shirk Street to the east, Kelsey Street to the west, and Modoc Ditch to the north (Exhibit 2-2). A private road intersects the project site from south to north. The project site consists of three existing parcels: APNs 077-840-004, 077-840-005, and 077-840-006 (formerly APNs 077-840-001, 077-840-002, and 077-840-003).2 The project site is 1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30490. Accessed August 17, 2022. 2 The combined area of the three APNs is 279.73, rounded to 280; the project site area referred to in this Draft EIR is 284.58, rounded to 284, and includes the 4.72 acres of street dedication along the eastern and western project site boundaries. The difference between 279.56 (284.58 acres minus 4.72 acres of street dedication) and 279.73 can be attributed to multiple-digit rounding. 2361
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR
2-2
within the City’s Planning Area,3 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 1 of the City (Exhibit 2-3), and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

2.3 - Environmental Setting

2.3.1 - Historical and Existing Uses
Agricultural uses have existed on the project site since 1937, and several structures previously existed in the central, northern, and southeastern portions of the site to support these agricultural uses. Several of the structures in the northern and southeastern portion were demolished by 1969, and the central portion of the site was graded. The graded land in the central portion of the site was redeveloped for agricultural use by 1984. The remaining structures were demolished, and the project site was developed in its current configuration by 1984. The project site currently consists of an actively managed almond orchard, established around 2018. A pump house and small structures are adjacent to the detention basin.

2.3.2 - Site Characteristics
Currently, all orchard areas on the project site are actively managed, with sparse herbaceous understory plant cover that consists of managed ruderal non-native grasses and forbs. In addition to the orchard, there are non-native planted ornamental trees, including a double row of 35 olive trees and a cluster of two tall elm trees, and one cedar along a private road that runs south to north along the project site.

Although not rooted within the project site, a substantial portion of the canopy of a mature valley oak overlaps onto the project site on the northern boundary. The oak tree is rooted on the neighboring property, at the northern bank of Modoc Ditch. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat with potential to support birds of prey, including Swainson’s hawk.

Modoc Ditch is a man-made, actively managed irrigation canal aligned along the northern boundary of the project site. It is approximately 15 feet wide and carried approximately a foot of water at the time of the survey; water levels are expected to fluctuate based on agricultural activity. Flows of the canal are sustained by water that is pumped in through the regional irrigation infrastructure, and the flows are typically disconnected from St. John’s River to the east but can likely be connected to St.

John’s River under flooding conditions.

The project site contains a man-made and actively managed detention basin for irrigation purposes, located at the northern portion of the site. Water levels likely fluctuate depending on agriculture activities and needs. Water is actively pumped into the detention basin from Modoc Ditch. The detention basin was constructed during establishment of the almond orchard in 2018.

In addition, there are access roads that traverse the project site, which are currently dirt with small amounts of managed, non-native invasive grasses and forbs on edges. 3 Planning area refers to the land area addressed by a General Plan, including land within the city limits and land outside the city limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. This area is not all intended for development; the Urban Growth Boundary shows the future development area.
2362
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description
2-3
See Exhibit 2-4 for an aerial image depicting the on-site features discussed above, and Exhibit 2-5a and Exhibit 2-5b for site photos.

The project site is gently sloping toward the east with a ground surface elevation of approximately 300 to 305 feet above mean sea level. The entire project site is considered Prime Farmland as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Prime Farmland is land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods.4 The project site is encumbered by a Williamson Act contract.

The landowner submitted a Notice of Non-renewal application to Tulare County in July 2021, beginning a nine-year process to formally expire the contract. Based on the date of the Notice of Non-renewal, the contract would have expired on December 31, 2030. However, given the anticipated timing to commence construction of the proposed project, rather than waiting for the contract to expire automatically by operation of law pursuant to the Notice of Non-renewal, the landowner moved forward with cancellation proceedings under State law. To that end, the landowner obtained approval, subject to compliance with certain conditions, from the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County to remove 280 acres from the subject County Agricultural Preserve No. 0293 and to tentatively cancel the contract (WAC No. 2880) pursuant to Government Code Sections 51281 and 51282 on November 29, 2022 (see Tulare County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2022-1005, attached as Appendix G2). The Final Certificate of Cancellation will be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of the conditions enumerated in the Certificate of Partial Tentative Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract (recorded as Document No. 2022-0073141 on December 1, 2022) (attached as Appendix G2).”
Most of the project site is located within Zone X: 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, and the southeast corner of the site is located within Zone X: Minimal Flood Hazard.5

2.3.3 - Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
County of Tulare
The County has adopted various City Plans for all eight incorporated cities in the County to guide County land use decisions outside of city limits but within the County’s Urban Development Boundaries and Urban Area Boundaries surrounding each City. The project site is within the General Plan’s “County Adopted City Plan” for Visalia.

The project site is zoned AE-40 on the County’s Zoning Map. The AE-40 Zone is intended for intensive and extensive agricultural uses and for those uses which are a necessary and integral part of intensive and extensive agricultural operations.

Exhibit 2-6 depicts the County’s zoning designation for the project site. 4 Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Mapping Categories and Soil Taxonomy Terms. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/soil_criteria.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022. 5 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. August 18. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=8029%20W%20Riggin%20Ave%2C%20Visalia%2C%20CA%2093291#searchresul tsanchor. Accessed August 18, 2022.
2363
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR
2-4
City of Visalia
The project site has City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan) land use designations of Industrial and Light Industrial.6
The General Plan Land Use Element presents a framework to guide future land use decisions and development in the City while also enhancing community character and improving the City’s look and feel. The Light Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, distribution, research and development enterprises, and secondary office (limited customer access) uses. This designation also conditionally permits uses like convenience store and drive-through restaurants. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for this designation is 0.5. The Industrial designation allows uses such as primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities including those with outdoor facilities. It also accommodates warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services and office space. Retail uses are not permitted. The maximum FAR for this designation is 0.6.

Exhibit 2-7 depicts the City’s General Plan land use designation of the project site. Upon completion of the annexation process to the City, the project site would be zoned Industrial and Light Industrial.

The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes but as noted above, has been planned by the City for light industrial and industrial uses pursuant to the identified General Plan land use designations.

2.3.4 - Surrounding Uses: Land Use and Zoning
The area surrounding the project site has both an agricultural and industrial character. Land uses east and north of the project site (east of Shirk Street and north of Modoc Ditch) consist of agricultural uses. Land uses west of the project site (west of Kelsey Street) consist of the Amazon distribution center and United Parcel Service (UPS) distribution hub. Land uses south of the project site (south of Riggin Avenue) consist of various industrial uses, four trailer homes, and agricultural uses (including a dairy farm). The nearest sensitive receptors are the trailer homes and multi-family residences immediately south and southeast of Riggin Avenue, respectively.

2.4 - Project Objectives
Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR project description to include a description of project objectives. In addition to addressing the underlying project purpose(s), the objectives are relevant to the development of the alternatives considered in the EIR and in the preparation of findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary, in support of the decision-making action by the City.

The fundamental purpose and goal of the proposed project is to accomplish the orderly development of the project site as proposed, consistent with the General Plan’s industrial land use 6 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Land Use Element. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474. Accessed August 17, 2022. 2364
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description
2-5
designation, which would provide economic benefits to the City, among others. The applicant’s objectives of the proposed project consist of the following:

1. Ensure that development of the project site is accomplished in an economically viable manner consistent with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the City’s General Plan, including the land use vision set forth therein that contemplates light industrial and industrial uses, taking into account necessary site plan considerations, including efficient access and loading.

2. Maximize development of the existing underutilized project site and generate increased revenue and economic development for the City in order to support the City’s ongoing City operations.

3. Develop a mixed-use industrial park, with light manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, and/or flex industrial uses, in the City that is designed to meet market demand and contemporary industry standards, including building size and clear height requirements, modern façades, articulated concrete panels, natural color palette, and expansive glass entry features.

4. Create employment-generating businesses in the City to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and to improve the jobs-tohousing balance.

5. Maximize placement of industrial warehouse uses in close proximity to the State Highway system (State Route [SR] 99) and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths, as feasible, on other roadways and to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses or other sensitive receptors.

6. Develop an innovative industrial use providing a wide range of building sizes with cross dock and rear load capability that have ready access to available infrastructure, including major transportation corridors and utilities to be used as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network.

2.5 - Project Description

2.5.1 - Development Summary
The proposed project would discontinue the existing agricultural uses, demolish remaining on-site structures that serve agricultural uses, and develop a mixed-use industrial park totaling approximately 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial and flex industrial uses along with car/trailer parking areas and related on- and off-site improvements (Exhibit 2-8 and Exhibit 2-9). Parking and loading areas to serve the industrial uses would be provided around the project site pursuant to the City’s applicable parking and loading standards. The proposed project would include eight stormwater detention basins that would surround the parking/loading areas. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and three access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site. There would also be other compatible non-industrial uses, consisting of self-storage/RV parking, a convenience store, a 2365
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR
2-6
car wash, a gas station, and two drive-through restaurants. The proposed buildings would comply with the development standards for industrial districts set forth in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter

17.22, Industrial Zones, related to, but not limited to minimum lot area and width, setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR, maximum building height and landscape area.

The industrial park would involve both flex industrial and light industrial uses. Flex industrial uses would consist of small incubator space available for small manufacturing, storage, limited warehouse space, while the light industrial uses would consist of warehouse, distribution, storage, and light manufacturing. The proposed project would include the following buildings:

Table 2-1: Development Summary
Building Square Footage
Light Industrial Building No. 1 +/- 786,240 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 2 +/- 1,078,440 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 3 +/- 144,300 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 4 +/- 173,160 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 5 +/- 156,140 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 6 +/- 109,890 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 7 +/- 513,240 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 8 +/- 513,240 square feet Flex Industrial Buildings +/- 84,480 square feet
Self-Storage/Recreation Vehicle (RV)
Buildings
+/- 144,800 square feet
Convenience Store and Gas Station +/- 6,922 square feet Drive-through Restaurant No. 1 +/- 2,368 square feet
Drive-through Restaurant No. 2 +/- 2,368 square feet
Car Wash +/- 4,560 square feet
Water Quality Management Basins +/- 31.3 acres
Landscaping +/- 30.68 acres
Operation
The proposed project would have a total of approximately 4,177 employees at buildout.7 The proposed industrial and flex industrial buildings are assumed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and typically consist of both day and night shifts. The proposed RV and self-storage, car wash, drive through restaurants, and convenience store would have operation hours that adhere to any 7 Consistent with the project traffic study, the employee amount at buildout is based on the conversion of ITE trip generation for building size and employee.
2366
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description
2-7
requirements set forth in the City’s zoning ordinance and conditional use permit, and otherwise consistent with industry standard practice.

Building and Design
As shown in Exhibit 2-10a and Exhibit 2-10b, the industrial buildings would have light gray walls with white, gray, and blue accents and gray and white aluminum composite metal panels. Minimally reflective materials, such as dark bronze colored glass, would be used for the windows. Design and height of the flex industrial, car wash, drive-through restaurants, and convenience store would be consistent with applicable City design standards. The proposed project is designed to meet contemporary industry standards including modern façades, articulated concrete panels, natural color palette, and expansive glass entry features. Project design features would reduce energy usage and water usage including native plants and vegetation for landscaped areas to reduce water use, low-water-usage plumbing fixtures, clerestory windows, recycling collection and storage areas inside each building for all types of recyclables, and low-emitting finish materials. The proposed industrial buildings would have a maximum height of 45 feet. The final design would be submitted as part of the design review submittal to the City to ensure a desirable environment for its occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors through the appropriate use of materials, texture, and color, and would remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained.

Vehicle Access and Circulation
Regional access to the project site is available from SR-99 via the Betty Drive interchange. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site. An internal network of driveways and drive aisles would connect the overall project. A series of pedestrian sidewalks would be provided throughout the project site.

The applicant would dedicate easements along the east side of Kelsey Street, west side of Shirk Street, and Clancy Street to the City after construction of the road improvements to be completed as part of the project, consisting of sidewalk improvements, curb and gutter, and signing and striping (Exhibit 2-11).

Parking
Parking would be provided pursuant to applicable parking requirements of Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.34.020. Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses are required to have one parking space for each employee during shift of maximum employment, plus one parking space per vehicle used in conjunction with the use.8 Restaurants are required to have one parking space per 150 square feet of building area, and convenience stores are required to have one parking space per 500 square feet of building area. Parking for self-storage facilities is not defined in City code. It is generally accepted that parking will be provided for any on-site manager and as needed based on the project concept. Table 2-2 below summarizes the required parking calculations. 8 City of Visalia. 2022. Municipal Code Section 17.34.020 Schedule of Off-Street Parking Space Requirements. Website:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/visalia/latest/visalia_ca/0-0-0-35278. Accessed August 23, 2022. 2367
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR
2-8
Page PK-5 of the City of Visalia Engineering Design and Improvement Standards provides the requirements for the minimum number of accessible stalls required based on the total number of stalls proposed.9 For projects proposing greater than 1,001 parking stalls, the minimum number of disabled accessible parking spaces is 20 plus one for each 100 or fraction thereof over 1,000.

Therefore, the proposed project would require approximately 47 accessible parking spaces based on the proposed 3,750 total spaces. Page PK-3 of the City of Visalia Engineering Design and Improvement Standards states that one in every six accessible parking stalls shall be van accessible.

Therefore, of the 47 accessible spaces, at least eight must be van accessible.

Table 2-2: Required and Proposed Parking
Land Use
Building
Area
(SF)
(approx.)
Parking Requirements
Parking Required
(Number of Spaces)
(approx.)
Parking Proposed
(Number of Spaces)
(approx.)
Spaces/
Employees
(approx.)
Spaces/
Building Area
(approx.)
Flex
Industrial
84,480 800 – 244 269
Light
Industrial
3,474,650 1 space/
employee
during shift
of maximum
employment,
plus one
parking
space per
vehicle used
in
conjunction
with the use
– 2,316 employee parking 3,331
Self-Storage 144,800 – – – 35
C-Store 6,922 – 1 space/
500 SF
14 24
Drivethrough
Restaurants
4,736 – 1 space/
150 SF
32 74
Car Wash 4,560 – 1 space/
500 SF
9 17
Total 3,720,149 – – Standard ADA Total Standard ADA Total 2,579 36 2,616 3,750 47 3,750
Notes:

SF = square feet
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act
9 City of Visalia. 2016. Parking Standards. September. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34593. Accessed August 23, 2022. 2368
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description
2-9
Landscaping
Landscaping would be provided in accordance with the City’s Landscape Standard Specifications.10 The proposed project contains approximately 31.3 acres of water quality management basins to retain stormwater on-site. The detention basins would be planted with species including the Berkeley sedge, Canyon Prince wild rye, Hummingbird sage, and California goldenrod.

Outside of the building footprints, roads, parking lots, and stormwater basins, approximately 30.68 acres remain for landscaping within the project boundary. Trees to be used for parking area landscaping would include species with very low to medium water needs, including but not limited to coast live oak, autumn gold ginkgo, London plane tree, zelkova, Arizona cypress, and southern magnolia. Shrubs and groundcovers would feature species with low water needs, such as buffalo grass, Bermuda grass, feather reed grass, blue fescue, pink muhly grasses, and heavenly bamboo.

Lighting
Exterior lighting is designed to maximize employee safety and security while complying with applicable Visalia Municipal Code standards, the CALGreen Code, and the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, as applicable. New sources of light that would be located on-site and primarily include parking lot pole-mounted lights, and building-mounted outdoor security lighting. The lighting would be directed away from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way. Exhibit 2-12 depicts the photometric plan for the project; the proposed lighting would be confined within developed areas of the site and a small portion of Riggin Avenue.

2.5.2 - Utilities
The proposed project would require connection to various City-operated utility and infrastructure systems. These include City-provided services such as water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities.

Non-City provided infrastructure includes natural gas (to be provided by Southern California Gas Company) and electrical services (to be provided by Southern California Edison [SCE]). The proposed project would be responsible for construction of the necessary connection points to the City’s existing infrastructure. Proposed infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, and stormwater facilities are described below. The proposed project would remove or modify the existing detention basin and would potentially require two new culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch and extension of one existing culvert crossing.

Water Demand and Supply
Potable water is anticipated to be supplied to the proposed project by California Water Service (Cal Water), which is a wholesale provider to the City. Service laterals would be extended from an existing water line located within Kelsey Street. As shown in Exhibit 2-13, the proposed project would be served by a series of new 8-inch and 12-inch water lines throughout the project site.

It is estimated that the proposed project would have an average potable usage of approximately 124.1 acre-feet per year at project buildout.
11 10 City of Visalia. 2013. Landscape Standard Specifications. August 5. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15472. Accessed August 23, 2022. 11 4Creeks, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Technical Memorandum Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. September. 2369
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR
2-10
As discussed in the Cal Water Visalia District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, future water demands are expected to be comprised only of potable water use. The City of Visalia has entered into agreements with Tulare Irrigation District to supply recycled water from its wastewater treatment facilities for groundwater recharge uses. None of the recycled water supplied to Tulare Irrigation District is expected to be used to meet the future water demands of District customers.

Wastewater
Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated by the City’s Water Conservation Plant. The proposed project would install and extend all City master planned sewer lines to the extent determined by the City Engineer pursuant to the applicant’s development phasing plans and in accordance with legal nexus requirements. Service laterals would be extended from an existing sewer line located within Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. As shown in Exhibit 2-14, the proposed project would be served by a series of new 8-inch and 12-inch sewer lines throughout the project site.

Storm Drainage
The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of inlets, underground piping, and basins. Approximately 31.3 acres of water quality management basins would be installed. Runoff would drain to drainage system located throughout the project site (Exhibit 2-15). The system would be designed to meet all applicable standards and requirements including accommodating a 100-year storm event and detaining runoff and release it at a rate no greater than the pre-development condition of the project site. The proposed project would be required to retain the stormwater per the City’s drainage requirements and all other applicable standards.

2.5.3 - Phasing and Construction
For the purposes of the environmental analysis in this EIR and in accordance with the applicant’s project development goals, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in March 2024 and completed in March 2028, with operations commencing upon the completion of construction of the proposed project.
12 As described above, given its size and nature, it is reasonable to assume the proposed project would be constructed in phases over time. However, because various market, economic and other considerations would ultimately determine how construction phasing would occur in connection with individual specific development proposal(s), this Draft EIR utilizes the following assumptions based on reasonably available information for purposes of a conservative analysis. As shown in Exhibit 2-16, “Phase 1” of project construction is defined herein to consist of approximately 1,864,700 square feet of light industrial space, occurring generally in the locations shown on Exhibit 2-16. Construction of Phase 1 is assumed to begin in March 2024 and end in March 2025. “Phase 2” of project construction is defined herein to consist of approximately 830,700 square feet of light industrial space as well as the car wash, the convenience store with gasoline pumps, and 12 Because vehicle fuel use becomes more efficient through time in compliance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations, these dates support a conservative evaluation of potential impacts. If the actual dates of construction are delayed, associated effects would be reduced accordingly.
2370
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description
2-11
both drive-through, quick serve/fast food restaurants. Construction of Phase 2 is assumed to begin in September 2025 and end in September 2026.
“Phase 3” of project construction is defined herein to consist of the remaining approximately 779,270 square feet of light industrial space as well as approximately 84,480 square feet of flex industrial space and the self-storage facility. Construction of Phase 3 is assumed to begin in March 2027 and end in March 2028.

The necessary landscaped areas, parking areas, and the water quality management basins would be included in each of the three Phases, in amounts sufficient to serve each relevant Phase.

While the above-described preliminary construction schedule for the proposed project assumes that Phases 1 through 3 would be built sequentially (i.e., none of the three Phases would overlap), the potential remains for project Phases to be constructed concurrently. Therefore, for the purpose of analyzing the reasonable worst-case scenario and fully disclosing all potential impacts, this Draft EIR also evaluates impacts that could occur if there were concurrent (rather than sequential) phasing for the proposed project, as detailed more fully in Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.12 Noise, and Section 3.14 Transportation. Accordingly, impact discussions and mitigation measures related to each construction Phase would be applicable to an individual specific development proposal taking place within the development area covered by the relevant Phase.

Construction equipment to be used for the proposed project includes, but is not limited to air compressors, concrete industrial saws, cranes, excavators, forklifts, generator sets, graders, pavers, paving equipment, rollers, rubber-tired bulldozers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, and welders.

Construction hours would be in accordance with City of Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C), which prohibits operation of construction equipment between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.

Cut and Fill
The proposed project includes approximately 130,000 cubic yards of material to be cut, approximately 260,000 cubic yards of fill material, and a net import of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of new material.

2.6 - Required Actions and Approvals
The proposed project would require the certification of the EIR and the following discretionary approvals from the City:
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of Resolution Initiating Annexation Proceedings • Approval of the Site Plan
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Map
• Conditional Use Permit for the conditionally permitted uses proposed (convenience store, drive-through restaurants), some of the proposed lot sizes in the light industrial zoning, and lots without public street frontage.
2371
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR
2-12
In addition to the above discretionary approvals from the City, the proposed project would also require approvals of various ministerial permits including a parcel map, demolition permit(s), grading permit(s), building permit(s), certificate(s) of occupancy, right-of-way dedications, and encroachment permit(s).

Other Public Agencies Approval and Consultation
The proposed project would require various permits, approvals and/or entitlements from other public agencies that have jurisdiction over aspects of the proposed project. These may include, but not be limited to the following:
• Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) • Tulare County Board of Supervisors
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2372
!
·|}þ201
·|}þ137
·|}þ198
Kings County
Tulare County
Fresno County
Tulare County
·|}þ99
·|}þ63
·|}þ43
Farmersville
Exeter
Sanger
Reedley
Selma
Dinuba
Visalia Hanford
Tulare
Corcoran
Orosi
Elderwood
Auckland
Orange Cove
Traver
Sequoia
Goshen
Fowler
Exh ib it2-1
Re g iona lLoca tion Ma p
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
Source :Ce nsus2000Da ta ,The Ca lifornia Spa tia lInform a tion Lib ra ry(Ca SIL).

I

CITYOFVISALIA

SHIRK&RIGGININDUSTRIALP ROJECT

ENVIRONMENTALIMP ACTREP ORT
41150039•08/2022|2-1_Re g iona l_Loca tion.m xd
Project Site
Legend
City of Visalia
2373

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2374
Exh ibit2-2
LocalVicinity Map
Source:Bing AerialIm ag ery ;City of Visalia,March 2024.

CITYOFVISALIA

SHIR K&R IGGININDUSTR IALPR OJECT

ENVIR ONMENTALIMPACTR EPOR T
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Unincorporated Tulare County
41150039•03/2024| 2-2_Local_Vicinity .m xd
2375

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2376
Exh ibit2-3
City ofVisalia
Urban Growth Boundary
S ource:Bing AerialIm ag ery.City ofVisalia,March 2024.

CITYOFVIS ALIA

S HIRK&RIGGININDUS TRIALPROJECT

ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Unincorporated Tulare County
City of Visalia Urban Growth Boundary
Tiers
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
41150039•03/2024| 2-3_Urban_Growth _Boundary.m xd
2377

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2378
41150039•03/2024|2-4_Exisitng_Setting.m xd
Exhibit2-4
ExistingSetting
Source:BingAerialIm agery.
500 250 0 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Land Cover and Vegetation
Access Road (dirt)
Almond orchards
Irrigation Cannal
Ornamental Trees
Valley Oak Retention Pond

CIT YOFVISALIA

SHIRK&RIGGININDUST RIALPROJECT
ENVIRONMENT ALIMPACT REPORT 2379

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2380
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-5a_Site_Photos.cdr
Exhibit 2-5a
Site Photos

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Photograph 1: View from the southeast corner of the project site at Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue; facing northwest.

Photograph 2: View from southwest corner of the project site at Kelsey Street and Riggin Avenue, looking northeast.

Photograph 3: View of northeast corner of the project site and the water pump on site.

Photograph 4: View from road 89 looking south.
2381

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2382
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-5b_Site_Photos.cdr
Exhibit 2-5b
Site Photos

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Photograph 5: Bird's eye view of the northeastern portion of the project site and the adjacent oak tree.

Photograph 6: Bird's eye view of the northern portion of the project site and modoc ditch.

Photograph 7: Bird's eye view of the retention basin,
southwest of road 89 and modoc ditch.

Photograph 8: Pump house at northern boundary of project site. 2383

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2384
Exh ibit2-6
County of Tulare
Zoning De sig nation
Source :Bing Ae rialIm ag e ry .City of Visalia,March 2024.County of Tulare .

CITYOFVISALIA

SHIR K&R IGGININDUSTR IALPR OJECT

ENVIR ONMENTALIMPACTR EPOR T
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Fe e t
41150039•03/2024|2-6_Zoning .m xd
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Zoning
AE-40
AE-20
M-1
M-1 AE-20
AE-20
AE-20
2385

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2386
Exh ibit2-7
City of Visalia
GeneralPlan LandUseDesig nations
Source:Bing AerialIm ag ery.City of Visalia,March 2024.

CITYOFVISALIA

SHIR K&R IGGININDUSTR IALPR OJECT

ENVIR ONMENTALIMPACTR EPOR T
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
41150039•03/2024| 2-7_General_Plan_Land_Use.m xd
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
General Plan Land Use
Agricultural
Commercial Mixed Use
Commercial Service
Conservation
Industrial
Light Industrial
Parks/Recreation
Public/Institutional
Residential High Density
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Very Low Density
2387

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2388
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-8_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 2-8
Site Plan

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022. 2389

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2390
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-9_project_simulation.cdr
Exhibit 2-9
Project Simulation Feet
0 0 0 0 I
Site Aerial View
Cross-Dock Perspective View - SW

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022. 2391

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2392

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-10a
Industrial Building Elevation Plans
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-10a_elevation_plans.cdr
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022.

Cross-Dock Exterior Elevations
2393

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2394

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-10b
Industrial Building Elevation Plans
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-10b_elevation_plans.cdr
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022.

Rear-Load Exterior Elevations
2395

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2396
41150039•10/2022|2-11_street_dedication.m xd
Source:Bing AerialIm ag ery .4-Creeks,Septem ber2022.
350 175 0 350
I Feet
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Street Dedication Areas 9.28 acres

CITYOFVISALIA

SHIR K&R IGGININDUSTR IALPR OJECT

ENVIR ONMENTALIMPACTR EPOR T
Exh ibit2-11
StreetDedication
2397

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2398
I
41150039 • 02/2023 | 2-12_site photometric plan.cdr
Source: Ware Malcomb, 2022.

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-12
Site Photometric Plan
2399

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2400

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-13
Proposed Water Lines
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-13_water_lines
Source: 4Creeks, Inc.
2401

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2402

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-14
Proposed Sewer Lines
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-14_sewer_lines
Source: 4Creeks, Inc.
2403

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2404

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-15
Proposed Storm Drainage System
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-15_storm_drainage_system
Source: 4Creeks, Inc.
2405

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2406

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-16
Project Phasing
41150039 • 05/2023 | 2-16_project_phasing.cdr
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc. 2022.
*The necessary landscaped areas, parking areas, and the water quality management basins could be constructed with any phase as needed (e.g. Phase 1/2/3) 2407

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2408
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis
3-1
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Organization of Issue Areas
This chapter sets forth the physical and regulatory environmental setting and addresses the organization of the discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to 17 environmental resource areas. The discussions of the environmental setting describe present physical conditions, or baseline conditions, on the project site and in the vicinity. For purposes of this analysis, the baseline used for the evaluation of environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reflects the conditions present at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was published. To determine the proposed project’s individual impacts, potential impacts of the proposed project are compared against the existing baseline conditions for each environmental resource. For purposes of the cumulative analysis, the impacts of the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are analyzed to determine whether overall longterm impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant, and to determine whether the proposed project itself would cause a “cumulatively considerable” incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts.

Issues Addressed in this Draft EIR
The following environmental issues are addressed in Chapter 3:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
• Agriculture Resources and Forest Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Level of Significance
Determining the severity of project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decision-makers mitigate, as completely as is feasible, the significant impacts identified in the EIR. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decision-makers in approving a project to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR.

The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft EIR was determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed 2409
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR
3-2
using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and checklist; State, federal, and local regulatory schemes; local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions.

Format of the Environmental Analysis
Each resource area analyzed in this Draft EIR includes the subsections summarized below.

Introduction
This subsection summarizes what is discussed in the respective environmental topic section, states what informational documents are used as the basis for the section, and indicates what related comments, if any, were received during the Draft EIR public scoping period.

Environmental Setting
This subsection describes existing, baseline physical conditions of the project site and the surroundings (e.g., existing land uses, transportation conditions, noise environment) with respect to each resource topic at the time the NOP was issued. Conditions are described in sufficient detail and breadth to allow a general understanding of environmental impacts of the proposed project based on reasonably available information.

Regulatory Framework
This subsection describes relevant federal, State, regional (if applicable), and local regulatory requirements that are directly applicable to the environmental topic being analyzed.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This subsection evaluates potential for the proposed project to result in direct and indirect adverse impacts on the existing physical environment, with consideration of both short-term and long-term impacts. The analysis covers construction and operation of the proposed project. The City is utilizing Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as thresholds of significance for this project. The significance thresholds for environmental impacts are defined at the beginning of this subsection, and the discussion of the approach to the analysis explains how significance thresholds have been applied to evaluate impacts of the proposed project.

Indirect impacts are discussed only for those resources for which they have potential to occur (e.g., cultural resources, air quality, and biological resources). Both individual-level and cumulative impacts are analyzed. Individual-level impacts could result from actions related to implementation of the proposed project as compared to the existing, baseline conditions. Cumulative impacts could result from implementation of the proposed project in combination with other cumulative projects in the relevant study area. As discussed in “Cumulative Impacts,” below, the projects listed in Table 3-1, in conjunction with the proposed project, are considered the cumulative scenario for analysis of cumulative impacts.

Impacts are analyzed and the respective assessment and findings are included in this Draft EIR, applying the following levels of significance:
2410
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis
3-3
• No Impact. A conclusion of No Impact is reached if no potential exists for impacts or if the environmental resource does not occur in the project site or the relevant study area of potential impacts.
• Less than significant impact. This determination applies if the impact does not exceed the defined significance criteria or would be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing local, State, and federal laws and regulations. No mitigation is required for impacts determined to be less than significant. • Less than significant impact with mitigation. This determination applies if the proposed project would result in a significant impact, exceeding the established significance criteria, but feasible mitigation is available that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. • Significant and unavoidable impact. This determination applies if the proposed project would result in an adverse impact that exceeds the established significance criteria, and no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the residual impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Impacts are defined in terms of their context and intensity. Context is related to the uniqueness of a resource; intensity refers to severity of the impact. Where applicable, Best Management Practices (BMPs), project improvement measures (otherwise referred to as project design features), or both, are incorporated into the proposed project to limit potential for a significant impact. Where necessary, feasible mitigation measures are identified for significant impacts to limit the degree or lower the magnitude of the impact; rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; or compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. These impacts conclude with a finding of Less than significant impact with mitigation. Where no mitigation measures are necessary, relevant impacts are concluded to be Less than significant or to have No impact.

As part of the impact analysis, mitigation measures are identified, where feasible, for impacts considered significant or potentially significant consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, which states that an EIR “shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts.” CEQA requires that mitigation measures have an essential nexus and be roughly proportional to the significant impact identified in the EIR. The project sponsor may be required to implement all identified mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR, as reflected in an adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the lead agency (in this case, the City of Visalia) is responsible for overseeing the project sponsor’s implementation of mitigation measures, which occurs through the imposition of the MMRP as enforceable conditions of approval. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, mitigation measures are not required for environmental impacts that are found not to be significant.

Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type. The corresponding mitigation measures, where identified, are numbered, indented, and follow the impact statements. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topic and include an abbreviated reference to the impact section (e.g., “LAND” for Land Use and Planning). The following abbreviations are used for individual topics:
2411
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR
3-4
• Aesthetics (AES)
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources (AG)
• Air Quality (AIR)
• Biological Resources (BIO)
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (CUL) • Energy (ENER)
• Geology and Soils (GEO)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)
• Land Use and Planning (LAND)
• Noise (NOI)
• Public Services (PUB)
• Transportation (TRANS)
• Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)
• Wildfire (WILD)
Cumulative Impacts
The discussion of cumulative impacts in this subsection analyzes cumulative impacts of the proposed project, taken together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects producing related impacts. The goal of this analysis is to determine whether overall long-term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant, and to determine whether the proposed project itself would cause a “cumulatively considerable” incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts. To determine whether the overall long-term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant, the analysis generally considers the following:
• The area in which impacts of the proposed project would be experienced; • The impacts of the proposed project that are expected in the area; • Other past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable projects that have had or are expected to have impacts in the same area;
• The impacts or expected impacts of these other projects; and • The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts from each project are allowed to accumulate.
“Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable, or that compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts taking place over time (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 1508.7). This analysis will determine whether the potential exists for the proposed project, taken together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant or adverse cumulative impact. 2412
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis
3-5
The cumulative impact analysis for each individual resource topic is presented in each resource section of this chapter immediately after the description of direct project impacts and identified mitigation measures. The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is described for each type of resource. This analysis evaluates whether the impacts of the proposed project, together with the impacts of cumulative development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. This analysis would then determine whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to any significant cumulative impact is itself significant (i.e., “cumulatively considerable”). Both conditions must apply for the project’s cumulative effects to rise to the level of significance.

In addition to relevant past and present cumulative projects, Table 3-1 lists relevant cumulative projects considered for the environmental analysis and Exhibit 3-1, Cumulative Projects Map, shows the locations of the cumulative projects. The cumulative projects list includes past, present, and future projects. Future projects include pipeline projects that are considered reasonably foreseeable.

Table 3-1: Cumulative Projects
No. Project Characteristics
Project Development
Units
Square
Footage Location Status
City of Visalia
1 YS Industrial
Park Phase 2
Warehouse and
Distribution
– 354,000 Southwest Corner of
Riggin Avenue and
Clancy Street
Under
Construction
2 Sandridge
Partners, LP–
Visalia
Industrial
Industrial
Warehouse–
Interior Offices
– 100,000 Southeast Corner of
Kelsey Street and
Riggin Avenue
Under
Construction
3 Central Point
III
Warehouse and
Distribution
– 2,680,000 3807 North Plaza Drive Under
Review
4 YS Industrial
Park Phase I
Warehouse and
Distribution
– 1,112,000 Southwest Corner of
Kelsey Street and
Avenue 320
Under
Review
5 Pheasant
Ridge Unit No.
7 Phase 1
Single-family
Residential
22 – Northeast Corner of
Shirk Street and West
Ferguson Avenue
Under
Construction
6 Costco at
Carleton Acres
Commercial – 161,000 Northeast Corner of
Shirk Street and Riggin
Avenue
Under
Review
7 Carleton Acres Mix Use
Development
Specific Plan
3,368
residential
units

14.7 acres of
commercial
development
Northeast Corner of
Riggin Avenue and
Shirk Street
Under
Review
8 Shirk and Doe
Apartment
Complex
Multi-Family
Residential
200 – North Shirk Street and
West Doe Avenue
Under
Construction
2413
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR
3-6
No. Project Characteristics
Project Development
Units
Square
Footage Location Status
Sources:

City of Visalia. 2021. Site Plan Review Agenda. August 25.

City of Visalia. 2021. Site Plan Review Agenda. October 13.

City of Visalia. 2022. Site Plan Review Agenda. July 13.

City of Visalia. 2022. Site Plan Review Agenda. April 20.

City of Visalia. 2022. Site Plan Review Agenda. May 4.
2414
Ex h ibit3-1
Cum ulativeProjectsMap
S ource:Bing AerialIm ag ery.CityofVisalia,March 2024.CountyofTulare.

CITYOFVIS ALIA

S HIRK&RIGGININDUS TRIALPROJECT

ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Unincorporated Tulare County
Cumulative Projects
City of Visalia Urban Growth Boundary
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
41150039•03/2024|3-1_Cum ulativeProjectsMap.m xd
2415

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2416
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-1

3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing aesthetics, light, and glare conditions on the project site and vicinity, well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the potential impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare that could result from implementation of the proposed project, as well as identifies feasible mitigation measures that would reduce any significant impacts, if and to the extent required. The descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on-site reconnaissance, as well as review of relevant portions of the City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan) and City of Visalia Municipal Code (Municipal Code).

No comments were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period related to aesthetics, light, and glare.

3.1.2 - Environmental Setting
Visual Character
Visual character in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) context is an impartial description of defining physical features, landscape patterns, and distinctive physical qualities within a landscape. Visual character is informed by the composition of land, vegetation, water, and structures and their relationship (or dominance) to one another, and by prominent elements of form, line, color, and texture that combine to define the composition of views. Visual characterdefining resources and features within a landscape may derive from notable landforms, vegetation, land uses, building design and façade treatments, transportation facilities, overhead utility structures and lighting, historic structures or districts, or panoramic open space.

City of Visalia
The City of Visalia (City) is located on the generally flat, agricultural plain of the San Joaquin Valley, about 10 miles west of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The high mountain peaks, about 40 miles distant, create a dramatic backdrop on clear days. The City has grown concentrically around its historic core and is surrounded by productive agricultural land.

Project Site
The project site is generally flat with a gentle upward slope to the east and is currently used as an almond orchard, with associated infrastructure and an irrigation canal (Modoc Ditch) along its northern edge. The canopy of a mature valley oak overhangs the project site’s northern boundary.

The majority of the project site is currently covered with a cultivated orchard. There is also a pump house, retention basin, ditch, and water pump on the site. No other structures or residences are located within the project site. In addition to the orchard areas, there are non-native planted ornamental trees, including a double row of 35 olive trees with a cluster of two tall elm trees and one cedar along a private road that runs south to north along the project site. 2417
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-2
Scenic Resources and Views
Scenic resources typically involve prominent, unique, and identifiable natural features in the environment (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, islands, ridgelines, channels of water, and aesthetically appealing open space) and/or cultural features or resources, such as regional or architecturally distinctive buildings or structures that serve as a focal point of interest.

Views may be generally described as panoramic views of a large geographic area for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance and are identified or known for high scenic quality.

Associated vantage points provide an orientation from publicly accessible locations. Examples of distinctive views include urban skylines, valleys, mountain ranges, or large bodies of water.

City of Visalia
Visalia is surrounded by agricultural lands and natural open space. While some edges of the City are well defined by physical features like State Route (SR) 99, the St. Johns River, and the airport, development transitions into more predominantly agricultural areas.1 Noted visual vistas include views of the Sierra Nevada range to the east and agricultural lands beyond the edges of the City. The Sierra Nevada range, rising to an elevation of nearly 14,494 feet, is the most prominent topographical feature in the area. The Sierra Nevada range and its foothills stretch along the east area of Tulare County (County) and are a valuable aesthetic resource.

Valley oak trees, both individually and in groves, also provide an important scenic feature and link to the natural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. Some groves are protected as part of regional parkland, while others are on agricultural land or within the City itself. Visalia’s regular urban grid overlays the natural forms of the Kaweah Delta. While the St. Johns River plays an important role in defining the City’s edge to the northeast, smaller creeks and ditches generally have little visibility in the urbanized environment today.

Project Site
The area surrounding the project site has a mixture of agricultural, industrial, and residential uses and characteristics, including agricultural lands, residential development, and industrial warehouses (Exhibits 2-5a and 2-5b). Views from the project site include agricultural lands to the north and east and industrial/urban development to the south and west. The Sierra Nevada range is visible from the project site on clear days; Sequoia National Park and waterways such as the St. Johns River are not visible from the project site.

Light and Glare
Light is defined as nighttime illumination that stimulates sight and makes things visible; glare is defined as difficulty seeing in the presence of bright light, such as direct or reflected sunlight.

The primary sources of nighttime light in the project vicinity are from vehicle headlights traveling along Riggin Avenue, Shirk Street, and Kelsey Street, as well as other surrounding roadways. There are also intermittent streetlights along the roadways and residential development. There are also 1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. 2418
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-3
industrial buildings with outdoor security lighting in the project vicinity and some large reflective surfaces associated with buildings in the project vicinity that contribute to daytime glare.

The one agricultural structure on-site may include exterior nighttime lighting; however, such lighting is minimal. There are streetlights on the southern corners of the project site at the intersection of Riggin Avenue with Kelsey Street and Shirk Street; there are no streetlights at the northern corners of the project site. No other features on the project site produce light or glare.

3.1.3 - Regulatory Framework
State
California Scenic Highway Program
The State Legislature created the California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in 1963. The purpose of the State Scenic Highway Program is to preserve and protect the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of highway lands through special conservation treatment. The State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been officially designated. A scenic corridor is land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway and is identified using a motorist’s line of vision.

The status of a proposed State Scenic Highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated a Scenic Highway. The Corridor Protection Program seeks to encourage quality development that does not degrade scenic value of corridors. Minimum requirements for scenic corridor protection include:
• Regulation of land use and density of development
• Detailed land and site planning
• Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on billboards) • Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping • Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Building Energy Efficiency Standards The California Building Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24)—including Title 24, Part 6—includes Section 132 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which regulates lighting characteristics, such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on population figures of the 2000 Census. Areas can be designated as LZ1 (dark), LZ2 (rural), or LZ3 (urban). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter, to protect the areas from the introduction of new sources of light pollution and light trespass. 2419
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-4
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The General Plan establishes the following goals and policies related to aesthetics, light, and glare that are relevant to this analysis:

Land Use Element
Objectives
LU-O-14 Create an overall urban form centered on a vital downtown and a higher-density core, surrounded by viable residential neighborhoods with walkable, mixed-use neighborhood centers.

LU-O-15 Maintain and enhance Visalia’s physical diversity, visual qualities and small-town characteristics.

LU-O-16 Create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for current and future generations of residents.

Policies
LU-P-37 Adopt specific development standards for scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City, including special setback and landscape standards, open space and park development, and/or land use designations.

These standards will apply to the west and east entries into Visalia along Highway 198 and to the “gateway boulevards” identified in the Transportation Element:

Caldwell and Riggin Avenues; Shirk Road; and Lovers Lane.

LU-P-38 Develop a Citywide street tree and landscape master plan that enhances the City’s overall identity and lends distinct character to specific streets and districts.

LU-P-39 Improve tree planting, landscaping and site design standards to minimize the visual impact of large parking lots and buildings, to enhance and promote natural characteristics compatible with urban form, to minimize heat gain and promote energy conservation, and to improve stormwater infiltration.

Standards should establish tree spacing and size requirements, and shading requirements for parking lots and usable open space. Standards should be integrated with requirements for stormwater infiltration and the use of native, drought-tolerant plants.

LU-P-40 Where possible, through the Site Plan Review process, retain native trees as landscape elements and for shading.

LU-P-42 Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.
2420
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-5
City of Visalia Municipal Code
Chapter 12.24 Oak Tree Preservation
Articles 1–5 describe the City restrictions related to oak trees during development planning and implementation, including (see Code for more details):

Article 1 Purpose and Definitions–Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata) and “Landmark” trees Article 2 Destruction Prohibition–Removal Permit Requirements • Willful destruction of oak trees prohibited
• Oak tree removal permit required
• Removal standards
• Mitigation requirements
Article 3 Pruning Standards and Requirements–Pruning notice required Article 4 Development Proposals; Protection of Oak Trees–Encroachment into canopy dripline of oak trees during construction
Article 5 Enforcement–Enforcement proceedings and penalties Chapter 17.22 Industrial Zones: 17.22.040 Required Conditions A. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be employed which is determined by the planning commission to be injurious to persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property located in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinder, refuse, noise, vibration, illumination, glare or heavy truck traffic or to involve any hazard of fire or explosion or to emit electrical disturbances that adversely affect commercial or electronic equipment outside the boundaries of the site.

Chapter 17.02 Article 1. General Provisions: 17.02.100 Addition of Permitted/Conditional Uses The following portions of the Municipal Code are relevant to aesthetics, light, and glare for purposes of this analysis:

A. Upon application or on its own initiative, the City Planning Commission may add to the list of permitted or conditional uses, if the commission makes the following findings:

5. That the use will not create more odor, dust, dirt, smoke, noise, vibration, illumination, glare, unsightliness or be more objectionable than the uses permitted in the zone.

Chapter 17.22 Industrial Zones: 17.22.010 Purposes
A. The two types of industrial zones included in this chapter are designed to achieve the following:

8. Protect residential and commercial properties and nuisance-free nonhazardous industrial uses from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, fire, explosion, noxious fumes, radiation and other hazards and objectionable influence incidental to certain industrial uses;
2421
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-6
Chapter 17.28 Site Plan Review Permit: 17.28.010 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the site plan review permit is to assure that developments, new and remodeled buildings and structures, and improvements to land are reviewed to ensure substantial compliance with the general plan, municipal code, policies, and improvement standards of the City. (Ord. 2017- 01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7422)
Chapter 17.28 Site Plan Review Permit: 17.28.030 Application Procedure A. Information. The community development department shall make available a site plan review application form. The site plan shall be drawn to a scale that clearly indicates all dimensions and includes the following information as well as information identified in the site plan review application form:

19.Lighting, including the location and height of all exterior fixtures; Chapter 17.28 Site Plan Review Permit: 17.28.040 Issuance and re-submittal B. Within 30 working days after submission, the site plan review committee shall provide, in writing to the applicant, either to proceed with applying for necessary City permits, either with or without required revisions, or require resubmittal of the site plan review and identify required revisions. The site plan review committee shall consider each project's consistency with current City ordinances and whether it will affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. In issuing direction to proceed, the committee shall consider the following:

3. That proposed lighting is so arranged as to deflect the light away from adjoining properties and will not cause a traffic hazard;
Chapter 17.30 Development Standards: 17.30.015 Development Standards A. Site Area. The minimum parcel size varies according to the zone district in which the parcel is located. However, this title shall not preclude parcels of less than the required minimum, which exist at the time of adoption of this title, from securing site plan review permits and building permits. Parcels of less than the required minimum size may be created upon approval of an acceptable master plan by the site plan review committee.

B. Setback. The minimum building setbacks in each zone district shall be conformed to the requirements set forth in that zone district. However, the site plan review committee may grant an exception to the required standards based on the uniqueness of the property or the specific design needs of the project. The average setback and landscaping under such exception shall be equal to the required standard.

C. Landscaping. The City will review and approve all landscaping for developments approved or reviewed through the site plan review permit process in order to maintain high quality developments in Visalia. If landscaping is required as a result of request for building permit, the landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted as a part of the building plans. The minimum landscaping areas shall conform to the requirements set forth in applicable zone district development standards and also the following standards:

1. General
2422
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-7
a. All areas within a required setback to contain living ground covering or nonliving ground coverings. All plants within required setbacks to be of species suited to valley conditions, using Sunset Western Garden Book Zones 8 and 9 as a guide. The use of low water-using varieties, grouped by similar water usage is strongly recommended.

All landscape areas shall meet the requirements of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, or if applicable, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance of the City of Visalia.
b. Islands of a minimum area of 80 square feet shall be established at a maximum separation of 10 continuous parking stalls. The islands shall be landscaped with ground covers and with a minimum of one 15 gallon tree planted in each island.

Actual numbers of trees will be based on size of project as determined by the planning division.
c. All landscaping as required within section shall be reviewed by the Planning Department as to the type, density of planting and size of plants intended for use.

All landscaped areas shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. d. All landscaped areas shall be surrounded with six-inch high concrete curbing, unless waived by the site plan review committee.
e. All landscaping on public property and parks shall conform to standards adopted by the park and recreation commission.
f. Exceptions to landscaping requirements may be granted by the historic preservation advisory board for sites located within a historic district or for sites listed on the local register.

H. Lighting. No on-site lighting shall directly or indirectly illuminate adjacent properties or the public street that provides access. The lights and standard to be used shall be approved by the site plan review committee.

Chapter 17.34: Off-street Parking and Loading Facilities : 17.34.030 Standards for Off-street Parking Facilities
J. If the parking area is illuminated, lighting shall be deflected away from abutting residential sites so as to cause no annoying glare.

Chapter 17.34: Off-street Parking and Loading Facilities: 17.34.080 Standards for Off-street Loading Facilities
B. If the loading area is illuminated, lighting shall be deflected away from abutting residential sites to prevent annoying glare.

Chapter 17.48 Signs: 17.48.080 General Sign Standard

1. Light Intensity. Sign lighting must not be of an intensity or brightness that will create a nuisance for residential buildings in a direct line of sight to the sign.

4. Light Sources Adjacent to Residential Areas. Illuminated signs located adjacent to any residential area shall be controlled by a rheostat or other acceptable method to reduce glare that will create a nuisance for residential buildings in a direct line of sight to the sign.
2423
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-8
Chapter 15.08 California Building Code: 15.08.010 Adoption of the 2019 California Building Code A. That certain building code, in book form known and designated as the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, and published by The International Code Council, is adopted as the Building Code of the City, to all intents and purposes and to the same effect as if each and every section, paragraph, subparagraph, word, phrase or clause contained therein were fully set forth herein, except for those deletions, modifications, and amendments set forth below. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the chapter.

The 2019 edition of the CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council. The code is updated triennially, and the 2019 edition of the CBC was published by the California Building Standards Commission in 2019 and took effect starting January 1, 2020. The new 2022 edition of the CBC became effective January 1, 2023.

3.1.4 - Methodology
Potential project impacts with respect to aesthetics, light, and glare through site reconnaissance and review of applicable plans and policies was evaluated. A site visit and survey of the project site was conducted in August 2022 to document existing site conditions and relationships to surrounding land uses with photographs. A review of aerial photographs, topographical maps, and street maps, to identify surrounding land uses, and of project plans and elevations was made in order to evaluate potential impacts. The General Plan and Municipal Code were reviewed to determine applicable policies, requirements, development standards, and design guidelines relevant to this analysis. A photometric plan was prepared as well (see Exhibit 2-12).

This analysis provides a discussion of the impacts to aesthetic resources associated with the proposed project and its potential impact upon the project site and the vicinity. Several variables affect the degree of visibility, visual contrast, and ultimately the determination as to project impacts:
(1) scale and size of facilities, (2) viewer types and activities, (3) distance and viewing angle, and (4) influences of adjacent scenery or land uses. Key Observation Points are along Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street since these roads would be the key locations from which the viewers can see the project site. Viewer response and sensitivity vary depending on viewer attitudes and expectations. Viewer sensitivity is distinguished among project viewers in identified scenic corridors and from publicly accessible recreational areas and public vantage points. Recreational areas and scenic corridors are considered to have relatively high sensitivity. Drivers along Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street are considered to have relatively low sensitivity because these roadways are not scenic corridors and do not contain scenic resources, as described below. There are few sensitive receptors in the project vicinity as the area is generally developed with industrial and commercial operations or ongoing agriculture. Viewers from public parks, recreational trails, and/or culturally important sites have high visual sensitivities; therefore, such locations are considered sensitive viewpoints. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are not typically focused on the views and the areas do not promote enjoyment of views; therefore, viewers in these locations are assumed to have low sensitivity. There are no nearby parks or recreational trails in the project vicinity. The analysis of light and glare impacts in this section focuses on the nature and magnitude of changes in light and glare 2424
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-9
conditions of the project site and surrounding area. If light and glare conditions of the proposed project and the existing environment are similar, then the visual compatibility would be high and any resulting impacts would be less than significant. If light and glare conditions of the proposed project would strongly contrast with existing light and glare or applicable General Plan policies and guidelines and/or any applicable Municipal Code requirements, then light and glare compatibility would be low and significant impacts may result. Relevant urban design policies, requirements and guidelines are used to provide conclusions regarding the significance of individual- and cumulativelevel light and glare impacts.

3.1.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The City, as lead agency, has elected in its discretion, to utilize the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether aesthetics, light, and glare impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant.

Specifically, except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 20199, it would be a significant impact if the proposed project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, 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). Alternatively, if the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

3.1.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required.

Scenic Vistas
Impact AES-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact Analysis
Scenic vistas are areas that are considered to be a viewpoint, or identified or known for high scenic quality, either naturally occurring or man-made, that would be pleasing to the general public and as a result provide a benefit to the area. The General Plan does not expressly designate any specific scenic vistas within the City. Within the Visalia area, there are views of the Sierra Nevada range to the east and views of agricultural lands beyond the edge of the City. The City also has views of 2425
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-10
waterways, including the St. Johns River, ponds, and irrigation canals. 2 Valley oak trees, both
individually and in groves, are also identified as an important scenic feature.3 In addition, the St.

Johns River is noted as a defining feature,4 although the smaller creeks and ditches generally have little visibility in the City. Further, the City identifies SR-198, Mooney Boulevard, and Dinuba Boulevard as entry corridors to the City that provide scenic value. Within the City, these entry corridors are highly commercial, and do not have a strong streetscape character. Some corridors have been landscaped or planted with trees, providing a more scenic quality to the urban environment.

The Sierra Nevada range is approximately 18 miles east of the project site and is visible from the project site on clear days. There are also no scenic vistas of waterways, such as St. Johns River, which are visible from the project site. Also, the project site is more than 2 miles north of SR-198, more than 5 miles northwest of Mooney Boulevard, and more than 4 miles from Dinuba Boulevard.

Because of the distance from these corridors, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the views available from these entry corridors.

However, the General Plan identifies the vast agricultural lands beyond the edge of the City as one of the City’s scenic resources. The project site currently consists of cultivated agricultural lands and allows views of other agricultural lands in the vicinity. These views can be seen from the northern boundary of the project site, Shirk Street, and the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street.

Construction-Related Impacts
Project construction would include demolition, site preparation, and grading. However, while construction vehicles would be on-site, those vehicles would not be tall enough to obstruct the views of adjacent agricultural lands. Dust caused by construction would be kicked up intermittently but would not significantly obstruct these views; any minor obstruction as a result of dust would be temporary in nature and thus would not occur for extended periods of time. In addition, as described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the proposed project would be required to incorporate dust control measures as stipulated by District Rule 8021, which would help to further reduce any such impacts, which would be less than significant.

Operational-Related Impacts
With respect to potential impacts to scenic vistas that could occur as a result of project operations, while the proposed project would remove existing agricultural land, the proposed industrial use (including the buildings and related improvements) would be consistent with the long-term land use vision for the project site as reflected in the existing Industrial and Light Industrial General Plan land use designations.
5 The proposed project would involve new buildings and related facilities that would be urban in nature. Operation of the proposed project would impact views of expansive 2 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Chapter 3.13, Visual Resources. 3 Ibid. 4 City of Visalia. 2024. Visalia General Plan. Open Space and Conservation Element. 5 For example, the General Plan EIR determined that public views of panoramic vistas or significant landscape features or landforms would not be significantly altered or blocked by the buildout of the General Plan, which would include the contemplated industrial land use for the project site as envisioned by the Industrial and Light Industrial land use designations. Although some views may be obstructed in localized areas due to proposed new development, public views would not be impacted on an area-wide basis, and the General Plan determined that it, “is expected that overall, new views will compensate for any lost views.” 2426
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-11
agricultural lands on and adjacent to the project site from publicly accessible roadways. However, this type of change was envisioned by the City in the General Plan and is in keeping with the General Plan goals, objectives policies described above as well as other surrounding urbanized uses in the general vicinity.

Moreover, the proposed project would be required to incorporate new landscaping in accordance with the City’s Landscape Standard Specifications, including native plants and vegetation. On-site detention basins would be planted with species including the Berkeley sedge, Canyon Prince wild rye, hummingbird sage, and California goldenrod. Trees to be used for parking area landscaping would include native species such as coast live oak. The planting of these types of landscaping species will further soften the industrial character of the project and reduce its overall visual impact.

There is a mature valley oak, adjacent to the project site’s northern boundary, with a substantial portion of its canopy overlapping onto the project site. Oak tree species, specifically the valley oak tree (Quercus lobata), and any tree recognized by City Council resolution as a Landmark Tree are protected under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including against “Encroachment into canopy dripline of oak trees during construction.” The proposed project does not include vertical structures, soil disturbance, or access road construction at the location of the tree, and therefore the proposed project would not result in encroachment into the canopy dripline of the tree (see Exhibit

3.4-2 for on-site limits of disturbance).

Furthermore, the proposed project is bound by Riggin Avenue to the south and Shirk Street to the east, and therefore, consistent with the General Plan, the proposed project would provide street trees, plantings, and lighting in accordance with applicable requirements and standards.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Scenic Highways
Impact AES-2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
Impact Analysis
There are no Officially Designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Visalia. The 44-mile stretch of SR-198 between SR-99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as an eligible Scenic Highway. However, the proposed project is more than 2 miles from SR-198 and is not visible to travelers along this potentially eligible scenic highway. Therefore, there would be no impact in this regard.
2427
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-12
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
No impact.

Visual Character
Impact AES-3: Would the project 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)?
Impact Analysis
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21071, in relevant part, an “urbanized area” in an unincorporated area is defined as: (A) land that is either (1) completely surrounded by one or more incorporated cities (with the population of the unincorporated area and the surrounding cities equaling not less than 100,000 persons, and the population density of the unincorporated area at least equaling the population density of the surrounding cities), or (2) located within an urban growth boundary and has an existing residential population of at least 5,000 persons per square mile; and (B) the relevant Board of Supervisors has taken certain actions that reflect principles to encourage compact development.
6 While the project site is in unincorporated area partially surrounded by the City of Visalia, and is within the City’s Planning Area, 7 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 1 of the City (Exhibit 2-3), and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), it does not have an existing residential population of at least 5,000 persons or otherwise meet the criteria to be considered as an “urbanized area.” Therefore, the proposed project is not considered an urbanized area, and thus this analysis utilizes the threshold for non-urbanized areas for purposes of this impact evaluation.

The project site is located in an area that has both an agricultural and industrial character. The area surrounding the project site has agricultural, industrial, and residential characteristics, with neighboring properties to all four sides of the project site consisting of predominately agricultural lands and industrial warehouses. Public views from the project site include agricultural lands to the north and east (Exhibits 2-5a and 2-5b). The Sierra Nevada range and waterways such as the St.

Johns River are not visible from the project site.

SR-198, Mooney Boulevard, and Dinuba Boulevard are noted as entry corridors to the City that provide scenic value. Within the City, these major corridors are highly commercial and do not have a strong streetscape character. Some corridors have been landscaped or planted with trees, providing a more scenic quality to the urban environment. The General Plan Circulation Element recommends six-lane arterials that could Include Caldwell Avenue and Riggin Avenue, Shirk Street, and Lovers 6 See Public Resources Code Section 21071(b)(2)(A), (B) (“. . . (A)(i) Promotes efficient transportation systems, economic growth, affordable housing, energy efficiency, and an appropriate balance of jobs and housing. (ii) Protects the environment, open space, and agricultural areas. (B) Submitted a draft finding to the Office of Planning and Research at least 30 days prior to issuing a final finding, and allowed the office 30 days to submit comments on the draft findings to the board of supervisors.”) 7 Planning Area refers to the land area addressed by the General Plan, including land within the city limits and land outside the city limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. This area is not all intended for development; the Urban Growth Boundary shows the future development area.
2428
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-13
Lane, to be designed as “Gateway Boulevards,” and recommends streetscape improvements such as double rows of trees, enhanced plantings, and lighting elements for these Gateway Boulevards.

Construction-Related Impacts
Construction-related activities would influence the character of the project site and associated offsite project areas, as viewed from surrounding uses by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Graded surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment, and truck traffic would be visible throughout the estimated 4 years of construction. Additionally, soil would be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations throughout the proposed project site. The duration and intensity of project construction would vary with each stage. Equipment used for construction would vary day-to-day depending on the activity, but would include scrapers/earthmovers, wheeled dozers, water trucks, forklifts, wheeled loaders, and/or motor graders. As part of the project design features discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, all stationary construction equipment would be placed away or screened from nearby residential uses southeast of the site. This would reduce some impacts to visual character during construction.

Nonetheless, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the Municipal Code and standard conditions of approval, and grading plans would be required to be submitted to the Planning Department concurrently with the development plans. All grading and earth work activities would be conducted in accordance with an approved construction grading plan and grading permit issued by the City Engineer.

Operational-Related Impacts
As is evident in Exhibit 2-7, there are existing industrial uses immediately west and southwest of the project site. The proposed industrial buildings and related improvements would be consistent with the existing visual characteristics of the adjacent industrial uses in terms of height and design.

Moreover, the proposed project would provide ample landscaping in accordance with the City’s Landscape Standard Specifications. For example, outside of the building footprints, roads, parking lots, and stormwater basins, approximately 30.68 acres remain for landscaping within the project boundary. Numerous trees would be planted and maintained for parking area landscaping, including but not limited to coast live oak, autumn gold ginkgo, London plane tree, zelkova, Arizona cypress, and southern magnolia. Shrubs and groundcovers such as buffalo grass, Bermuda grass, feather reed grass, blue fescue, pink muhly grasses, and heavenly bamboo would also be planted pursuant to applicable requirements and standards. The addition of landscaping with native plants such as coast live oak would help to further ensure the visual character and quality of public views of the project site and vicinity would not be substantially degraded. Additionally, the project is sited to screen the view of the loading and parking areas from adjacent properties to ensure a cohesive aesthetic view from the ground and adjacent buildings (Exhibit 2-9).

Furthermore, as shown in the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project and included in Appendix K, the proposed project would include landscaping, such as trees and shrubs, and appropriate setbacks to screen the view of the proposed buildings and parking areas from adjacent properties and reduce impacts related to aesthetics. The visual simulation from Key Observation Point (KOP) 1, shows a viewpoint from West Riggin Avenue near the southwestern corner of the project site. From this viewpoint, the proposed buildings would only be slightly visible because they 2429
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-14
would be screened by trees, shrubs, and other existing development. The visual simulation from KOP 2 shows a viewpoint from West Riggin Avenue near the southeastern corner of the project site. The view from this point would be changed from agricultural fields to buildings and parking areas screened by trees. Additionally, the intersection at West Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street would be improved, including crosswalks and a signalized intersection. Overall, the proposed project would be mostly obscured from public view from West Riggin Avenue due to additional landscaping, creating a cohesive aesthetic view from the ground.

Consistent with the development envisioned in the General Plan, the proposed project is in an increasingly urbanized area that is currently planned for further urbanization, as reflected in the project site’s existing Industrial and Light Industrial General Plan land use designations. The Light Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, distribution, research and development enterprises, and secondary office (limited customer access) uses. This designation also conditionally permits uses like convenience store and drive-thru restaurants. The Industrial designation allows uses such as primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities including those with outdoor facilities. It also accommodates warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services and office space. Proposed improvements would be required to be constructed in accordance with applicable City development standards, including, among others, those relating to height, floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, setbacks, undergrounding of utilities, loading/parking requirements, and landscaping.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would not 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).

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Light and Glare
Impact AES-4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis
Since the project site is currently in agricultural operation, there are minimal sources of light and glare being generated. Existing sources of light and glare on the project site include minimal exterior lighting on the project site, lighting from adjacent industrial buildings that spill onto the project site, and streetlights at the intersection of Riggin Avenue with Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, as well as vehicles traveling along adjacent roadways.
2430
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-15
Construction
The proposed construction activities would occur during daylight hours given the applicable restrictions for construction hours. Construction hours would be in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C), which prohibits construction equipment from operating between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. There would be increased truck traffic and the transport of construction materials and equipment to the project site, which would temporarily increase light and glare conditions during construction.

However, any such increase in light and glare would be minimal and temporary in nature. In addition, as part of the project design features discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, all stationary construction equipment would be placed away or screened from nearby residential uses southeast of the site. This would reduce some of the light and glare generated from stationary construction equipment. Construction would not occur at night, in the event that some nighttime lighting is needed for security purposes, security lighting would comply with Section 17.30.015.H of the Zoning Ordinance that prohibits on-site lighting from directly or indirectly illuminating adjacent properties or public right-of-way. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Proposed improvements include approximately 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial uses, flex industrial uses, self-storage/RV parking, a convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants, as well as driveways and parking lots and related on- and off-site improvements and infrastructure. These new uses would include sources of light and glare similar to those in the surrounding industrial areas, including street lighting, illuminated signage, building-mounted lighting, and freestanding exterior lighting. Many of these uses would be illuminated during the nighttime and early morning hours for safety and security purposes.

The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable development standards, which are designed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. For example, the light fixtures used for the proposed project would be required to be consistent with applicable provisions of the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to meet all applicable safety standards pursuant to the CBC. For purposes of the nighttime lighting that would be necessary to provide and maintain a safe, secure, and attractive environment, the proposed project would be required to incorporate down casting light fixtures to reduce the amount of spillover, in accordance with applicable City standards. Exhibit 2-12 presents the project photometric plan; as shown, proposed lighting would be confined within developed areas of the project site and a small portion of Riggin Avenue and would not result in light trespass to adjacent properties.

Sources of daytime glare typically include direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other reflective surfaces. The proposed buildings would be constructed primarily with non-reflective materials (such as concrete). Although the proposed industrial buildings would contain some glass elements, the glass areas are broken up by aluminum and concrete panels and would not contribute to a substantial amount of glare. This glare would be 2431
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-16
partially obscured by landscaping, depending on the time of day and the location of the reflecting light source.

Therefore, impacts resulting from lighting and glare would be minimized through compliance with all applicable development standards and requirement, which would be confirmed during the site plan review process for each individual specific development proposal for the proposed project to ensure the proposed lighting is so arranged as to deflect the light away from adjoining properties, not cause a significant traffic hazard, or otherwise create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

3.1.7 - Cumulative Impacts
Visual Character and Views
For purposes of evaluating the proposed project’s cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources such as scenic vistas, visual character and views, the relevant geographic scope of review is the land within the immediate vicinity surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the proposed project and therefore, the area most likely to experience changes in visual character or impacts to views. The cumulative setting includes relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, including existing agricultural and industrial uses located in the above-referenced geographic scope. There are several cumulative projects located near the project site, including those shown in Exhibit 3-1. Because of distance and intervening development, Cumulative Project 8 and Cumulative Project 3 are not within view of the project site; all other projects (Cumulative Projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) are within view of the project site.

As described above, the project site and vicinity have long been planned for urban development, and already reflect an area transitioning from agricultural to more urbanized uses, including primarily industrial uses similar to the proposed project. Moreover, cumulative development would be subject to applicable City General Plan and Municipal Code provisions, development standards and design policies and guidelines including, among others, those related to building heights, setbacks, undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, signage, and permitted and conditionally land uses as described above, which would serve to further reduce impacts to aesthetic resources. Because the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would be consistent with the types of projects envisioned in the General Plan and reflect the increasingly urbanized nature of this area, and would adhere to all applicable regulations and policies, the cumulative impact of these projects is less than significant.

Furthermore, as shown in the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K), the proposed project would include landscaping, such as trees and shrubs, and appropriate setbacks to 2432
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-17
screen the view of the proposed buildings and parking areas from adjacent properties and reduce impacts related to aesthetics. Overall, the proposed project would be mostly obscured from public view from West Riggen Avenue due to additional landscaping, creating a cohesive aesthetic view from the ground. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to aesthetics.

As described above, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to scenic highways.

With respect to impacts to scenic vistas, views, and visual character, the proposed project would be consistent with long-planned urbanizing vision for this area, would be compatible with existing, nearby industrial projects, would incorporate high-quality building and site design features as well as ample landscaping, and would otherwise ensure there would not be significant impacts. Based on the foregoing reasons, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact with respect to scenic vistas, visual character, and views.

Light and Glare
For the purpose of evaluating the cumulative impacts on light and glare, the relevant geographic scope of review is the land within the immediate vicinity surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the proposed project and therefore, the area most likely to experience changes in light and glare. The cumulative setting includes relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, including existing agricultural and industrial uses located in the abovereferenced geographic scope. Cumulative Projects 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are located adjacent to the project site, as shown in Exhibit 3-1. Existing and new buildings associated with the cumulative projects would result in an increase in light and glare impacts on surrounding uses, particularly for those areas that have not yet urbanized, which would result due to on-site improvements as well as mobile sources. However, the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to the above-described applicable development standards and design guidelines provided in the General Plan and Municipal Code intended to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting; moreover, the City would confirm consistency with these requirements as part of the site plan review process, as outlined in Section

17.28.040 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact to light and glare.

As discussed above, the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare on the project site and vicinity. For example, it would include sources of daytime glare such as direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other reflective surfaces.

Nighttime illumination would include stationary sources such as structure lighting and decorative landscaping, lighted signs, solar panels, and streetlights. Mobile nighttime sources would primarily be from headlights from motor vehicles. However, for the reasons described above, the proposed project, similar to cumulative projects, would be required to adhere to all applicable requirements and standards provided in the General Plan and Municipal Code intended to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting, and would not result in significant impacts with respect to light and glare. As such, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact with respect to light and glare.
2433
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-18
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Cumulative Significance
Less than significant impact.
2434
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-1

3.2 - Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2.1 - Introduction
This section describes existing agricultural resources on the project site and its surrounding area and potential environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. Descriptions and analyses in this section are based, in part, on information contained in the City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan), the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the project site (Appendix G), and California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps. No public comments were received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources.

3.2.2 - Environmental Setting
Project Site
Farmland Classifications
The City’s Planning Area comprises approximately 66,640 acres, consisting of all of the land within the City as well as neighboring unincorporated land, including the community of Goshen.1 According to the General Plan, farmland comprises approximately 44,374 acres, approximately 67 percent of its Planning Area. Land within the city limits contains approximately 33,991 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 7,353 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, approximately 181 acres of Unique Farmland, and approximately 1,630 acres of Farmland of Local Importance.2 Additionally,
approximately 1,218 acres of the Planning Area is Other Land used for Confined Animal Agriculture.

As shown in Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-3, the project site is located within Tier 1 of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB).

Within the State of California, there are approximately 24.5 million acres of farmland as classified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
3 According to the most recent California
Farmland Conversion Report, irrigated farmland in the State of California decreased by 11,165 net acres between 2014 and 2016. The highest quality farmland, known as Prime Farmland, decreased by 18,312 net acres, coupled with a Farmland of Statewide Importance decrease of 26,557 net acres.

Partially offsetting these losses was the addition of 33,704 net acres of irrigated crops on lesser quality soils, mapped as Unique Farmland. Additionally, during the 16 biennial reporting cycles since FMMP was established, nearly 1.5 million acres of agricultural land in California were converted to nonagricultural purposes.4

1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Introduction. October. 2 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element, Table 6-1: Farmland Classification in the Study Area.

October. 3
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017. 2017 Census Volume 1, Chapter 1:

State Level Data: California, Table 1: Historical Highlights: 2017 and Earlier Census Years. Website:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/California/st06_1_0001_ 0001.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2023. 4
California Department of Conservation. 2023. 2014-2026 Farmland Conversion Report. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014-2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx. Accessed May 4, 2023. 2435
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-2
As of 2016, there was a total of 858,119 acres of Important Farmland5 in Tulare County, including 366,136 acres of Prime Farmland; 322,355 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance; 11,691 acres of Unique Farmland; and 157,937 acres of Farmland of Local Importance. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a net loss of 1,052 acres of Important Farmland within Tulare County. A total of 11,495 acres of Important Farmland in Tulare County was converted to another use between 2014 and 2016.6
Soils
The City’s Planning Area is in a basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada foothills and mountains to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west and is filled with deep layers of sediment from the Sierra Nevada. The St. Johns River flows through the northeastern portion of the Planning Area, along with smaller streams and canals; these form alluvial fans.7
The Planning Area is basically flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 330 feet above sea level.

Surface soils exhibit various characteristics dependent on location, slope, parent rock, climate, and drainage. The most prevalent soils in the Planning Area are Nord fine sandy loam (19,200 acres); Grangeville sandy loam, drained (15,700 acres); Tagus loam (12,500 acres); and Akers-Akers, salinesodic, complex (8,100 acres). These are generally very deep, well-drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources, with slopes of 0 to 2 percent.

The project site soils consist of Akers-Akers, saline-sodic complex (0-2% slope) and Grangeville sandy loam (0-2% slope).

Williamson Act Contract
In 2010, 511 parcels totaling 25,724 acres were under Williamson Act Contracts. Of these, 65 parcels totaling 2,417 acres were in nonrenewal, meaning that the contracts will not be renewed when they expire at the end of their 10-year period.

Timber Land and Forest Land
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 4526, timberland is defined as “ . . . land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees . . . .” Timberland zoned as Timberland Production, as defined by California Government Code Section 51104(g) is an area “ . . . devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses . . . .” As mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), there are no private timberlands or public lands with forests within the City’s Planning Area.8 5 “Important Farmland” includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. 6 California Department of Conservation. 2014-2026 Farmland Conversion Report, Appendix A – County Conversion Tables. 7 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element. October. 8 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Forests and Timberlands. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109917&inline. Accessed October 12, 2022. 2436
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-3
Agricultural Economy
According to the General Plan, the primary drivers of the region’s economy are agriculture and food processing; manufacturing; warehousing and distribution; government; and to a smaller extent, health care and professional services.9 Within the City’s Planning Area, farmland is the most prominent land use, covering 44,374 acres. Over 90 percent of the agricultural lands are outside of the city limits, with 2,800 acres located within the City’s incorporated area.10 Soils
A full discussion of soil types and characteristics can be found in Section 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity.

3.2.3 - Existing Conditions
Project Site
Farmland Classifications
According to the FMMP, almost all of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland except for a small, approximately 0.31-acre portion, which is designated in the Other Land category of Confined Animal Agriculture (Exhibit 3.2-1).11
As shown in Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-3, the project site is located within Tier 1 and does not contain any lands identified as Tier II or Tier III. General Plan Policy LU-P-34 identifies specific requirements for properties located in Tiers II and III but specifically exempts lands located in Tier I from these requirements.

Soils
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the project site is underlain by silty sand, sandy silt, and alluvium/alluvial fan deposits at depths below 2 feet.
12 A full discussion of soil types and
characteristics can be found in Section 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity.

Williamson Act Contract
According to the FMMP, the project site is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The site owner filed a cancellation petition with Tulare County. A partial Nonrenewal of the Williamson Act Contract was (WAC No. 2880) approved by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors on May 3, 2022, as Resolution No., 2022-0677. Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract was approved by the Board of Supervisors per Resolution No. 2022-1005 on November 29, 2022 (see Tulare County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2022-1005, attached as Appendix G2). Accordingly, the final cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract will be executed and recorded upon payment of cancellation fees and satisfaction of the other identified conditions.
9 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Land Use Element. October. 10 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element, Table 6-1: Farmland Classification in the Study Area.