Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2642
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-11
May 22, 2014. The First Update builds upon the Initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations.18
Senate Bill 32 and the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update The Governor signed SB 32 in September 2016, giving the ARB the statutory responsibility to include the 2030 target previously contained in Executive Order B-30-15 in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. SB 32 states: “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the State [air resources] board shall ensure that Statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017. The major elements of the framework proposed to achieve the 2030 target are as follows:
• SB 350
- Achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030. - Doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard
- Increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).
• Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) - Maintaining existing GHG standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles. - Put 4.2 million ZEVs on the roads.
- Increase ZEV buses, delivery and other trucks.
• Sustainable Freight Action Plan
- Improve freight system efficiency.
- Maximize use of near-zero-emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy. - Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030. • Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
- Reduce emissions of methane and HFCs 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. - Reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. • SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
- Increased stringency of 2035 targets.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
- Declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada. - The ARB will look for opportunities to strengthen the program to support more air quality co-benefits, including specific program design elements. In fall 2016, ARB staff described potential future amendments including reducing the offset usage limit, redesigning the allocation strategy to reduce free allocation to support increased technology and energy investment at covered entities and reducing allocation if the covered entity increases criteria or toxics emissions over some baseline.
18 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2643
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-12
• 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector. • By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
2022 Scoping Plan
The most recent version of the ARB’s Scoping Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), addresses the SB 32 targets and was adopted on December 15, 2022.
It provides a detailed sector-by-sector guide to address climate change by cutting GHG emissions by 85 percent and achieving carbon neutrality in 2045, with the main focus of emission reductions efforts being the transportation and energy sectors.
The elements of the framework set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan proposed to achieve the emission reduction targets are as follows:
• Transportation
- Achieve 100 percent ZEV sales of light-duty vehicles by 2035 and medium heavy-duty vehicles by 2040.
- Achieve a 20 percent zero-emission target for the aviation sector. - Prioritize and increase funding for clean transportation equity programs. - Accelerate the reduction and replacement of fossil fuel production and consumption in California.
- Increase the stringency and scope of the LCFS.
- Achieve a per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below by 2045.
• Clean Electricity Grid
- Per SB 350, double Statewide energy efficiency savings by 2030. - Use long-term planning processes to support grid reliability and expansion of renewable and zero-carbon development.
- Per SB 100 and 1020, achieve 90 percent, 95 percent, and 100 percent renewable and zerocarbon retail sales by 2035, 2040, and 2045, respectively. • Sustainable Manufacturing and Buildings
- Maximize air quality benefits using the best available control technologies for stationary sources in communities most in need.
- Implement SB 905.
- Develop a net-zero cement strategy to meet SB 956 targets for the GHG intensity of cement use.
- Leverage energy efficiency and low carbon hydrogen programs. - Prioritize most vulnerable residents with the majority of funds in the new $922 million Equitable Building Decarbonization program.
- Achieve three million all-electric and electric-ready homes by 2030 and seven million by 2035 with six million heat pumps installed by 2030.
- Adopt a zero-emission standard for new space and water heaters sold in California beginning in 2030.
2644
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-13
- Implement biomethane procurement targets for investor-owned utilities as specified in SB 1440.
• Carbon Dioxide Removal and Capture
- Implement SB 905.
- Achieve the 85 percent reduction in anthropogenic sources below 1990 levels per AB 1279 by incorporating Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) into sectors and programs beyond transportation.
- Evaluate and propose the role for CCS in cement decarbonization and as part of hydrogen peroxide pathways.
- Explore carbon capture application for zero-carbon power for reliability needs per SB 100. • Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (Non-Combustion Gases) - Install anaerobic digesters to maximize air and water quality protection, maximize biomethane capture, and direct biomethane to specific sectors. - Increase alternative manure management projects.
- Expand markets for products made from organic waste.
- Pursuant to SB 1137, develop leak detection and repair plans for facilities in health protection zones, implement emission detection system standards, and provide public access to emissions data.
- Convert large HFC emitters to the lowest practical global warming potential (GWP) technologies.
• Natural and Working Lands
- Implement AB 1757 and SB 27.
- Implement the Climate Smart Strategy.
- Accelerate the pace and scale of climate smart forest management to at least 2.3 million acres annually by 2025.
- Accelerate the pace and scale of healthy soils practices to 80,000 acres annually by 2025, conserve at least 8,000 acres of annual crops annually, and increase organic agriculture to 20 percent of all cultivated acres by 2045.
- Restore 60,000 acres of Delta wetlands annually by 2045. - Increase urban forestry investment annually by 200 percent, relative to BAU.
Senate Bill 375—the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 does the following:
1. Requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions,
2. Aligns planning for transportation and housing, and
3. Creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. 2645
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-14
Senate Bill 1368—Emission Performance Standards
In 2006, the State Legislature adopted SB 1368, which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.
Senate Bill 1078—Renewable Electricity Standards
On September 12, 2002, Former Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established an RPS target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Former Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21-09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. The ARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.
Senate Bill 350—Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The State Legislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies toward a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.
Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce Statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. • Reorganize the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.19 SBX 7-7—The Water Conservation Act of 2009
The legislation directs urban retail water suppliers to set individual 2020 per capita water use targets and begin implementing conservation measures to achieve those goals. Meeting this Statewide goal of 20 percent decrease in demand has resulted in a reduction of almost 2 million acre-feet in urban water use.
19 California Legislative Information (California Leginfo). 2015. Senate Bill 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2646
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-15
Senate Bill 100—The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 The legislation directs the CPUC, CEC, and the ARB to plan for 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045. This Act amends Sections 399.11, 399.15, and 399.30 of, and adds Section 454.53 to, the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy.
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of Executive Orders, which state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch have the effect of law.
Although not legislation, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of State agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target.
Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard
The Governor signed Executive Order S 01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a Statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the Executive Order established a LCFS and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the CEC, ARB, University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “lifecycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. The ARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.
Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy20 was adopted, which is the “. . . first Statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.”. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. 20 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Website: https://cawaterlibrary.net/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2647
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-16
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Former Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an Executive Order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s Executive Order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The Executive Order sets a new interim Statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of metric ton (MT) CO2e.
California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth and are viewed as some of the most stringent requirements in the nation.
California Code of Regulations Title 13: Motor Vehicles California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.21 This measure seeks to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other air contaminants by establishing idling restrictions, emission standards, and other requirements for heavy-duty diesel engines and alternative idle reduction technologies to limit the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. Any person that owns, operates, or causes to operate any diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle must not allow a vehicle to idle for more than 5 consecutive minutes at any location, or operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted area.
California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449: General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets. This measure regulates NOX, DPM, and other criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. This measure also requires each fleet to meet fleet average requirements or demonstrate that it has met “best available control technology” requirements. Additionally, this measure requires medium and large fleets to have a written idling policy that is made available to operators of the vehicles informing them that idling is limited to 5 consecutive minutes or less.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608:
Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for 21 Thomas Reuters Westlaw. 2020. California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Website:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I6DACC2EF0D6441DDA5B788DFEDCD1A22?viewType=FullText&originationContext=d ocumenttoc&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed June 1, 2023. 2648
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-17
sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the State and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The newest version of Title 24 (2022 Tile 24) adopted by the CEC went into effect on January 1, 2023.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 11 code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011. The code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards Code (CALGreen) that became effective January 1, 2023.22 Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. The State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) was required by AB 1881 Water Conservation Act. The bill required local agencies to adopt a local landscape ordinance at least as effective in conserving water as the MWELO by January 1, 2010. Reductions in water use of 20 percent consistent with (SBX-7-7) 2020 mandate are expected for the MWELO. New development projects that include landscaped areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the MWELO. The update requires:
• More efficient irrigation systems;
• Incentives for graywater usage;
• Improvements in on-site stormwater capture;
• Limiting the portion of landscapes that can be planted with high water use plants; and • Reporting requirements for local agencies.
Senate Bill 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Revisions
Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall 22 State of California. 2022. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Website: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
2649
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-18
certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).”
Section 21097 was also added to the Public Resources Code, which provided an exemption until January 1, 2010 for transportation projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 or projects funded by the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, in stating that the failure to analyze adequately the effects of GHGs would not violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Natural Resources Agency completed the approval process, and the Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
The 2010 CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change.
California Supreme Court GHG Ruling
In a November 30, 2015 ruling, the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife invalidated the EIR for the Newhall Ranch project due to insufficient evidence in the administrative record supporting that project’s GHG analysis, among other reasons. The Court endorsed the use of AB 32’s Statewide emission reduction goals as a legally permissible significance threshold for analyzing a project’s GHG impacts under CEQA. However, comparisons to the AB 32 Scoping Plan must be supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence.
In other words, the Court approved the methodology used in the EIR’s analysis in terms of reductions from projected BAU emissions consistent with AB 32’s Statewide reductions mandate (rather than against some absolute numeric limit above the project site’s baseline emissions), but the Court held the GHG analysis lacked supporting substantial evidence and a cogent explanation correlating the project-specific reductions to AB 32’s mandated Statewide reductions so as to demonstrate consistency with the latter’s goals under the approved methodology. The Court made the following key points with respect to its holding on the GHG analysis under CEQA, as summarized below: Specifically, the Court held that:
• Substantiation of Project Reductions from BAU. A lead agency may use a BAU comparison based on the Scoping Plan’s methodology so long as it also substantiates the reduction a particular project must achieve to comply with Statewide goals (page 25). In so doing, the lead agency needs to ensure the administrative record establishes a “firm ground for the efficiency comparison” by documenting with substantial evidence in the record the EIR’s conclusion that the individual project’s percent emissions savings over BAU satisfies the EIR’s significance criterion of consistency with the Scoping Plan’s 29 percent Statewide savings by 2020. In so doing, this alleviates the analytical gap by establishing, through substantial evidence and reasoned explanation, a quantitative equivalence between the Scoping Plan’s Statewide comparison and the EIR’s individual project-level comparison. 2650
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-19
• Compliance with Regulatory Programs or Performance Based Standards. A lead agency “might assess consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities” (page 26). • Compliance with GHG Reduction Plans or Climate Action Plans. A lead agency may utilize “geographically specific GHG emission reduction plans” such as Climate Action Plans (CAPs) or GHG emission reduction plans to provide a basis for the tiering or streamlining of project-level CEQA analysis (page 26).
• Compliance with Local Air District Thresholds. A lead agency may rely on “existing numerical thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions” adopted by, for example, local air districts (page 27).
Regional
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Climate Change Action Plan On August 21, 2008, the Valley Air District Board approved a proposal called the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP began with a public process bringing together land use agencies, environmental groups, business groups, and other stakeholders to conduct public workshops to develop comprehensive policies for CEQA Guidelines to be used in the Air Basin, a carbon exchange bank, and voluntary GHG emissions mitigation agreements for the Valley Air District’s Board’s consideration. The CCAP contains the following goals and actions:
• Develop GHG significance thresholds to address CEQA projects with GHG emission increases. • Develop the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange for banking and trading GHG reductions. • Authorize use of the Valley Air District’s existing inventory reporting system to allow use for GHG reporting required by AB 32 regulations.
• Develop and administer GHG reduction agreements to mitigate proposed emission increases from new projects.
• Support climate protection measures that reduce GHG emissions as well as toxic and criteria pollutants. Oppose measures that result in a significant increase in toxic or criteria pollutant emissions in already impacted areas.
On December 17, 2009, the Valley Air District’s Board adopted “Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” and the policy “District Policy—Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.” The Valley Air District concluded that the existing science is inadequate to support quantification of the impacts that project-specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change. The Valley Air District found the effects of project-specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered cumulatively considerable. The Valley Air District found that this cumulative impact is best addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their GHG emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.
2651
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-20
The Valley Air District’s approach is intended to streamline the process of determining whether project-specific GHG emissions would have a significant effect. Projects exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and projects complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources and must have a certified final CEQA document.
For non-exempt projects, those projects for which there is no applicable approved plan or program, or those projects not complying with an approved plan or program, the lead agency must evaluate the project against performance-based standards and would require the adoption of design elements, known as a Best Performance Standard, to reduce GHG emissions. The Best Performance Standards (BPS) have not yet fully been established, though they must be designed to affect a 29 percent reduction when compared with the BAU projections identified in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan.
BAU represents the emissions that would occur in 2020 if the average baseline emissions during the 2002–2004 period were grown to 2020 levels, without control. These standards thus would carry with them pre-quantified emissions reductions, eliminating the need for project-specific quantification. Therefore, projects incorporating BPS would not require specific quantification of GHG emissions, and automatically would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact for GHG emissions.
For stationary source permitting projects, BPS means, “The most stringent of the identified alternatives for control of GHG emissions, including type of equipment, design of equipment and operational and maintenance practices, which are achieved-in-practice for the identified service, operation, or emissions unit class.” The Valley Air District has identified BPS for the following sources: boilers; dryers and dehydrators; oil and gas extraction, storage, transportation, and refining operations; cogeneration; gasoline dispensing facilities; volatile organic compound (VOC) control technology; and steam generators.
For development projects, BPS means, “Any combination of identified GHG emission reduction measures, including project design elements and land use decisions that reduce project-specific GHG emission reductions by at least 29 percent compared with business as usual.” Projects not incorporating BPS would require quantification of GHG emissions and demonstration that BAU GHG emissions have been reduced or mitigated by 29 percent. As stated earlier, the ARB’s adjusted inventory reduced the amount required by the State to achieve 1990 emission levels from 29 percent to 21.7 percent to account for slower growth experienced since the 2008 recession.
According to Valley Air District guidance, quantification of GHG emissions would be required for all projects for which the lead agency has determined that an EIR is required, regardless of whether the project incorporates BPS.
San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange
The Valley Air District initiated work on the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange in November 2008.
The purpose of the carbon exchange is to quantify, verify, and track voluntary GHG emissions reductions generated within the San Joaquin Valley. However, the Valley Air District has pursued an 2652
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-21
alternative strategy that incorporates the GHG emissions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Offset Banking that formerly only addressed criteria pollutants. The Valley Air District is also participating with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), of which it is a member, in the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx). The GHG Rx is operated cooperatively by air districts that have elected to participate. Participating districts have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CAPCOA and agree to post only those credits that meet the Rx standards for quality. The objective is to provide a secure, low-cost, high-quality, GHG exchange for credits created in California. The GHG Rx is intended to help fulfill compliance obligations, or mitigation needs of local projects subject to environmental review, reducing the uncertainty of using credits generated in distant locations.
Rule 2301
While the CCAP indicated that the GHG emission reduction program would be called the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange, the District incorporated a method to register voluntary GHG emission reductions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Banking through amendments of the rule. Amendments to the rule were adopted on January 19, 2012. The purposes of the amendments to the rule include the following:
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to bank voluntary GHG emission reductions for later use.
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to transfer banked GHG emission reductions to others for any use.
• Define eligibility standards, quantitative procedures, and administrative practices to ensure that banked GHG emission reductions are real, permanent, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable.
Tulare County Association of Governments
2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) component in accordance with SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. TCAG adopted the 2018 SCS/RTP on August 20, 2018. In so doing, the TCAG Board of Directors made a determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve the per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions targets established by its Board of Directors. The 2020 target is a 5 percent per capita reduction and the 2035 target is a 10 percent per capita reduction from the 2005 base year. The ARB accepted the determination that the TCAG 2018 SCS, if implemented, would achieve the region’s per capita GHG emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2035. At the time of writing of this report, the TCAG 2022 RTP was still in the Draft phase and has not yet been formally adopted. 23 The 2018 SCS/RTP strives to reduce air emissions from passenger vehicle and light-duty truck travel by better coordinating transportation expenditures with forecasted development patterns and, if feasible, help meet ARB GHG targets for the region. SB 375 requires the ARB to develop regional 23 Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). 2022. Website: https://tularecog.org/tcag/about-us/. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2653
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-22
GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The ARB is to establish targets for the automobile and light-duty truck sector for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are responsible for preparing an SCS within their RTP. The key purpose of SB 375 and the TCAG SCS is to reduce per capita emissions originating from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Accordingly, the 2018 SCS/RTP:
• Describes sources of emissions in the Tulare County region, 2020 and 2035 emission reduction targets established by the ARB for the San Joaquin Valley, and modeling techniques used to estimate and forecast emissions;
• Identifies Statewide strategies to reduce transportation-related emissions and their anticipated effect within the Tulare County region;
• Identifies regional strategies that complement the SCS by reducing emissions in other sectors (e.g., energy consumption);
• Quantifies the effect of policies and programs in the RTP that reduce transportation-related emissions in the region; and
• Compares the emissions reductions anticipated with implementation of the SCS/RTP with the regional targets.
The GHG emission targets for lowering emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, as set by the ARB and approved by the TCAG Board of Directors, call for a 5 percent reduction in per capita emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2020 and a 10 percent reduction by 2035 through land use and transportation planning. Based on the analysis of strategies included in the 2018 SCS/RTP, CO2 emissions were anticipated to be 12.3 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2020 and 16.0 percent lower by 2035, exceeding the targets established by the ARB in 2010.
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan was updated and adopted on October 14, 2014, and establishes the following applicable objectives and policies that are relevant to GHG emissions evaluated in this analysis: 24
Chapter 7: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Objective AQ-O-3 Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change in accord with federal and State law.
AQ-P-12 Support the implementation of Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the District) for individual development projects that may exceed District significance thresholds. A VERA is a voluntary mitigation measure where a project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process 24 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan. October 14.
2654
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-23
that develops, funds, and implements emissions reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of emissions reduction programs and verifier of 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 project-specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s Strategies and Incentives Program. The funds are disbursed in the form of grants for projects that achieve emissions reductions.
AQ-P-13 Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low emission technology.
AQ-P-14 Promote and expand the trip-reduction program for City employees to reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas. The program may include carpooling and ride sharing; reimbursement of transit costs; encouragement of flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and teleconferencing.
AQ-P-15 Maintain an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and track related solid waste, energy, economic, and environmental data. Update the inventory periodically as additional data and methodologies become available.
AQ-P-16 Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energy management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32. By proposing compact development, mixed use centers, walkable neighborhoods, green building technology, and jobs-housing balance, the City will be helping to implement many of the strategies and programs in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan.
AQ-P-17 Prepare and adopt a Climate Action Plan that incorporates a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Plan. The GHG Emissions Reduction Plan will quantify current and anticipated future emissions and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of General Plan implementation on climate change and air quality.
City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City of Visalia CAP was adopted in December 2013 and provides a policy document that includes strategies for reducing GHG emissions.25 The CAP includes objectives and policies from the General Plan that address long-term emissions reduction efforts and the timeframe of the CAP extends through 2030. Visalia’s CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory of community and municipal sector GHG emissions, identification and analysis of existing and proposed GHG reduction measures, and GHG emission reduction targets to help Visalia work toward the State’s goal of an 80 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2050. The CAP sets 2020 and 2030 GHG emission 25 City of Visalia. 2013. Climate Action Plan. December. 2655
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-24
reduction targets, and includes reduction actions for energy, transportation, and waste and resource conservation. Additionally, the CAP includes targets and action steps for the municipal and community sectors. The CAP was prepared concurrently with the updated General Plan, was evaluated in the General Plan EIR together with the General Plan update, and includes objectives and specific policies from the proposed General Plan to address long-term emissions reduction efforts by the City.26
The CAP sets five major long-term objectives for the City government and community as a whole27:
• Reduce net GHG emissions from both municipal operations and community activities; • Promote cleaner and healthier air to breathe;
• Help the City and its residents save on energy costs; • Reduce vulnerability to changes in energy availability and price; and • Increase public awareness of climate change issues.
The CAP sets a reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2020 and 30 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2030. In order to meet these reduction targets the CAP includes a comprehensive set of actions and programs: Energy Systems, Transportation, Water and Resource Conservation, Transportation/Land Use, and Waste and Resource Conservation. However, the City has not monitored the progress of achieving the goals of the CAP. As such, without a mechanism to track the effectiveness of the CAP goals and measures, the CAP cannot be relied upon for the purposes of CEQA analysis. The proposed project’s consistency with the CAP is discussed for informational purposes only.
3.8.4 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether greenhouse emissions impacts are significant environmental effects. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.4(a) of the CEQA Guidelines notes that the significance determination with respect to GHG emissions “calls for a careful judgment” by the lead agency, making a “good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions result from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.” 26 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Update EIR. Chapter 3.4, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. 27 City of Visalia. 2013. Climate Action Plan. December. 2656
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-25
Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency should take into account the following three considerations, among others, in assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions.
• Consideration No. 1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
• Consideration No. 2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• Consideration No. 3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
Section 15064.4(c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision-makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change, so long as this selection is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
For the reasons explained below, this analysis contains both (1) a quantitative determination of the GHG emissions that would be generated by the proposed project, and (2) a qualitative assessment that addresses consistency with the SB 32 targets, the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Scoping Plan Update. This approach provides estimates of project emissions in the new 2030 milestone year with the existing threshold to show the extent of progress achieved with existing regulations and the incorporation of specific project design features to address Considerations 1 and 2.
City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City of Visalia CAP has established two GHG emission reduction targets: (1) a 15 percent reduction below 2005 baseline year levels by 2020, and (2) a 30 percent reduction below 2005 baseline year level by 2030. These two targets were selected to meet the ARB’s recommended reduction target and the reduction target set by California Executive Order S-3-05. The CAP describes the GHG emission reduction targets for the community and municipal sectors compared to the baseline level:
• The community sector 2020 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 443,051 MT CO2e. 2657
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-26
• The community-wide 2030 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 759,887 MT CO2e. • The municipal sector 2020 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 13,979 MT CO2e. • The municipal sector 2030 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 11,512 MT CO2e.
However, the CAP would not be considered an “approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program” for purposes of streamlining CEQA review. The standard elements of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy include the following steps:
• Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic range.
• Establish a level, based on substantial evidence below, which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable. • Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.
• Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
• Monitor the plan’s progress.
• Adopt the GHG reduction strategy in a public process following environmental review.
The Visalia CAP includes elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, but does not meet element 5, which requires lead agencies to monitor their progress toward achieving and meeting the goals of a CAP. Based on information provided on the City’s website and description of the CAP, the City has not published publicly available progress reports.
Valley Air District’s Guidance for Providing a BAU Analysis and the State’s Scoping Plan The Valley Air District ’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides guidance for preparing a BAU analysis.28 Under the Valley Air District guidance, projects meeting one of the following would have a less than significant impact on climate change:
• Exempt from CEQA.
• Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program. • Project achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards. • Project achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.”
28 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2009. “Final Staff Report, Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.” Website: http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/11-05- 09/1_CCAP_FINAL_CEQA_GHG_Draft_Staff_Report_Nov_05_2009.pdf. December 2009. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2658
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-27
With respect to the foregoing, the proposed project (1) is not exempt from CEQA; (2) the City’s CAP does not qualify as an “approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program” for purposes of streamlining CEQA review; and (3) to date, the Valley Air District has not developed a pre-determined list of BPS to achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU. Therefore, consistent with the Valley Air District guidance (see No. 4, above), this analysis evaluates whether the proposed project would achieve the AB 32 target GHG reduction compared with BAU. It is important to note that when the Valley Air District guidance was adopted in 2009, it referenced a need for development projects to have in excess of a 29 percent reduction from BAU to meet AB 32 targets, which was established by the ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. However, the GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 was reduced to 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020 in the 2014 First Update to the Scoping Plan to account for slower than projected growth after the 2008 recession.29 In addition, the State has reported that the 2016 GHG inventory was below the 2020 target for the first time.30 Furthermore, the 2017 Scoping Plan stated that California was on track to achieve the 2020 target.31
As explained further above, the 2030 target was codified under SB 32 and is now addressed by the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which includes methodologies and threshold approaches required to determine the fair-share contributions development projects would need to make to achieve the 2030 target. The SB 32 target requires GHG emissions to be reduced from 1990 levels. However, no consensus has been reached around the State on a new quantitative target for new development based on consistency with the SB 32 targets. The ARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan Update on December 14, 2017. The plan provides the State’s strategy to achieve the SB 32 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels. The plan includes existing and new measures that when implemented are expected to achieve the SB 32 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update would achieve substantial reductions beyond 2020 through continued implementation of existing regulations. Other regulations will be adopted to implement recently enacted legislation including SB 350, which requires an increase in renewable energy from 33 percent to 50 percent and doubling the efficiency of existing buildings by 2030.
The State Legislature extended the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030. Cap-and-Trade provides a mechanism to make up shortfalls in other strategies if they occur.32 In addition, the strategy relies on reductions achieved in implementing the ARB Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy to reduce pollutants not previously controlled for climate change such as black carbon, CH4, and hydrofluorocarbons.33
29 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 30 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2018. Climate Pollutants Fall Below 1990 Levels for the First Time. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/climate-pollutants-fall-below-1990-levelsfirst-time. Accessed June 1, 2023. 31 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023. 32 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023. 33 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017 /final_slcp_report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2659
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-28
As described previously, the 2022 Scoping Plan was recently adopted in December 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies strategies to meet the State’s SB 32 GHG reduction goals as well as feasible methods to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies the importance of local jurisdiction actions, such as cities and counties, because these entities have direct control over land use decisions in much of the State. While local jurisdictions influence land use development and building GHG reduction measures, the State largely influences transportation GHG reduction measures. As such, the 2022 Scoping Plan provides a strategy that is capable of reaching the SB 32 target if the measures included in the plan are implemented and achieve reductions within the ranges expected. Nevertheless, to date, neither a new quantitative threshold nor BPS have been identified for projects constructed after 2020. Therefore, significance is based on making continued progress toward the SB 32 2030 goal.
Newhall Ranch
As explained above at length, the California Supreme Court has set forth additional guidance in evaluating a project’s potential GHG impact. In a November 30, 2015, ruling, the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife invalidated the EIR for the Newhall Ranch project due to insufficient evidence in the administrative record supporting that project’s GHG analysis, among other reasons. The Court endorsed the use of AB 32’s Statewide emission reduction goals as a legally permissible significance threshold for analyzing a project’s GHG impacts under CEQA. In particular, the Court upheld: (1) use of the Statewide emissions reduction goal in AB 32 as a significance criterion (pp. 15–19), (2) use of the Scoping Plan’s BAU model “as a comparative tool for evaluating efficiency and conservation efforts” of the Project (pp. 18–19), and (3) a comparison of the project’s expected emissions to a BAU model rather than a baseline of preproject conditions (pp. 15–19).
However, comparisons to the AB 32 Scoping Plan must be supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence. In other words, the Court approved the methodology used in the EIR’s analysis in terms of reductions from projected BAU emissions consistent with AB 32’s Statewide reductions mandate (rather than against some absolute numeric limit above the project site’s baseline emissions), but the Court held the GHG analysis lacked supporting substantial evidence and a cogent explanation correlating the project-specific reductions to AB 32’s mandated Statewide reductions so as to demonstrate consistency with the latter’s goals under the approved methodology. The Court suggested a lead agency could examine the “data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual model” to determine the necessary project-level reductions from new land use development at the proposed location (p. 25). A lead agency “might assess consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from particular activities.”
The substantial evidence needed to support a project BAU threshold can be derived from data used to develop the Scoping Plan inventory and control strategy, and from analysis conducted by the ARB to track progress in achieving the AB 32 2020 target. The critical factor in determining the appropriate project threshold is whether the State requires additional reductions beyond those achieved by existing regulations in order to achieve its target. If no additional reductions are required from individual projects, no nexus exists to require a project to mitigate its emissions. In 2660
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-29
that case, the percentage reductions achieved by projects through compliance with regulations is the amount needed to reach the AB 32 target.
The State’s regulatory program implementing the 2008 Scoping Plan is now fully mature. All regulations envisioned in the Scoping Plan have been adopted by the responsible agencies and the effectiveness of those regulations have been estimated by the agencies during the adoption process and then are tracked to verify their effectiveness after implementation. The combined effect of this successful effort is that the State now projects that it will meet the 2020 target and achieve continued progress toward meeting post-2020 targets.
The California Supreme Court was concerned that new development may need to do more than existing development to reduce GHGs to demonstrate that it is doing its fair share of reductions. As will be shown below, new development does do more than existing development and, because of the nature of the sources of GHG emissions related to development, existing development is equally responsible for reducing emissions from the most important sources of emissions. It is important to note that most of the State’s regulatory program applies to both new and existing development.
The Scoping Plan reduction from BAU accounts for growth projected in the State and assumes that existing development would continue to emit GHGs at the same rate that occurred in the base year (2002-2004 average). The California Department of Finance (CDF) Report E-5 predicts that population growth in California from 2005 to 2020 will be 13.2 percent. This means that development that existed in 2005 will produce nearly 87 percent of the State’s emissions in 2020.
Conversely, new development is only responsible for about 13 percent of the emissions generated during this timeframe. If measures to reduce emissions from existing development were not available, new development could not provide sufficient reductions to reach the 2020 target even if their emissions were reduced to net-zero. This continues to apply to the 2030 target. The CDF forecasts California’s population will grow by 8.1 percent between 2020 and 2030, so existing development will be responsible for 92 percent of the emissions that occur in 2030.
The State’s regulatory program is able to target both new and existing development because the two most important strategies—motor vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions from electricity generation— obtain reductions equally from existing and new sources. This is because all vehicle operators use cleaner low carbon fuels and buy vehicles subject to the fuel efficiency regulations, and all building owners or operators purchase cleaner energy from the grid that is produced by increasing percentages of renewable fuels. This includes regulations on mobile sources such as: the Pavley standards that apply to all vehicles purchased in California, the LCFS that applies to all fuel used in California, and the RPS and Renewable Energy Standard that apply to utilities providing electricity to all California homes and businesses. The reduction strategy where new development is required to do more than existing development is building energy efficiency and energy use related to water conservation regulations. For example, new projects are subject to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code and Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) water conservation requirements. New buildings and landscapes are much more energy efficient and water efficient than the development that has been built over the past decades and will require much less energy. Title 24 is updated about every 3 years with the goal of reaching zero-net-energy from new residential buildings by 2020 and new commercial buildings by 2030. The proposed project’s 2661
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-30
industrial building would be constructed after 2023 and would be required to comply with the regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued.
As described above, the State requires an average reduction from all sources of the emission inventory of 21.7 percent to achieve the 2020 target. The Scoping Plan strategy will achieve greater than average reductions from energy and mobile source sectors that are the primary sources related to development projects, and lower than average reductions from other sources such as agriculture.
The amount of reduction estimated by the ARB for each sector was based on technical feasibility and cost effectiveness. Review of the 2008 Scoping Plan inventory and strategy shows that the reduction from all development related sources is approximately 29 percent from BAU in order to make up for the below average sectors and achieve the required 21.7 percent average reduction. Achieving the SB 32 2030 target will require an approximate 40 percent reduction from 2020 levels assuming the State achieves the AB 32 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies a range of reduction amounts expected from each emission sector, but an amount needed for development’s fair share of reductions have not been determined. The 2022 Scoping Plan addresses the latest climate-related legislation, AB 1279, which required the State to reduce Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 and to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.
Approach to Methodology and Analysis
Given the above regulatory framework and relevant caselaw, for purposes of this analysis, it incorporates both a quantitative evaluation as well as a qualitative consistency evaluation.
Specifically, a quantitative analysis was prepared for the proposed project to determine the extent to which it may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting (see Consideration No. 1, above). The analysis also sets forth an evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with the SB 32 targets and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update based on an assessment of the proposed project’s reduction from BAU based on emissions in 2030 compared with the 21.7 percent reduction and the with a consistency analysis. This approach provides estimates of project emissions in the new 2030 milestone year with the existing threshold to show the extent of progress achieved with existing regulations and project design features to address Considerations 1 and 2 above.
Consistent with the guidance provided by the Newhall Ranch decision, a BAU analysis was prepared that assesses the proposed project’s “consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities.” To that end, this analysis shows the extent to which the proposed project complies with adopted regulations as well as the additional amount of GHG reductions that would be achieved through implementation of identified project design features.
At this point in time, no additional reductions are required from new development beyond existing regulations for the State to achieve its 2020 target. The recently adopted 2030 target will require a reduction from 431 MT CO2e to 260 MT CO2e or 40 percent from 1990 levels. After accounting for projected growth of approximately 0.8 percent per year, an average decrease of 5.2 percent per year from the State GHG inventory will be required to achieve the target. As noted above, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes a strategy for achieving the needed reductions, but does not identify an amount required specifically from new development. However, all GHG emission sources within development projects are subject to GHG regulations.
2662
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-31
Therefore, this analysis considers the proposed project’s consistency with the existing 2020 target and shows progress toward achieving the 2030 target. The quantitative analysis prepared for the proposed project sets forth the reduction from BAU in the 2030 target year to show the progress anticipated prior to applying reductions from new strategies contained in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. The new reduction strategies from the plan are designed to close the gap between existing commitments and those needed to achieve the 2030 target, but many of the strategies must go through a regulatory process to be implemented. Therefore, the reduction levels needed from new development beyond regulations, if any, is uncertain.
The analysis prepared for the proposed project also includes qualitative assessments of compliance with the 2008 Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and the 2022 Scoping Plan Update to support GHG significance findings under Impact GHG-2.
To determine significance, the analysis first quantifies project-related GHG emissions under a BAU scenario, and then compares these emissions with emissions that would occur when all projectrelated design features are accounted for, and when compliance with applicable regulatory measures is assumed. The standard and methodology are explained in further detail below.
Greenhouse Gases Assessed
This analysis is appropriately limited to GHGs identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
The proposed project may emit GHGs that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the proposed project may generate aerosols through emissions of DPM from the vehicles and trucks that would access the project site. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about one week. Black carbon is a component of aerosols. Studies have indicated that black carbon has a high GWP; however, the IPCC states that these studies were not conclusive and the results are based on a low level of scientific certainty.34
In addition, water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping in connection with the proposed project, but water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related activities, and therefore it was determined that it would be speculative to consider potential project impacts associated with water vapor.
The proposed project would emit NOx and VOCs, which are ozone precursors. However, this is distinct from ozone, which itself, is a GHG; however, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis.
Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants.
Furthermore, certain GHGs defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the proposed project given the proposed uses. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in heavy industrial 34 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller [eds.]). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Website: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2663
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-32
applications,35 none of which would be used by the proposed project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride, and thus these GHGs are not studied in this analysis.
3.8.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact Analysis
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Air Quality Report), which is included in Appendix B.
Construction Emissions
Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 3.8-3. The Valley Air District does not recommend assessing the significance of constructionrelated emissions. However, other jurisdictions, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) and the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (Sacramento Metro AQMD), have concluded that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. For purposes of a conservative analysis, the City, in its discretion, has elected to account for the construction emissions by amortizing the total emissions generated during construction based on the life of the development (30 years) and then adding them to the operational emissions. Table 3.8-3 presents the amount of GHG emissions during construction assuming implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2a and MM AIR-2b.
Table 3.8-3: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigation Included) Construction Year Total MT CO2e per year (approx.)
2024 7,013
2025 3,710
2026 3,081
2027 3,713
2028 874
Entire Construction Duration (2024-2028)
Total 18,391
Amortized over 30 years 613
35 Note: the heavy industrial land uses stated here include uses such as petroleum refineries and manufacturing of heavy metals. Light industrial uses would not engage in similar applications. 2664
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-33
Construction Year Total MT CO2e per year (approx.)
Notes:
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Because of rounding, total MT CO2e may be marginally different from CalEEMod output.
Source: Appendix B
Operational Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the life of the proposed project. Sources of emissions would consist of motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources, such as, for example, landscaping activities.
Business As Usual Operational Emissions
Operational emissions under the BAU scenario were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.
Modeling assumptions for the year 2005 were used to represent 2030 BAU conditions (without the benefit of regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions). The Valley Air District guidance recommends using emissions in 2002–2004 in the baseline scenario to represent conditions—as if regulations had not been adopted—to allow the effect of projected growth on achieving reduction targets to be clearly defined.
2025 and 2030 Operational Emissions
Operational emissions were modeled for the years 2025 and 2030 using CalEEMod. It should be noted that although Phase 1 of the proposed project is assumed to be operational in 2025, Phase 2 in 2026, and Phase 3 in 2028, in order to present a conservative evaluation, this BAU analysis assumed that full buildout of the project would be occur and be operational in 2025. CalEEMod assumes compliance with some, but not all, applicable rules and regulations regarding energy efficiency, vehicle fuel efficiency, renewable energy usage, and other GHG reduction policies, as described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide.36 The reductions obtained from each regulation and the source of the reduction amount used in the analysis are described below.
Emissions Accounting for Applicable Regulations
The following regulations are incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors:
• Pavley I and Pavley II (LEV III) motor vehicle emission standards • ARB Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulation
• 2005, 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The following regulations have not been incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors and require alternative methods to account for emission reductions provided by the regulations:
• Renewable Portfolio Standards
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard
• 2022 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
36 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2017. User's Guide for CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2665
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-34
• California Green Building Standards Code (indoor water use) • California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water) Pavley II/LEV III standards have been incorporated in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. The ARB estimates a 3 percent reduction in 2020 and a 19 percent reduction from the vehicle categories subject to the regulation by 2030.37,38
The ARB GHG Regulation for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles would apply to trucks accessing the project site. Therefore, the benefits of this regulation were incorporated into CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. The ARB estimates that this regulation will reduce GHG emissions from the affected vehicles by 7.2 percent.39
Title 24 reductions for 2013 and 2016 updates are included in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. RPS is not accounted for in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for indoor water use and California MWELO for outdoor water use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 mandates a 20 percent reduction in urban water use that is implemented with these regulations.
Regulations applicable to project sources and the percent reduction anticipated from each source are shown in Table 3.8-4. The percentage reductions are only applied to the specific sources subject to the regulations. For example, the Pavley LEV Standards apply only to light-duty cars and trucks.
Table 3.8-4: Summary of Applicable Greenhouse Gas Regulations Regulation Project Applicability
Pavley Low Emission Vehicle Standards Light-duty cars and trucks accessing the project site are subject to the regulation.
Truck and Bus Regulation Heavy‐duty trucks accessing the project site for deliveries and services are subject to the regulation.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Vehicles accessing the project site would use fuel subject to the LCFS.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The project buildings would be constructed to meet the latest version of Title 24 (currently 2022). The
reduction applies only to energy consumption subject
to the regulation.
Green Building Code Standards The proposed project would include water conservation features required by the standard.
Water Efficient Land Use Ordinance The project landscaping would be required to comply with the regulation.
37 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. Pavley 1 + Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor Version 1.0 User’s Guide. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/tools/pavleylcfs-userguide.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 38 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Clean Car Standards—Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 39 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed GHG Regulations for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/hdghg2013/hdghg2013isor.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
2666
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-35
Regulation Project Applicability
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Electricity purchased for use at the project site is subject to the 33 percent RPS mandate and would be
subject to the 60 percent mandate starting in the
2030 operational year.
Reported operational emissions are considered to represent unmitigated project conditions to present a conservative analysis. Although MM AIR-2c through MM AIR-2g would reduce GHG emissions due to the use of more efficient on-site vehicles and equipment, reducing vehicle idling, providing EVs with charging infrastructure, these measures cannot be quantified in CalEEMod. Full assumptions and model outputs are provided in Appendix B including detailed results of this analysis for the year 2025.
As shown in the Air Quality Report (Appendix B), the proposed project would demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations and implement project design features to further reduce GHG emissions. In 2025, the proposed project would be expected to generate a total of approximately 63,290 MT CO2e per year, which would be an approximately 37.05 percent reduction in GHG emissions from BAU (100,540 MT CO2e per year).40 This is above the 29 percent reduction required by the Valley Air District threshold and well exceeds the 21.7 percent average reduction from all sources of GHG emissions now required to achieve AB 32 targets. Thus, the 37.05 percent reduction from BAU is 15.35 percent beyond the average reduction required by the State from all sources to achieve the AB 32 2020 target.
Since the project buildout would occur after 2020, additional analysis was conducted to demonstrate consistency with the SB 32 2030 target. As shown in the Air Quality Report, the proposed project would achieve a reduction of 40.9 percent from BAU by the year 2030 with compliance with applicable regulations and identified project design features incorporated.
Summary
In conclusion, the proposed project would achieve a reduction of 15.35 percent beyond the ARB 2020 21.7 percent target and 8.05 percent beyond the Valley Air District 29 percent reduction from BAU requirements with compliance with applicable regulations and incorporation of identified project design features in the 2025 operational year. Moreover, the proposed project would achieve a reduction of 40.9 percent from BAU by the year 2030 with compliance with applicable regulations and identified project design features incorporated.
Based on the foregoing progress, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and would contribute a reasonable fair share contribution to achieving the 2030 target. This fair share would be achieved through several mechanisms, including, for example, compliance with increasingly stringent State regulations that apply to new development, such as Title 24 and CALGreen, and regulations on energy production, fuels, and motor vehicles that 40 FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2023. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report, Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project.
2667
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-36
apply to both new and existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate significant direct or indirect GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulation that Reduces Emissions Impact GHG-2: Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact Analysis
The following analysis assesses the proposed project’s compliance with Consideration No. 3 regarding consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. This analysis is accomplished via an assessment of the proposed project’s compliance with the Visalia CAP, Scoping Plan measures contained in the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Scoping Plan Update, and the Visalia General Plan.
It should be noted that although the City of Visalia has adopted a CAP in December 2013 as part of the General Plan Update and corresponding EIR, the Visalia CAP does not meet the requirements of a qualified GHG reduction plan, which requires lead agencies to monitor their progress toward achieving and meeting the goals of a CAP. Table 3.8-5 assesses project consistency with the Visalia CAP.
Table 3.8-5: Consistency with City of Visalia’s CAP
CAP Actions Project Consistency
Energy
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Institutional Barrier
Removal. The City participated in an initiative
called the Southwest Solar Transformation
Initiative (SSTI), a regional team of public and
private entities committed to advancing solar
power adoption across the partner municipalities
in the Southwest United States.
Not Applicable. This action applies to the City of Visalia and other municipalities, not individual development
projects such as the proposed project.
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. Therefore, with
2668
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-37
CAP Actions Project Consistency
implementation of MM GHG-2a the proposed project
would be consistent with this action.
Energy Upgrade CA. Energy Upgrade California™ is
a Statewide program that offers incentives to
homeowners who complete select energy‐saving
home improvements on a single‐family residence
and two to four unit buildings such as a
townhouse, condominium, as well as homeowners
associations with either single-family homes or two
to four unit buildings.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include
residential uses.
Southern California Edison Small Business Direct
Install Program. Southern California Edison will
provide business owners free energy efficiency
evaluations.
Consistent. The proposed project tenants would be able
to freely consult with Southern California Edison (SCE) to conduct energy efficiency evaluations.
Southern California Gas Weatherization Program.
This program offers weatherization upgrades for
qualified property owners through the SoCalGas
Energy Savings Assistance Programs.
Not Applicable. As a new development the proposed
project buildings would be constructed according to
Title 24 of the California Building Code standards. As a result, this action would not be necessary because no
weatherization upgrades would be needed in brand new
buildings.
CSET Weatherization Program. This program offers
free weatherization of residential homes for lowincome residents.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include
residential uses.
Urban Forestry. The Street Tree Ordinance requires
all new commercial and residential development to
plant street trees, which can reduce electricity use
due to shade reducing the need to cool buildings.
Consistent. The proposed project would include drought
tolerant landscaping throughout the project site
consistent with the City of Visalia Tree Ordinance.
Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulbs. Encourage
the use of CFLs throughout the community.
Consistent. The proposed project would as a new
development be constructed according to the latest
adopted version of Title 24 of and the CALGreen
Building Code Standards. These standards include
requirements on energy efficient lighting fixtures, which would reduce energy demand.
Transportation
Sequoia National Park Shuttle Bus. In 2007, the City
began running a shuttle service from Visalia to
Sequoia National Park. Sequoia Shuttle’s external
shuttle service provides affordable, convenient,
and comfortable transportation from Visalia to the
majestic Sequoia National Park, seven days a week,
during summer. Though most park visitors arrive
by private vehicle, the increasing number of motor
vehicles in the nation’s parks threatens the very
resources the parks were intended to protect.
Sequoia National Park receives over 1 million
visitors every year. More visitors results in more
traffic on park roads and parking areas, resulting in
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
2669
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-38
CAP Actions Project Consistency
lengthy delays and roadway congestion. This
congestion translates to air and noise pollution
which threatens the fragile natural and cultural
resources within the parks. Sequoia Shuttle also
operates four free in‐park routes within Sequoia
National Park. No tickets are required, and bus
stops are clearly marked throughout the park. This
bus service currently consists of a fleet of 12
gasoline‐driven buses that operate 109 days of the
year. The annual average ridership for this bus
service is approximately 7,041.
Bicycle Path Expansion. Visalia has an excellent
system of multi‐use paths that are well suited to
biking. Currently, the cumulative distance of
bicycle paths and trails within the City total 27.7
miles. Through acquisition and construction, the
City plans on extending the total distance of bicycle
paths, lanes and trails to 140 miles by 2020 and will
continue expanding bicycle paths through 2030.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
Vi-Cycle Pilot Program. The City of Visalia believes
in the benefits of bikes, buses, and hybrid vehicles.
Reducing our dependency on automobiles can help
conserve natural resources and improve air quality.
The City’s “Vi‐Cycle” program takes recovered
bicycles from the Police Department, Transit and
other sources, refurbishes them and then
distributes them to businesses for use by
employees or customers in the community. This
program is intended to reduce car emissions and
congestion, save money, improve air quality and
utilize recycled bicycles in the community. The City
hopes to keep expanding the program through
2020 and 2030.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
Dare to Spare Program. Dare to Spare Challenge is
a City‐wide challenge implemented by the City's
Transit Division that encourages teamwork,
rewards clean practices, and educates the
community on the simple things we can do to
positively impact air quality.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
Increase in Transit Ridership (City Transit Buses).
The City has been working hard to promote the use
of the City’s public transit systems, in particular
transit bus services. For example, Visalia Transit
hosted the “Make an Impression” campaign where
over 80 green footprints were painted around
town prompting the largest Earth Day event to
date and Transit continues to be an annual Earth
Day participant. Visalia Transit also utilizes social
media, and has a very active and ever‐growing
Facebook page that interacts with fans each day,
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
2670
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-39
CAP Actions Project Consistency
giving them different tips, facts, updates and
promotions.
Traffic Light Synchronization. The City of Visalia will be installing advanced technology systems and
implementing effective management strategies in
order to improve the operational efficiency of
transportation systems and the movement of
people, goods, and services, including
synchronization of traffic lights and signals.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Waste and Resource Conservation
Waste-To-Energy Program. The Waste‐to‐Energy
Program began in 2005. The City of Visalia belongs
to the Consolidated Waste Management Authority,
a joint powers authority (includes seven cities and
Tulare County) that ships a small percentage of its
solid waste to be incinerated at a transformation
facility in Long Beach. Based on estimates from
2006‐2009, approximately 1,416 tons of waste
from Visalia are incinerated each year. This
percentage is subject to change, however, in
subsequent years, depending on funding that is
available. The program ended in 2009.
Not Applicable. This program no longer exists according to the CAP.
Construction and Demolition Recycling. Visalia’s
C&D debris recycling program began in 2006. It
requires all major construction and demolition
related projects in the City to recycle their waste
including, waste building materials, packaging, and
rubble resulting from construction, remodeling,
repair, and demolition operations on pavements
and structures. The requirement for C&D debris
recycling for the City is 50 percent of all C&D waste
generated.
Consistent. The proposed project contractor would be
required to comply with these and all other applicable
construction and demolition recycling requirements
through the issuance of construction and grading
permits.
Yard Waste/Food Scrap Composting. The City of
Visalia has had a yard waste collection service
specifically for the residential sector since 1985.
The yard waste program was expanded to service
the commercial sector in 2006. To promote this
new service, the City implemented a commercial
green waste/recycling audit program where the
City visits individual businesses, studies their waste
stream, and makes recommendations on how local
businesses can save money by reducing the landfill
solid waste content by increasing their green waste
and recycling content. The City continues to offer
the audit program to local businesses. The City’s
yard waste service was yet again expanded to
include food scrap composting in 2009 with the
start of a pilot program for the residential sector.
The program was expanded to the commercial
Consistent. With respect to the removal of the existing orchards, green waste would be removed by
construction contractors consistent with City
requirements. In terms of operation, the proposed
project would include typical landscaping maintenance
and yard waste procedures, which would be disposed of
according to the applicable City of Visalia requirements including, among others, those addressing the City’s
audit program.
2671
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-40
CAP Actions Project Consistency
sector in 2010. Starting in 2012, the City's Natural
Resource Conservation Division and Solid Waste
Division began targeting commercial accounts that
would benefit from adding food scrap composting
services. The City will continue to offer commercial
waste audits and utilize every opportunity to
educate the community on the benefits of
yard/food waste composting.
Energy Systems
Energy Star Appliances and Equipment: Promote
purchasing of energy efficient (e.g., ENERGY STAR)
home and office appliances and equipment.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the then-current Title 24 requirements
(including those involving energy efficiency measures)
and would consider Energy efficient Starr Appliances
and Equipment, where feasible.
Community‐wide Solar PV Bulk Purchasing:
Continue to promote community‐wide rooftop
solar. Continue exploring the potential to
collaborate with regional partners on a
community‐ wide solar bulk purchase program.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program:
Work to establish PACE financing which supports
energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
by providing up‐front capital that is subsequently
paid back through a special assessment on
participants’ property taxes, to be implemented in
conjunction with SCE incentive opportunities.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Energy Efficiency Marketing and Programs:
Providing public education on the need for energy
efficiency, emissions reduction programs, and cost
savings associated with energy‐ efficient buildings;
continue co‐branding programs with the VIEW, SCE
and SoCalGas through Public Goods Funds, facility
benchmarking through AB1103, and other energy
efficiency program opportunities
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) Solar
Program: Through various funding sources, the
VUSD has installed and will continue to implement
renewable energy opportunities at school facilities.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the VUSD, not individual development projects such as
the proposed project.
Water Resource and Conservation
Water Efficient Landscaping Policy: Continue
working to reduce the amount of water used for
landscaping through the development of a local
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, updates to
the Landscape Standards, and enforcement of the
Water Conservation Ordinance
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
adhere to all landscape and water conservation
standards and measures, including, among others,
inclusion of drought tolerant landscaping consistent
with applicable provisions of the City of Visalia
Municipal Code.
2672
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-41
CAP Actions Project Consistency
Water Efficient Landscaping Promotion and
Education: Educate the community on the benefits
of using low‐ maintenance landscaping.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Transportation and Land Use
Transit Oriented Development: Investigate and
integrate transit-oriented development into all of
the City's relevant long‐term planning goals and
projects when applicable.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Plug‐in Electric Vehicle (PEV) Charging Stations:
Continue working to expand the deployment of
PEV through the development of infrastructure,
including the installation of two PEV charging
stations each at the transit parking lot and the two
public parking structures.
Consistent. The proposed project would include MM
AIR-2d, which would require each relevant the project
applicant to include infrastructure for EV charging
stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle
parking spaces (including parking for trucks) in
connection with each individual specific development
proposal, consistent with the applicable California
Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential
Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). MM AIR-2d
would also require the design of the buildings’ electrical room to hold additional panels that may be needed to
supply power for the future installation of EV truck
charging stations on-site. As a result, the proposed
project would be consistent with this action by
facilitating not inhibit this action intended to expand the deployment of EV charging infrastructure.
Local, Low‐Carbon Transportation Education:
Educate citizens on options for utilizing local, low‐
carbon transportation.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Infill and Higher Density Development: Through
the 2030 General Plan Update and other tools, the
City will continue to promote infill development
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
CNG Public Fueling Stations: The City will continue
to remove barriers to the installation of public CNG
fueling stations, and work with community
stakeholders to advance the utilization of CNG as a
cleaner alternate fuel source.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Anaerobic Digestion. Commercial compost will be
processed through anaerobic digesters by 2015
and all other green waste and food scraps will be
processed by anaerobic digesters by 2018.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Source: Strategic Energy Innovations (SEI). 2013. City of Visalia Climate Action Plan. December. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=28939. Accessed February 7, 2023.
As described in Table 3.8-5, although many actions in the City of Visalia’s CAP would not apply as they are intended to be actions taken by the City as opposed to being implemented by individual development projects, the proposed project would be consistent with nearly all the City of Visalia CAP actions applicable to individual development, given the nature of the proposed project including 2673
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-42
the incorporation of identified design features, as well as assumed implementation of recommended mitigation measures except CAP Action–Solar Panels. 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 issuance of building permit. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with the Visalia CAP would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Consistency with California’s Post-2020 Targets
The State’s executive branch adopted several Executive Orders related to GHG emissions. Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are two examples. Executive Order S-3-05 sets goals to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The goal of Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was codified by AB 32. The proposed project, as analyzed above, is consistent with AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with this component of Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order B-30-15 establishes an interim goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
The 2030 goal was codified under SB 32 and is now addressed by the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes methodologies and threshold approaches required to determine the fairshare contributions City development projects would need to make to achieve the 2030 target. In the meantime, however, the discussion under “Consistency with SB 32” below addresses the consistency of the proposed project with SB 32, which provides the statutory underpinning of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The SB 32 target requires GHG emissions to be reduced from 1990 levels. No consensus has been reached around the State on a new quantitative target for new development based on consistency with the SB 32 targets.
In 2022, AB 1279 codified requirements for achieving net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and achieving and maintaining net negative GHG emissions thereafter. AB 1279 requires that by 2045, Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels. To address the requirements, ARB 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality as directed by AB1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.41 • Energy Sector: Continued improvements in California’s appliance and building energy efficiency programs and initiatives, such as the State’s zero-net-energy building goals, would serve to reduce the proposed project’s emissions level. Additionally, further additions to California’s renewable resource portfolio would favorably influence the project’s emissions level.
41 California Air Resource Board (ARB). Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed November 1, 2023. 2674
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-43
• Transportation Sector: Anticipated deployment of improved vehicle efficiency, zero-emission technologies, lower carbon fuels, and improvement of existing transportation systems all will serve to reduce the project’s emissions level.
• Water Sector: The project’s emissions level will be reduced as a result of further desired enhancements to water conservation technologies.
• Waste Management Sector: Plans to further improve recycling, reuse and reduction of solid waste will beneficially reduce the project’s emissions level.
For the reasons described above the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets. The trajectory required to achieve the post-2020 targets is shown in Figure 3.8-3.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Figure 3.8-3: California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target In his January 2015 inaugural address, Former Governor Brown expressed a commitment to achieve “three ambitious goals” that he would like to see accomplished by 2030 to reduce the State’s GHG emissions:
• Increasing the State’s RPS from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030; • Cutting the petroleum use in cars and trucks in half; and • Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner. 2675
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-44
These expressions of executive branch policy may be manifested in adopted legislative or regulatory action through the State agencies and departments responsible for achieving the State’s environmental policy objectives, particularly those relating to global climate change.42 Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the Statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.43 Given the proportional contribution of mobile source-related GHG emissions to the State’s inventory, recent studies also show that relatively new trends—such as the increasing importance of webbased shopping, the emergence of different driving patterns, and the increasing effect of web-based applications on transportation choices—are beginning to substantially influence transportation choices and the energy used by transportation modes. These factors have changed the direction of transportation trends in recent years and will require the creation of new models to effectively analyze future transportation patterns and the corresponding effect on GHG emissions. For the reasons described above the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets.
Consistency with SB 32
As discussed previously, the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update was adopted on December 15, 2022. Appendix D of the Scoping Plan explains that local government actions, such as the City of Visalia, are crucial to achieving the State’s climate goals. The actions of the 2022 Scoping Plan are focused on GHG reductions in the building and transportation sector, which are primarily associated with residential and mixed use development, not light industrial development such as the proposed project. As such, a discussion of the 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies and measures are discussed further. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32.
Table 3.8-6 provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.
Table 3.8-6: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50 percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from 33
percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030.
Not applicable. This measure would apply to utilities
and not to individual development projects. However,
the proposed project would be required to purchase
electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350
42 Brown, Edmund G. Jr. 2015. Press Release: California Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Goal in North America. April 29.
Website: https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2015/04/29/news18938/index.html. Accessed June 1, 2023. 43 Energy and Environmental Economics. 2015. Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States. Website: https://irp.cdnwebsite.com/6f2c9f57/files/uploaded/US_Deep_Decarbonization_Technical_Report_Exec_Summary.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2676
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-45
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Renewable Mandate and the RPS requirements. SB 100
has increased the 2030 RPS standards to 60 percent by
2030, superseding the increase required by SB 350.
SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.
This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.
Not applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected to increase in stringency over time. However, the
proposed project would be required to comply with the
applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building permits are received.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.
Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.
However, vehicles accessing the project site would
benefit from the standards.
Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy‐Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million ZEVs
on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of
ZEV trucks and buses.
Consistent with mitigation incorporated. The proposed
project is industrial in nature and would support truck and freight operations. It is expected that deliveries
throughout the State would be made with an increasing
number of ZEV delivery trucks, including trips that
would be coming to and from the project site. The
proposed project would not inhibit the Mobile Source
Strategy because the implementation of MM AIR-2d
would require the project applicant to include
infrastructure for EV charging stations, including for
trucks, 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. MM
AIR-2d would require the design of the buildings’
electrical room to hold additional panels that may be
needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on-site. As such, future ZEVs
could access the project site to charge batteries as part of normal goods delivery operations.
Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target
is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent
by increasing the value of goods and services
produced from the freight sector, relative to the
amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize near‐zeroemission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.
Consistent with mitigation incorporated. This measure
applies to owners and operators of trucks and freight
operations. The proposed project is industrial in nature and would support truck and freight operations. The
proposed project would implement MM AIR-2e, which
would require the project applicant to include
infrastructure for EV charging stations, including for
trucks, 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.
Additionally, MM AIR-2c would require (1) that all onsite off-road and on-road service equipment be zeroemission or all-electric and (2) that all project buildings would be designed to support the use of zero-emission
or all-electric service equipment. These measures would 2677
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-46
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
support the sustainable Freight Action Plan by providing EV charging infrastructure and zero-emission support
equipment.
Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project would not include
major sources of black carbon. This measure revolves
around the ARB’s SLCP Reduction Strategy that was
released in April 2016 as a result of SB 650. SB 650
required the State to develop a strategy to reduce
emissions of SLCPs. DPM reductions have come from
strong efforts to reduce on-road vehicle emissions. Car and truck engines used to be the largest sources of
anthropogenic black carbon emissions in California, but the State’s existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel
engines within 10 years. These policies are based on
existing technologies.
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.
Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include
a Sustainable Communities Strategy for reduction
of per capita vehicle miles traveled.
Not applicable. This measure applies to the public
agencies involved in adopting and implementing
RTP/SCS and is not intended to be implemented by
individual development projects.
Post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap‐and‐Trade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap‐and‐Trade
Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.
Not applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations, and,
therefore, this measure does not apply to the project.
However, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
indirectly affects people and entities who use the
products and services produced by the regulated
industrial sources when increased cost of products or
services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.
Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB
is working in coordination with several other
agencies at the federal, State, and local levels,
stakeholders, and with the public, to develop
measures as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update
and the Governor’s Executive Order B‐30‐15 to
reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net carbon
sequestration potential for California’s natural and
working land.
Not Applicable. The project site is in a built-up urban area and would not be considered natural or working
lands.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with then-applicable measures that are enacted by State lawmakers to lead to an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, the ARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping 2678
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-47
Plan Update, however, the ARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” The 2017 Scoping Plan provides an intermediate target that is intended to achieve reasonable progress toward the 2050 target. 2022 Scoping Plan
As explained earlier, the 2022 Scoping Plan addresses the recent signing of AB 1279, which codified Executive Order B-55-18’s target for California to achieve and maintain carbon net neutrality by 2045 (equivalent to a reduction in Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions of 85 percent below 1990 levels). The 2022 Scoping Plan establishes a scenario by which the State may achieve this goal by 2045 or earlier.
The 2022 Scoping Plan reaffirms and clarifies the role of local governments in achieving the State’s climate goals, particularly as it concerns the approval of new land use development projects and their environmental review under CEQA. It outlines three distinct approaches that lead agencies may consider for evaluating the consistency of proposed plans and residential and mixed use development projects with the State’s climate goals:
• The first approach involves consistency with a GHG reduction plan, such as a CEQA-qualified CAP.
• The second approach involves determining whether a project would result in net-zero GHG emissions.
• The third approach involves assessing a project’s consistency with key project attributes that have been demonstrated to reduce operational GHG emissions while advancing fair housing.
In other words, the 2022 Scoping Plan considers these approaches to evaluate whether a project may have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions. The proposed project is evaluated against the third approach because no CEQA-qualified CAP would be applicable to the City of Visalia and the project and the proposed project would not result in net-zero GHG emissions. Although the proposed project is not residential in nature, an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan by assessing the project’s consistency with key project attributes identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan remains a valid approach. An evaluation of the project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan serves as a roadmap for evaluating a project’s current design, and to determine whether it complies with current policies and planned reduction measures for GHG emissions. The comparison of a project design to Scoping Plan proposals is not by itself a metric for determining project-level significance, but a step in showing how the project supports current regulations and is aligned with future GHG reduction strategies in development stages. The 2022 Scoping Plan acknowledges that projects incorporating some, but not all, of the key project attributes may also be consistent with the State’s climate goals, at the discretion of the lead agency. Furthermore, consistency with other attributes of the 2022 Scoping Plan would reduce operational GHG emissions, as described in Table 3.8-7, by reducing operational energy use and increasing access to EV charging infrastructure.
2679
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-48
Table 3.8-7 presents the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table 3.8-7: Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Update
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Light-Duty Vehicles: Smart Growth/Reduce Vehicle
Miles Traveled. VMT per capita reduced 25 percent
below 2019 levels by 2030, and 30 percent below
2019 levels by 2045.
Consistent. Based on the quantitative VMT analysis
and described in Section 3.15 Transportation of the
Draft EIR, the proposed project would have a less
than significant VMT impact with implementation of
mitigation measures to provide end-of-trip bicycle
facilities and expanding the bicycle network.
Deploy ZEVs. Medium Heavy and Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks. This measure is supported by Executive Order
N79-20 and plans in the AB 74 ITS Report: 100
percent of MD/HDV sales are ZEV by 2040.
It does not depend on VMT reductions from the
freight and truck transportation sector.
Consistent with mitigation. Medium heavy and
heavy heavy-duty trucks would be compliant with
truck Fuel Economy Standards: California Phase II
GHG Standards and would transition to ZEV by 2045.
Infrastructure for the proposed project would be
required to support this transition to ZEV; as such,
MM AIR-2d and MM GHG-2b are required to
demonstrate consistency with this measure.
Implementation of MM AIR-2d would require the
project applicant to include infrastructure for EV
charging stations, including for trucks, 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. Moreover,
MM AIR-2d would require the any buildings that
would include tractor trailer parking spaces would
include an electrical room that is sufficiently sized to hold additional electrical panels that may be needed
to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations.
Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining CA fuel demand. This measure involves the phase out
oil and gas extraction operations by 2045 as well as
CCS on majority of petroleum refining operations by
2030 Interim goals are to reduce petroleum
production reduced in line with its demand.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would include
light industrial land uses and is not related to the
petroleum industry.
Low Carbon Fuels for Fuels for Buildings and
Industry. In 2030s renewable natural gas (RNG)
blended in pipeline, ramping up to 2040. Dedicated
hydrogen pipelines constructed to serve certain
industrial clusters
Consistent. Natural gas utilized by the proposed
project would contain this RNG blend as
implemented by the Scoping Plan and the energy
providers.
Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation. Biomass supply
is used to produce conventional and advanced
biofuels, as well as hydrogen.
Consistent. Off-road construction equipment would
utilize renewable diesel in compliance with the In-Use
Off-Road rule. On-road diesel trucks would also utilize these fuels consistent with the LCFS.
Generate clean electricity. Electric sector GHG target
of 38 MMT CO2e in 2030 and 31 MMT CO2e in 2045.
This GHG target is determined to meet the loads
Not Applicable. The proposed project will benefit
indirectly from these goals, however, there are no
2680
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-49
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
associated with the scenario and corresponds to
meeting the 2021 SB 100 Joint Agency Report’s 100
percent of retail sales with eligible renewable and
zero-carbon resources definition.
actions related to the project itself, because this
measure would apply to passenger vehicle producers.
Decarbonize industrial energy supply. Electrification
goals by industry sector specific to Food Industry,
Agriculture, and Chemical and Allied Products and
Pulp and Paper Industry for milestone years 2030 and
2045. Other Industrial Manufacturing: 0 percent
energy electrified by 2030 and 50 percent by 2045.
Construction Equipment: 25 percent energy demand
electrified by 2030 and 75 percent by 2045.
Retire all combined heat and power facilities by 2040.
Consistent. Construction equipment used for the
proposed project would comply with ARB off-road
regulations meeting milestones for electrification as
required by regulations as promulgated. Starting in
2024, amendments to the off-road In-Use Diesel Rule
require use of renewable diesel consistent with the
2022 Scoping Plan and implementing the LCFS. Other
portions of this measure are not applicable to the
proposed project.
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.
Reduce non-combustion emissions. This strategy
involves a number of sectors and measures:
• Increase landfill and dairy digester methane
capture.
• Capture of fugitive methane emissions from the oil
and gas infrastructure components.
• The introduction of Low GWP refrigerants
introduced as building electrification increases
mitigating HFC emissions.
Consistent. The proposed project would use low
GWP refrigerants as part of the building design
consistent with current California Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) regulations. Note, no cold
storage is proposed as part of the project.
Compensate for remaining emissions. This measure
encompasses using Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) to
compensate for remaining emissions. Targets are
demonstration projects by 2030 and CDR scaled to
compensate for remaining GHG emissions in 2045.
Not applicable. This measure relates to remaining
emissions and is not applicable at the individual
project level.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November.
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, solar-ready rooftop design, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than
78. MM GHG-2a would further reduce GHG emissions due to a reduction in electricity demand and ensure that the proposed project and City would contribute to meeting the State’s climate goals.
Additionally, MM AIR-2d and MM GHG-2b are required to ensure that the proposed project would 2681
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-50
not hinder the future transition to ZEV trucks. Accordingly, taking into account the proposed project’s identified design features and the progress being made by the State toward reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the proposed project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, and does not obstruct their attainment after incorporation of mitigation.
City of Visalia General Plan
As described previously, the City of Visalia General Plan was updated and adopted on October 14, 2014 and establishes objectives and policies that are relevant to GHG emissions. Specifically, General Plan Objective AQ-O-3 aims to, “reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change in accord with federal and State law.” The General Plan includes several policies to address GHG emissions, but only policy AQ-P-12 would apply to individual development projects.
This policy applies to projects that would exceed district thresholds. However, as demonstrated in this analysis, with implementation of the indicated mitigation measures, the project would not exceed district thresholds, and therefore the policy would not apply to this project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
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) 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.
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.
2682
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-51
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
3.8.6 - Cumulative Impacts
GHG emissions and global climate change inherently represent cumulative impacts. GHG emissions cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change.
No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature; instead, the GHG emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities have contributed to and would contribute to global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. According to the Valley Air District, project GHG emissions are inherently cumulative and do not require the estimation of cumulative projects in the region of the project.44 Thus, the determination of GHG cumulative impacts is based on: the State target established by AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, SB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to at least 40 percent below the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030, and AB 1279 which required the State to reduce GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. In order to ensure that this goal would be achieved, as discussed above in detail, Air Districts and Lead Agencies developed GHG thresholds to ensure compliance with the State target. Projects with GHG emissions in conformance with these thresholds, therefore, would not be considered significant for purposes of CEQA. In addition, although the emissions from such cumulative projects would add an incremental amount to the overall GHG emissions that cause global climate change impacts, emissions from projects consistent with these thresholds would not be a “cumulatively considerable” contribution under CEQA. Such projects would not be “cumulatively considerable,” because they would be helping to solve the cumulative problem as a part of the AB 32 and SB 32 process. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable thresholds as evaluated above in detail with mitigation incorporated, and as a result, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to generation of GHG emissions.
Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a and MM GHG-2b.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 44 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), Chapter 8.9.1. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_guidance_documents.htm. Accessed June 8, 2023.
2683
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2684
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-1
3.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9.1 - Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) describes the existing characteristics of the project site and vicinity with respect to hazards and hazardous materials, as well as the relevant regulatory setting. It also describes the proposed project's potential impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials and presents feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required. (For a discussion of potential hazards related to geology, soils, and seismicity, see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR. For a discussion of potential impacts related to wildfire, see Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR.) The descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on the site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA),
1,2 prepared by Ninyo & Moore and provided in
Appendix F of this Draft EIR, and publicly available databases including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor, California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) (formerly the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources [DOGGR]).
During the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping period, no comments related to hazards and hazardous materials were received.
3.9.2 - Environmental Setting
Hazards
This description of existing conditions focuses on hazardous materials and wastes as well as hazards from fire. A hazard is a situation that poses a level of threat to life, health, property, or the environment. Hazards can be dormant or potential, with only a theoretical risk of harm. However, once a hazard becomes active, it can create an emergency. A hazardous situation that has already occurred is called an incident. Emergency response is action taken in response to an unexpected and dangerous occurrence in an attempt to mitigate its impact on people, structures, or the environment. Emergency situations can range from natural disasters to hazardous materials problems and transportation incidents.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials include but are not limited to hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes, as defined in Section 25501 and Section 25117, respectively, of the California Health and Safety Code. A hazardous material is any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released; and any material that a handler or an administering regulatory agency under Section 25501 has a reasonable basis for believing would be 1 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20. 2 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27. 2685
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-2
injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment. Various properties may cause a substance to be considered hazardous, including:
• Toxicity—causes human health effects.
• Ignitability—has the ability to burn.
• Corrosivity—causes severe burns or damage to materials. • Reactivity—causes explosions or generates toxic gases.
Recognized Environmental Concern (REC) is one of the terms used to identify environmental liability within the context of a Phase I ESA and a Phase II ESA. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines an REC as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” Hazardous Building Materials
Many older buildings contain building materials that consist of hazardous materials. These materials include lead-based paint, asbestos-containing material, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Prior to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban in 1978, lead-based paint was commonly used on interior and exterior surfaces of buildings. Disturbances such as sanding and scraping activities, renovation work, gradual wear and tear, old peeling paint, and paint dust particulates have been found to contaminate surface soils or cause lead dust to migrate and affect indoor air quality. Exposure to residual lead can cause severe health effects, especially in children.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that was extensively used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction materials before such uses were banned by the EPA in the 1970s. In addition, many types of electrical equipment contained PCBs as an insulator, including transformers and capacitors. After PCBs were determined to be a carcinogen in the mid to late 1970s, the EPA banned PCB use in new equipment and began a program to phase out certain existing PCB-containing equipment. For example, fluorescent lighting ballasts manufactured after January 1, 1978, do not contain PCBs and are required to have a label clearly stating that PCBs are not present in the unit.
Hazardous Substances
A hazardous substance can be any biological, natural, or chemical substance, whether solid, liquid, or gas, that may cause harm to human health. Hazardous substances are classified on the basis of their potential health effects, whether acute (immediate) or chronic (long-term). Dangerous goods are classified on the basis of immediate physical or chemical effects, such as fire, explosion, corrosion, and poisoning. An accident involving dangerous goods could seriously harm human health or damage property or the environment. Harm to human health may happen suddenly (acute), such as dizziness, nausea, and itchy eyes or skin; or it may happen gradually over years (chronic), such as dermatitis or cancer. Some people can be more susceptible than others. Hazardous substances and dangerous goods can include antiseptic used for a cut, paint for walls, a cleaning product for the bathroom, chlorine in a pool, carbon monoxide from a motor vehicle, fumes from welding, vapors 2686
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-3
from adhesives, or dust from cement, stone, or rubber operations. Such hazardous substances can make humans very sick if they are not used properly.
Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is to be discarded, abandoned, or recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. Specifically, materials and waste may be considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxic); can be ignited by open flame (ignitable); corrode other materials (corrosive); or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactive). Soil or groundwater contaminated with hazardous materials above specified regulatory State or federal thresholds is considered hazardous waste if it is removed from a site for disposal. If handled, disposed, or otherwise treated improperly, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.
Hazardous Materials Listing
The Cortese List is a list of known hazardous materials or hazardous waste facilities that meet one or more of the provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5, including:
• The list of hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.3 • The list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year from the State Water Board GeoTracker database.4
• The list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the State Water Board with waste constituents exceeding hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit.5 • The list of active cease-and-desist orders and cleanup and abatement orders from the State Water Board.6
• The list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified by the DTSC.7 3 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List—Site Cleanup (Cortese List).
Website: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/ SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. 4 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). Website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/sites_by_county. 5 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/files/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCurrentList.pdf. 6 California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA). Website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/files/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCDOCAOList.xlsx. 7 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Website: https://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962- 5a/.
2687
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-4
Existing Fire-Related Conditions and Presence of Hazardous Materials On-Site The City of Visalia (City) contains mostly urban and suburban uses with relatively little open space or foothill areas susceptible to wildfire hazards. The southwestern areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) contain some “Moderate” fire hazard zones.
Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 direct the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to map fire hazard within State Responsibility Areas (SRA) based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been identified by CAL FIRE as a major cause of wildfire spread. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), classify a wildland zone as Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard based on the average hazard across the area included in the zone. There are also Fire Protection Responsibility Areas (non-SRA), delineated as either a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) or a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). According to the CAL FIRE, there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) within the City.
Database Search
As shown in Table 3.9-1, the project site was not listed in any of the searched databases.
Table 3.9-1: Project Site Hazardous Materials Search Results Database Search Result
DTSC EnviroStor: Hazardous Waste and Substances
Site List (Cortese)
No hazardous waste and substances on-site.
California State Water Resources Control Board
GeoTracker: Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Site List
No LUST on-site.
California State Water Resources Control Board: Sites
Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous
Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit
Project site not listed.
California State Water Resources Control Board: List
of “Active” Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and
Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs)
No CDOs and/or CAOs on-site.
DTSC: List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject To
Corrective Action Pursuant To Section 25187.5 Of The
Health And Safety Code
Project site not listed.
Sources:
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2023.
California State Water Resources Board (State Water Board) 2023. 2688
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-5
Table 3.9-2: Summary of Off-site Facilities of Potential Concern Facility
Name/Address
Distance/Direction
from Site
(Approximation by
EDR) Database Summary
Amazon Service LLC
3315 North Kelsey
Street
Adjoining west of
the site
HWTS CERS TANKS The facility was listed in the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS)
TANKS database for aboveground
petroleum storage. Further information
was not provided.
The facility was listed in the HWTS
(Hazardous Waste Tracking System) for
general warehousing and storage.
Violations were not found.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
Roadrunner
Transportation
8711 West Riggin
Avenue
Adjoining southeast
of the site
RCRA NONGEN/NLR The facility was listed as a non-generator of hazardous waste in Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) NONGEN/NLR
database. Violations were not noted.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
UPS Freight
8711 West Riggin
Avenue
Adjoining southeast
of the site
HWTS CERS HAZ
WASTE HAZNET
CERS
The facility was listed in the Hazardous
Waste Tracking System (HWTS). The status
was inactive for the facility.
The facility was listed in the CERS HAZ
WASTE database as a hazardous waste
generator.
The facility was listed in the Facility and
Manifest Data (HAZNET) for the removal of
0.085 ton of unspecified organic liquid
mixture in 2017.
The facility was listed in the CERS facility as
a chemical storage facility. Violations were
recorded, including failure to complete and
electronically submit the business activities
page and/or business owner operator
identification page, etc. The facility
returned to compliance.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
VWR International,
LC
8711 West Riggin
Avenue
Adjoining southeast
of the site
HWTS CUPA
LISTINGS
The facility was listed in Hazardous
Materials/Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA) Tulare database as a large
generator.
2689
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-6
Facility
Name/Address
Distance/Direction
from Site
(Approximation by
EDR) Database Summary
The facility was listed as inactive in the
HWTS database. Additional information
was not provided.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
Kawneer Company
Inc
7200 West Doe
Avenue
0.713 mile southsoutheast RCRA-LQG
ENVIROSTOR CPSSLIC PADS CERS
The facility was listed as a large quantity
generator in RCRA-LQG. The facility was
described as aluminum-extruded product
manufacturing, secondary smelting,
refining, and alloying of nonferrous metal,
and metal window and door manufacture.
Violations were not found.
The facility was listed in the PCB Activity
Database System (PADS). Further
information was not provided.
The facility was listed in the Cleanup
Program Sites (formerly known as Spills,
Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (CPSSLIC) and ENVIROSTOR database. The facility performed anodizing of aluminum
architectural products from 1971 to 1993.
Two lined evaporation ponds were used for
disposal sludge and other wastes. 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA), dichloroethene
(DCE), other organic/salt were reported
leak to aquifer used for drinking water
supply. In 1990, approximately 11,100 tons
of residual materials from the ponds, pond
liners, and visually observed impacted soil
beneath the pond liners were excavated.
The case was open for site assessment in
the database. A recent groundwater
sampling report was prepared by CDM
Smith Inc. (CDM Smith), dated on July 8,
2021. According to the report, three
groundwater samples (including one
duplicate sample) were collected on
February 16, 2021. 1,1- DCE was not
detected from the samples.
Based on the distance and groundwater
flow direction, this listing is not considered
an environmental concern.
Heller Performance
Polymers Inc.
7227 Doe Avenue
0.729 mile southsoutheast SEMS Archive
CORRACTS RCRATSDF RCRA-SQG
ENVIROSTOR CPSAccording to the Superfund Enterprise
Management System (SEMS) Archive
2690
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-7
Facility
Name/Address
Distance/Direction
from Site
(Approximation by
EDR) Database Summary
SLIC RAATS FINDS
ECHO CERS
database, this listing had a non-NPL status
of “deferred to RCRA (subtitle C).”
The facility was listed as a small quantity
generator in RCRA-SQG. A violation related
to financial requirements was recorded in
1988 and the facility returned to
compliance.
The facility was listed in the ENVIROSTOR
and CPS-SLIC database due to volatile
organic compounds contamination in 1989.
The case was closed as of August 1, 1989.
Based on the distance, regulatory status,
and groundwater flow direction, this listing
is not considered an environmental
concern.
Notes:
EDR = Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Off-site properties/facilities listed in the database report were evaluated as to their potential to impact soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater at the site. To supplement the information in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) report, the State Water Board GeoTracker and DTSC EnviroStor databases were reviewed. Information from the EDR database report and supplemental sources is included in the facilities of potential concern summaries below. The following properties/facilities were interpreted to represent a potential environmental concern to the site based on their proximity to the site, the nature of the database on which they are listed, and/or the assumed direction of the groundwater flow in the site vicinity (southwest).
According to the Phase I ESA, there is a low likelihood that the listings for the other off-site properties listed in the database report represent an REC to the site at the current time. This opinion is based on one or more of the following factors:
• The nature of the database(s) on which the property is listed, and/or because the property was not listed on a database that reports unauthorized releases of hazardous substances; • Reported regulatory agency status (i.e., case closed); • Reported nature of the case (i.e., soil contaminated only); • Reported distance of the property from the site; and/or • Location of the property in relation to the site with respect to topography or expected groundwater flow direction (southwest).
2691
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-8
3.9.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the EPA to regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Occupational Health and Safety Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the United States Department of Labor is responsible for implementing and enforcing federal laws and regulations that address worker health and safety. OSHA requires specific training for use and handling of hazardous materials, provision of information (procedures for personal safety, hazardous materials storage and handling, and emergency response) to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets from materials manufacturers. Material safety data sheets describe the risks, as well as proper handling and procedures, related to particular hazardous materials. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.
Code of Federal Regulations, Titles 29 and 40
Provisions in Code of Federal Regulations Title 29 include requirements to manage and control exposure to lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. In California, these requirements are implemented by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) under California Code of Regulations Title 8 (see further discussion of California Code of Regulations Title 8 below). The removal and handling of asbestos-containing materials is governed primarily by EPA regulations under Code of Federal Regulations Title 40. The regulations require that the appropriate State agency be notified before any demolition, or before any renovations, of buildings that could contain asbestos or asbestos-containing materials above a specified threshold.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The EPA is responsible for implementing and enforcing federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. The primary legislation includes RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (known as SARA Title III). RCRA and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes and mandate that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment, including detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities. As permitted by RCRA, in 1992, the EPA approved California’s program called the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), administered by DTSC, to regulate hazardous wastes in California, as discussed further below. The purpose of CERCLA is to identify and clean up chemically contaminated 2692
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-9
sites that pose a significant environmental health threat, and the Hazard Ranking System is used to determine whether a site should be placed on the National Priorities List for cleanup activities. SARA relates primarily to emergency management of accidental releases and requires annual reporting of continuous emissions and accidental releases of specified compounds that are compiled into a nationwide Toxics Release Inventory. Finally, SARA Title III requires formation of State and local emergency planning committees that are responsible for collecting material handling and transportation data for use as a basis for planning and provision of chemical inventory data to the community at large under the “right-to-know” provision of the law.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of Hazardous Materials Safety regulates the transportation of hazardous materials on water, rail, or highways, through air, or in pipelines and enforces guidelines created to protect human health and the environment and reduce potential impacts by creating hazardous material packaging and transportation requirements. It also includes provisions for material classification, packaging, marking, labeling, place-carding, and shipping documentation. The USDOT provides hazardous materials safety training programs and supervises activities involving hazardous materials. In addition, the USDOT develops and recommends regulations governing the multimodal transportation of hazardous materials.
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act of 1990 and the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule (amended 2010) of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 112) require the owner or operator of a tank facility with an aggregate storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons to notify the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and prepare an SPCC plan. The SPCC plan must identify appropriate spill containment measures and equipment for diverting spills from sensitive areas, and must discuss facility-specific requirements for the storage system, inspections, recordkeeping, security, and training.
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (Title 33 § 1251, et seq. of the United States Code [33 USC 1251, et seq.]) is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The CWA established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States (not including groundwater). The objective of the act is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. Responsibility for administering the CWA resides with the State Water Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs); the Central Valley RWQCB administers the CWA for Tulare County. Section 404 of the CWA regulates temporary and permanent fill and disturbance of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes to place fill in navigable waters and/or to alter waters of the United States below the ordinary high-water mark in non-tidal waters. Section 401 of the CWA requires compliance with State water quality standards for actions within State waters. Compliance with the water quality standards required under Section 401 is a condition for issuance of a Section 404 permit. Under Section 401 of the CWA, every applicant 2693
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-10
for a permit or license for any activity that may result in a discharge to a water body must obtain a State water quality certification from the RWQCB to demonstrate that the proposed activity would comply with State water quality standards.
State
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The HWCL is the primary hazardous waste statute in the State of California, and implements RCRA as a “cradle to grave” waste management system for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that protects human health and the environment and would reduce potential resulting impacts. The law specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their waste is hazardous and to ensure proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous waste used or reused as raw materials. The law exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning, and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of types of waste and waste management activities that are not covered by federal law.
California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code (HSC § 25141) defines hazardous waste as a waste or combination of waste that may:
. . . because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infection characteristics:
(1) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitation-reversible illness. (2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment, due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of or otherwise managed.
These laws and regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribe management practices for hazardous wastes; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous waste that commonly would be disposed of in landfills.
Under both the RCRA and the HWCL, hazardous waste manifests must be retained by the generator for a minimum of 3 years. The generator must match copies of the manifests with copies of manifest receipts from the treatment, disposal, or recycling facility.
In accordance with Chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC § 25404, et seq.), local regulatory agencies enforce many federal and State regulatory programs through the CUPA program, including:
2694
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-11
• Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) (HSC § 25501, et seq.). • State Uniform Fire Code (UFC) requirements (UFC § 80.103, as adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to HSC § 13143.9).
• Underground storage tanks (USTs) (HSC § 25280, et seq.). • Aboveground storage tanks (HSC § 25270.5(c)).
• Hazardous waste generator requirements (HSC § 25100, et seq.).
California Code of Regulations, Title 8
Worker health and safety is regulated at the federal level by OSHA. In California, worker health and safety protections are regulated by Cal/OSHA, which assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations and also provides consultant assistance to employers.
These regulations concern the use of hazardous materials in the workplace, including requirements for employee safety training; availability of safety equipment; accident and illness prevention programs; hazardous substance exposure warnings; and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans.
Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, and requires that safety data sheets (formerly known as material safety data sheets) be available for employee information and training programs.
Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations.
California standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials are contained in Title 8 California Code of Regulations and include practices for all industries (General Industrial Safety Orders), with specific practices for construction and other industries. Workers at hazardous waste sites (or workers who may be exposed to hazardous wastes that might be encountered during excavation of contaminated soils) must receive specialized training and medical supervision according to the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations (Title 8 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 5192).
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1529 authorizes Cal/OSHA to implement the survey requirements of Code of Federal Regulations Title 29 relating to asbestos. These federal and State regulations require facilities to take all necessary precautions to protect employees and the public from exposure to asbestos. Workers who conduct asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with federal and State OSHA requirements. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) oversees the removal of regulated asbestos-containing materials (see “Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing Rule” below).
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1 includes requirements to manage and control exposure to lead-based paint. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage, and disposal of lead-containing material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring, and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead-based material. Loose and peeling lead-based paint must be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead equals or exceeds 2695
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-12
applicable hazardous waste thresholds. Federal and State OSHA regulations require a supervisor who is certified with respect to identifying existing and predictable lead hazards to oversee air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities in areas where lead-based paint may be present. Special protective measures and notification of Cal/OSHA are required for highly hazardous construction tasks related to lead, such as manual demolition, abrasive blasting, welding, cutting, or torch burning of structures, where lead-based paint is present.
Cal/OSHA enforcement units conduct on-site evaluations and issue notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.
California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4.5
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, contains the Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, which includes California waste identification and classification regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3, “Soluble Threshold Limits Concentrations/Total Threshold Limits Concentration Regulatory Limits,” identifies the concentrations at which soil is determined to be a California hazardous waste. California’s Universal Waste Rule (Title 22 CCR § 66273) provides an alternative set of management standards in lieu of regulation as hazardous wastes for certain common hazardous wastes, as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.9. Universal wastes include fluorescent lamps, mercury thermostats, and other mercury-containing equipment. Existing structures may contain fluorescent light ballasts that could contain mercury or lead. The Alternative Management Standards for Treated Wood Waste (Title 22 CCR § 67386) were developed by the DTSC to allow for disposal of treated wood as a nonhazardous waste to simplify and facilitate the safe and economical disposal of such waste. Chemically treated wood can contain elevated levels of hazardous chemicals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, copper, pentachlorophenol, or creosote) that equal or exceed applicable hazardous waste thresholds. The Alternative Management Standards provide for less stringent storage requirements and extended accumulation periods, allow shipments without a hazardous waste manifest and a hazardous waste hauler, and allow disposal at specific nonhazardous waste landfills.
Porter-Cologne Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne Act) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the State must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the State’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The RWQCBs are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans (also known as basin plans) for all areas of the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The Porter-Cologne Act sets forth the obligations of State Water Board and RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans that recognize and reflect the differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s groundwater and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. It also authorizes the State Water Board and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements and to implement programs for controlling pollution in State waters. Finally, the Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the State Water Board and RWQCBs to oversee site investigation and cleanup for unauthorized releases of pollutants to soils and groundwater and in some cases to surface waters or sediments. 2696
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-13
California Emergency Response Plan
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, State, and local governments and private agencies. Responding to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies. Emergency response team members respond and work with local fire and police agencies, emergency medical providers, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), CAL FIRE, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE has mapped fire threat potential throughout California. CAL FIRE maps fire threat based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate). The threat levels include no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threat.
Additionally, CAL FIRE produced a 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, which contains goals, objectives, and policies to prepare for and mitigate the effects of fire on California’s natural and built environments. CAL FIRE’s Office of the State Fire Marshal provides oversight of enforcement of the California Fire Code as well as overseeing hazardous liquid pipeline safety.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Standards Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and is viewed as being some of the most stringent standards in the nation. The Code is updated triennially. The new 2022 edition of the CBC became effective January 1, 2023. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all new high-rise buildings and residential buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building material; and particular types of construction.
California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code includes fire safety regulations that restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors8 on construction equipment that use an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided on-site for various types of work in fire-prone areas.
These laws and regulations include the following:
• Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 4442);
8 A spark arrestor is a device that prohibits exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine from passing through the impeller blades where they could cause a spark. A carbon trap is commonly used to retain carbon particles from the exhaust. 2697
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-14
• Appropriate fire suppression equipment would be maintained during the highest fire danger period—from April 1 to December 1 (PRC § 4428);
• On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials would be removed to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame and the construction contractor would maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment (PRC § 4427); and
• On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines would not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (PRC § 4431).
Department of Toxic Substance Control
The DTSC is the agency authorized by the EPA to enforce and implement federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. State and federal laws mandate detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly stored, handled, used, and disposed of, and, if such materials are accidentally released, prevent or mitigate injury to health or the environment. Such laws include a required to prepare written plans, such as Hazard Communication Plans and HMBP. HMBPs are required for business that handle a hazardous material, a mixture containing a hazardous material (including hazardous waste), or an extremely hazardous substance (as defined in Section 355.61 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) at reportable quantities, which are generally equal to or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of a gas, and 500 pounds of a solid).9 (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1 [25500-25519]).
A HMBP contains detailed information including the following:
• An inventory of hazardous materials at a facility.
• Emergency response plans and procedures to be followed in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
• Requirements to train employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material, including onboarding for new employees and annual refresher courses for existing employees.
• A site map that depicts north orientation, loading areas, internal roads, adjacent streets, storm and sewer drains, access and exit points, emergency shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazardous material handling and storages areas, and emergency response equipment.
California regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are equal to or exceed the federal regulation requirements. Most State hazardous materials regulations are contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The DTSC generally acts as the lead agency for soil and groundwater cleanup projects that affect public health and establishes cleanup levels for subsurface contamination that 9 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2022. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Website:
https://calepa.ca.gov/cupa/lawsregs/hazardous-materials-business-plan-program/. Accessed October 27, 2022. 2698
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-15
are equal to, or more restrictive than, federal levels. The DTSC has also developed land disposal restrictions and treatment standards waste disposal in California.
California State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Board enforces, among other laws and regulations, those regulations pertaining to implementation of underground storage tank programs. It also allocates monies to eligible parties who request reimbursement of State funds to clean up soil and groundwater pollution from LUSTs.
The State Water Board also enforces the Porter-Cologne Act through its nine regional boards, including the Central Valley RWQCB described below.
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, including implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988. The ARB has developed State air quality standards and is responsible for monitoring air quality in conjunction with the local air districts.
Regional
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Central Valley RWQCB can act as a responsible agency to provide oversight of sites where the quality of groundwater or surface waters is threatened. The Central Valley RWQCB has the authority to require investigations and remedial actions.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The Valley Air District has primary responsibility for control of air pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products (which are the responsibility of the EPA and ARB). The Valley Air District is responsible for preparation of attainment plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, management of volatile organic compounds (VOCcontaining soils (District Rules 4002, 4651, and 6130), and the issuance of permits for activities including asbestos removal, demolition, and renovation activities (District Rule 7050).
Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Tulare County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), updated and adopted in 2011 and incorporated in the EOP, establishes responsibilities, threat levels and triggers for evacuation, evacuation areas, and evacuation routes to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies. The extent and the severity of a disaster will determine which routes and which direction people must take in order to escape or avoid the afflicted areas. The EOP places the City of Visalia in Zone 5 and identifies State Route (SR) 198, SR-99, and SR-63 as evacuation routes. The Agriculture Center in Tulare is identified as a County shelter. Visalia and other cities within the County are responsible for preparedness activities, including identifying equipment, vehicles, and critical supplies; identifying locations outside of potential impact areas to move resources; and keeping contact information updated for the County and State database. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, the City of Visalia will coordinate with the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and State and federal agencies responsible for providing emergency shelter for displaced residents. The sites most commonly used 2699
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-16
are schools, senior centers, community centers, public buildings, and churches. Kaweah Delta Health Care District provides emergency health care services.
Tulare County Division of Environmental Health
In Visalia, the Tulare County Division of Environmental Health is the local agency responsible for the implementation of the State-mandated Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program.
Cal/EPA designated the Tulare County Division of Environmental Health as the CUPA for Tulare County. The role of the CUPA is to assure consolidation, consistency, and coordination of the hazardous materials programs within the County.
The Tulare County Division of Environmental Health is responsible for overseeing the six hazardous materials programs in the County. The Tulare County Division of Environmental Health is responsible for inspecting facilities that handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, own/operate USTs, own/operate aboveground petroleum storage tanks, or handle other materials subject to the California Accidental Release Program.
Tulare County has prepared an HMBP and a multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which serve as the County’s emergency response plan for hazardous materials emergency incidents.
In addition, the Environmental Health Division acts as lead agency to ensure proper remediation of leaking underground petroleum storage tank sites and certain other contaminated sites. The Environmental Health Division provides three permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) dropoff facilities in the County, including one in Visalia, and operates mobile collection events throughout the year.
Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code requires each county to create an airport land use commission and for this commission to prepare and adopt an airport land use plan for each public use airport in the county. In accordance with this mandate, the Tulare County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prepared the current Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan in 2012. The intention of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is to promote the safety and well-being of the public by ensuring adoption of land use regulations which minimize exposure of persons to hazards associated with the operation of these airports including aircraft accidents and aircraft noise.
The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan establishes various airport zoning designations, such as the Visalia Municipal Airport’s Airport Influence Area. Land use compatibilities within these airport zoning designations are defined in the Tulare County Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Section 3 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). Light and Flex Industrial and Commercial land uses are considered compatible within the Airport Influence Area with consistency determination requirements, such as the prohibition of aboveground storage of over 2,000 gallons of hazardous materials.
2700
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-17
Local
City of Visalia Fire Department
The Visalia Fire Department (VFD) provides fire and life safety services for residents located within the city limits while the Tulare County Fire Department provides additional services for unincorporated areas within the Planning Area. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.13, Public Services, as of this writing, VFD staffs five paramedic engine companies, one truck company, and a Battalion Chief daily, from five fire station locations. The engines and truck are staffed with three personnel, giving the Fire Department a daily minimum staffing of 19. All apparatus are staffed with a paramedic at all times. The City requires all new development and subdivisions to meet UFC provisions, and the VFD reviews development applications during the plan check process.
The VFD also provides oversight of hazardous materials. The VFD is responsible for conducting inspections for code compliance and fire-safe practices and for scene management and investigation of fire and hazardous materials incidents. According to Chapter 8.32 (Hazardous Materials) of the City of Visalia Municipal Code (Municipal Code), an emergency situation created by a hazardous material release which poses an imminent risk to the life, health, or safety of persons, property, or to the environment shall be mitigated in the manner prescribed and pursuant to the direction of the VFD. The VFD regulates explosive and hazardous materials under the UFC, and permits the handling, storage, and use of any explosive or other hazardous material.
City of Visalia Municipal Code
Visalia Fire Code
Chapter 8.20 of the Municipal Code details the Visalia Fire Code, which is an adoption of the 2019 California Fire Code with some amendments. The purpose of the Visalia Fire Code is to regulate the safeguarding of life, property, and public welfare to a reasonable degree from the hazards of fire, hazardous materials release, and/or explosion due to handling of dangerous and hazardous materials, conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy and use of buildings and premises, the operation, installation, construction, and location of attendant equipment, the installation and maintenance of adequate means of egress, and providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees.
Visalia Hydrant Ordinance
Chapter 16.36.120 of the Municipal Code outlines the following requirements for water mains, fire hydrants, and fire department access as detailed more fully in Section 3.16, Wildfire.
City of Visalia General Plan
Following are General Plan goals, policies, and objectives that are relevant to this analysis.
Chapter 8: Safety and Noise
Objectives
S-O-3 Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.
S-P-15 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. 2701
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-18
The level of remediation and cleanup will be determined based on the intended use and health risk to the public. At the minimum, remediation will be in compliance with federal and State standards. Clean up shall be required in conjunction with new development, reconstruction, property transfer of ownership, and/ or continued operation after the discovery of contamination.
S-P-17 Ensure that all specified hazardous facilities conform to the Tulare County Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
S-P-18 Coordinate enforcement of the Hazardous Material Disclosure Law and the implementation of the Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan with the Tulare County Health and Human Service Agency.
State and federal legislation requires every business that handles hazardous materials report their inventories to the local fire department. The program’s primary function is to identify, monitor, and assist businesses using or storing hazardous materials and allow the City to handle emergency incidents more effectively. The City will maintain and share this information with police, fire, and emergency services.
S-P-19 Coordinate with the Tulare County Environmental Health Division and other appropriate regulatory agencies during the review process of all proposals for the use of hazardous materials or those involving properties that may have toxic contamination, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, CAM 17 metals, asbestos, and lead.
S-P-20 Require applicants of projects in areas of known or suspected hazardous materials occurrences such as petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, CAM 17 metals, USTs, location of asbestos rocks and other such contamination to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with regulatory agency testing standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the project applicant to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of appropriate agencies, such as Tulare County Department of Environmental Health, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board.
S-P-26 Implement a program that provides vegetation management services to elderly, disabled, or low-income property owners who lack the resources to remove flammable vegetation from around their homes.
S-P-27 Implement a fuel modification program, which also includes residential maintenance requirements and enforcement, plan submittal and approval process, guidelines for planting, and a listing of undesirable plant species. Require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction. 2702
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-19
S-O-6 Provide comprehensive emergency response and evacuation routes for Visalia area residents.
S-P-30 Integrate the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, in particular the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections, into the development review process, the Emergency Operations Plan, and Capital Improvement Program, as appropriate.
City of Visalia
The City’s EOP was adopted in 2011. The City’s EOP is designed to establish a framework for implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System for the City, which is located within the Governor's Office of Emergency Service’s Mutual Aid Region V. The City’s EOP is used in conjunction with the Tulare County’s EOP, which incorporates the County’s updated 2011 Evacuation Plan, establishes responsibilities, threat levels, and triggers for evacuation, evacuation areas, and evacuation routes to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies, including wildfire. As described more fully therein and below (see Regulatory Framework), the extent and the severity of a disaster will typically determine which routes and which direction people must take. Additionally, the City’s EOP will be reviewed and revised annually by the City of Visalia Disaster Preparedness Manager (Fire Department Battalion Chief) and every four years the entire City EOP will be reviewed, updated, and redistributed.10 It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the City of Visalia will continue to upgrade preparedness strategies and techniques in all departments so as to be prepared when disaster, either natural or man-made, occurs in order to escape or avoid the afflicted areas.
The County’s Evacuation Plan places the City of Visalia in Zone 5 and identifies SR-198, SR-99, and SR-63 as evacuation routes. SR-198, SR-99 and SR-63 are all four-lane highways (two lanes in each direction) and thus can accommodate significant amounts of traffic. Additionally, because these highways are heavily traveled and commercially important corridors, they are regularly maintained by Caltrans. The Agriculture Center in Tulare is identified as a County shelter available to the community in the event of a catastrophic emergency.
11 3.9.4 - Methodology and Approach to Analysis
This evaluation focuses on whether the proposed project would result in changes to the physical environment that would cause or exacerbate adverse effects related to the use, transportation, disposal, accidental release, or emission of hazardous materials. The evaluation also includes a determination of whether the proposed project would result in changes to the physical environment, or would impair or interfere with emergency response plans, or would expose people or structures to increased wildfire hazards (including dangers from overhead power lines). For the evaluation of potential construction-related and operational impacts from existing hazardous materials in project site soils, sediments, groundwater, surface water, and structures, the results of environmental sampling are compared to identified screening levels. The following analysis is based, 10 City of Visalia. 2011. City of Visalia Emergency Operations Plan. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/documents/Engineering/Flood%20Info/Complete%20EOP%20Binder%202011.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2023. 11 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8, Safety and Noise. October. 2703
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-20
in part, on information provided by the General Plan, the Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA, and State of California websites.
Additional analyses regarding hazards and health risk related to emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality. Flooding and inundation hazards, including those related to erosion and mudflow, are addressed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Trafficrelated safety hazards are addressed in Section 3.14, Transportation. Other geotechnical-related safety hazards, such as earthquakes, are addressed in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils. Finally, excessive noise exposure with respect to airport use or air traffic is addressed in Section 3.12, Noise.
3.9.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The City, as lead agency, has elected in its discretion to utilize the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant. Specifically, it would be a significant impact if the proposed project would:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
3.9.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required. 2704
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-21
Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Impact Analysis
As described further below and in Appendix F, a Phase I ESA was conducted for the project site and found the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil, due to the current and historic agricultural use of the project site, to be an REC. No Controlled RECs (CRECs) or Historical RECs (HRECs) were observed on the project site.12
Following the conclusions of the Phase I ESA, a limited Phase II ESA was conducted on the project site to address the REC identified in the Phase I ESA through evaluation of the site’s current subsurface soil conditions by providing additional soil sampling and analysis. 13 No reportable
concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, or groundwater, were encountered on-site. The Phase II ESA found detectable arsenic concentrations in soil samples, at concentrations of 1.22 to 7.78 mg/kg, which are above the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) and DTSC Screening Levels for industrial soil, but simultaneously below the 12 mg/kg background arsenic concentration in Southern California soil as identified by the DTSC.14 The DTSC Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 11 for Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level states that mitigation or remediation is usually not undertaken to reduce the concentration of contaminants below ambient levels.15 Ambient and background concentrations of some inorganic elements, which includes arsenic, can exceed risk-based concentrations. Furthermore, Ninyo & Moore performed statistical analysis using the arsenic concentrations reported at the site to determine the upper limit of local arsenic background concentrations in accordance with the DTSC Guidance. There is only one reported concentration of arsenic at the site (7.78 mg/kg) that exceeds the calculated background concentration of 7.5 mg/kg. It is determined the exceedance is not significant and does not indicate contamination from an anthropogenic source. As such, the Phase II ESA concluded that the soil within the project site would be characterized as nonhazardous waste.16 There are no identified HRECs or CRECs on the project site. However, there is the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil that is considered a REC.17 During the site reconnaissance, a chemical storage and mixing area was observed along the central northern property boundary, containing a small storage shed (potentially used for storing chemicals), an approximately 1,000- gallon aboveground pesticide/algaecide mixing tank, three 2,000-gallon aboveground nutrient mixing tanks, a multimedia filtration system comprised of six small multimedia filtration aboveground tanks and pump/piping network, and a large water storage basin. Associated transformers and power/control boxes located on top of concrete slabs and gravel beds were also 12 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20. 13 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20. 2705
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-22
observed. Additionally, one abandoned tank and sump of unknown contents were observed south of the northern chemical mixing/storage area along the private road that traverses south to north.
Evidence of chemical or petroleum leaks/staining on the soil were not observed.18 According to aerial imagery in the Phase I ESA, all on-site improvements were constructed after 2016 and would not contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint, asbestos-containing material, or PCBs.
It was determined that, based on the agricultural use of the project site and vicinity since 1937, commercial pesticides and herbicides may have been applied to the project site and vicinity.
Concentrations of these substances and/or their breakdown derivatives may be present in the project site’s soils. The historical aerial photographs indicated the presence of buildings or other structures on the project site where pesticides or herbicides may have been mixed or stored.
Therefore, the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil is considered a REC.
The Phase II ESA concluded that no reportable concentration organochlorine pesticides were found on the project site.19 As discussed previously, the project site also contains soils with detectable arsenic concentrations (1.22 to 7.78 mg/kg). However, the measured concentration in site soils is below the Southern California soil background level of 12 mg/kg and thus soil from the project site would be considered nonhazardous waste.
Valley Fever or coccidioidomycosis, is prevalent in the central San Joaquin Valley of California. This disease, which affects both humans and animals, is caused by inhalation of arthroconidia (spores) of the fungus Coccidioides immitis (CI). CI spores are found in the top few inches of soil and the existence of the fungus in most soil areas is temporary. The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores within the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that on-site workers could be exposed to Valley Fever as fugitive dust is generated during construction. Implementation of dust control measures throughout the construction period would reduce fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of these dust control measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would entail the use of heavy equipment on the project site. Potential hazardous materials transported, used, or disposed of during project construction would be limited to commonly used substances such as gasoline, diesel, oil, grease, mechanical fluids, paints, cleaning solvents, and similar items. However, construction of the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Most of the hazardous materials used and hazardous waste generated by the proposed project would occur during the temporary construction period. Likely uses during construction 18 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20. 19 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27. 2706
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-23
would include cleaning fluids, solvents, petroleum products, dust palliative, and herbicides that are typical in nature and quantity. Some solid hazardous waste, such as welding materials and dried paint, may also be generated during construction. These materials would be transported to the project site during construction, and any hazardous wastes produced as a result of the construction of the proposed project would be collected and transported away from the project site pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. During construction of the proposed project, material safety data sheets for all applicable materials present at the project site would be made readily available to onsite personnel in accordance with required BMPs as part of a SWPPP (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Workers would be trained to properly identify and handle all hazardous materials, and hazardous waste would either be recycled or disposed of at a permitted and licensed treatment and/or disposal facility. All hazardous waste shipped off-site for recycling or disposal would be transported by a licensed and permitted hazardous waste hauler and disposed of at an approved location.
During construction, nonhazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of in local landfills pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. Sanitary waste would be managed using portable toilets located at a reasonably accessible on-site location. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials such as petroleum fuels and lubricants used on field equipment would be subject to the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, the SPCC plan, the SWPPP, and other standard measures to limit releases of hazardous materials and wastes (see further discussion of BMP requirements in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR). Recyclable materials, including wood, shipping materials, and metals, would be separated when practicable for recycling. The disposal of any oils or lubricants would be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the requirements of licensed receiving facilities. Overall, the relatively limited use and small quantities of typical hazardous materials, and subsequent transport and disposal of such materials, during construction would be controlled through compliance with applicable laws and regulations pursuant to a comprehensive regulatory framework administered by the DTSC and other relevant public agencies.
As discussed above, the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil due to past and current agricultural use was determined to potentially result in significant impacts due to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous levels of pesticides and herbicides on-site. Soil samples were taken to determine the presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil. The Phase II ESA found that there were no reportable concentrations of pesticides or herbicides on-site and found the arsenic levels in the on-site soil to be below regional background levels. Therefore, the soil would be expected to be considered nonhazardous waste, and its transport and disposal would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment. Furthermore, required compliance with applicable hazardous material laws and regulations would ensure that transport and disposal of any contaminated soils would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment. 2707
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-24
Operation
Operations and maintenance activities associated with the proposed project would not involve activities that would handle large quantities of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste given the nature of the proposed uses. Primary operations and maintenance activities that would occur on the project site would consist of light industrial and flex industrial uses as well as: a convenience store, gas station, car wash facility, RV/self-storage facilities, and drive-through restaurants. As part of its site design, the gas station would have two 20,000-gallon underground tanks on-site. In accordance with General Plan Policy S-P-17, the proposed project would be required to prepare an HMBP in accordance with the applicable Tulare County regulations outlined in the Tulare County HMBP. The proposed project’s HMBP would be required to disclose the inventory of all hazardous materials on-site and would be made available to first responders in the City and County for emergency response activities. In addition, the project applicant for the gas station would be required to obtain a permit to operate the proposed UST system per California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, California Health and Safety Code Section (25280–25299.8). These regulations mandate the testing and frequent inspections of the UST facilities. Plans must be submitted to the Tulare County Division of Environmental Health prior to any underground storage tank installations, modifications, repairs, or removals.
Vehicles used during standard operations and maintenance would include delivery vehicles, trucks (pickup, flatbed), forklifts, and loaders for routine and unscheduled maintenance. Large heavy-haul transport equipment and cranes may be brought to the project site infrequently for equipment repair or replacement. Long-term maintenance and equipment replacement would be scheduled in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) oversees the Statewide implementation of the HMBP, which aims to prevent or minimize harm to public health and safety, and the environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous material. The minimum reporting quantities for hazardous materials is 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for compressed gas. If a business handles hazardous materials at or in excess of the minimum thresholds, a HMBP is required to be prepared and approved by the State and local jurisdictions. The project tenants/operator will be required to submit information to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), Tulare County Department of Public Health, and the City regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials. Both the proposed gas station/mini-mart and future industrial uses would be subject to the HMBP requirements if they handle hazardous materials in excess of minimum reporting quantities.
During operation, tenants/operators may use potentially hazardous substances that are typical for this type of light industrial and flex industrial uses as well as the proposed commercial uses, including lubricants, hydraulic oils, and other substances. Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used on-site during operation of the proposed project, but not in sufficient quantities to create significant hazard in the unlikely event of upset or accident. Any routine storage, handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and programs set forth by various 2708
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-25
federal, State, and local agencies, including, without limitation, the EPA, RCRA, Caltrans, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Operation of the proposed tenants would include a gas station, with the routine use and storage of hazardous materials, which includes storage of gasoline in the project’s underground fuel storage tanks (USTs), as well as delivery of gasoline and subsequent refilling of the tanks. Gasoline is considered a hazardous waste, and therefore, the installation and operation of underground fuel storage tanks are regulated by a variety of State and local agencies.
Development of a gas station would include the installation of two 20,000-gallon gasoline or diesel USTs that would be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Tulare County Department of Public Health, which is the CUPA. The installation and operation of USTs will be in compliance with local and State regulations related to USTs and hazardous materials.
Therefore, the construction of the gas station would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Development of uses associated with the industrial park portion of the project site would be subject to the same regulations and permitting standards as noted above.As a result, operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, and impacts related to operation would be less than significant.
In conclusion, impacts during construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Risk of Upset
Impact HAZ-2: Would the project 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?
Impact Analysis
See Impact HAZ-1.
Construction
Construction activities required for the proposed project would involve trenching, excavation, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities. Construction activities would temporarily require use of equipment, such as trucks, excavators, and other powered equipment and would use potentially hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel) and lubricants (oils and greases). In addition, construction would include the use of cleaning fluids, solvents, petroleum products, dust palliative, and small quantities of household herbicides. Some solid hazardous waste, such as welding materials and dried paint, may also be generated during construction. Such materials would be used in 2709
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-26
quantities typically associated with construction of the proposed project and would be transported, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and manufacturers’ instructions.
As discussed above, there were no reportable concentrations of hazardous contaminants except for arsenic found on the project site. Detectable concentrations of arsenic were found in collected soil samples at concentrations above EPA RSLs and DTSC Screening Levels for industrial soil but simultaneously below background arsenic concentration as identified by the DTSC.20 DTSC’s HHRA Note Number 11 states that mitigation or remediation is usually not undertaken to reduce the concentration of contaminants below ambient levels. As such, it was concluded that soil on the project site would be categorized as nonhazardous, and would not require mitigation.21 According to CalGEM, the project site is not located within a known active oil production field but does include one plugged and abandoned well. However, it was confirmed plugged and abandoned on April 6, 2015.22 There was no evidence of chemical or petroleum leaks/staining on the soil at the project site. However, as there is a known well on-site, and in the unlikely event an unknown, abandoned, or unrecorded well may occur on-site and may be discovered during construction of the proposed project, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 would require that any known well be indicated on engineered plans showing a minimum 10-foot no build radius area. Should any abandoned or unrecorded wells be uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, the project developer would immediately contact CalGEM, and comply with established procedures for dealing with wells.
With the implementation of MM HAZ-1, impacts related to potentially hazardous materials uncovered during construction would be considered less than significant.
In conclusion, the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Operation
During operation, it is reasonable to assume that tenants/operators would use potentially hazardous substances that are typical for this type of light and flex industrial and compatible commercial uses, including, for example, lubricants, hydraulic oils, and other substances. Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used on-site during operation of the proposed project but not in sufficient quantities to create significant hazard in the unlikely event of upset or accident. These types of materials are common in such light/flex industrial and commercial projects and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used and handled as intended, pursuant to the requirements set forth in the comprehensive regulatory framework, and would not be expected to result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The handling, transport, and disposal of such substances must comply with all local, State, and federal laws and regulations, which would help reduce risks of upset and accident conditions. As such, operational impacts related to hazardous materials risk would be less than significant.
20 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27. 21 Ibid. 22 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20.
2710
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-27
As noted above, the proposed project would include the installation of USTs. Accordingly, the proposed project would be required to submit a HMBP, and as such the hazardous materials that would be present on-site in connection with the proposed gas station would be contained within specifications that follow applicable federal, State, and local requirements. For example, and without limitation, OSHA requirements call for the inclusion of appropriate ventilation, acid resistant materials, and presence of spill protection supplies.
Overall, adherence to applicable laws and regulations and standard protocols during the storage, transportation, and usage of any hazardous materials would minimize or reduce potential impacts during construction related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Furthermore, impacts during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
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.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Hazardous Emissions Proximate to a School
Impact HAZ-3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact Analysis
The project site is not located within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the project site is Denton Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.46-mile southeast of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not emit hazardous materials or involve 2711
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-28
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
As noted above, construction activity would be expected to involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that are typical for this type of light/flex industrial and compatible commercial uses, such as diesel fuels, aerosols, and paints. However, the handling, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Public Resources Code, and other State and local laws and regulations, which further limits the risk of emissions or release of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. In addition, it is anticipated that construction trucks would travel west along Riggin Avenue to access SR-99, which is the nearest highway. The nearest schools are southeast of the project site and therefore it is unlikely that the construction trucks would travel past the schools. Therefore, construction impacts in this regard be less than significant.
During operation, because of the distance to the nearest school, the low probability of significant quantities of hazardous materials to be present on-site, and required project compliance with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to handling, storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials, substances, or waste, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, operational impacts related to hazardous emissions proximate to a school would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites
Impact HAZ-4: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Impact Analysis
As noted above, the project site is not identified in any of the California hazardous materials databases, as shown in Table 3.9-1. Searches were completed for all lands within the project site in the following hazardous materials lists: Cal/EPA’s Cortese List, including the DTSC’s EnviroStor database of hazardous substances release sites; and GeoTracker, the California database of leaking underground storage tanks.23,24
Because the proposed project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, there is no potential of 23 Department of Conservation. 2022. EnviroStor. Website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=vasalia.
Accessed August 11, 2022. 24 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2022. Geotracker. Website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=visalia. Accessed August 11, 2022. 2712
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-29
creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment and, therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Proximity to Public Airport Safety Hazard
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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area?
Impact Analysis
The nearest public airport to the proposed project would be Visalia Municipal Airport, located approximately 2.68 miles southwest of the project site. According to the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the southwest corner of the project site lies within the Visalia Municipal Airport’s Airport Influence Area but outside of the Airport Safety Zone. 25 Land use
compatibility within the Airport Influence Area is defined in the Tulare County Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Section 3 of the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). The proposed light and flex industrial and compatible commercial uses are considered “compatible.” Buildings within the Airport Influence Area are also subject to height restriction set forth in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The proposed project would have a maximum height of 45 feet, which is far lower than the FAR Part 77 height restriction of 200 feet, beyond which would require Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification.26
As such, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Emergency Response and Evacuation
Impact HAZ-6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 25 Aries Consultants Ltd. 2012. Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. December. 26 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Form FAA 7460-1- Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Website:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/FAA_Form_7460-1_042023.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2022. 2713
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-30
Impact Analysis
The City has not previously experienced wildfire or other hazards that required evacuation.
The City of Visalia’s EOP was adopted in 2011 and is used in conjunction with the Tulare County’s EOP, which incorporates the County’s updated 2011 Evacuation Plan. To keep Tulare County residents and businesses informed of emergencies and other time-sensitive messages, the County utilizes Alert TC. Notifications may include severe weather warnings, wildfire alerts, and road closures/detours. As discussed under Impact PUB-1 in Section 3.13, Public Services, Fire Station 55 is the nearest fire station to the project site, located approximately 0.43 mile to the south at 921 West Ferguson Avenue. The next closest station is Fire Station 53, located approximately 3.27 miles to the southeast at 5025 West Walnut Avenue. Based on this distance from the Fire Department’s fire station, the response time for a fire engine traveling at an average speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) would be approximately 2 minutes. There are not currently any fire hydrants on the project site; however, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Hydrant Ordinance, including providing the mandated number of hydrants with adequate fire flow pressure (a minimum flow of 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure). 27 During construction, construction equipment and vehicles would access and leave the project site, which in turn could potentially impede evacuation or Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA). The City does not currently have any established evacuation routes; however, the General Plan designates SR-198, SR-99, and SR-63 as evacuation routes consistent with the County EOP. 28 The foregoing State Routes
are located approximately 2 miles south, 3 miles west, and 4 miles east from the project site, respectively. In addition to these State Routes that would be likely evacuation routes in the event of a wildfire emergency, there are other main arterial roads that are in the vicinity and readily accessible, which could reasonably be assumed to serve as emergency evacuation routes in the project vicinity. The proposed project’s primary access roads (Kelsey Street, Clancy Street, Shirk Street, and Riggin Avenue) allow adequate egress/ingress to the project site in the event of an emergency. These streets would connect to an internal road network within the project site, providing ample access for emergency vehicles in the case of an emergency. Given the availability of multiple State Routes identified as evacuation routes available to the proposed project as well as other community members, coupled with several alternative main arterial roads that provide access to these identified evacuation routes, the proposed project’s construction would not substantially impair these evacuation routes and would not substantially impair any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. While construction would result in truck deliveries, hauling of materials, and construction crews, and operation of the proposed project would involve both passenger vehicles and truck trips associated with the flex/light industrial and compatible commercial uses, improvement plans and any work completed in existing roadways would be required to be approved by the City Engineer before they could occur. The proposed streets have been designed and would be required to be constructed to applicable City specifications and have adequate site access for emergency vehicles. In the event of an emergency response, the City’s 27 City of Visalia. 2001. Municipal Code Section 16.36.120 Water mains, fire hydrants and fire department access.
Website: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=4255. Accessed November 22, 2022. 28 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. 2714
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-31
Engineering, Police, and Fire Departments would coordinate to ensure that adequate access to and from the project site is maintained. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Wildland Fires
Impact HAZ-7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impact Analysis
The project site is not located in or near an SRA and also does not contain lands classified as a VHFHSZ.29 According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ Maps for the LRA, the project site is classified as LRA Unzoned, which means that the project site is located outside of areas identified by CAL FIRE as having substantial or very high risk.
The Unit Strategic Fire Plan for the CAL FIRE Tulare Unit designates the project site as being located within an Agriculture area by Tulare County (County).30 The closest mapped FHSZ is an SRA Moderate Zone located approximately 15 miles east of the project site, at the outer city limits of the City of Exeter. There is an FRA Moderate Zone located approximately 23 miles to the southwest of the project site just outside of the City of Lemoore city limits.31 The nearest VHFHSZ is located over 25 miles east of the project site.
In addition, the General Plan does not designate the project site as being in a fire hazard area.
According to General Plan Figure 8-4, Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services, there is an area of moderate fire susceptibility located along North Plaza Drive between West Ferguson Avenue and Goshen Avenue, which is located approximately 3,700 feet southwest of the project site.32 The nearest VHFHSZ is located over 25 miles east of the project site. Thus, the project site is not in a wildfire-prone area. Additionally, the project site is not located within a wildland urban interface area and has not previously experienced wildfire. The area surrounding the project site is mostly agricultural and industrial land. As such, the project site is surrounded either by urban development or by managed land that does not contain steep terrain or unmanaged open space areas that could be prone to wildfires. See also Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR for additional detail in this regard.
Slope and wind speed and can influence the spread of fires. Upslope topography eventually increases the spread rate of the fire in all fuel beds over flat conditions. As described in Chapter 2, 29 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. 30 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2022. Unit Strategic Fire Plan CAL FIRE/Tulare Unit. May. 31 Ibid. 32 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise, Figure 8-4: Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services. October. 2715
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-32
Project Description, the project site has an elevation of approximately 303 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The project site has is predominantly flat with a gentle slope to the northwest.
The nearest air monitoring station that measures meteorological data is the Visalia Municipal Airport Station, located approximately 2.87 miles southwest of the project site. According to the ARB, this station has an average wind speed of 6.9 mph and an annual maximum of 12 mph.33 While these wind speeds could potentially spread wildfires, the project site and vicinity are not in or near a WUI zone and are bordered by urban development on two sides, with similar development planned in the area in the immediate future.34 Annual prevailing winds in the City of Visalia are from the northwest; therefore, the prevailing winds would blow fire embers away from the project site and would not exacerbate fire risk.35 As such, the project site and its surroundings do not embody conditions that would exacerbate wildfire in this regard.
The project site would be annexed into the City; as such, VFD would maintain responsibility for fire prevention and suppression over the project site. As discussed further in Section 3.13, Public Services, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would be adequately served by fire protection services from VFD. Furthermore, project structures would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code with respect to emergency access and use of building materials that would limit the spread of wildfire to the greatest extent feasible. The City requires all new development and subdivisions to meet UFC provisions, and the VFD reviews all development applications during the plan check process.36 Additionally, the City undertakes vegetation management activities that, in accordance with General Plan Policy S-P-27, require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.37 Compliance with applicable State and local plans, laws, and regulations and adherence to General Plan Policy S-P-27 would further reduce any potential risk of impacts related to wildland fire hazards.
Therefore, potential impacts from wildland fires would be less than significant.
See also Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR for additional discussion of wildfire issues.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
33 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Tulare County – All Networks Annual Resultant Wind Summary Data 2022. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=WINSPD_mph&year=2022&mon=8&day=18&hours=all&county_name=54- Tulare&basin=--AIR+BASIN--&latitude=--PART+OF+STATE--
&report=ASRPT&order=state%2Cbasin%2Ccounty_name%2Cname&network%5B%5D=ALL&submit=Retrieve+Data&ptype=met.
Accessed August 18, 2022. 34 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2019. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). December. 35 Western Regional Climate Center. 2022. Prevailing Wind Direction. Website:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/comp_table_show.php?stype=wind_dir_avg. Accessed November 22, 2022. 36 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 3.11 Hazardous Materials. 37 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. 2716
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-33
3.9.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials analysis is the project area.
Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project area would be most affected by project activities. For the transport of hazardous materials, the geographic scope includes local and regional transportation facilities. The cumulative projects are those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, including those listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects.
Hazards Materials Exposure Risk
Cumulative projects listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, may include demolition of existing structures that have the potential to contain hazardous building materials.
Building materials may contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). To address potential release of hazardous materials, the City would require the applicants of cumulative developments to assess structures and comply with standard conditions of approval/ mitigation measures (e.g., required testing, removal, and proper disposal) to minimize release prior to any demolition. Additionally, a comprehensive regulatory framework involving regional, State, and federal laws and regulations would apply to these cumulative projects, which would ensure a less than significant cumulative impact related to exposure to hazardous materials.
With respect to impacts related to the creation of a hazard through upset or accident conditions involving the release of a hazardous material, the following could occur during construction or operation of the project site: grading that would generate dust and the use and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, fuels, herbicides, and pesticides to and from the site. The potential exists for proposed project activities to result in mobilization of hazardous materials in the soil resulting in exposure of personnel and other sensitive receptors to contaminant levels that could result in short-term and/or long-term health effects. Project conformance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, approval of a HMBP, project safety design features, etc., would reduce this impact to less than significant.
As noted, the project site is not located within a known active oil production field but does include one plugged and abandoned well. However, in the unlikely event an unknown, abandoned, or unrecorded well may occur on-site and may be discovered during construction of the proposed project, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 would require that, should any abandoned or unrecorded wells be uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, the project developer would immediately contact CalGEM, and comply with established procedures for dealing with wells.
Therefore, this impact does not have the potential to combine with contamination from the discovery of other unknown oil wells from other projects to result in a cumulative impact, due to the localized nature of the issue.
With respect to the proposed project, other proposed projects would similarly be required to adhere to standard conditions of approval and identified mitigation and otherwise ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, plans, and policies related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as discussed above. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would not 2717
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-34
combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact.
Fire Hazard
The project site is not located in or near an SRA and also does not contain lands classified as a VHFHSZ.38 The project site is classified as LRA Unzoned, which means that the project site is located outside of areas identified by CAL FIRE as having substantial or very high risk.
The Unit Strategic Fire Plan for the CAL FIRE Tulare Unit designates the project site as being located within an Agriculture area by the County.39 The closest mapped FHSZ is an SRA Moderate Zone located approximately 15 miles east of the project site and there is an FRA Moderate Zone located approximately 23 miles to the southwest 40 The nearest VHFHSZ is located over 25 miles east of the project site.
Project-related activities at the project site are not expected to increase the risk of wildfires. The General Plan includes policies that would protect the project and the community from fire dangers.
These include the enforcement of fire codes during project-related activities. In addition, developers are required to pay impact fees that offset the impact of development on public services, such as fire protection. In addition, implementation of appropriate safety measures during construction and operation of the project, as well as other cumulative projects, would reduce the impact to a level that would not contribute to cumulative effects related to fire hazards. Given the minimal risks of fire hazards at the project site, cumulative impacts are unlikely to occur. Therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively significant.
Hazards and Emergency Response
The main arterial streets that would act as the most likely evacuation routes for cumulative developments out of the City are SR-198 (east–west), SR-99 (north–south), and SR-63 (north–south).
Planned uses as proposed by the cumulative projects contemplated in the General Plan would result in planned development within the City and would not significantly increase the need for emergency services, including those related to wildfires. Furthermore, all construction would be required to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations, including those in the California Fire Code, which are designed to minimize the potential for the release of hazardous materials or uncontrolled fires. Once development is proposed, the City would assess the needs for fire protection services and inform efforts to improve or expand needed facilities.
As listed in Table 3-1, cumulative development in the City consists predominantly of residential, commercial, and industrial development, which would result in an additional number of persons and structures with the geographic scope. The types of cumulative development would increase the population, as contemplated in the City’s General Plan. All cumulative development would, however, be required to comply with emergency access requirements as standard conditions of approval.
Furthermore, the cumulative development in the City would be required to ensure no permanent 38 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. 39 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2022. Unit Strategic Fire Plan CAL FIRE/Tulare Unit. May. 40 Ibid. 2718
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-35
road closures, would not be permitted to impede established emergency access routes, and would not interfere with emergency response requirements. Given the location of the relevant cumulative developments, it is anticipated that the identified evacuation routes of SR-198 (east–west), SR-99 (north–south), and SR-63 (north–south) would be available and would not be substantially impaired.
As such, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact associated with hazards and emergency response.
With respect to the proposed project, similarly, it would be required to adhere to standard conditions of approval and identified mitigation and otherwise ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, plans, and policies related to emergency access routes and emergency response requirements. For these reasons, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to this less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM HAZ-1.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 2719
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2720
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-1
3.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing hydrology and water quality setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed project by 4Creeks, Inc., in September 2022, included as Appendix G of this document and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
During the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period, no public comments were received related to the project’s potential hydrologic impacts.
3.10.2 - Environmental Setting
Surface Hydrology
The City of Visalia (City) is located in the Kaweah River’s Delta system, which results in many rivers and creeks that flow through the City.1 The Kaweah River travels to the south of the Planning Area, and the St. John’s River splits off from the Kaweah River and travels on the northern border of Visalia. Surface runoff in the Planning Area generally flows from east to west and terminates in the Tulare Lake Basin. Major surface water resources in the area include the St. John’s River, Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek Ditch, Mill Creek, Tulare Irrigation District Canal, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Evans Creek, Persian Ditch, and several other local ditches. Except for the Tulare Irrigation District Canal, most watercourses are intermittent drainages that receive a significant portion of flow from stormwater runoff during the rainy season. This intermittent flow is typically supplemented from water released from Terminus Dam, which was constructed in 1962 and is operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). When drier conditions return in the spring, groundwater generally provides base flow for a portion of the summer.
The City operates and maintains a vast municipal storm drainage system that consists of drainage channels, 23 detention and retention basins, 33 pump stations and 250 miles of pipe. Historically, runoff was disposed of by directing it to the natural creeks, rivers, and irrigation ditches that flow through the City including the St. John’s River, Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, Modoc Ditch, Evans Ditch and Persian Ditch. To mitigate the increased runoff due to urbanization, the City has invested heavily in the purchase of land and the construction of permanent retention basins.
Surface Water Quality
The surface water quality of the Kaweah River Delta system is considered excellent and typical of Sierra Nevada snowmelt runoff.2 There are no known water quality impairments in the area according to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List of impaired waters. The City complies with the terms of the General Permit for stormwater discharges from small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). As a result, the City is proactively involved in protecting water quality. 1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30496. Accessed December 13, 2022. 2 Ibid.
2721
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-2
In November 2005, the City adopted a Storm Water Management Plan that includes a detailed analysis of its plans to handle stormwater runoff from increased amounts of impervious surface.
Plans include retention/detention facilities, street sweeping, establishment of a water quality hotline, and an Illicit Discharge Protection System which will allow the City to determine whether there is a serious water quality problem from illegal discharges.
The quality of stormwater in the urbanized area of Visalia varies greatly depending on climatic and land use conditions. Urban and industrial runoff is known to contribute significantly to the levels of toxic materials, such as metals and organic pesticides, transported to streams. Stormwater discharges may contain unacceptable levels of petroleum fuels and oils; organic matter such as pet and domestic livestock wastes; pesticides; and metals such as copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc.
Fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphorus may also be present.
Groundwater Basin Hydrology
Kaweah Subbasin
The sole source of water supply for the Visalia residents is groundwater. California Water Service (Cal Water) Visalia District pumps from the Kaweah Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. The total surface area of the Kaweah Subbasin is 446,000 acres or 696 square miles. The subbasin lies between the Kings Groundwater Subbasin on the north, the Tule Subbasin on the south, crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east, and the Kings River Conservation District on the west. Major rivers and streams in the subbasin include the Kaweah and St. Johns Rivers, with the former being the primary source of recharge in the area. Groundwater flow is generally southwestward. In 1999, small groundwater depressions occurred to the north and south of Visalia and at the northwest corner of the subbasin, and a groundwater mound was present in the central western subbasin. Based on current and historical groundwater elevation maps, horizontal groundwater barriers do not appear to exist in the subbasin.3 California Department of Water Resources (DWR) determined that the subbasin is in a condition of critical overdraft.
California Water Service Visalia District
Cal Water Visalia District provides water services within the City. Cal Water is an urban water supplier that provides the main source of water supply for the City and surrounding communities.
The Visalia District is an urban retail water supplier, as defined by California Water Code Section 10608.12. The Visalia District does not provide water wholesale.
The Visalia District also serves the communities of Goshen, Mullen, and Tulco. California Water Service operates 72 wells to meet the water demands of Visalia and Goshen customers. Visalia District is part of a regional group of agencies and providers as follows:
• Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA)
• Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD)
• Kaweah River Basin Regional Water Management Group
3 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan EIR Utilities Section. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499. Accessed January 30, 2023. 2722
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-3
In the region in which the Visalia District is located, Cal Water participates with the KDWCD. In this District, the City of Visalia and others established the Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) under the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 3030. KDWCD is the lead agency in this effort. KDWCD has historically focused on the conservation of flows of the Kaweah River for groundwater recharge. Cal Water is also a stakeholder group participant in the Kaweah River Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, adopted in December 2018.
Conservation Measures
Cal Water’s conservation program has reduced per capita usage and demands on critical water sources and will continue to do so. Cal Water is committed to helping its customers use water efficiently and has developed a range of water conservation programs to support this goal. To ensure that it is providing the right mix of programs in the most cost-effective manner possible, Cal Water routinely conducts comprehensive conservation program analysis and planning. This is done on a five-year cycle in tandem with the UWMP. Cal Water’s current Conservation Master Plan (April 2021) provides the basis for the information on the implementation of and expected water savings from Demand Management Measures (DMMs).
Flooding and Inundation
Visalia experienced major floods in 1950, 1955, 1966, and 1969. The waterways described above have historically been used for flood control, stormwater conveyance, riparian, and recreational uses. In addition, the City maintains parks and detention ponds that serve to detain stormwater runoff when significant storm events occur. Most of the City is located in Zone X and X02, defined as areas of moderate to low risk of flooding. However, some areas along the creeks and drainages are within Zone A and Zone AE, which are high risk areas prone to the 100-year storm event.
3.10.3 - Regulatory Framework
Clean Water Act
The CWA (33 United States Code [USC] § 1251, et seq.) is the major federal legislation governing the water quality aspects of construction and operation of the proposed project or variant. The CWA established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States (not including groundwater) and waters of the State. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States.
The CWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement pollution control programs. Under the CWA, it is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is obtained. In addition, the CWA requires each state to adopt water quality standards for receiving water bodies and to have those standards approved by the EPA. Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses for a particular receiving water body (e.g., wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, fishing), along with water quality objectives necessary to support those uses.
2723
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-4
Responsibility for protecting water quality in California resides with the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State Water Board establishes Statewide policies and regulations for the implementation of water quality control programs mandated by federal and State water quality statutes and regulations. The RWQCBs develop and implement water quality control plans (basin plans) that consider regional beneficial uses, water quality characteristics, and water quality problems. Water quality standards applicable to the project are listed in the Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan.
Section 303—Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States based on the water body’s designated beneficial use. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. Water quality standards are typically numeric, although narrative criteria based on biomonitoring methods may be employed where numerical standards cannot be established or where they are needed to supplement numerical standards.
CWA Section 303(d) requires states and authorized Native American tribes to develop a list of water quality-impaired segments of waterways. The list includes waters that do not meet water quality standards necessary to support a waterway’s beneficial uses even after the minimum required levels of pollution control technology have been installed. Listed water bodies are to be priority ranked for development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL). A TMDL is a calculation of the total maximum daily load (amount) of a pollutant that a water body can receive on a daily basis and still safely meet water quality standards. The TMDLs include waste load allocations for urban stormwater runoff as well as municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, with allocations apportioned for individual Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and wastewater treatment plants. For stormwater, load reductions would be required to meet the TMDL waste load allocations within the 20 years required by the TMDLs.
The State Water Board, RWQCBs, and EPA are responsible for establishing TMDL waste load allocations and incorporating approved TMDLs into water quality control plans, NPDES permits, and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) in accordance with a specified schedule for completion. The Central Valley RWQCB develops TMDLs.
Section 401—Water Quality Certification
Section 401 of the CWA requires compliance with State water quality standards for actions within State waters. Under CWA Section 401, an applicant for a Section 404 permit (to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States) must first obtain a certificate from the appropriate agency stating that the fill is consistent with the State’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the State Water Board delegates authority to either grant water quality certification or waive the requirements to the nine RWQCBs. The Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for the project site.
2724
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-5
Section 402—National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits The RWQCBs administer the NPDES stormwater permitting program, under Section 402(d) of the federal CWA, on behalf of the EPA. The objective of the NPDES program is to control and reduce levels of pollutants in water bodies from discharges of municipal and industrial wastewater and stormwater runoff. CWA Section 402(d) establishes a framework for regulating nonpoint-source stormwater discharges (33 USC 1251). Under the CWA, discharges of pollutants to receiving water are prohibited unless the discharge complies with an NPDES permit. The NPDES permit specifies discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and other provisions, such as monitoring deemed necessary to protect water quality based on criteria specified in the National Toxics Rule (NTR), the California Toxics Rule (CTR), and the basin plan.
Discharge prohibitions and limitations in an NPDES permit for wastewater treatment plants are designed to maintain public health and safety, protect receiving water resources, and safeguard the water’s designated beneficial uses. Discharge limitations typically define allowable effluent quantities for flow, biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended matter, residual chlorine, settleable matter, total coliform, oil and grease, pH, and toxic pollutants. Limitations also typically encompass narrative requirements regarding mineralization and toxicity to aquatic life. Under the NPDES permits issued to a city/county to operate the treatment plants, the city/county is required to implement a pretreatment program. This program must comply with the regulations incorporated in the CWA and the General Pretreatment Regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Title 40, Part 403 [40 CFR 403]).
Section 401—Water Quality Certification
Section 404 of the CWA regulates temporary and permanent fill and disturbance of wetlands and waters of the United States. Under Section 404, the discharge (temporary or permanent) of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, typically must be authorized by the USACE through either the Nationwide Permit (general categories of discharges with minimal effects) or the Individual Permit.
River and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that regulated activities conducted below the ordinary high-water elevation of navigable waters of the United States be approved and permitted by the USACE. Regulated activities include the placement or removal of structures, work involving dredging, disposal of dredged material, filling, excavation, or any other disturbance of soils/sediments or modification of a navigable waterway. Navigable waters of the United States are those waters of the United States that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high-water mark and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use, to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Section 10 also regulates tributaries and backwater areas that are associated with navigable waters of the United States and are located below the ordinary high-water elevation of the adjacent navigable waterway.
A project proponent can apply for a permit/letter of permission for work regulated under Section 404 (CWA) and Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) by completing and submitting one application 2725
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-6
form. An application for a USACE permit will serve as an application for both Section 404 and Section 10 permits.
Federal Antidegradation Policy
The federal antidegradation policy is designed to protect existing water uses, water quality, and national water resources. The federal policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions:
• Existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected.
• Where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development. • Where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected.
National Toxics Rule and California Toxics Rule
In 1992, the EPA promulgated the NTR under the CWA to establish numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for 14 states to bring all states into compliance with the requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). The NTR established water quality standards for 42 pollutants not covered under California’s Statewide water quality regulations at that time. As a result of the court-ordered revocation of California’s Statewide basin plans in September 1994, the EPA initiated efforts to promulgate additional federal water quality standards for California. In May 2000, the EPA issued the CTR, which includes all the priority pollutants for which the EPA has issued numeric criteria not included in the NTR.
Executive Order 11988
Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” directs all federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, long- and short-term adverse impacts of occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid supporting development in a floodplain either directly or indirectly wherever there is a practicable alternative. Compliance requirements are outlined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 650, Subpart A, “Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachment on Floodplains.” If a project involves significant encroachment into the floodplain, the final environmental document must include:
• The reasons why the proposed action must be located in the floodplain, • Alternatives considered and the reasons they were not practicable, and • A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable state or local floodplain protection standards.
2726
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-7
National Toxics Rule and California Toxics Rule
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 were enacted to reduce the need for flood protection structures and limit disaster relief costs by restricting development in floodplains. FEMA, established in 1979, is responsible for predicting hazards from flooding events and forecasting the level of inundation under various conditions. As part of its duty to develop standards for delineating fluvial and coastal floodplains, FEMA provides information on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) about the potential for flood hazards and inundation and, where appropriate, designates regions as special flood hazard areas. Special flood hazard areas are defined as areas that have a 1 percent chance of flooding in a given year.
FEMA also administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as protection against flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne Act) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the State must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the State’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The RWQCBs are required to formulate and adopt basin plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The Porter-Cologne Act sets forth the obligations of the State Water Board and RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update basin plans. The Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for the project site.
Basin plans are the regional water quality control plans required by both the CWA and the PorterCologne Act that establish beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs for each of the nine regions in California. The Act also requires waste dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of their activities by filing reports of waste discharge and authorizes the State Water Board and RWQCBs to issue and enforce WDRs, NPDES permits, CWA Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. The RWQCBs are also authorized to issue waivers to reports of waste discharge and WDRs for broad categories of “low threat” discharge activities that have minimal potential to cause adverse water quality effects when implemented according to prescribed terms and conditions.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permits all involve similar processes, which include submitting notices of intent for discharging to water in areas under the Central Valley RWQCB’s jurisdiction and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize those discharges. The Central Valley RWQCB may also issue site-specific WDRs, or waivers to WDRs, for certain waste discharges to land or waters of the State.
2727
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-8
Construction Activity
The State Water Board stormwater general permit for construction activity (Order 2009-009-DWQ, as amended by Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) applies to all construction activities that would disturb 1 acre of land or more. Construction activities subject to the general construction activity permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters.
Through the NPDES and WDR processes, the State Water Board seeks to ensure that the conditions at a project site during and after construction do not cause or contribute to direct or indirect impacts on water quality (i.e., pollution and/or hydromodification) upstream and downstream. To comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, the project applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Board to obtain coverage under the permit; prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and implement inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements appropriate to the proposed project’s risk level as specified in the SWPPP. The SWPPP includes a site map, describes construction activities and potential pollutants, and identifies BMPs that will be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources, such as petroleum products, solvents, paints, and cement. The permit also requires the discharger to consider using post-construction permanent BMPs that will remain in service to protect water quality throughout the life of the project. All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Project sites served by the combined sewer system are not required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit.
Industrial General Stormwater Permit
The Statewide stormwater NPDES permit for general industrial activity (Order 2014-0057-DWQ, superseding Order 97-03-DWQ) regulates discharges associated with 10 broad categories of industrial activities, such as operation of wastewater treatment works, and with recycling facilities.
The industrial general permit requires the implementation of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology to achieve performance standards.
The permit also requires development of a SWPPP that identifies the site-specific sources of pollutants and describes the measures at the facility applied to reduce stormwater pollution. A monitoring plan is also required.
Stormwater
In November 1990, the EPA published regulations establishing NPDES permit requirements for municipal and industrial stormwater discharges. Phase I of the permitting program applied to municipal discharges of stormwater in urban areas where the population exceeded 100,000 persons.
Phase II of the NPDES stormwater permit regulations, which became effective in March 2003, required that NPDES permits be issued for construction activity for projects disturbing 1–5 acres.
Phase II of the municipal permit system (known as the NPDES General Permit for Small MS4s, Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ as amended by 2013-0001-DWQ) required small municipalities of fewer than 100,000 persons to develop stormwater management programs. This permit authorizes discharges 2728
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-9
of stormwater and some categories of non-stormwater that are not “significant contributors of pollutants.”
California Toxics Rule and State Implementation Policy
The CTR, presented in 2000 in response to requirements of the EPA’s NTR, establishes numeric water quality criteria for approximately 130 priority pollutant trace metals and organic compounds. The CTR criteria are regulatory criteria adopted for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries in California that are on the CWA Section 303(c) list for contaminants. The CTR includes criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health. Human health criteria (water- and organism-based) apply to all waters with a municipal and domestic water supply beneficial use designation as indicated in the basin plans. The Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, also known as the State Implementation Policy, was adopted by the State Water Board in 2000. It establishes provisions for translating CTR criteria, NTR criteria, and basin plan water quality objectives for toxic pollutants into:
• NPDES permit effluent limits,
• Effluent compliance determinations,
• Monitoring for 2,3,7,8-tcdd (dioxin) and its toxic equivalents, • Chronic (long-term) toxicity control provisions,
• Site-specific water quality objectives, and
• Granting of effluent compliance exceptions.
The goal of the State Implementation Plan is to establish a standardized approach for permitting discharges of toxic effluent to inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries throughout the State.
MWELO
The California Water Commission approved the State’s updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) on July 15, 2015. The updated MWELO supersedes the State’s MWELO developed under AB 1881. The size of landscapes subject to MWELO has been lowered from 2500 square feet to 500 square feet. The size threshold applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. Additionally, the maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) has been lowered from 70 percent of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) to 55 percent for residential landscape projects and 45 percent of ETo for nonresidential projects. This water allowance reduces the landscape area that can be planted with high water use plants such as cool season turf. For typical residential projects, the reduction in the MAWA reduces the percentage of landscape area that can be planted to high water use plants from 33 percent to 25 percent. In typical nonresidential landscapes, the reduction in MAWA limits the planting of high-water use plants to special landscape areas (such as play fields or parks) or landscaping irrigated with recycled water. The revised MWELO allows irrigation efficiency to be entered for each area of the landscape.
2729
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-10
Local
Cal Water
Cal Water filed Schedule 14.1 with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the spring of 2015; it went into effect on June 1, 2015. Cal Water’s Schedule 14.1 filing, which applies to both residential and nonresidential customers, was responsive to Governor Brown’s emergency drought declaration and an executive order requiring a statewide 25 percent reduction in urban potable water use. The following measures were put into place to reduce wasteful water use at all times for all customers:
• Applying water to outdoor landscapes that can cause runoff onto adjacent property, nonirrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures is prohibited.
• Using a hose to wash motor vehicles unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use is prohibited. • Applying water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited. • Using water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system is prohibited.
• Applying water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall is prohibited.
• Using potable water to irrigate outside of new construction without drip or micro-spray systems is prohibited.
• The serving or drinking water other than upon request in eating and drinking establishments, including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafés, cafeterias, bars, or other public places where food or drink are served and/or purchased is prohibited. • Hotel/motel operators must provide an option to not have towels or linens laundered daily during a guest’s stay and must provide clear notice of this option in easy-to-understand language.
• Customers must fix leaks within their control within five business days of notification. • Irrigating ornamental landscapes with potable water is prohibited during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
In addition to the DMMs above, Cal Water operates rebate, giveaway, and direct installation programs aimed at plumbing fixture replacement, irrigation equipment, and landscape efficiency improvements, including but not limited to smart irrigation controller installation, high-efficiency sprinkler nozzle rebates, and turf replacement rebates.
General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Visalia General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to water resources that may be applicable to the proposed project:
2730
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-11
Objective OSC-O-6 Protect water resources vital to the health of the community’s residents and important to the Planning Area’s ecological and economic stability.
Objective OSC-O-7 Preserve and enhance Planning Area waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources which serve as plant and wildlife habitats, as groundwater recharge facilities, as flood control and irrigation components, and as connections between open space areas.
Municipal Code
The City of Visalia Municipal Code (Municipal Code) contains the following requirements related to water resources that may be applicable to the proposed project:
16.12.070 Grading and erosion control: Every map approved pursuant to this title shall be conditioned on compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017:
prior code § 9075).
City of Visalia Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 15.60: Floodplain Management Regulations): Applies to all special flood hazard areas within the jurisdiction of the City.
Chapter 16.54 Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation: This chapter is intended to fund activities and projects to mitigate impacts to conditions of groundwater overdraft. Such activities will include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Acquisition of surface water rights and surface water supplies.
B. Development of groundwater recharge facilities.
C. Reconfiguration of stormwater facilities designed to retain as much stormwater as possible within and near the City.
D. Enhancement of cooperative programs with local water management agencies and companies.
E. Development of more efficient water delivery systems. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2005-09 § 2 (part), 2005).
3.10.4 - Methodology
4Creeks prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that analyzed the proposed project’s water demand and the available groundwater supply to serve the proposed project. The WSA is included in Appendix J.
3.10.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would:
2731
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-12
a) Violate any water quality standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(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 on- or 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. (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable Groundwater Management Plan.
3.10.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Surface and Groundwater Quality
Impact HYD-1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Impact Analysis
Construction
Construction activity for the proposed project would expose soils on the project site to potential erosion and to potential pollutants related to the use of construction equipment during excavation, grading, and other earthwork activities. Runoff from graded areas could carry eroded soils and pollutants into the storm drainage systems, increasing sedimentation, degrading downstream water quality, and potentially affecting the groundwater table. This would represent a potentially significant construction impact related to surface and groundwater quality.
The Central Valley RWQCB requires an NPDES Permit and SWPPP for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the proposed project is greater than 1 acre, an NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required. MM GEO-2 would require preparation of a SWPPP that would include BMPs to reduce pollutants from construction activities that could potentially enter surface waters.
Compliance with the permit requires each qualifying development project to file an NOI with the State Water Board. Permit conditions require development of a SWPPP, which must describe the site, facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste 2732
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-13
disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls.
Inspection of construction sites before and after a storm is also required to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Typical BMPs may include measures such as biofiltration and bioretention, swales, and other measures to prevent pollutants from moving off-site through the treatment of stormwater onsite. The intention would be to keep all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters by treatment on-site. Furthermore, compliance with Chapter 16.12.070 of the Municipal Code would ensure that the applicant complies with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, and that the proposed project is subject to the review and approval of the City engineer. All grading would be done in conformance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City of Visalia Improvement Standards, and the project’s preliminary geotechnical evaluation.
During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. However, the SWPPP would identify all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and would identify BMPs related to stormwater runoff.
Although construction activities have the potential to generate increased sedimentation, compliance with applicable policies, laws, and regulations and implementation of MM GEO-2 would minimize the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies to the maximum extent feasible.
As a result, construction-related project impacts would not violate any water quality standards or WDRs or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts in this regard related to surface and groundwater and water quality would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project would result in approximately 218 acres of new impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, which would in turn, generate stormwater runoff, which may carry pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, and deposits of fluids and metals from motor vehicles into Modoc Ditch or allow seepage of such pollutants into the associated groundwater table. This would represent a potentially significant operational impact related to surface and groundwater quality.
The proposed project would include seven Water Quality Management Basins that would surround the parking and loading areas on the project site. The basins would total approximately 31.3 acres in size and would be planted with species including the Berkeley sedge, Canyon Prince wild rye, Hummingbird sage, and California goldenrod, consisting of species with very low to medium water needs. All slopes greater than a 4 (horizontal):1 (vertical) would receive an erosion control mat, and all disturbed areas would receive seed and straw or a stabilization mat. The basins would be designed to promote infiltration, which would serve to sequester pollutants in the soil.
The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of inlets, underground piping, and basins. Runoff would be directed to a drainage system including the aforementioned approximately 31.3 acres of detention basins located throughout the project site.
The basins would be designed to meet all applicable standards and requirements, including 2733
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-14
accommodating a 100-year storm event, and would detain 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.
Therefore, pursuant to the foregoing and with each applicants’ compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations, operation-related project impacts related to surface and groundwater and respective water quality would be less than significant.
Post construction, the project site would be covered with a significant amount of impervious surfaces as well as ample landscaping. This would help ensure that the topsoil would not be exposed and would not result in soil erosion during project operations. As a result, proposed project operation would have a less than significant impact as it relates to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-2.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Groundwater Supply/Recharge
Impact HYD-2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact Analysis
Groundwater is the sole source of water for the Visalia District, and there are no new sources of supply currently planned. Cal Water’s Visalia District would provide water for the proposed project.
Cal Water’s Visalia District pumps groundwater from the Kaweah Subbasin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.11) and the Tule Subbasin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.13) of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. The KDWCD manages the Basin. KDWCD and other irrigation districts and companies have historically managed groundwater through the conjunctive use of surface water. KDWCD regularly provides programs that benefit local agricultural customers by making available additional surface water supplies for irrigation. These programs effectively reduce the withdrawals of groundwater, resulting in less recharge to the aquifer. Groundwater is normally used by agriculture as an alternate source when surface supplies are not available and is the sole source in areas within KDWCD jurisdiction that do not have access to surface water.
KDWCD also operates about 40 dedicated water management basins with a total area of approximately 2,100 acres for the multiple purposes of flood control and groundwater replenishment. The basins have the capacity to recharge approximately 983 acre-feet per day under optimal conditions.
2734
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-15
There are three public water systems that comprise the Visalia District which overlies the Kaweah Subbasin and the Tule Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. Visalia District operates the public water systems listed in Table 3.10-1. Public water systems are the systems that provide drinking water for human consumption and these systems are regulated by the State Water Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Table 3.10-1: Public Water Systems
Public Water System
Number Public Water System Name
Number of Municipal
Connections, 2020
Volume of Water Supplied,
2020 (AF)
5410016 Visalia 45,325 30,034
5400935 Mullen 42 21
5410041 Tulco 183 97
The WSA calculated the proposed project’s water demand using information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the EPA. The different proposed land uses are grouped into the Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial, and Landscaping categories to calculate water demand.
Based on the assumptions provided in the WSA and as shown in Table 3.10-2 below, the proposed project would use a total of approximately 124.1 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water at buildout. This includes an Industrial water demand of 11,466,345 gallons per year, or 35.2 AFY, upon full buildout; a Light Industrial water demand of 1,723,392 gallons per year, or 5.3 AFY, upon full buildout; and a Commercial water demand of 1,720,162 gallons per year, or 5.3 AFY, upon full buildout. Project landscaping would require approximately 76.8 AFY of the total water demand at buildout. 4 Table 3.10-2: Operational Project Water Demands
Land Use
Category for
Water Usage
Calculations Land Use Square Footage
Water Usage
Factor
Water Usage in
Phase
(Gal/Year)
Water Usage in
Phase (AFY)
Total Water
Usage (AFY)
Phase One
Industrial Industrial 1,864,680 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
6,153,444 18.9 18.9
Light
Industrial
Flex Industrial – – – – –
Light
Industrial
Self storage – – – – –
Commercial Drive-Thru
Restaurant
– – – – –
Commercial Convenience
Store
– – – – –
4 4Creeks, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Technical Memorandum – Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. September. 2735
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-16
Land Use
Category for
Water Usage
Calculations Land Use Square Footage
Water Usage
Factor
Water Usage in
Phase
(Gal/Year)
Water Usage in
Phase (AFY)
Total Water
Usage (AFY)
Commercial Car Wash – – – – –
Landscaping Landscaping 6.99 Acres 2.5 AFY/Acre 5,696,413 17.5 17.5 2025 Usage: 11,849,857 36.4 36.4
Phase Two
Industrial Industrial 830,700 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
2,741,310 8.4 27.3
Light
Industrial
Flex Industrial – – – – –
Light
Industrial
Self storage – – – – –
Commercial Drive-Thru
Restaurant
4,796 – 483,625 1.5 1.5
Commercial Convenience
Store
6,922 – 443,840 1.3 1.3
Commercial Car Wash 4,560 – 840,230 2.6 2.6
Landscaping Landscaping 10.52 Acres 2.5 AFY/Acre 8,571,170 26.3 43.8 2026 Usage: 13,080,175 40.1 76.5
Phase Three
Industrial Industrial 779,270 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
2,571,591 7.9 35.2
Light
Industrial
Flex Industrial 84,480 20.4
gallons/square
feet/year
1,723,392 5.3 5.3
Light
Industrial
Self storage 144,800 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
477,840 1.5 1.5
Commercial Drive-Thru
Restaurant
– – – – 1.4
Commercial Convenience
Store
– – – – 1.3
Commercial Car Wash – – – – 2.6
Landscaping Landscaping 13.1 acres 2.5 AFY/acre 10,724,706 33.0 76.8 2028 Usage: 15,527,523 47.6 124.1
2736
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-17
In the Cal Water Visalia District UWMP,5 projections for future population growth and future residential water use are based on data from the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) long-term socioeconomic forecast model, which utilizes historic growth to forecast future population growth. The Caltrans long-term socioeconomic forecast model provides a county-wide forecast, so growth occurring outside of the existing Visalia City limits was incorporated into the Visalia UWMP’s assessment of future water conditions and projections for future water use. As such, the adequacy of the water supply for the proposed project would be analyzed based on the analysis of the Visalia District’s water supply in the UWMP.
The WSA calculated the project site’s baseline water demand based on the site’s land use designation that was accounted for in the UWMP. According to the General Plan, the floor area ratio (FAR) for Industrial uses is assumed at 0.15, and a FAR of 0.2 is assumed for Light Industrial. Using the baseline values, it was determined that the site is expected to have 1,929,716 square feet of buildings, with an expected annual demand of 111.8 AFY. Because the proposed project would have a higher FAR than the baseline that was assumed for the project site in the UWMP, the proposed project’s water demand (124.1 AFY) would be 12.3 acre-feet more than what was assumed in the UWMP (111.8 AFY).
However, the total water supplies given in the UWMP are determined by the demand, not necessarily the actual maximum supply. The UWMP states, "It should be noted that the Kaweah and Tule Subbasins are not adjudicated, and the projected groundwater supply volumes are not intended to and do not determine, limit or represent Cal Water’s water rights or maximum pumping volumes." The proposed project would add additional Industrial and Commercial water demand.
This would not impact other uses in the Visalia District, as Cal Water will be able to increase the amount of water pumped. The UWMP states, “Cal Water expects that, under all hydrologic conditions, its groundwater supply for the Visalia District will fully meet future demands.” Cal Water can expect to meet the increased demand because Municipal and Industrial (M&I) pumping accounted for 9 percent of the total pumping in the Kaweah Subbasin and 3 percent of the total pumping in the Tule Subbasin. From this, the UWMP concludes, “It is therefore likely that management of agricultural groundwater use, rather than M&I use, will be a much larger determining factor in maintaining groundwater sustainability in both the Kaweah and Tule Subbasins in the future.” The increase in Industrial and Commercial demand would most likely impact water used for agricultural uses.
The UWMP adds, “Further, under California law, municipal water rights and uses have a higher priority and are entitled to more protection than other uses of water, including in connection with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The use of water for domestic purposes is recognized as the ‘highest use’ of water in the State of California pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) Section 106, and the rights of urban water purveyors should be protected to the fullest extent necessary for existing and future uses, pursuant to CWC § 106.5.” 5 California Water Service (Cal Water) Visalia District. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Website:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/VIS_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2022. 2737
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-18
The proposed project would convert irrigated agricultural land into other uses with reduced water demand. An analysis from the Pacific Institute of DWR found that almond farms require 4.49 AFY per acre. The approximately 284-acre site includes a current almond farm is estimated to use 1,257 AFY.
The UWMP states, “Irrigated agriculture typically uses more water on a per-acre basis than urban uses; thus, some future growth will likely result in a net decrease in water use within the subbasins.” Therefore, the proposed project would use significantly less water than the existing use on-site.
However, while the overall water usage at the project site would be significantly less under the proposed uses, the water demand projections in the UWMP and WSA are based on annexation of the site into the Cal Water service area, and projected availability is based on planned land uses in the City of Visalia. Because the existing orchard is not currently connected to the Cal Water service area, the existing uses are not reflected in the WSA. For this reason, the proposed project would increase demand for potable water to the Cal Water Visalia District water system, which is reliant on groundwater to serve its customers.
Table 3.10-3 shows Cal Water’s projected supply volumes through 2045. Projected water use is estimated as a function of expected service growth and a forecast of average water use per service for each of the use types shown in the table. Cal Water is assuming that current and planned basin recharge activities and land use conversions will result in sufficient groundwater supplies to meet demand through 2045. Therefore, the groundwater supply amounts shown in Table 3.10-3 equal the projected demand each year.
Table 3.10-3: Cal Water Visalia District Retail Water Supplies Water
Supply
Projected Water Supply
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Actual Supply
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
30,152 acrefeet32,520 acrefeet35,276 acrefeet38,310 acrefeet41,258 acrefeet44,529 acrefeet The proposed project’s estimated water demand in 2025 would be approximately 0.1 percent of the projected water supply, which is a nominal amount. Furthermore, Cal Water’s current Conservation Master Plan includes water conservation measures such as limited irrigation during severe drought conditions, recycled water, economic incentives, and DMMs that reduce water use.
According to the Visalia General Plan Update EIR, Cal Water estimated that the maximum groundwater pumping capacity is 100,829 AFY. At the time, Cal Water determined that capacity was adequate to meet a projected 2030 demand of 57,364 AFY. Updated estimates from the UWMP project a demand of 44,529 AFY in 2045, mainly due to slowed growth and improved conservation methods. The demand in the service area with the proposed project was calculated to be 44,541.3 AFY in 2045. As discussed above, because the proposed project would have a higher FAR than the baseline assumed for the project site in the UWMP, the service area water demand forecasted by the 2738
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-19
UWMP is 12.3 AFY lower than the estimated water demand with the proposed project. The proposed project is expected to add an additional 12.3 AFY to the Visalia District water demand beginning in 2028; therefore, with the proposed project, the Visalia District would demand 44,541.3 AFY. Because Cal Water has determined the system can meet 57,364 AFY of demand and the Visalia District’s water demand is 44,541.3 AFY including the proposed project, with an available capacity of at least 12,835 AFY, there would be enough water supply for the proposed project.
As shown in Table 3.10-4, during project construction, water demand will increase more than the operating demand.
Table 3.10-4: Total Project Demands by Year
Year Construction Demand (AFY) Operational Demand (AFY) Total Demand (AFY) 2024 302.4 0 302.4
2025 235.2 36.4 271.6
2026 268.8 76.5 345.3
2027 302.4 76.5 378.9
2028 100.8 124.1 224.9
2029 through 2045 – 124.1 124.1
Notes:
AFY = acre feet per year
During project construction, water demand would increase more than the operating demand. The project construction would occur in 2024. The UWMP expects a demand of 31,951 acre-feet in 2024.
With the project construction, the Visalia District is expected to have a total demand of 32,253.6 AF, an increase of 302.4 AF. The UWMP states that the driest year since 1991 was 2013, and during 2013 there was an available water supply of 45,400 AF. Therefore, even if 2024 is a dry year, there would be at least 13,449 acre-feet available. This would be able to supply the one-time increase in 302.4 AF. Additionally, the proposed project would contain storm drainage detention basins. The project site would produce 111.5 AFY of stormwater runoff, and the proposed basins would be capable of retaining 123.4 AFY, representing an additional 11.9 AFY of capacity than what would be needed for the proposed project. The proposed project would also pay its fair share in fees for new and expanded groundwater recharge projects and would therefore not affect groundwater supplies beyond what was analyzed and approved in the General Plan and by Cal Water.
According to the WSA, there is a continuing decline in groundwater levels of the aquifer system below Cal Water’s Visalia District. To assist in mitigating this groundwater decline, the City has established a Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee and Special Revenue Funds that would fund groundwater recharge and other water resource projects within the City. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Water Resource Management and Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.54, Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation), which states, “conversion of land from agricultural to urban uses increases the local groundwater overdraft,” and 2739
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-20
requires impact fees for new development and a volumetric fee for existing urban water supplies to fund programs to mitigate the impact of new development and existing water extractions upon conditions of groundwater overdraft. According to the ordinance, the fee shall be paid as a condition of final map approval or other final discretionary development approval, and the fee paid shall be in addition to all other impact fees paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed project would be required to pay $382,480 ($1,366/acre) in the Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee.
Current Special Revenue Funds to support the City's water services include the following:
• Groundwater Recharge Fund–Fund 223: Established to account for the costs of recharging the City’s underground water system. The funding is provided by monthly rates and development fees.
• Kaweah Lake and Local Stormwater Maintenance Fund–Fund 224: Established to account for the costs of adding to the water holding capacity of Lake Kaweah (a source of the City’s water) and was expanded to include the maintenance of local storm channels. The funding is provided by monthly rates and development fees.
Projects from Visalia's 2018/19-2023/24 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), regarding water services, are:
• Construct East Side Regional Park Basins: 100 acres of recharge basins in accordance with the overall Master Plan.
• Construct Groundwater Recharge Facilities: Includes modification of existing basins to allow for groundwater recharge.
• Purchase Water Rights: Purchase surface water rights and water supply for ground water recharge to help reduce groundwater overdraft. Surface water is purchased in wet years, but not in drought years.
• Water Resource Management: Includes consultations and engineering services as needed for guidance on water management issues, specifically those regarding surface and irrigationwater allocations, grant application, and certain SGMA issues. • Acquire Land for Basins: Acquire properties to develop into groundwater recharge facilities.
The focus will be on vacant or agricultural properties that can receive waters from a nearby waterway. The overarching goal of this program is maximizing groundwater recharge within the City and pursuing groundwater sustainability under SGMA. • Cameron Creek Park and K Road Park/Basin: Locate and acquire site for an 8–10 acre neighborhood park and storm/recharge basin along the southerly extension of McAuliff adjacent to Cameron Creek.
Furthermore, the Visalia District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) identifies six shortage levels that increase with the severity of the water supply shortage. A level 1 water shortage necessitates a demand reduction of up to 10 percent, while a level 6 shortage necessitates a demand reduction of 50 percent or greater. The Visalia District’s 2020 WSCP provides a full spectrum of measures to reduce the City’s water consumption (See Appendix G of the WSA [Appendix J]). The 2740
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-21
urban water supplier may use any combination of consumption reduction measures to achieve the necessary water demand reductions depending on the water shortage level. The City’s contingency planning is designed to ensure that necessary water supply will be available under each water shortage scenario. These water supply contingency measures, applicable to the entire Visalia District water service area, are fully applicable to the proposed project and protective of the adequacy of the proposed project’s water supply.
The WSA concluded that the City’s water system has sufficient groundwater capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045.
The proposed project would result in development of the site, which would convert approximately 218 acres from pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. However, this would not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge because all stormwaters would be collected and diverted to approximately 31.3 acres of Water Quality Management Basins to retain stormwater on-site that would facilitate groundwater recharge. Thus, the addition of impervious surfaces would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not significantly lower the groundwater table of the aquifer or interfere substantially with the recharge of the underground aquifer, and there would be adequate water supply for the proposed project, the City of Visalia, and surrounding communities. With compliance with the applicable policies and regulations, payment of the required fees, and implementation of the water conservation measures and CIP, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Drainage Leading to Erosion/Siltation, Flooding, Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff, or Impedance of Flood Flows
Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
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 on- or 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.
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
2741
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-22
Impact Analysis
Construction
Construction activity could result in substantial erosion or siltation and increase in surface runoff due to a drainage pattern alteration and an increase of impervious surfaces, which could potentially lead to flooding on- or off-site and could therefore result in polluted runoff entering the City’s stormwater drainage system. However, the proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP as part of its Construction General Permit as required by MM GEO-2. SWPPPs include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction. Furthermore, Chapter 16.12.070 of the Municipal Code would ensure compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, and the proposed project would be subject to the review and approval of the City engineer. Therefore, although construction activities have the potential to generate increased erosion and siltation, compliance with applicable policies, laws and regulations and implementation of MM GEO-2 would minimize the potential for erosion, siltation, and surface runoff.
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 with a 1 percent annual chance of flood hazard. Therefore, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone.
The nearest flood hazard zone is located 1,950 feet north of the project site in Zone AE, which is a regulatory floodway.6 The proposed project site is not in proximity to a stream or river and would not alter the course of a stream or river. Therefore, although construction activities have the potential to generate increased erosion and siltation, compliance with applicable policies, laws and regulations would minimize the potential for erosion or siltation.7 During the flooding of March 2023, Lake Kaweah reached capacity and flooding occurred in the City, resulting in a local state of emergency and implementation of the City’s emergency response plan.
During the flooding, City crews successfully diverted water and avoided major flooding in most areas of the City.8
Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-2, construction impacts related to alteration of drainage pattern, erosion, siltation, surface runoff, and flooding would be less than significant.
Operation
Development of the project site would create approximately 218 acres of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions.
The proposed project would implement DMMs required by Cal Water. The DMMs include prohibitions to runoff from irrigation, prohibitions against applying water to outdoor irrigation 6 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Number 06107C0930E. Website:
https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps. Accessed October 10, 2022. 7 The City of Visalia is prepared to respond to emergency situations throughout the City and alerts the public through social media, text alerts, and on their emergency update web page at www.visalia.city/emergency. The City also maintains a 24-hour flooding hotline at 559.713.4600. 8 Frederiksen, S. 2023. State of Emergency issued for City of Visalia. March 13. Website:
https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-news/state-of-emergency-issued-for-city-of-visalia/. Accessed March 23, 2023. 2742
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-23
during and within 48 hours after rainfall, and requirements limiting the hours that irrigation may be applied would help to limit impacts related to runoff. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to implement MWELO for the proposed project’s landscaping. Under the revised MWELO irrigation efficiency guidelines, the proposed project’s 76.8 acres of landscaping would require recycled water, or utilize low water demand landscaping, which would minimize the potential impacts of runoff from irrigation. Additionally, during project operations, stormwater on the existing and proposed impervious surfaces would be collected and conveyed to the on-site stormwater system. The proposed project would include seven Water Quality Management Basins, on approximately 31.3 acres, that would be designed to meet all applicable standards and requirements, including accommodating a 100-year storm event, and would detain runoff and release it at a rate no greater than the pre-development condition. The proposed project would be required to retain the stormwater per the City’s drainage requirements and all other applicable standards. Therefore, impacts related to runoff from irrigation or stormwater during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Because the project site is not located in a flood hazard zone and would not alter the course of a stream or river, operational impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, operation impacts related to alteration of drainage pattern, erosion, siltation, surface runoff, and flooding would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-2.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Risk of Pollutant Release Due to Inundation
Impact HYD-4: Would the project be located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact Analysis
As discussed above, the project site is located in Zone X, which is not considered a flood hazard zone.
The nearest flood hazard zone is located 1,950 feet north of the project site in Zone AE, which is a regulatory floodway.9
Furthermore, there are no large inland bodies of water near the project site, a condition that precludes the possibility of seiche inundation. The project site is more than 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean and therefore is not susceptible to tsunami inundation. The project site is located in a relatively flat area and does not contain any steep slopes that may be susceptible to mudflows or landslides. The proposed project site is not located within a 100- or 500-year flood 9 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Number 06107C0930E. Website:
https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps. Accessed October 10, 2022. 2743
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-24
hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not be located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Water Quality Control or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans Consistency Impact HYD-5: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable Groundwater Management Plan? Impact Analysis
Implementation of the General Plan Policies, UWMP, the KDWCD Groundwater Management Plan, and the City’s involvement with the KDWCD Integrated Regional Water Management Planning program, in addition to the City’s Stormwater Master Plan and Management Program and the Waterways and Trails Master Plan, would address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the proposed project’s future urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes.
The City has established fees that fund groundwater recharge and other water resource projects within the City. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Water Resource Management and Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.54, Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation), which states, “conversion of land from agricultural to urban uses increases the local groundwater overdraft,” and requires impact fees for new development and a volumetric fee for existing urban water supplies to fund programs to mitigate the impact of new development and existing water extractions upon conditions of groundwater overdraft. According to the ordinance, the fee shall be paid as a condition of final map approval or other final discretionary development approval, and the fee paid shall be in addition to all other impact fees paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
The proposed project is planned for Industrial and Light Industrial uses. As such, the proposed project would not affect groundwater supplies beyond what has already been analyzed and approved in the General Plan and Cal Water UWMP, and the proposed project would therefore not conflict with the implementation of the Mid-Kaweah River Basin Groundwater Management Plan.
Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations and policies and payment of fees pursuant to the City of Visalia Water Resource Management and Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee Ordinance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
2744
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-25
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
3.10.7 - Cumulative Impacts
Hydrology
Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality typically occur within a defined watershed or basin. Therefore, all cumulative developments within the Tulare Lake Basin, including those cumulative projects listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects, have been considered in this analysis since they are located within the basin. All cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations implemented by the relevant public agencies including the Central Valley RWQCB, as well as relevant policies in the General Plan and other applicable codes, ordinances, and policies, which prevent a project from increasing off-site surface water flow from existing conditions and further ensures that projects adhere to BMPs during construction to prevent pollutants from being carried off-site. Additionally, regional development would be required to comply with applicable regional, State, and federal laws and regulations regarding flooding to ensure impacts are less than significant in this regard. These regulations, in combination with implementation of applicable provisions in the General Plan, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology.
As discussed in detail above, the proposed project would also be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations implemented by the relevant public agencies, including the Central Valley RWQCB, and to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and other applicable codes, ordinances, and policies related to preventing pollutants from being conveyed off-site. The combination of the requirement to adhere to these laws, regulations, and policies as well as identified BMPs would ensure that the proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Thus, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology.
Water Supply
The geographic scope of the cumulative water supply analysis is the service area of the Visalia District of Cal Water, which provides potable water to residents and businesses within the City. The WSA evaluates the adequacy of Visalia District’s total project water supplies, including existing water supplies and future planned water supplies, to meet the Visalia District’s existing and projected future water demands, including those future water demands associated with the proposed project.
Cumulative projects, including those listed in Table 3-1 (refer to Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects), are located within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. A WSA was completed for the proposed project that evaluated projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and other planned future users within Visalia District’s service area. The WSA concluded that the City’s water system has sufficient groundwater capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045.
2745
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-26
Developers of the other cumulative projects would be required to pay their proportionate share of required funding to the City for completion of water infrastructure improvements as included in the City’s CIP. In addition, cumulative projects, such as those listed in Table 3-1, would be required to demonstrate that they would be served with potable water service as a standard requirement of the development review process, and would be required to comply with provisions of the applicable laws and regulations in the Municipal Code and The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) related to water conservation. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed above, the proposed project would also be required to comply with City ordinances and General Plan Policies, as well as other laws and regulations that address water supply. The proposed project would also be required to pay applicable impact fees to help facilitate the completion of necessary water infrastructure. For these reasons, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution toward this less than significant cumulative impact related to water supply and treatment.
Water Quality
The geographic context for consideration of cumulative impacts related to surface water quality is the Tulare Lake Basin. All cumulative projects would involve short-term construction and long-term operational activities that would have the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies, including the St. Johns River and Kaweah River. All cumulative project construction would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Board, which would require preparation of a SWPPP that would control potential discharges of contaminants into downstream water bodies. These cumulative projects would also be required to prepare a SWPPP and comply with the applicable General Plan Policies and relevant provisions of the Municipal Code during operation. For these reasons, and with implementation of MM GEO-2, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to surface water quality.
The proposed project would also be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Board and to prepare a SWPPP. Similarly, the proposed project would also be mandated to comply with applicable General Plan Policies and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code during operation. For these reasons and as further discussed above, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to surface water quality and the proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
The geographic context for consideration of cumulative impacts related to groundwater quality and management is the Kaweah Basin. All cumulative projects would involve short-term construction and long-term operational activities that would have the potential to impact groundwater quality and management. Construction related to cumulative projects would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Board, which would require preparation of a SWPPP that would control pollutants that could seep into groundwater. Operations of these cumulative projects would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations imposed by the relevant public agencies, including the Central Valley RWQCB, thereby ensuring that stormwater is pre-treated via bioretention and is otherwise handled pursuant to all applicable 2746
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-27
standards and requirements to ensure that percolation to the groundwater table would not result in degradation of groundwater quality. In addition, the cumulative projects would include measures such as bioretention areas to remove sediments and organic materials that might reduce groundwater percolation rates and other project features that would help to facilitate groundwater recharge. For these reasons, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact to groundwater quality.
Similarly, as discussed in detail above, the proposed project would be mandated to comply with applicable General Plan Policies and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, as well as other governing laws and regulations, during operation. For these reasons and as further discussed above, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to groundwater quality, and the proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-2.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
2747
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2748
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-1
3.11 - Land Use and Planning
3.11.1 - Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) describes existing conditions of the project site and vicinity related to land use and planning as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the proposed project’s potential impacts related to land use and planning and presents feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required. The descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on review of applicable land use policies, provisions, and regulations, including those set forth in the City of Visalia (City) General Plan (General Plan), the City Municipal Code (Municipal Code), and Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) adopted Policies and Procedures dated June 13, 2022, as well as review of project submittal information.
During the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping period, no comments were received related to land use and planning.
3.11.2 - Environmental Setting
Land Use
Project Site
The project site consists of three existing parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 077-840-001, 077-840-002, and 077-840-003) and 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. The project site is within the City’s Planning Area,1 the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 1 of the City (Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-3), and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).
The project site gently slopes upward to the east with a ground surface elevation of approximately 300 to 305 feet above mean sea level. The project site has been used for agricultural purposes since 1937. Currently, the project site is used for an almond orchard that was established around 2018 and is considered Prime Farmland as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The project site is currently designated Industrial and Light Industrial under the General Plan adopted in 2014 (Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-7). A private road intersects the project site from south to north.
Surrounding Area
West
Kelsey Street serves as the western boundary of the project site. Beyond Kelsey Street are warehouse uses including a warehouse distribution center and a United Parcel Service (UPS) distribution hub. This area has a General Plan Industrial Land Use designation and is within the municipal boundaries of the City.
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 areas within the City envisioned for urban development. 2749
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-2
North
Modoc Ditch forms the northern boundary of the project site. Beyond Modoc Ditch are agricultural lands in unincorporated Tulare County with a General Plan Industrial and Light Industrial Land Use designation.
East
Shirk Street forms the eastern boundary of the project site. Beyond Shirk Street are agricultural land uses as well as Ridgeview Middle School. This area has General Plan Land Use designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, Residential High Density, Commercial Neighborhood, Public/Institutional, and Parks/Recreation.
South
Riggin Avenue forms the southern boundary of the project site. Additionally, the boundary of the City is along the southwest border of the project site. Beyond Riggin Avenue are industrial, agricultural, and commercial land uses, including warehouses, distribution, and manufacturing buildings, and four mobile homes. This area has a General Plan Industrial and Light Industrial Land Use designation.
3.11.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Aviation Administration
Private and public development projects that propose structures whose heights penetrate the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 imaginary surfaces require Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review. In addition, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77 is required for any proposal for construction or alteration under the following conditions:
a) If requested by the FAA.
b) Any construction or alteration that is more than 200 feet above ground level at its site. c) Any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at any of the following slopes:
• 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet. • 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet. • 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet of the nearest takeoff and landing area of a public use heliport.
d) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above noted standards.
e) Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location.
2750
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-3
Regional
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (2018 RTP), presented by the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), is a long-range planning document that defines how the region plans to invest in the transportation system until 2042 based on regional goals, multimodal transportation needs for people and goods, and estimates of available funding. The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a component of the 2018 RTP, required by Senate Bill (SB) 375, that sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the region which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks to achieve the GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board. The future land use and transportation scenario presented in the SCS must accommodate forecast population, employment, and housing sufficient to meet the needs of all economic segments of population, including the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), while considering State housing goals.2 As of the writing of this Draft EIR, the TCAG has drafted the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (2022 RTP) and its SCS component. Once public comments are incorporated into the final document, it is expected that the 2022 RTP and SCS will supersede the prior 2018 RTP and SCS. The 2022 RTP and SCS would present updated long-range planning for investment in the region’s transportation system, covering 20 plus years of investment in the transportation system based on regional goals, multimodal transportation needs for people and goods, and estimates of available funding.3 This analysis evaluates project consistency with the 2018 RTP since it is the most recently adopted plan as of this writing.
Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission
Established by State law in 1963, each LAFCo is responsible for approving changes in local governmental agency boundaries, including annexations and detachments of territory; incorporations of cities; formations of special districts; and consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions of districts. A LAFCo also reviews ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structures. A LAFCo also has the authority to initiate proposals involving district consolidation, mergers, and reorganizations. In addition, a LAFCo is responsible for reviewing out-of-agency service agreements between property owners and service providers. In California, each of the 58 counties has a LAFCo. The primary purpose of a LAFCo is to (1) facilitate orderly growth and development by determining logical local agency boundaries; (2) preserve prime agricultural lands by guiding development away from presently undeveloped prime agricultural preserves; and (3) discourage urban sprawl and encourage the preservation of open space by promoting development of vacant land within cities before annexation of vacant land adjacent to cities. A LAFCo also ensures that agency boundaries logically relate to one another, thereby minimizing inefficiencies in service provision and overlapping responsibilities.
2 Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). 2018. 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Website https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp-20181/. Accessed March 24, 2023. 3 Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Website: https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp-2022/. Accessed October 12, 2022. 2751
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-4
A LAFCo also establishes, amends and updates SOI for each city and special district within the county. An SOI is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local government agency. The SOI, therefore, is a planning tool used to provide guidance for individual proposals involving jurisdictional changes and is intended to encourage efficient provision of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory must be within a city or district's SOI in order to be annexed.
A LAFCo is an independent public agency with countywide jurisdiction. A LAFCo has approval authority regarding boundary changes in organization to cities and special districts including annexations, detachments, formations, and incorporations. As noted above, LAFCo approval is necessary for changes to a city’s municipal limits or a city’s SOI. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for purposes of the proposed project, a LAFCo is a responsible agency that will consider the information in this Draft EIR in its review of the anticipated annexation application.
The Tulare County LAFCo is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries; conducting special studies which review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure; and preparing SOIs for each city and special district within Tulare County. The Tulare LAFCo's efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open space lands are protected.4 As detailed in Government Code Section 56668, a LAFCo must consider the 17 factors in Government Code Section 56668 when reviewing a proposal for a boundary change or reorganization (i.e., LAFCo proceeding involving two or more boundary changes), as noted further below.
Government Code Section 56668
When reviewing a proposal for a boundary change, a LAFCo must consider the following factors:
• Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years.
• The need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas.
• The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. • The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted LAFCo policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities in Government Code Section 56377. 4 Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (Tulare County LAFCo). 2022. Welcome to Tulare County LAFCo. Website:
https://lafco.co.tulare.ca.us/. Accessed October 12, 2022. 2752
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-5
• The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code Section 56016 to mean land currently used for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes, land left fallow under a crop rotational program, or land enrolled in an agricultural subsidy or set-aside program.
• The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.
• A regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65080, and its consistency with city or county general and specific plans. • The SOI of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed. • The comments of any affected local agency or other public agency. • The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services that are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change.
• Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Government Code Section 65352.5.
• The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs.
• Any information or comments from the landowner or landowners, voters, or residents of the affected territory.
• Any information relating to existing land use designations. • The extent to which the proposal will promote environmental justice. • Information contained in a local hazard mitigation plan, information contained in a safety element of a general plan, and any maps that identify land as a very high fire hazard zone or maps that identify land determined to be in a State Responsibility Area (SRA).
Annexation to a city is considered a proceeding for change in organization, which is subject to LAFCo review and approval, pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code § 56000, et seq.).5
Tulare County LAFCo Policy C-5.11(C) defines a Disadvantaged Community as an area that has a median household income 80 percent or less of the statewide average pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 75005(g) and contains at least 20 dwelling units at a density not less than one unit per acre. The nearest disadvantaged unincorporated community is Goshen, located on State Route (SR) 99 to the west of the City, approximately 1.15 miles southwest of the project site.6 Therefore, the 5 See also Tulare County LAFCo Policies and Procedures, Section C(1.1). 6 City of Visalia. 2013. Municipal Service Review. Website: https://lafco.co.tulare.ca.us/msr/city-of-visalia-msr-update/. Accessed March 30, 2023.
2753
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-6
proposed project is not in an unincorporated Disadvantaged Community as defined by Tulare County LAFCo. However, the project site is located in a Census Tract that is considered a Disadvantaged Community as per SB 535.7,8
LAFCo Additional Requirements for City Annexations
Additionally, the LAFCo must measure a proposal’s consistency with its adopted policies when reviewing an application for annexation. The following Tulare County LAFCo Additional Requirements for City Annexations are relevant to this analysis:
9 A. The boundaries of the proposed annexation must be definite and certain and must conform to lines of assessment whenever possible.
B. There is a demonstrated need for municipal services and controls.
C. The City has the capability of meeting the need for services and controls.
D. There is a mutual social and economic interest between the residents of the City and the proposed territory.
E. The proposed annexation is compatible with the City's General Plan.
F. The proposed annexation represents a logical and reasonable expansion of the annexing municipality.
G. Boundary lines shall be located so that entire road rights-of-way are placed within the same jurisdiction as the properties fronting the roads.
A Municipal Services Review (MSR) for the City of Visalia was prepared by Tulare LAFCo staff in 2012. It was adopted by the Commission on February 6, 2013. This is a process that the LAFCo is required to conduct in connection with establishing and updating SOIs. MSRs are designed to be a tool for collecting information and evaluating the provision of services from a broader perspective. Specifically, service reviews are designed to ensure that the proposed extension of services or creation of new service providers is consistent with the LAFCo’s purposes, policies, and procedures, including promoting orderly development, discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, providing housing for persons and families of all incomes, and the efficient extension of government services.10 The Visalia MSR provides the required information for project annexation. As a responsible agency, Tulare County LAFCo will utilize this Draft EIR to make the CEQA findings required to take action on 7 California Climate Investments are funds (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and appropriated by the Legislature) from the proceeds of the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program specifically targeted for investment in disadvantaged communities in California. These funds must be used for programs that further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Senate Bill 535 (De León, Statutes of 2012) directed that at least a quarter of the proceeds go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities and at least 10 percent of the funds go to projects located within those communities. The legislation gives Cal/EPA the responsibility for identifying those communities. 8 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2023. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update). Website:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1c21c53da8de48f1b946f3402fbae55c/page/SB-535-Disadvantaged-Communities/.
Accessed March 30, 2023. 9 Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (Tulare County LAFCo). 2022. Welcome to Tulare County LAFCo. Tulare LAFCo Policies and Procedures. Website: https://lafco.co.tulare.ca.us/. Accessed October 12, 2022. 10 See also Tulare County LAFCo Policies and Procedures, Section (C)5.7. 2754
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-7
the anticipated annexation proposal for the proposed project and will utilize the MSR as well as the proposed Plan for Services11 and other application materials in considering the merits of the annexation request. A copy of the NOP was sent to the Tulare County LAFCo during the NOP scoping period, and Tulare County LAFCo did not comment on the scope of the Draft EIR for the proposed project.
Local
County of Tulare
Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code requires each county to create an ALUC and for this commission to prepare and adopt an airport land use plan for each public use airport in the county.
In accordance with this mandate, the Tulare County ALUC prepared the current Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan in 2012. The intention of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is to promote the safety and well-being of the public by ensuring adoption of land use regulations which minimize exposure of persons to hazards associated with the operation of these airports including aircraft accidents and aircraft noise.
Actions that are subject to mandatory ALUC review include:
• Amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation that affects lands within the Airport Influence Areas (Public Utilities Code § 21676(b));
• Construction of a new airport within Tulare County and adoption of its airport master plan (Public Utilities Code § 21676(c)); and
• Any school site proposed within 2 miles of an airport runway by a public or private entity (Public Utilities Code § 21655).
City of Visalia
City of Visalia General Plan
The project site is designated under the General Plan as Industrial and Light Industrial. (See Exhibit 2-
7.) Land designated Light Industrial is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, distribution, research and development enterprises, and secondary office (limited customer access) uses. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the Light Industrial designation is 0.5. Lands designated Industrial allow primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities including those with outdoor facilities. It also accommodates warehousing and distribution with supporting 11 A plan for services is a requirement of the annexation submittal process, which must include all of the information set forth in Government Code Section 56653, such as: an enumeration and description of the services currently provided or to be extended to the affected territory; the level and range of those services; an indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory, if new services are proposed; an indication of any improvement or upgrading of any structures, roads, or service or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization/reorganization is completed; and information with respect to how those services will be financed. See also Tulare LAFCo Policies and Procedures, Section (C)1.5.
2755
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-8
commercial services and office space. Retail is not permitted. The maximum FAR for the Industrial designation is 0.6.
The General Plan establishes the following guiding goals, objectives and implementing policies associated with land use planning that are relevant to this analysis:
Objective LU-O-9 Implement and periodically update a growth management system that will guide the timing, type, and location of growth; preserve resource lands, natural features, and open space; and promote infill and redevelopment.
Objective LU-O-10 Protect agricultural land from premature urban development.
Policy LU-P-19 Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
Policy LU-P-20 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.
Policy 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.
Policy LU-P-40 Where possible, through the Site Plan Review process, retain native trees as landscape elements and for shading.
Objective LU-O-33 Provide adequate land in a variety of parcel sizes for industrial development, and strengthen the City’s role as a regional manufacturing center.
Objective LU-O-34 Ensure compatibility between industrial lands and adjacent dissimilar land uses.
Policy LU-P-100 Establish zoning standards to assure high-quality design and site planning for large-scale industrial development.
Policy LU-P-101 As part of industrial developments, allow secondary uses such as restaurants, cafés, small convenience stores and day care facilities, to serve area employees.
Policy LU-P-102 Ensure the timely completion of necessary infrastructure to support new industrial development.
Policy 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.
Policy LU-P-104 Preserve land designated for light and heavy industrial uses by limiting the intrusion of freestanding retail commercial or service commercial uses. 2756
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-9
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Objective OSC-6 Protect water resources vital to the health of the community’s residents and important to the Planning Area’s ecological and economic stability.
Objective OSC-O-7 Preserve and enhance Planning Area waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources which serve as plant and wildlife habitats, as groundwater recharge facilities, as flood control and irrigation components, and as connections between open space areas.
Objective OSC-O-11 Preserve and protect historic features and archaeological resources of the Visalia Planning Area including its agricultural surrounding for aesthetic, scientific, educational, and cultural values.
Objective OSC-P-23 Where no urban development exists, maintain a minimum riparian habitat development setback from the discernible top of the bank—50 feet for both sides of the Mill, Packwood and Cameron Creek corridors and 25 feet for both sides of Modoc, Persian and Mill Creek Ditches—provided that where riparian trees are located within 100 feet of the discernible top of the banks of the Creek corridors and 50 from the banks for the ditches, the setback shall be wide enough to include five feet outside the drip line of such trees. Restore and enhance the area within the setback with native vegetation. • Where existing development or land committed to development prohibits the 50-foot setback on Mill, Packwood and Cameron Creek corridors, provide the maximum amount of land available for a development setback. • Where existing development or land committed to development prohibits the 25-foot setback along Modoc, Persian, and Mill Creek Ditches, provide the maximum amount of land available for a development setback.
Policy OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archaeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive; • Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA); 2757
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-10
• Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and
• Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.
Policy T-P-23 Require that all new developments provide right-of-way, which may be dedicated or purchased, and improvements (including necessary grading, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway/landscape strips, bike, and parking lanes) other City street design standards. Design standards will be updated following General Plan adoption.
Policy T-P-24 Require that proposed developments make necessary off-site improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety hazards.
Policy PSCU-P-2 Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents. Credits for pocket parks can be granted under the Park Acquisition and Development Fee Program, subject to the design review criteria of Policy PSCU-P-8. These credits may be on a less than 1:1 basis.
Policy PSCU-P-9 Continue to implement a Park Acquisition and Development Fee Program updated to be consistent with this General Plan, including the following:
• Land and fees received shall support a standard of five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents and provide park and recreation facilities serving the neighborhood quadrant in which the contributing development occurs;
• A portion of the fees collected are to be used for community-wide recreation facilities;
• Dedicated park land meeting specified criteria for community parks, neighborhood parks and pocket parks may be provided at the City’s discretion, in lieu of fees, or earn fee credits (the City will not accept undevelopable, unusable land); and
• Fee credits may also be given for storm drainage basins designed and built for dual recreational use, but these credits may be on a less than 1:1 basis depending on the amenities and facilities provided and their availability throughout the year.
Objective S-O-1 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
2758
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-11
Objective S-O-3 Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.
Objective S-O-6 Provide comprehensive emergency response and evacuation routes for Visalia area residents.
Policy S-P-15 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.
Policy S-P-17 Ensure that all specified hazardous facilities conform to the Tulare County Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
Policy S-P-18 Coordinate enforcement of the Hazardous Material Disclosure Law and the implementation of the Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan with the Tulare County Health and Human Service Agency.
Policy S-P-19 Coordinate with the Tulare County Environmental Health Division and other appropriate regulatory agencies during the review process of all proposals for the use of hazardous materials or those involving properties that may have toxic contamination, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, CAM 17 metals, asbestos, and lead.
Policy S-P-20 Require applicants of projects in areas of known or suspected hazardous materials occurrences such as petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, CAM 17 metals, USTs, location of asbestos rocks and other such contamination to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with regulatory agency testing standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the project applicant to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of appropriate agencies, such as Tulare County Department of Environmental Health, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Policy S-P-21 Develop a community wildfire mitigation plan that identifies and prioritizes areas for hazard fuel reduction treatments, and recommend the types of methods of treatments.
Policy S-P-22 Manage vegetation in areas within and adjacent to public rights-of-way and in close proximity to critical facilities in order to reduce the risk of tree failure and property damage and avoid creation of wind acceleration corridors within vegetated areas.
Policy S-P-24 Continue to bolt down the roofs of critical facilities in wind gust hazard areas in order to prevent wind damage.
2759
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-12
Policy S-P-27 Implement a fuel modification program, which also includes residential maintenance requirements and enforcement, plan submittal and approval process, guidelines for planting, and a listing of undesirable plant species.
Require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.
Policy S-P-28 Assist in solving the incendiary problem by improving law enforcement and investigation equipment, adapting equipment available in other fields; and purchasing new equipment where needed. Implement “no burn” programs, particularly in areas outside of immediate response zones of fire stations.
Policy S-P-29 Ensure availability of adequate water supplies to meet public health and safety needs, and for resource protection, by maintaining the following order of priority for water use:
• Potable water supply, fire protection, and domestic use • Resource protection and preservation
• Industrial, irrigation and commercial uses
• Water-oriented recreation
• Air conditioning
Policy S-P-30 Integrate the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, in particular the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections, into the development review process, the emergency operations plan, and capital improvement program, as appropriate.
City of Visalia Municipal Code
Because the project site is currently adjacent to but outside of the City’s municipal boundaries, the City’s Zoning Map does not currently provide a zoning designation for the project site. Upon completion of the annexation process and LAFCo approval of the anticipated annexation proposal, the project site would be zoned Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) consistent with the project site’s current General Plan Land Use designation as shown in Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-7. In anticipation thereof, the City would pre-zone the project site as Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) as part of the proposed project’s City entitlement process.
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.
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 2760
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-13
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.
The Municipal Code contains the following development standards for the I and I-L 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.).
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 a property line where a site abuts an R-1 or R-M zone district. (Ord 2017-01 (part), 2017).12
12 City of Visalia. 2017. Visalia Municipal Code 17.22.060 Development standards in the I-L and I zones. 2761
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-14
Oak Tree Preservation Chapter
The purpose of Chapter 12.24, Oak Tree Preservation, is to establish basic standards, measures and compliance requirements for the preservation and protection of native Valley oak trees and landmark trees. As such, removal of oak trees is prohibited except when under removal permit.
Furthermore, removal of an oak tree under permit requires the application of removal standards and mitigation measures, as described in further detail within Municipal Code Chapter 12.24.
Active Transportation Plan
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was adopted by the City on March 6, 2017. The ATP incorporates and updates goals set in the following prior documents: the 2030 Visalia General Plan, the 2011 Visalia Bikeway Plan, the 2010 Waterways and Trails Master Plan, and the Regional ATP for the Tulare County Region. The purpose of the ATP is to guide pedestrian and bikeway policies, programs, and facility improvements to improve safety, comfort, and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists in Visalia.
3.11.4 - Methodology
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) evaluated the potential for land use and planning impacts through site reconnaissance, use of aerial photos, and review of applicable land use policy documents with a focus on plans, policies and regulations that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Photographs were taken of the project site and surrounding land uses to document existing conditions. FCS reviewed the General Plan and the Municipal Code, among other relevant plans, policies, and regulations, to identify applicable policies and provisions that would be relevant to this analysis. In connection therewith, FCS reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code as well as other relevant plans, policies, and regulations as necessary to adhere to the requirements under CEQA.
13 3.11.5 - 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 the proposed project’s impacts to land use and planning would be significant environmental effects. Specifically, it would be a significant impact if the proposed project would:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? It should be noted that the significance criteria set forth in Impact (b), above, is also separately analyzed in Section 3.12, Noise, to address potential impacts related to noise conflicts with land use 13 While not all of the plans, policies and regulations set forth in this Section 3.11 may have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, for purposes of a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR identifies and considers a broad range of plans, policies, and regulations in evaluating project consistency. 2762
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-15
plans, which would include project-related conflicts to the noise land use compatibility standards of the General Plan and Municipal Code.
3.11.6 - Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
This section analyzes potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required.
Divide an Established Community
Impact LAND-1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact Analysis
Construction
Impacts related to physical division of an established community are limited to operational impacts.
No respective construction impacts would occur.
Operation
The physical division of an already established community typically refers to construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway, railroad tracks, or the removal of a means of access that would impact mobility within an existing community and an outlying area. The proposed project would consist of an industrial and flex industrial park with parking and loading areas and related improvements along with compatible commercial uses consisting of self-storage/RV facility, a gas station, a convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants within the City’s municipal boundaries upon annexation. The project site is currently developed with agricultural uses. The development of the proposed project would not involve the construction of any type of linear feature that would impair mobility with an existing community, nor would it remove a means of access in a manner that would impede travel or otherwise constitute division of an established community. Rather, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with relevant General Plan policies and other standards and requirements, which would help ensure a cohesive, integrated site and circulation plan, and compatibility with nearby uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations Impact LAND-2: Would the project 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?
2763
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-16
Impact Analysis
Construction
Impacts related to consistency with applicable land use plans and policies are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur.
Operation
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The TCAG 2018 RTP establishes regional transportation policy for Tulare County based on specific transportation goals and objectives. The RTP focuses on achieving a coordinated and balanced multimodal transportation system, while maintaining the integrity of the existing system. The RTP includes projects located throughout Tulare County for all forms or modes of transportation, including automobiles, transit, nonmotorized (including bicycle), passenger rail, freight, and aviation facilities. The goals and objective contained in the RTP are focused on transportation initiatives, infrastructure, planning, and funding on the regional level. The proposed project would support these policies and strategies to the maximum extent feasible at the project level.
The project site is within the City’s SOI and its Tier 1 UDB and would represent a progressive step toward infill of the SOI in this area of the City, consistent with the long-term planning vision of the City for Industrial and Light Industrial uses, as reflected in the General Plan. The RTP/SCS accounts for growth in the project area, including industrial developments such as the proposed project.
Goal 6 is to provide a transportation system that efficiently and effectively transports goods to, from, within, and through Tulare County. The proposed project would be located adjacent to nearby existing industrial uses, and in proximity to SR-99, to provide for an orderly development that contributes to efficient and effective goods movement. Goal 8 is to expand the region’s bicycle and pedestrian systems. The proposed project would provide sidewalk improvements along project frontage which would expand the pedestrian system. Goal 10 is to improve air quality through congestion management, coordination of land use, housing and transportation system, provision of alternative modes of transportation and provision of incentives that reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Though the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality, the project would be required to implement feasible mitigation as detailed in Section 3.3 Air Quality, which would reduce air quality emissions to the maximum extent feasible thereby improving air quality, consistent with Goal 10. Therefore, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with the RTP/SCS.
Local Agency Formation Commission Requirements for City Annexations California Government Code Section 56668 establishes factors that LAFCo’s must use in reviewing annexation proposals to encourage well-planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development and discouraging urban sprawl. Table 3.11-1 provides a consistency analysis with California Government Code Section 56668. As shown in the table, the proposed annexation of the proposed project would be consistent with Section 56668. Impacts would be less than significant. 2764
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-17
Table 3.11-1: LAFCo Consistency Analysis (Government Code § 56668) Section Consistency Determination
Section 5668(a): Population and population density;
land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation;
topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins;
proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of
significant growth in the area, and in adjacent
incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the
next 10 years
Consistent: The project site is within the City’s SOI
and its Tier 1 UDB and would represent a progressive
step toward infill of the SOI in this area of the City, consistent with the long-term planning vision of the
City for Industrial and Light Industrial uses, as
reflected in the General Plan.
Section 56668(b): The need for organized community
services; the present cost and adequacy of
governmental services and controls in the area;
probable future needs for those services and
controls; probable effect of the proposed
incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion
and of alternative courses of action on the cost and
adequacy of services and controls in the area and
adjacent areas. “Services,” as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or not the
services are services which would be provided by
local agencies subject to this division, and includes
the public facilities necessary to provide those
services.
Consistent: The proposed project would include
infrastructure improvements, such as tie in with
existing water line and wastewater line, and
stormwater basins and storm drainage improvements
throughout the site, in order to properly serve the
new development. As discussed in Section 3.13,
Public Services, and Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would be required to
pay all necessary fees for utility service connections.
Section 56668(c): The effect of the proposed action
and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on
mutual social and economic interests, and on the
local governmental structure of the county.
Consistent: The project site is within the City’s SOI
and its Tier 1 UDB and would represent a progressive
step toward infill of the SOI in this area of the City, consistent with the long-term planning vision of the
City for Industrial and Light Industrial uses, as
reflected in the General Plan. The proposed project is
consistent with the surrounding industrial uses. The
development would generate sales tax and new
employment opportunities.
Section 56668(d): The conformity of both the
proposal and its anticipated effects with both the
adopted commission policies on providing planned,
orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and
the policies and priorities in Section 56377. (Section
56377 is reproduced below)
Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.2, Agricultural
and Forestry resources, although the project site
contains Prime Farmland, the proposed project is
consistent with the land use designation and intensity
of development previously approved by the City and
established by the General Plan; thus, conversion to
industrial use was envisioned as part of buildout
under the General Plan. 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. The project site’s surrounding
area contains many industrial uses, and thus the
proposed project is a logical expansion of industrial
uses in the area and siting the proposed industrial use 56377 In reviewing and approving or
disapproving proposals which could
reasonably be expected to induce,
facilitate, or lead to the conversion of
existing open space lands to uses other
than open space uses, the commission
shall consider all of the following policies
and priorities:
(a) Development or use of land for other
than open space uses shall be guided
away from existing prime agricultural
2765
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-18
Section Consistency Determination
lands in open space use toward areas
containing nonprime agricultural lands,
unless that action would not promote
the planned, orderly, efficient
development of an area.
(b)Development of existing vacant or
nonprime agricultural lands for urban
uses within the existing jurisdiction of a
local agency or within the Sphere of
Influence of a local agency should be
encouraged before any proposal is
approved which would allow for or lead
to the development of existing open
space lands for non-open space uses
which are outside of the existing
jurisdiction of the local agency or
outside of the existing Sphere of
Influence of the local agency.
elsewhere would not promote planned, orderly,
efficient development of the area.
Section 56668(e): The effect of the proposal on
maintaining the physical and economic integrity of
agricultural lands, as defined by Section 56016.
(Section 56016 is reproduced below.)
Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.2, Agricultural
and Forestry Resources, although the project site
contains Prime Farmland, the proposed project is
consistent with the land use designation and intensity
of development established by the General Plan;
thus, conversion to industrial use was envisioned as
part of buildout under the General Plan.
56016 “Agricultural lands” means land currently
used for the purpose of producing an
Agricultural commodity for commercial
purposes, land left fallow under a crop
rotational program, or land enrolled in an
agricultural subsidy or set-aside program.
Section 56668(f): The definiteness and certainty of
the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance
of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or
ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of
unincorporated territory, and other similar matters
affecting the proposed boundaries.
Consistent: The project site boundaries that would be
presented in the annexation application would be
definite, would conform to Assessor’s Parcel Number
(APN) lines and/or ownership of legal lots, and would
not contain any split parcels.
Section 56668(g): A regional transportation plan
adopted pursuant to Section 65080, and consistent
with city or county general and specific plans.
(Section 65080 is not reproduced below due to
length; however, its information was used in this
analysis and the link is provided in the table sources
further reference.)
Consistent: As discussed throughout this Land Use
section, the proposed project would be consistent
with all transportation policies that are relevant to
the proposed project.
Section 56668(h): The Sphere of Influence of any
local agency which may be applicable to the proposal
being reviewed.
Consistent: The proposed project is within the City’s
SOI.
Section 56668(i): The comments of any affected local
agency or other public agency.
Consistent: Notification of the annexation will be
circulated to local and affected agencies.
2766
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-19
Section Consistency Determination
Section 56668(j): The ability of the newly formed or
receiving entity to provide the services which are the
subject of the application to the area, including the
sufficiency of revenues for those services following
the proposed boundary change.
Consistent: The proposed project would be served by
municipal services, fire services, police services, and other public services as demonstrated in Sections
3.14, Public Services, and 3.16, Utilities and Service
Systems. The project applicant would provide the fair
share costs of all infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project
would pay its share of development impact fees.
Section 56668(k): Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Section
65352.5. (Section 65352.5 is reproduced below.)
Consistent: A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was
prepared for the proposed project and is included as
Appendix J. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, and Section 3.15, Utilities and
Service Systems, there are sufficient water supplies
for the proposed project.
65352.5 (a)The Legislature finds and declares that
it is vital that there be close
coordination and consultation between
California’s water supply agencies and
California’s land use approval agencies
to ensure that proper water supply
planning occurs in order to
accommodate projects that will result
in increased demands on water
supplies.
(b)It is, therefore, the intent of the
Legislature to provide a standardized
process for determining the adequacy
of existing and planned future water
supplies to meet existing and planned
future demands on these water
supplies.
(c) Upon receiving, pursuant to Section
65352, notification of a city’s or a
county’s proposed action to adopt or
substantially amend a general plan, a
public water system, as defined in
Section 116275 of the Health and
Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service
connections, shall provide the planning
agency with the following information,
as is appropriate and relevant:
(1)The current version of its urban
water management plan, adopted
pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing
with Section 10610) of Division 6 of
the Water Code.
(2)The current version of its capital
improvement program or plan, as
reported pursuant to Section
31144.73 of the Water Code.
(3)A description of the source or
sources of the total water supply
currently available to the water
2767
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-20
Section Consistency Determination
supplier by water right or contract,
taking into account historical data
concerning wet, normal, and dry
runoff years.
(4)A description of the quantity of
surface water that was purveyed by
the water supplier in each of the
previous five years.
(5)A description of the quantity of
groundwater that was purveyed by
the water supplier in each of the
previous five years.
(6)A description of all proposed
additional sources of water supplies
for the water supplier, including the
estimated dates by which these
additional sources should be
available and the quantities of
additional water supplies that are
being proposed.
(7)A description of the total number of
customers currently served by the
water supplier, as identified by the
following categories and by the
amount of water served to each
category:
(A) Agricultural users.
(B) Commercial users.
(C) Industrial users.
(D) Residential users.
(8)Quantification of the expected
reduction in total water demand,
identified by each customer category
set forth in paragraph (7), associated
with future implementation of water
use reduction measures identified in
the water supplier’s urban water
management plan.
(9)Any additional information that is
relevant to determining the
adequacy of existing and planned
future water supplies to meet
existing and planned future demands
on these water supplies.
Section 56668(l): The extent to which the proposal
will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing
needs as determined by the appropriate council of
governments consistent with Article 10.6
(commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of
Division 1 of Title 7.
Not Applicable: The proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan designations of the site. The
General Plan does not envision the site to be
developed for residential uses.
2768
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-21
Section Consistency Determination
65580 The Legislature finds and declares as
follows:
(a) The availability of housing is of vital
statewide importance, and the early
attainment of decent housing and a
suitable living environment for every
Californian, including farmworkers, is a
priority of the highest order.
(b) The early attainment of this goal
requires the cooperative participation
of government and the private sector
in an effort to expand housing
opportunities and accommodate the
housing needs of Californians of all
economic levels.
(c) The provision of housing affordable to
low- and moderate-income households
requires the cooperation of all levels of
government.
(d) Local and State governments have a
responsibility to use the powers vested
in them to facilitate the improvement
and development of housing to make
adequate provision for the housing
needs of all economic segments of the
community.
(e) The Legislature recognizes that in
carrying out this responsibility, each
local government also has the
responsibility to consider economic,
environmental, and fiscal factors and
community goals set forth in the
general plan and to cooperate with
other local governments and the State
in addressing regional housing needs.
Section 56668(m): Any information or comments
from the landowner or owners, voters, or residents of
the affected territory.
Consistent: The site owner is in support of the
proposed project. The project’s Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was sent to the neighboring property owners
in August 2022. Neighboring property owners would
also be noticed about the availability of the CEQA
documents and public meetings. These individuals
will have the opportunity to submit comments to
both the City.
Section 56668(n): Any information relating to existing
land use designations.
Consistent: The proposed project would be
consistent with the General Plan Land Use
designation of Industrial and Light Industrial for the
project site and would reflect the planned urban
development vision for the project site, which
consists of light industrial and flex industrial uses as well as compatible commercial uses (permitted by
2769
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-22
Section Consistency Determination
right or issuance of a conditional use permit), along
with parking and loading areas and related
improvements.
Section 56668(o): The extent to which the proposal
will promote environmental justice. As used in this
subdivision, “environmental justice” means the fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and
incomes with respect to the location of public
facilities and the provision of public services.
Consistent: With approval of the proposed
annexation into the City, all future public services
would be provided by the City, and water services
would be provided by California Water Service
Company (Cal Water). Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in environmental injustice
issues with respect to the provision of public services.
In addition, as discussed in Section 3.13, Public
Services, and Section 3.15, Utilities and Services
Systems, any impacts related to public services and
utilities would be less than significant.
Sources: California Legislative Information. 2023. California Law. Government Code Title 7. Planning and Land Use and Planning and Zoning. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65080.&lawCode=GOV.
Additional Tulare County LAFCo Policies
The boundaries of the proposed annexation must be definite and certain and must conform to lines of assessment whenever possible.
In accordance with LAFCo requirements, the project site boundaries that would be presented in the annexation application would be definite, would conform to APN lines and/or ownership of legal lots, and would not contain any split parcels.
There is a demonstrated need for municipal services and controls, and the City has the capability of meeting the need for services and controls.
As shown in Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-3, the project site is contiguous to the City’s municipal boundaries and other existing urban development and is within the Tier 1 of the City’s UDB, which would facilitate the efficient extension of existing utilities. As described more fully herein, the proposed project would connect to and/or otherwise utilize existing utility lines for service to the proposed project and would also pay applicable development impact fees toward the construction of identified infrastructure and improvements, consistent with the City’s Master Plans.
There is a mutual social and economic interest between the residents of the City and the proposed territory.
The project site is within the City’s UDB Tier 1, which is the first stage of future development envisioned by the City. The General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-20 allows “annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” UDB at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.” Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with and would implement the General Plan policy LU-P-20. The proposed project would also generate an estimated 4,100 jobs at buildout, which would enhance economic opportunities within the City and facilitate a positive jobs/housing balance. 2770
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-23
The proposed annexation is compatible with the City's General Plan.
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Industrial and Light Industrial for the project site and would reflect the planned urban development vision for the project site, which consists of light industrial and flex industrial uses as well as compatible commercial uses (permitted by right or issuance of a conditional use permit), along with parking and loading areas and related improvements (Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibits 2-8 and 2-9).
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use designations. Also, see below for a detailed consistency analysis with relevant General Plan goals, policies, and objectives.
The proposed annexation represents a logical and reasonable expansion of the annexing municipality.
The project site is within the City’s SOI and its Tier 1 UDB and would represent a progressive step toward infill of the SOI in this area of the City, consistent with the long-term planning vision of the City for Industrial and Light Industrial uses, as reflected in the General Plan as well as the MSR approved by LAFCo in connection with the City’s SOI. Additionally, the project site is adjacent to existing city limits and would reflect a logical and orderly extension of growth that is not isolated, nor would it constitute “leapfrog” development or otherwise facilitate urban sprawl. Rather, the anticipated annexation that would occur as part of the proposed project would reflect a logical and orderly extension of the City’s boundaries.
Boundary lines shall be located so that entire road rights-of-way are placed within the same jurisdiction as the properties fronting on the roads.
The proposed project’s frontage on Riggin Avenue, Kelsey Street, and Shirk Street are all within the City’s SOI and would be included in the annexation proposal (thereby ensuring these lands also fall within the City’s boundaries). Therefore, all road rights-of-way are already placed within the same jurisdiction as the project site fronting the roads.
One of the factors LAFCo must consider when reviewing a proposal for change in organization is the effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code Section 56016. Similar to the discussion above, although the proposed project would result convert existing agricultural land to urban uses, the proposed project would be consistent with the project site’s General Plan Land Use designations of Industrial and Light Industrial and would reflect the long-planned urban development vision for the project site upon annexation and would otherwise be consistent with relevant City land use goals, policies and objectives (as discussed further below). Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the City can accommodate the wastewater, water, and storm drainage demands of the proposed project, and the proposed project would provide the necessary infrastructure and improvements, which would be constructed in accordance with all applicable City requirements and specifications, to ensure it would be adequately served by the various City services and utilities and Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with LAFCo’s requirements for City annexations, which requires a determination that the proposed annexation is compatible with the General Plan and that the City has the capability of meeting the need for services and controls. 2771
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-24
General Plan Consistency
The County General Plan designates the project site as the City of Visalia Urban Area Boundary (UAB)
14 and is zoned AE-40 on the County’s Zoning Map (Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2- 6).15 However, with the City’s approval of the proposed pre-zoning and related City entitlements, along with LAFCo’s approval of the related annexation proposal, the County General Plan would no longer apply to the proposed project, as the project site would be annexed into the City of Visalia.
For these reasons, the City is serving as the lead agency and the local land use agency and is processing the land use entitlement applications for the proposed project.
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations of Industrial and Light Industrial for the project site, and reflects the long-planned urban development vision for the project site, which would consist of light industrial and flex industrial uses as well as compatible commercial uses (permitted by right or with issuance of a conditional use permit), along with parking and loading areas and related on- and off-site improvements. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s land use designations.
Table 3.11-2 summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. As shown in Table 3.11-2, the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
Table 3.11-2: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gases
Objective AQ-O-1 Coordinate air quality
planning efforts with other
local, regional, and State
agencies.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project would be
consistent with the Air Quality
Plan (AQP) as discussed in
Section 3.3, Air Quality.
Objective AQ-O-2 Strive to improve air quality
by implementing emissions
reduction efforts targeting
mobile sources, stationary
sources and constructionrelated sources.
Consistent. The proposed
project would include Mitigation
Measure (MM) AIR-2a through
MM AIR-2h to reduce emissions
to the extent feasible.
Policy AQ-P-1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance
to prohibit locating new
“sensitive receptor” uses—
hospitals, residential care
facilities and child care
Consistent: This policy does not
apply to individual projects but
is rather a broader City directive.
However, the proposed project
14 Tulare County. 2012. 15 County of Tulare. Public Parcel Zoning Lookup. Website:
https://tularecounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e7d7da648dab43e1a9eb0233889b7c32. Accessed August 17, 2022.
2772
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-25
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
facilities—within 500 feet of
a limited access State
Highway (SR-99 and SR-198),
except as provided by
approved master plans.
would not conflict with this
policy.
Policy AQ-P-2 Require use of Best
Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce particulate
emission as a condition of
approval for all subdivisions,
development plans and
grading permits, in
conformance with the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District Fugitive.
Consistent. The proposed
project would be developed in
accordance with Valley Air
District thresholds and
methodologies, including basic
dust control measures required
by Valley Air District, a Dust
Mitigation Plan if appropriate, a
vegetative barrier, and other
BMPs. See Policy AQ-P-9 below.
Policy AQ-P-3 Support implementation of
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District’s
regulations on the use of
wood-burning fireplaces, as
well as their regulations for
the installation of EPAcertified wood heaters or
approved wood-burning
appliances in new residential
development and a “No
Burn” policy on days when
the air quality is poor.
Consistent: This policy does not
apply to industrial projects but is
rather a broader City directive
for residential development.
However, the proposed project
would not conflict with this
policy.
Policy AQ-P-4 Support the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control
District’s “change-out”
program, which provides
incentives to help
homeowners replace old
word-burning fireplaces with
EPA-certified non-woodburning appliances.
Consistent: This policy does not
apply to industrial projects but is
rather a broader City directive
for residential development.
However, the proposed project
would not conflict with this
policy.
Policy AQ-P-5 When asbestos has been
identified in the preliminary
soils report, require all new
development and public
works projects to comply
with all provisions of State
and regional ATCM
regulations for control of
airborne asbestos emissions
relating to construction, road
Consistent. The Phase I ESA
indicated there is no asbestos on
the project site.
2773
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-26
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
maintenance, and grading
activities.
Policy AQ-P-6 Amend the Street Tree
Ordinance to promote use of
plants and trees that are
efficient pollutant absorbers.
Consistent: This policy does not
apply to individual projects but
is rather a broader City directive.
However, the proposed project
would not conflict with this
policy.
Policy AQ-P-7 Be an active partner with the
Air District in its “Spare the
Air” program. Encourage
businesses and residents to
avoid pollution-producing
activities such as the use of
fireplaces and wood stoves,
charcoal lighter fluid,
pesticides, aerosol products,
oil-based paints, and
automobiles and other
gasoline engines on days
when high ozone levels are
expected, and promote low
emission vehicles and
alternatives to driving.
Consistent: This policy does not
apply to individual projects but
is rather a broader City directive.
However, the proposed project
would not conflict with this
policy.
Policy AQ-P-8 Update the Zoning Ordinance
to strictly limit the
development of drivethrough facilities, only
allowing them in autooriented areas and
prohibiting them in
Downtown and East
Downtown.
Consistent: This policy does not
apply to individual projects but
is rather a broader City directive.
However, the proposed project
would not conflict with this
policy.
Policy AQ-P-9 Continue to mitigate shortterm construction impacts and long-term stationary
source impacts on air quality
on a case-by-case basis and
continue to assess air quality
impacts through
environmental review.
Require developers to
implement Best
Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce air
pollutant emissions
associated with the
Consistent. The proposed
project would be developed in
accordance with Valley Air
District thresholds and
methodologies, including basic
dust control measures required
by Valley Air District, a Dust
Mitigation Plan if appropriate, a
vegetative barrier, and other
Best Management Practices, and
would include MM AIR-2a
through MM AIR-2h to reduce
emissions to the extent feasible.
2774
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-27
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
construction and operation
of development projects.
BMPs include transportation
demand management
strategies for large
development projects such
as:
• Providing bicycle access
and parking facilities;
• Providing preferential
parking for high-occupancy
vehicles, carpools, or
alternative fuels vehicles;
• Establishing
telecommuting programs
or satellite work centers;
• Allowing alternative work
schedules;
• Subsidizing public transit
costs for employee;
• Scheduling Deliveries at
off-peak traffic periods;
and
• Providing recharge stations
for plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs).
Additionally, the proposed
project would include new
bicycle facilities which would
improve bicycle access in the
area, including new bike lanes
along Riggin Avenue and Class II
bike lanes along Kelsey Street,
Clancy Street, and Shirk Street.
Additionally, the proposed
project would enhance
connectivity to the future transit
stop adjacent to the project site
through the installation of the
sidewalk and bicycle facilities.
Policy AQ-P-10 Develop public information
regarding high- and lowpollen producing landscape
species, to be made available
at City Hall and other
relevant locations
throughout the City. Work
with Chamber of Commerce,
local landscape architects,
nursery contractors, and
arborists to promote
landscaping with low-pollen
plants.
Consistent: This policy does not
apply to individual projects but
is rather a broader City directive.
However, the proposed project
would not conflict with this
policy.
Policy AQ-P-11 Continue to work in
conjunction with the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District and others to
put in place additional
Transportation Control
Measures that will reduce
vehicle travel and improve
Consistent. This policy does not
apply to individual projects but
is rather a broader City directive.
However, the proposed project
would not conflict with this
policy.
2775
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-28
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
air quality and to implement
Air Quality Plans.
Historic Preservation Policy H-P-10 Regularly review the Local Register of Historic
Structures to ensure that
properties are appropriately
listed.
Consistent. As discussed in
Section 3.5, Cultural Resources
and Tribal Cultural Resources, a
review of the applicable records
indicated that there are no
historic resources on-site or in
close proximity of the project
site.
Land Use Objective LU-O-9 Implement and periodically
update a growth
management system that
will guide the timing, type,
and location of growth;
preserve resource lands,
natural features, and open
space; and promote infill and
redevelopment.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project would
facilitate achievement of the
long-planned development
pattern envisioned in the
General Plan. The project site is
within the City’s SOI and its Tier
1 UDB and would represent a
progressive step toward infill of
the SOI in this area of the City,
consistent with the long-term
planning vision of the City for
Industrial and Light Industrial
uses, as reflected in the General
Plan. The proposed project
would be a logical expansion of
the existing industrial uses in the
surrounding area and would
preserve more sensitive areas by
clustering development.
Objective LU-O-10 Protect agricultural land
from premature urban
development.
Consistent: The proposed
project site is currently used for
agriculture and is considered
Prime Farmland; however,
proposed project would be
consistent with the long-planned
industrial land use vision for the
project site as well as relevant
goals, objectives and policies as
set forth in the General Plan,
including, among others. See
also Section 3.2, Agricultural
Resources and Forestry
Resources, of this Draft EIR for
additional discussion .
2776
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-29
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Policy LU-P-19 Ensure that growth occurs in
a compact and concentric
fashion by implementing the
General Plan’s phased
growth strategy.
Consistent: The proposed
project is adjacent to existing
City municipal boundaries and is
within the City’s SOI and UDB
Tier 1 and would be consistent
with the General Plan Land Use
designations, which reflect the
long-planned land use vision for
the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would
represent a logical and orderly
extension of the planned urban
development pattern envisioned
in the General Plan.
Policy LU-P-20 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.
Consistent: The project site is
within the UDB Tier 1 of the City
as well as its SOI and would
include annexation and
development of lands that have
long been planned and
designated by the General Plan
for Industrial and Light Industrial
uses.
Policy LU-P-32 Continue to maintain a 20-
acre minimum for parcel
map proposals in areas
designated for Agriculture to
encourage viable agricultural
operations in the Planning
Area.
Consistent: The project site is
currently used for agricultural
purposes but has been long
planned by the City for light
industrial and industrial uses, as
reflected in the project site’s
applicable Industrial and Light
Industrial General Plan Land Use
designations; therefore, the
proposed project would not
conflict with this policy. See also
Section 3.2, Agricultural
Resources and Forestry
Resources, of this Draft EIR for
additional discussion.
Policy LU-P-34 Work with Tulare County and
other State and regional
agencies, neighboring cities,
and private land trust
entities to prevent urban
development of agricultural
land outside of the current
growth boundaries and to
promote the use of
agricultural preserves, where
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, while the
project site is currently used for
agricultural purposes, it has
been long planned by the City
for light industrial and industrial
uses pursuant to the project
site’s General Plan Land Use
2777
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-30
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
they will promote orderly
development and
preservation of farming
operations within Tulare
County. Conduct additional
investigation of the efficacy
of agricultural conservation
easements by engaging local,
regional, and State agencies
and stakeholders in order to
further analyze their ongoing
efforts and programs that
attempt to mitigate impacts
from the conversion of
agricultural lands through
the use of agricultural
conservation easements.
Support regional efforts to
prevent urban development
of agricultural lands,
specifically at the county
level. Tulare County’s
General Plan 2030 Update
Policy contains two policies
(AG-1.6 Conservation
Easements and AG-1.18
Farmland Trust and Funding
Sources) that discuss
establishing and
implementing an Agricultural
Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP). The City
supports the implementation
of these measures by the
County, in which the City
may then participate. Such a
regional program could
include a fee to assist and
support agricultural uses and
would be most feasibly and
strategically developed on a
countywide or other regional
basis.
In addition to supporting
regional efforts to prevent
urban development of
agricultural lands, the City
shall create and adopt a
mitigation program to
designations. The project site is
within the City’s SOI and UDB
Tier 1, which reflects the City’s
land use vision that balances
and takes into consideration
competing interests of allowing
urban development while
preserving agricultural lands and
open space. Properties in Tier 1,
however, are exempt from being
applicable to the agricultural
mitigation program described in
the policy. See also Section 3.2,
Agricultural Resources and
Forestry Resources, of this Draft
EIR for additional discussion.
2778
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-31
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
address conversion of Prime
Farmland and Farmland of
Statewide Importance in
Tiers II and III. This mitigation
program shall require a 1:1
ratio of agricultural land
preserved to agricultural land
converted and require
agricultural land preserved to
be equivalent to agricultural
land converted. The
mitigation program shall also
require that the agricultural
land preserved demonstrate
adequate water supply and
agricultural zoning, and shall
be located outside the City
UDB, and within the
southern San Joaquin Valley.
The mitigation program shall,
to the extent feasible and
practicable, be integrated
with the agricultural
easement programs adopted
by the County and nearby
cities. The City’s mitigation
program shall allow
mitigation to be provided by
purchase of conservation
easement or payment of fee
but shall indicate a
preference for purchase of
easements. The mitigation
program shall require
easements to be held by a
qualifying entity, such as a
local land trust, and require
the submission of annual
monitoring reports to the
City. The mitigation program
shall specifically allow
exemptions for conversion of
agricultural lands in Tier I, or
conversion of agricultural
lands for agricultural
processing uses, agricultural
buffers, public facilities, and
roadways.
2779
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-32
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Policy LU-P-35 Adopt the County’s Right-toFarm ordinance to support continued agricultural
operations at appropriate
locations within the City
limits, with no new
provisions. This ordinance
should not limit urban
development contemplated
by the General Plan.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, while the
project site is currently used for
agricultural purposes, it has
been long planned by the City
for light industrial and industrial
uses pursuant to the project
site’s General Plan Land Use
designations. Moreover, the
proposed project would be
subject to any applicable Rightto-Farm ordinance. See also Section 3.2, Agricultural
Resources and Forestry
Resources, of this Draft EIR for
additional discussion.
Policy 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.
Consistent: The proposed
project would include ample
landscaping in accordance with
applicable provisions of the
City’s Landscape Standard
Specifications.
Policy LU-P-40 Where possible, through the
Site Plan Review process,
retain native trees as
landscape elements and for
shading.
Consistent: Ample landscaping
would be provided in
accordance with applicable
provisions of the City’s
Landscape Standard
Specifications and would be
subject to City review during the
Site Plan Review process.
Policy LU-O-12 Provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural
to urban land uses.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, while the
project site is currently used for
agricultural purposes, it has
been long planned by the City
for light industrial and industrial
uses pursuant to the project
2780
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-33
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
site’s General Plan Land Use
designations. The project site is
within the City’s SOI and UDB
Tier 1, which reflects the City’s
land use vision that balances
and takes into consideration
competing interests, including
those relating to allowing urban
development while preserving
agricultural lands and open
space. Moreover, the proposed
project would be located
adjacent to nearby existing
industrial and other urban uses,
which help to provide for an
orderly and efficient planned
transition to urban land uses.
Objective LU-O-33 Provide adequate land in a
variety of parcel sizes for
industrial development and
strengthen the City’s role as
a regional manufacturing
center.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project would be
consistent with the long-planned
industrial uses for the project
site pursuant to the Light
Industrial and Industrial General
Plan Land Use designations. The
proposed project would include
annexation of Industrial and
Light Industrial lands into the
City, and would implement this
objective by developing light
industrial, flex industrial and
compatible commercial uses,
consistent with the industrial
land use vision. By developing
industrial uses, consistent with
the General Plan, as
contemplated by the proposed
project, manufacturing
opportunities on land that has
ready access to available
infrastructure, including major
transportation corridors and
utilities, would be expanded in
the City. While the ultimate end
user(s) are not currently known,
the proposed project would
facilitate industrial
2781
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-34
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
opportunities, which could then
enhance the project site for uses
as part of the Central Valley
supply chain and goods
movement network.
Objective LU-O-34 Ensure compatibility
between industrial lands and
adjacent dissimilar land uses.
Consistent: The project site has
been planned for industrial uses,
such as those contemplated by
the proposed project, consistent
with the applicable Industrial
and Light Industrial land use
designations; it is within the
City’s SOI and UDB (Tier 1); and
is adjacent to industrial uses to
the west and south, which is
part of the area designated for
industrial development in the
General Plan. In addition, the
proposed project would
incorporate a number of
features to further ensure
compatibility, including proper
setback and landscaping as
required by the Municipal Code.
Policy LU-P-100 Establish zoning standards to
assure high-quality design
and site planning for largescale industrial development.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project would be
required to comply with all
applicable zoning standards and
other requirements for
Industrial and Light Industrial
zones, which would assure highquality design and site planning appropriate to the proposed
large-scale
industrial/commercial
development.
Policy LU-P-101 As part of industrial
developments, allow
secondary uses such as
restaurants, cafés, small
convenience stores and day
care facilities, to serve area
employees.
Consistent: The proposed
project includes compatible
commercial uses consisting of
self-storage/RV facilities, a gas
station, a convenience store, a
car wash, and two drive-through
restaurants. All of the foregoing
is anticipated to serve the
proposed project’s employees as
2782
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-35
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
well as those from nearby
employment-generating uses.
Policy LU-P-102 Ensure the timely completion
of necessary infrastructure to
support new industrial
development.
Consistent: As demonstrated in
Section 3.13, Public Services and
Section 3.15, Utilities, the
proposed project would be
adequately served in terms of
water, sewer, stormwater, fire,
and police services. The
proposed project would involve
the development of all
necessary infrastructure to serve
the proposed uses. Further,
each project applicant, in
connection with an individual
specific development proposal,
would be required to pay
applicable impact fees, which
funding would be used by the
City (in combination with other
fees received in connection with
other development proposals)
to construct various master plan
infrastructure consistent with
the City’s master planning
documents.
Policy 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.
Consistent: The proposed
project is bound by existing
roadways to the east, south, and
west, and by an irrigation canal
(Modoc Ditch) and agricultural
use to the north. Therefore, the
project site is not adjacent to
existing or planned residential
uses.
Policy LU-P-104 Preserve land designated for
light and heavy industrial
uses by limiting the intrusion
of freestanding retail
commercial or service
commercial uses.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project consists of
light industrial and flex industrial
uses, along with compatible
commercial uses (which would
serve project visitors and
employees as well as other uses
in the vicinity–including
industrial uses), as well as
parking and loading areas and
2783
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-36
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
related on- and off-site
improvements. The proposed
project would be constructed
and operated on the project
site, which has long been
envisioned to provide such uses,
as reflected in the Industrial and
Light Industrial General Plan
land use designations.
Policy 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.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project would be
required to comply with all
federal, State, and local laws,
regulations, requirements, and
standards to minimize impacts
associated with the
establishment of the proposed
industrial and commercial uses,
including those related to glare,
signage, noise dust, and traffic.
See Section 3.1, Aesthetics,
regarding light, glare, and
signage. See Section 3.3, Air
Quality, regarding dust impacts.
See Section 3.12, Noise,
regarding noise impacts. See
Section 3.14, Transportation,
regarding traffic impacts.
Policy 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.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project would be
adequately served by the City’s
sewer facilities. See Section
3.15, Utilities and Service
Systems.
Open Space and
Conservation
Objective OSC-O-6 Protect water resources vital
to the health of the
community’s residents and
important to the Planning
Area’s ecological and
economic stability.
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the proposed
project would adhere to all
applicable laws, regulations,
standards, and requirements,
including, among others,
2784
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-37
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
preparation and implementation
of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), all of
which would serve to protect
water resources and prevent
significant impacts related
thereto.
Objective OSC-O-7 Preserve and enhance
Planning Area waterways
and adjacent corridors as
valuable community
resources which serve as
plant and wildlife habitats, as
groundwater recharge
facilities, as flood control and
irrigation components, and
as connections between
open space areas.
Consistent: Modoc Ditch, an
irrigation canal, lines the
northern boundary of the
project site. While the proposed
project involves the removal or
modification of the existing
retention basin and would
potentially require two new
culvert crossings over Modoc
Ditch, and the extension of one
existing culvert crossing, it
would be required to comply
with all applicable federal and
State water quality laws and
regulations, including those set
forth in the Clean Water Act
(CWA) 402 (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
[NPDES]), and the PorterCologne Water Quality Control
Act (including stormwater
control permits), and the Fish
and Game Code to preserve
water quality.
Objective OSC-O-11 Preserve and protect historic
features and archaeological
resources of the Visalia
Planning Area including its
agricultural surrounding for
aesthetic, scientific,
educational, and cultural
values.
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.5, Cultural
Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources, of the Draft EIR,
there are no known historic
features and archaeological
resources on the project site.
However, because there is
always the potential of
previously unknown resources
being discovered during
construction, MM CUL-1, MM
CUL-2, MM CUL-3, and MM CUL4, would require specific actions such as records reviews,
2785
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-38
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
monitoring, worker education,
and other specific measures to
reduce potential impacts related
to impacts to any previously
unknown historic features or
archaeological resources that
are discovered during
construction. Accordingly, any
historic features or
archaeological resources would
be appropriately treated
consistent with this objective
and the detailed MMs.
Policy OSC-P-23 Where no urban
development exists, maintain
a minimum riparian habitat
development setback from
the discernible top of the
bank—50 feet for both sides
of the Mill, Packwood and
Cameron Creek corridors and
25 feet for both sides of
Modoc, Persian and Mill
Creek Ditches—provided that
where riparian trees are
located within 100 feet of the
discernible top of the banks
of the Creek corridors and 50
from the banks for the
ditches, the setback shall be
wide enough to include five
feet outside the drip line of
such trees. Restore and
enhance the area within the
setback with native
vegetation.
Where existing development
or land committed to
development prohibits the
50 foot setback on Mill,
Packwood and Cameron
Creek corridors, provide the
maximum amount of land
available for a development
setback.
Where existing development
or land committed to
development prohibits the
Consistent: The proposed
project is designated for
Industrial and Light Industrial
uses; therefore, it is considered
to be land committed to
development. In order to
provide proper stormwater
management, the proposed
project would not be setback
from the Modoc Ditch and
would potentially require new
culvert crossings over Modoc
Ditch, and extension of one
existing culvert crossing.
However, during construction,
the proposed project would
comply with Chapter 16.12.070
of the Municipal Code
requirements for grading and
erosion control, including the
prevention of sedimentation.
Compliance with MM TRANS-1
would ensure compliance with
the City’s ATP by dedicating 28
feet for a pedestrian trail along
the south side of Modoc Ditch.
2786
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-39
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
25 foot setback along
Modoc, Persian, and Mill
Creek Ditches, provide the
maximum amount of land
available for a development
setback.
Policy OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to
avoid potential impacts to
sites suspected of being
archaeologically,
paleontologically, or
historically significant or of
concern, by:
• Requiring a records review
for development proposed
in areas that are
considered
archaeologically or
paleontologically sensitive.
• Determining the potential
effects of development
and construction on
archaeological or
paleontological resources
(as required by CEQA).
• Requiring pre-construction
surveys and monitoring
during any ground
disturbance for all
development in areas of
historical and
archaeological sensitivity.
• Implementing appropriate
measures to avoid the
identified impacts, as
conditions of project
approval.
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.5, Cultural
Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources, and in Section 3.7,
Geology and Soils, of the Draft
EIR, there are no known cultural
or paleontological resources on
the project site. However,
because there is always the
potential of previously unknown
resources being discovered
during construction, this analysis
includes MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2,
MM CUL-3, MM CUL-4 and MM
GEO-6, which would require
specific actions such as records
reviews, monitoring, worker
education, development of
appropriate treatment measures
upon discovery of any significant
finds, and other specific
measures to reduce potential
impacts related to discovery of
previously unknown
archaeological, paleontological,
or historically significant
resources. With the
implementation of these MMs,
impacts to archaeological,
paleontological, and historic
resources would be less than
significant.
Circulation Policy T-P-23 Require that all new
developments provide rightof-way, which may be
dedicated or purchased, and
improvements (including
necessary grading,
installation of curbs, gutters,
sidewalks,
parkway/landscape strips,
bike, and parking lanes)
other City street design
Consistent: As discussed in
Chapter 2, Project Description,
the proposed project would
involve the dedication of
easements (and related
improvements) 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 pursuant to all
2787
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-40
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
standards. Design standards
will be updated following
General Plan adoption.
applicable design standards and
requirements as part of the
proposed project, consisting of
sidewalk improvements, curb
and gutter, and signing and
striping.
Policy T-P-24 Require that proposed
developments make
necessary off-site
improvements if the location
and traffic generation of a
proposed development will
result in congestion on major
streets or failure to meet LOS
D during peak periods or if it
creates safety hazards.
Consistent: As discussed in
Section 3.14, Transportation, the
proposed project would not
result in congestion on major
streets or failure to meet LOS D
during peak-hours following
recommendations established
by the project-specific
Transportation Impact Study.
The proposed project would
construct off-site street and
intersection improvements to
improve existing safety hazards
and reduce congestion.
Parks, Schools,
Community
Facilities, and
Utilities
Policy PSCU-P-2 Strive to achieve and
maintain a citywide standard
of at least five acres of
neighborhood and
community parks per 1,000
residents. Credits for pocket
parks can be granted under
the Park Acquisition and
Development Fee Program,
subject to the design review
criteria of Policy PSCU-P-8.
These credits may be on a
less than 1:1 basis.
Consistent: The proposed
project does not trigger any
requirements associated with
the provision of parkland since it
only involves nonresidential
uses. Related thereto, because
the proposed project would not
include residential units, it
would not directly result in the
creation of additional park
demand that would result in a
significant increase in
population or existing park use
and would therefore not affect
the City’s park standard. See
Section 3.13, Public Services, for
additional information in this
regard.
Policy PSCU-P-9 Continue to implement a
Park Acquisition and
Development Fee Program
updated to be consistent
with this General Plan,
including the following:
• Land and fees received
shall support a standard of
five acres of neighborhood
and community parks per
Consistent: The proposed
project does not trigger any
requirements associated with
the provision of parkland (or
payment of fees in lieu thereof)
since it only involves
nonresidential uses. See Section
3.13, Public Services, for
additional information in this
regard.
2788
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-41
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
1,000 residents and
provide park and
recreation facilities serving
the neighborhood
quadrant in which the
contributing development
occurs.
• A portion of the fees
collected are to be used
for community-wide
recreation facilities.
• Dedicated park land
meeting specified criteria
for community parks,
neighborhood parks and
pocket parks may be
provided at the City’s
discretion, in lieu of fees,
or earn fee credits (the
City will not accept
undevelopable, unusable
land).
• Fee credits may also be
given for storm drainage
basins designed and built
for dual recreational use,
but these credits may be
on a less than 1:1 basis
depending on the
amenities and facilities
provided and their
availability throughout the
year.
Policy PSCU-P-59 Implement public facility
master plans through various
funding mechanisms
including assessment
districts, user fees,
development impact fees,
reimbursement agreements
and/or other mechanisms
which provide for equitable
distribution of development
costs.
Consistent. The proposed
project would be required to pay
its fair share of development
impact fees, as discussed in
Section 3.13, Public Services.
Safety and Noise Objective S-O-1 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury
Consistent: As discussed in
Section 3.7, Geology and Soils,
the proposed project would
2789
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-42
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
posed by geologic and
seismic hazards.
implement MM GEO-1 through
MM GEO-6b, which would
reduce potential impacts from
seismic and geologic hazards to
a level of less than significant.
Objective S-O-3 Protect soils, surface water,
and groundwater from
contamination from
hazardous materials.
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the proposed
project would be required to
adhere to all applicable laws,
regulations, standards, and
requirements, including, among
others, preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP and
stormwater facilities, which
would serve to protect soils,
surface water, and groundwater
from contamination from
hazardous materials. See also
Section 3.7, Geology and Soils,
including discussion of Impact
GEO-2, as well as Section 3.9,
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, of this Draft EIR.
Policy S-P-15 Require remediation and
cleanup of sites
contaminated with
hazardous substances.
Consistent: As discussed in
Section 3.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, MM HAZ-1
would require remediation of
any identified hazardous
materials (including, among
others, the potential for removal
and disposal) would be required
to be performed in accordance
with all applicable laws and
regulations and conducted by a
permitted and licensed
contractor. The foregoing would
serve to ensure any required
remediation occurs consistent
with this objective.
Policy S-P-17 Ensure that all specified
hazardous facilities conform
to the Tulare County
Hazardous Materials
Business Plan.
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.9, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, the
proposed project would be
required to comply with all
applicable laws and regulations
including preparation and
implementation of the Tulare
2790
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-43
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
County Hazardous Materials
Business Plan as applicable, prior
to obtaining a permit to operate
the proposed gas station from
the Tulare County
Environmental Health Division.
Policy S-P-18 Coordinate enforcement of
the Hazardous Material
Disclosure Law and the
implementation of the
Hazardous Material
Emergency Response Plan
with the Tulare County
Health and Human Service
Agency.
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.9, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, the
proposed project would be
required to comply with all
applicable laws and regulations
including the implementation of
relevant provisions of the
Hazardous Material Disclosure
Law and the Hazardous Material
Emergency Response Plan in
coordination with the Tulare
County Health and Human
Service Agency, as necessary.
Policy S-P-19 Coordinate with the Tulare
County Environmental Health
Division and other
appropriate regulatory
agencies during the review
process of all proposals for
the use of hazardous
materials or those involving
properties that may have
toxic contamination, such as
petroleum hydrocarbons,
CAM 17 metals, asbestos,
and lead.
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.9, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, the
proposed project would be
required to adhere to all
applicable laws and regulations
as well as being required to
implement MM HAZ-1, which
includes implementation of and
coordination with the Tulare
County Environmental Health
Division prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
Policy S-P-20 Require applicants of
projects in areas of known or
suspected hazardous
materials occurrences such
as petroleum hydrocarbon
contamination, CAM 17
metals, USTs, location of
asbestos rocks and other
such contamination to
perform comprehensive soil
and groundwater
contamination assessments
in accordance with
regulatory agency testing
standards, and if
Consistent: As discussed in
detail in Section 3.9, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, the
project site does not contain
hazardous materials occurrences
such as petroleum hydrocarbon
contamination, CAM 17 metals,
USTs, location of asbestos rocks.
However, due to the historic and
current agricultural uses, the
proposed project would
incorporate MM HAZ-1, which
would require residual soil
remediation, if required.
Furthermore, if hazardous
2791
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-44
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
contamination exceeds
regulatory action levels,
require the project applicant
to undertake remediation
procedures prior to grading
and development under the
supervision of appropriate
agencies, such as Tulare
County Department of
Environmental Health,
Department of Toxic
Substances Control, or
Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
contaminants related to the
former agricultural use of the
site (such as lead or arsenic)
were to be found, a construction
worker health and safety plan
shall be prepared and shall be
implemented during
construction. The proposed
project would also be required
to adhere to all other laws,
regulations, requirements, and
standards with respect to the
appropriate identification and
remediation of any
contamination, in coordination
with the relevant regulatory
agencies.
Policy S-P-21 Develop a community
wildfire mitigation plan that
identifies and prioritizes
areas for hazard fuel
reduction treatments, and
recommend the types of
methods of treatments.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, as discussed
in Section 3.16, Wildfire, the
project site is not in a fire-prone
area and does not have previous
fire damage or post-fire
drainage pattern changes and
would have less than significant
impacts with respect to wildfire.
Moreover, the proposed project
would be required to comply
with all applicable laws,
regulations, standards, and
requirements, which would
serve to further reduce risks
associated with wildfire,
including, among others,
adherence to any required fuel
reduction treatments and other
applicable provisions of the
Tulare Unit Strategic Fire Plan.
Policy S-P-22 Manage vegetation in areas
within and adjacent to public
rights-of-way and in close
proximity to critical facilities
in order to reduce the risk of
tree failure and property
damage and avoid creation
of wind acceleration
Consistent: As discussed in
Section 3.16, Wildfire, the
project site is not in a fire-prone
area and does not have previous
fire damage or post-fire
drainage pattern changes and
would have less than significant
impacts with respect to wildfire.
Moreover, the proposed project
2792
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-45
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
corridors within vegetated
areas.
would be required to comply
with all applicable laws,
regulations, standards, and
requirements, including those
set forth in the California Public
Resources Code Sections 4291–
4299, et seq., which require that
brush, flammable vegetation, or
combustible growth within 100
feet of buildings be maintained.
Policy S-P-24 Continue to bolt down the
roofs of critical facilities in
wind gust hazard areas in
order to prevent wind
damage.
Consistent: As discussed in
Section 3.16, Wildfire, the
proposed project has an average
wind speed of 6.9 miles per hour
(mph) and an annual maximum
of 12 mph and is not in a wind
hazard area. The proposed
project also does not involve any
“critical facilities” subject to this
objective; in addition, the
project site is not in a fire-prone
area and does not have previous
fire damage or post-fire
drainage pattern changes and
would have less than significant
impacts with respect to wildfire.
Policy S-P-27 Implement a fuel
modification program, which
also includes residential
maintenance requirements
and enforcement, plan
submittal and approval
process, guidelines for
planting, and a listing of
undesirable plant species.
Require builders and
developers to submit their
plans, complete with
proposed fuel modification
zones, to the Fire
Department for review and
approval prior to beginning
construction.
Consistent: As discussed in
Section 3.17, Wildfire, the
proposed project is located
within a Local Responsibility
Area (LRA) but is not located
within a high fire hazard severity
zone. The proposed project
plans would be subject to the
Fire Department’s review and
approval prior to construction
and would be required to
adhere to all applicable laws,
regulations, standards, and
requirements including, among
others, those related to fuel
modification.
Policy S-P-28 Assist in solving the
incendiary problem by
improving law enforcement
and investigation equipment,
adapting equipment
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, the
proposed project would be
2793
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-46
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
available in other fields; and
purchasing new equipment
where needed. Implement
“no burn” programs,
particularly in areas outside
of immediate response zones
of fire stations.
required to pay applicable
review and development impact
fees toward fire protection and
police protection facilities and
apparatus, which would
facilitate the ability of Visalia
Fire Department (VFD) and
Visalia Police Department (VPD)
to implement programs related
to this policy. See Section 3.13,
Public Services, for additional
information in this regard.
Policy S-P-29 Ensure availability of
adequate water supplies to
meet public health and
safety needs, and for
resource protection, by
maintaining the following
order of priority for water
use:
• Potable water supply, fire
protection, and domestic
use
• Resource protection and
preservation
• Industrial, irrigation and
commercial uses
• Water-oriented recreation
• Air conditioning.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. However, as discussed
in Section 3.15, Utilities and
Service Systems, the proposed
project would not result in
inadequate water supplies
under normal, single-dry and
multiple-dry years; the proposed
project would also be required
to adhere to all applicable laws,
regulations, standards and
requirements with respect to
the inclusion of water
conservation measures, which
would further reduce water
demand.
Policy S-P-30 Integrate the Tulare County
Hazard Mitigation Plan, in
particular the hazard analysis
and mitigation strategy
sections, into the
development review process,
the emergency operations
plan, and capital
improvement program, as
appropriate.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. As discussed in Section
3.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, the proposed project
would be required to adhere to
all applicable laws, regulations,
requirements, and standards
including relevant provisions of
the Tulare County Hazard
Mitigation Plan, as applicable.
Objective S-O-6 Provide comprehensive
emergency response and
evacuation routes for Visalia
area residents.
Consistent: This objective does
not apply to individual projects
but is rather a broader City
directive. As discussed in detail
in Section 3.16, Wildfire, Section
3.9, Hazards and Hazardous
2794
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-47
Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Materials, and Section 3.13,
Public Services, the proposed
project would not impair
emergency response and
evacuation routes. The City does
not currently have any
established evacuation routes;
however, the General Plan
designates SR-198, SR-99, and
SR-63 as evacuation routes
consistent with the Tulare
County Evacuation Plan.16 Main
arterial roads that are in the
vicinity and readily accessible,
which could reasonably be
assumed to serve as emergency
evacuation routes in the project
vicinity. The proposed project’s
primary access roads (Kelsey
Street, Clancy Street, Shirk
Street, and Riggin Avenue) allow
adequate egress/ingress to the
project site in the event of an
emergency. Additionally, the
City participates in Alert TC, the
County's public mass notification
system, designed to keep those
who live or work in Tulare
County informed of important
information during emergency
events.
Municipal Code Consistency
Zoning Ordinance
As part of the land use entitlements for the proposed project, the applicant is seeking pre-zoning approval from the City to change the project site to Industrial and Light Industrial. In connection therewith, the proposed project includes annexation to the City. Upon completion of the annexation process to the City, the project site would be zoned Industrial and Light Industrial. The proposed industrial and flex industrial uses with parking and loading areas and related improvements along with compatible commercial uses consisting of self-storage/RV facilities, a gas station, a convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants car, and related on- and off-site improvements would be consistent with this zoning, either treated as permitted uses by right or via the issuance of conditional use permit(s).
16 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. 2795
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
3.11-48
Development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Zoning Ordinance Section 17.22.060 Development Standards in the I-L and I Zones, including, among others, those related to height, setbacks, intensity (FAR), lighting and landscaping.
Furthermore, development of the proposed project would comply with all relevant portions of the Municipal Code, including Chapter 12.24, Oak Tree Preservation. The proposed project would also comply with the City’s ATP, which sets standards, goals, and design recommendations for the development of bike paths and pedestrian networks in the City.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
3.11.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of this cumulative analysis is the City and its SOI. The cumulative setting includes past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future developments within the City and its SOI.
Development within the City is governed primarily by the General Plan and Municipal Code. These guiding regulations and planning documents set forth the land use vision for the community, facilitate logical and orderly development, and ensure consistency with the General Plan as required under State Planning and Zoning laws. All cumulative developments would be required to be consistent with and conform to these planning documents and all other governing regulations, with this consistency determination typically confirmed as part of the land use entitlement/permitting process. For cumulative projects that are within the City’s SOI and would be annexed into the City, these would be required to demonstrate consistency with applicable provisions of the applicable laws and regulations under LAFCo law as well as the local Tulare County LAFCo Policies and Procedures. In addition, none of the cumulative projects involves the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway, railroad tracks, or the removal of a means of access that would impact mobility within an existing community and an outlying area.
For the foregoing reasons, there would not be a significant cumulative impact related to division of an established community or conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Moreover, as discussed above, the proposed project would have less than significant land use impacts on an individual level and would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this less than significant cumulative land use impact because the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s long-range land use vision and goals. Moreover, the proposed project would help to implement numerous General Plan policies, objectives, and goals and would be required to adhere to applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations as discussed throughout this Draft EIR. 2796
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
3.11-49
Accordingly, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact.
Therefore, the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to land use.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Cumulative Significance
Less than significant impact.
2797
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2798
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-1
3.12 - Noise
3.12.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing noise setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on noise modeling, included in this Draft EIR as Appendix H. No public comments were received during the EIR scoping period related to noise.
Environmental Setting
Noise Fundamentals
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and in the extreme, hearing impairment. Noise effects can be caused by pitch or loudness. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations or cycles per second of a wave that result in the range of tone from high to low; higher-pitched sounds are louder to humans than lower-pitched sounds. Loudness is the intensity or amplitude of sound.
Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit, which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the audible sound spectrum, so sound pressure level measurements can be weighted to better represent frequency-based sensitivity of average healthy human hearing. One such specific “filtering” of sound is called “A-weighting.” Aweighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies that are audible to the human ear.
Because decibels are logarithmic units, they cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one noise source produces a noise level of 70 dB, the addition of another noise source with the same noise level would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce a noise level of 73 dB.
Noise Descriptors
There are many ways to rate noise for various intervals, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant 2799
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-2
rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average level (Ldn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.
Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax for short-term noise impacts. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise.
Noise Propagation
From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source, as well as ground absorption, atmospheric conditions (wind, temperature gradients, and humidity) and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as an air conditioning condenser, a piece of construction equipment, or an idling truck, radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern.
The attenuation or sound drop-off rate is dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in noise models: soft-site and hard-site conditions. Soft-site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD) is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6 dBA/DD drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. For line sources, such as traffic noise on a roadway, a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft-site conditions compared to the 3 dBA/DD drop-off rate for hard-site conditions. Table 3.12-1 briefly defines these measurement descriptors and other sound terminology used in this section.
Table 3.12-1: Sound Terminology
Term Definition
Sound A vibratory disturbance created by a vibrating object which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a
medium such as air, can be detected by a receiving
mechanism such as the human ear or a microphone.
Noise Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
otherwise undesirable.
2800
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-3
Term Definition
Ambient Noise The composite of noise from all sources near and far in a given environment.
Decibel (dB) A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which represents the squared ratio of sound pressure
amplitude to a reference sound pressure. The
reference pressure is 20 micropascals, representing
the threshold of human hearing (0 dB).
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) An overall frequency-weighted sound level that approximates the frequency response of the human
ear.
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) The average sound energy occurring over a specified time period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound
level that in a stated period would contain the same
acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that
actually occurs during the same period.
Maximum and Minimum Noise Levels (Lmax and Lmin) The maximum or minimum instantaneous sound level measured during a measurement period.
Day-Night Level (DNL or Ldn) The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added
to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10
p.m. and 7 a.m. (nighttime).
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to
the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 7
p.m. and 10 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A-weighted
sound levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Statistical Descriptor (LX) LX is used to represent the noise level exceeded X percent of a specified time period. For example, L90
represents the noise level that is exceeded 90 percent
of a specified time period. L90 is commonly used to
represent ambient or background steady-state noise
levels.
Source: Data compiled by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2023.
Traffic Noise
The level of traffic noise depends on the three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. Because of the logarithmic nature of noise levels, a doubling of the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change) results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) community noise assessment criteria, this change is “barely perceptible”; for reference, a doubling of perceived noise levels would require an increase of approximately 10 dBA. The truck mix on a given 2801
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-4
roadway also has an effect on community noise levels. As the number of heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise levels increase.
Stationary Noise
A stationary noise producer is any entity in a fixed location that emits noise. Examples of stationary noise sources include machinery, engines, energy production, and other mechanical or powered equipment and activities such as loading and unloading or public assembly that may occur at commercial, industrial, manufacturing, or institutional facilities. Furthermore, while noise generated by the use of motor vehicles over public roads is preempted from local regulation, although the use of these vehicles is considered a stationary noise source when operated on private property such as at a construction site, a truck terminal, or warehousing facility. The emitted noise from the producer can be mitigated to acceptable levels either at the source or on the adjacent property through the use of proper planning, setbacks, block walls, acoustic-rated windows, dense landscaping, or by changing the location of the noise producer.
The effects of stationary noise depend on factors such as characteristics of the equipment and operations, distance and pathway between the generator and receptor, and weather. Stationary noise sources may be regulated at the point of manufacture (e.g., equipment or engines), with limitations on the hours of operation, or with provision of intervening structures, barriers or topography.
Construction activities are a common source of stationary noise. Construction-period noise levels are higher than background ambient noise levels but eventually cease once construction is complete.
Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on each construction site and, therefore, would change the noise levels as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 3.12-2 shows typical noise levels of construction equipment as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the operating equipment.
Table 3.12-2: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels Type of Equipment Impact Device? (Yes/No)
Specification Maximum Sound Levels
for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet)
Impact Pile Driver Yes 95
Auger Drill Rig No 85
Vibratory Pile Driver No 95
Jackhammers Yes 85
Pneumatic Tools No 85
Pumps No 77
Scrapers No 85
Cranes No 85
Portable Generators No 82
Rollers No 85
2802
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-5
Type of Equipment Impact Device? (Yes/No)
Specification Maximum Sound Levels
for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet)
Bulldozers No 85
Tractors No 84
Front-End Loaders No 80
Backhoe No 80
Excavators No 85
Graders No 85
Air Compressors No 80
Dump Truck No 84
Concrete Mixer Truck No 85
Pickup Truck No 55
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook, August.
Noise from Multiple Sources
Because sound pressure levels in decibels are based on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be added or subtracted in the usual arithmetical way. Therefore, sound pressure levels in decibels are logarithmically added on an energy summation basis. In other words, adding a new noise source to an existing noise source, both producing noise at the same level, will not double the noise level.
Instead, if the difference between two noise sources is 10 dBA or more, the louder noise source will dominate, and the resultant noise level will be equal to the noise level of the louder source. In general, if the difference between two noise sources is 0–1 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 3 dBA higher than the louder noise source, or both sources if they are equal. If the difference between two noise sources is 2–3 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 2 dBA above the louder noise source.
If the difference between two noise sources is 4–10 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 1 dBA higher than the louder noise source.
Characteristics of Vibration
Groundborne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motion through a solid medium, specifically the ground, which has an average motion of zero and in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. The effect of groundborne vibration typically only causes a nuisance to people, but in extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.
Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or 2803
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-6
the root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Because of the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels—denoted as LV—and is based on the reference quantity of 1 microinch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “VdB.”
Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. When assessing annoyance from groundborne vibration, vibration is typically expressed as rms velocity in units of decibels of 1 microinch per second, with the unit written in VdB. Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB.
Off-site sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible groundborne noise or vibration. Construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment, are common sources of groundborne vibration. Construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of PPV. Typical vibration source levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 3.12-3.
1 Table 3.12-3: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment Construction Equipment PPV at 25 Feet (inches/second)
rms Velocity in Decibels (VdB)
at 25 Feet
Water Trucks 0.001 57
Scraper 0.002 58
Bulldozer—small 0.003 58
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Concrete Mixer 0.046 81
Concrete Pump 0.046 81
Paver 0.046 81
Pickup Truck 0.046 81
Auger Drill Rig 0.051 82
Backhoe 0.051 82
Crane (Mobile) 0.051 82
Excavator 0.051 82
Grader 0.051 82
Loader 0.051 82
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Bulldozer—Large 0.089 87
1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August. 2804
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-7
Construction Equipment PPV at 25 Feet (inches/second)
rms Velocity in Decibels (VdB)
at 25 Feet
Caisson drilling 0.089 87
Vibratory Roller (small) 0.101 88
Compactor 0.138 90
Clam shovel drop 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller (large) 0.210 94
Pile Driver (impact-typical) 0.644 104
Pile Driver (impact-upper range) 1.518 112
Notes:
PPV = peak particle velocity
rms = root mean square
VdB = velocity in decibels
Source: Compilation of scientific and academic literature, generated by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The propagation of groundborne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise. This is because noise in the air travels through a relatively uniform medium, while groundborne vibrations travel through the earth, which may contain significant geological differences. Factors that influence groundborne vibration include:
• Vibration source: Type of activity or equipment, such as impact or mobile, and depth of vibration source;
• Vibration path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth; and • Vibration receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption.
Among these factors that influence groundborne vibration, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of groundborne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. Vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay soils than in loose sandy soils, and shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface, and can result in groundborne vibration problems at large distance from the source. Factors such as layering of the soil and depth to the water table can have significant effects on the propagation of groundborne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials.
Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. Pwaves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry 2805
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-8
energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.
As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source.
As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil type, but it has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests. The vibration level (calculated below as “PPV”) at a distance from a point source can generally be calculated using the vibration reference equation:
PPV= PPVref * (25/D)^n (in/sec)
Where:
PPVref = reference measurement at 25 feet from vibration source D = distance from equipment to the receptor
n = vibration attenuation rate through ground
According to Chapter 12 of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual, an “n” value of 1.5 is recommended to calculate vibration propagation through typical soil conditions.2
3.12.2 - Existing Noise Environment
Project Location
The project site is located in an area developed with industrial warehouse buildings to the west and to the south, residential homes to the southeast, and agricultural land to the east and north. The dominant noise source currently impacting the project site and surrounding area is traffic on adjacent roadways.
Existing Noise Levels
Traffic Noise
In addition to reviewing available information about ambient noise levels set out in the City’s General Plan, existing peak-hour traffic noise levels were also modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5). Hourly noise levels were estimated for select roadway segments based on roadway-specific parameters and existing (year 2022) traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project .3 The results are shown below in Table 3.12-4 and they are generally consistent with the noise levels set out in the City’s General Plan. Modeling outputs are provided in Appendix H.
2 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. 3 Kimley-Horn. 2023. Transportation Impact Analysis Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. October. 2806
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-9
Table 3.12-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Peak-hour
2022 Existing Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Riggin Avenue, West of Shirk Street AM 64.0
PM 63.7
Riggin Avenue, East of Shirk Street AM 63.6
PM 63.3
Shirk Street, South of Riggin Avenue AM 62.9
PM 62.7
Shirk Street, North of Riggin Avenue AM 58.5
PM 57.7
Riggin Avenue, West of Akers Street AM 66.1
PM 65.1
Riggin Avenue, East of Akers Street AM 66.3
PM 67.6
Akers Street, North of Riggin Avenue AM 63.3
PM 67.2
Akers Street, South of Riggin Avenue AM 66.5
PM 65.2
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent sound level 1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather, it assumes a worst-case of having a direct line of sight on flat terrain.
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2023.
Existing Stationary Noise Levels
There are no existing stationary sources of noise on the project site.
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses generally consist of those uses where exposure to noise would result in adverse effects, as well as uses for which quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose.
Residential dwellings are of primary concern, because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Other typical noise-sensitive land uses include hospitals, convalescent facilities, hotels, religious institutions, libraries, and other uses where low noise levels are essential.
The closest noise-sensitive land uses near the project site would be single-family residences located approximately 150 feet to the southeast across West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Street intersection.
2807
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-10
3.12.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Noise Control Act
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
• Promulgating noise emission standardsfor interstate commerce • Assisting State and local abatement efforts
• Promoting noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) wasinitially tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees.
Among the agencies now regulating noise are the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB Leq or less for 8 continuous hours or 105 dB Leq or less for 1 continuous hour; the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), which assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies; and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the FTA. Transit noise is regulated by the federal Urban Mass Transit Administration, while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the FHWA. Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise-sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway, or alternatively, that developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that minimize potential noise impacts.
Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by transportation sources, local jurisdictions are limited to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational Noise Exposure Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA), Occupational Noise Exposure; Hearing Conservation Amendment (Federal Register 48 [46], 9738–9785, 1983) stipulates that protection against the effects of noise exposure shall be provided for employees when sound levels exceed 90 dBA over an 8-hour exposure period. Protection shall consist of feasible administrative or engineering controls. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels to within acceptable levels, personal protective equipment shall be provided and used to reduce exposure of the employee. Additionally, a Hearing Conservation Program must be instituted by the employers whenever employee noise exposure equals or exceeds the action level of an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA Leq(8). The Hearing Conservation Program requirements consist of periodic area and personal noise monitoring, performance and evaluation of audiograms, provision of hearing protection, annual employee training, and record keeping.
2808
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-11
Federal Transit Administration Standards and Guidelines FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment.
These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2006). The FTA guidelines include thresholds for construction vibration impacts for various structural categories as shown in Table 3.12-5.
Table 3.12-5: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate VdB
I. Reinforced-Concrete, Steel or Timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered Concrete and Masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered Timber and Masonry Buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings Extremely Susceptible to Vibration Damage 0.12 90 Notes:
PPV = peak particle velocity
VdB = velocity in decibels
Source: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
The FTA has also established construction noise criteria for residential land uses. They are 80 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 70 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. Over 30-day periods of construction, the criteria is a 75 dBA Ldn average.
State
California General Plan Guidelines
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix,” which allows the local jurisdiction to delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.4
Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise/land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. The project is also subject to review under the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides impact thresholds for potential noise and vibration impacts. The City of Santa Rosa had developed its own CEQA thresholds, which are listed in the Thresholds of Significance section below.
4 California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control, “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix,” 1976.
2809
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-12
California Building Standards Code
The State of California has established noise insulation standards for new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-family detached housing). These requirements are provided in the 2016 California Building Standards Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24).5 As provided in the CBC, the noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL as measured from within the structure’s interior. When such structures are located within a 65-dBA CNEL (or greater) exterior noise contour associated with a traffic noise along a roadway, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45-dBA CNEL threshold.
Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
Local
The project site is located within the City of Visalia’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), in Tulare County, California. The City is the relevant land use agency since the project site would be annexed into the City of Visalia prior to commencement of any construction activities, and therefore the City's noise standards would apply. The City of Visalia addresses noise in its adopted General Plan and its Municipal Code.6
It should be noted that the General Plan points to the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for noise/land use guidance concerning the Visalia Municipal Airport.
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia establishes land use compatibility standards and noise policies in the Safety and Noise Chapter of the City’s General Plan.7 Objectives and policies most relevant to this analysis consist of the following:
Safety and Noise Chapter
Objectives
N-O-1 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for present and future residents of Visalia.
N-O-2 Protect the City’s economic base by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing industries, railroads, airports and other sources.
N-O-3 Protect noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise. 5 California Building Standards Commission. 2017. California Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24), January 1. 6 City of Visalia, 2021. City of Visalia, California, Municipal Code. 7 City of Visalia, 2014. Visalia General Plan Update. October 14. 2810
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-13
Policies
N-P-2 Promote the use of noise attenuation measures to improve the acoustic environment inside residences where existing single-family residential development is located in a noise-impacted environment such as along an arterial street or adjacent to a noise-producing use.
N-P-3 Establish performance standards for noise reduction for new housing that may be exposed to community noise levels above 65 dB DNL/CNEL, as shown on the Noise Contour Maps, based on the target acceptable noise levels for outdoor activity levels and interior spaces in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. Noise mitigation measures that may be considered to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct façades with substantial weight and insulation. • Use sound-rated windows with enhanced noise reduction for primary sleeping and activity areas.
• Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas.
• Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers.
• Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic, and gable ends. • Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions.
• Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level standards may be approved, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.
N-P-4 Where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise-generating land uses (including roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 8-2 and 8-3, require a noise study to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 8-2 and 8-3 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means. Noise mitigation measures may include but are not limited to:
• Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment.
• Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers. • Use soundproofing materials and double glazed windows. • Use open space, building orientation and design, landscaping and running water to mask sounds.
• Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
• Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve 2811
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-14
and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.
As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along State highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding.
N-P-7 Use the land use compatibility zone guidelines contained in the Airport Master Plan or more current information on airport noise to assess noise compatibility of airport operation with proposed land uses.
The City’s noise land use compatibility standards are established by Table 8-3 and Table 8-4 of the City’s adopted General Plan (shown in Figures 3.12-1 and 3.12-2, respectively, below). Table 8-3 and Table 8-4 do not contain quantitative standards for light industrial land uses (as receivers) such as the proposed project (since light industrial land uses are not considered to be noise-sensitive). The City General Plan’s guidance surrounding the siting of industrial uses primarily concerns minimizing the noise impacts of new and existing industrial uses on noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, churches, hospitals, etc.), not the effect of noise impacts to industrial uses (i.e., as a receiving use). However, it is worth noting that State’s 2017 General Plan Guidelines suggest that noise environments up to 75 dBA CNEL are “normally acceptable” for industrial uses.8
Figure 3.12-1: Visalia General Plan–Transportation Noise Sources 8 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Figure 2 Appendix D. 2812
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-15
Figure 3.12-2: Visalia General Plan–Stationary Noise Sources City of Visalia Municipal Code
Chapter 8.36 of the Visalia Municipal Code contains a number of regulations that would apply to noise generated by the proposed project’s temporary construction activities and long-term operations.
Regulations that are relevant to the analysis of the proposed project’s potential construction and operational noise impacts are addressed below:
Section 8.36.040: Exterior Noise Standards–Fixed Noise Sources A. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise, on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the exterior noise level, when measured at the property line of any affected noise-sensitive land use, to exceed any of the categorical noise level standards as set forth in the following table [table shown in Figure 3]:
Figure 3.12-3: Section 8.36.040 Exterior Noise Standards for Fixed Noise Sources B. In the event the measured ambient noise level without the alleged offensive source in operation exceeds an applicable noise level standard in any category above, the applicable standard or standards shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.
C. Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five dB for pure tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises.
D. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level without the source can be measured, the noise level measured while the source is in operation shall be compared directly to the noise level standards.
2813
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-16
The Visalia Municipal Code defines a “fixed noise source” as “a device, machine or combination thereof which creates sound which is affixed or installed on real property, including but not limited to residential, agricultural, industrial and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air conditioners and refrigeration equipment.” Based on this definition, the proposed project’s construction vehicles would not be considered “fixed noise sources.” Thus, Section 8.36.040 standards would not apply to the proposed project’s construction vehicle activities.
Section 8.36.050: Exterior Noise Standards–Mobile Noise Sources Prohibition Against Use According to Municipal Code Section 8.36.050, it is unlawful to operate any of the below-listed devices, appliances, equipment or vehicles on public or private property abutting noise-sensitive land uses between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.
A. Power-assisted leaf blowers, lawn mowers, edgers or other power equipment used for the maintenance of property;
B. Vehicle equipment, which equipment is not expressly regulated by State or federal statute, such as car radios or sound amplification equipment which is audible more than twenty-five (25) feet from the exterior of the vehicle;
C. Construction equipment including jackhammers, portable generators, pneumatic equipment, trenchers, or other such equipment, except for emergency repair purposes as provided in Section 8.36.070.
8.36.060: Residential Interior Noise Standards
Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 sets out noise standards based on noise levels experienced within a dwelling unit. Relevant portions of that section are set out below.
A. It is unlawful for any person, at any location within the City, to operate or cause to be operated, any source of sound or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a dwelling unit to exceed any of the categorized noise level standards as set forth in the following table [table shown in Figure 4]:
Figure 3.12-4: Section 8.36.060 Residential Interior Noise Standards B. In the event the measured ambient noise level without the alleged offensive source in operation exceeds an applicable noise level standard in any category above, the applicable standard or standards shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level. 2814
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-17
C. Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five dB for pure tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or four recurring impulsive noises.
3.12.4 - Methodology
Construction Noise Analysis Methodology
A worst-case scenario was analyzed assuming each piece of modeled equipment would operate simultaneously at the nearest reasonable locations to the closest noise-sensitive receptor for the loudest phase of construction. Noise emission levels recommended by FHWA’s Highway Construction Noise Handbook were used to ascertain the noise generated by specific types of construction equipment.
Traffic Noise Modeling Methodology
The FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5) was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. TNM 2.5 uses traffic volumes, vehicle mix, average speeds, roadway geometry, and other inputs to calculate average noise levels along roadway segments. Traffic volume data used in the model was obtained from the traffic impact analysis prepared for this Draft EIR by Kimley-Horn.9
Stationary Noise Source Analysis Methodology
The proposed project would generate noise from future development that could contain new exterior mechanical equipment sources, such as rooftop ventilation systems on proposed industrial uses, car wash tunnels with fans, vehicles idling in drive throughs, and potential new parking lot activities. To provide a conservative analysis, the highest end of the range of reference noise levels for these stationary noise sources was used to calculate the reasonable worst-case hourly average noise levels from each noise source as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor land uses.
Vibration Impact Analysis Methodology
The State does not have adopted criteria for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts. Therefore, the FTA’s vibration impact criteria and modeling and analysis methodology were utilized to evaluate potential vibration impacts. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document,10 and are summarized in Table 3.12-5 above. A reasonable worst-case scenario was analyzed assuming the piece of equipment that would generate the highest groundborne vibration levels would operate at the nearest reasonable location to an offsite structure. FTA and FHWA reference vibration levels for construction equipment, summarized in Table 3.11-3 were used to calculate reasonable worst-case construction vibration levels. 9 Kimley-Horn. 2023. Transportation Impact Analysis Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. October. 10 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. 2815
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-18
3.12.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether noise impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would cause:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
3.12.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Substantial Noise Increase in Excess of Standards
Impact NOI-1: Would the project 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?
Impact Analysis
Construction Noise
Noise would be generated by construction of the proposed project, which is estimated to occur over an approximately four-year period. The proposed project is anticipated to utilize a standard five-day work week, and construction would occur during standard daytime hours, which are generally between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Construction would not occur during prohibited hours, as set forth by Section 8.36.050(C) of the Visalia Municipal Code. The prohibited hours are between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. As such, construction activities would not have the potential to result in exceedances of the FTA’s nighttime construction noise criteria – there would be no nighttime construction.
Noise from grading activities is typically the foremost concern when evaluating a project’s construction noise impact, as grading activities often require extensive use of heavy-duty, dieselpowered earthmoving equipment. For the proposed project, grading would have the greatest–and noisiest–construction vehicle requirements, as a fleet of grading vehicles would be required to grade the approximately 284-acre site over the course of construction. Other construction phases would have reduced vehicle requirements. For example, construction of the proposed tilt-up warehouse buildings could at times require a crane truck, several construction forklifts, and skid steer loaders, but these vehicles are much less powerful than the types of heavy-duty scrapers, graders, and 2816
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-19
bulldozers that would be required to grade the project site. As such, the following analysis assesses noise impacts that may result from the proposed project’s grading activities as the indicator of the loudest equipment and thus the reasonable worst-case for purposes of identifying significant effects and ensuring an appropriately conservative evaluation.
Grading for the proposed project would be required for each of the three development phases.
Grading for the Phase 1 land uses would require grading vehicles to operate in the western portion of the project site, over 400 feet from the nearest residential land uses. Grading for the Phase 2 and Phase 3 land uses would require grading vehicles to operate near the proposed project’s southern boundary along Riggin Avenue, within 100 feet of residential land uses that are also located along this roadway. The loudest grading activities would be characterized by extensive use of graders, which would be utilized across the project site to level the site and establish proper slopes and drainages. Bulldozers may operate in conjunction with grader activities. Given these considerations, the maximum noise impact associated with the proposed project’s grading activities has been evaluated by modeling the noise levels that would be associated with a grader and a bulldozer grading a 0.5-acre parcel of land in proximity to surrounding residential land uses, which would occur as part of Phase 2 and Phase 3.11 As noted, Phase 1 areas are located over 400 feet from the nearest residential land uses. Therefore, Phase 1 grading would have reduced noise impacts to nearby residential land uses.
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 paragraph discusses impacts that could occur if there were concurrent (rather than sequential) phasing for the proposed project. If concurrent phasing were to occur (i.e., if all phases were graded simultaneously), noise levels would still be similar to what is estimated by this analysis. This is because the analysis addresses a scenario in which grading vehicles operate across a 0.5-acre parcel that is located within 100 feet of residential land uses. Concurrent grading on other phases’ parcels would occur over 400 feet away at a minimum and would therefore have a limited effect on construction noise levels. Given the size of the project site and its parcels, it is rather unlikely that grading for multiple phases would occur at minimum project-to-receptor distances simultaneously.
Concurrent grading activities are more likely to be thousands of feet apart on any given workday.
Table 3.12-1 compares the proposed project’s estimated grading-related noise levels at nearby residential land uses to the FTA’s 80 dBA Leq daytime construction noise criteria for residential uses.
As shown, estimated noise levels would not exceed this criterion. Noise levels also would not exceed 75 dBA Leq, meaning that they would not result in 30-day exceedances of the FTA’s 75 dBA Ldn criterion, as well. Other construction phases would result in noise levels that are less than the grading-related noise levels shown in Table 3.12-6 because they would utilize equipment that is less noisy than the equipment utilized by this analysis or because they would involve activities that are 11 These vehicles are estimated to grade roughly a 0.5-acre parcel on any given workday. As such, this modeling scenario addresses noise impacts that may occur during workdays in which graders and bulldozers are operating in nearest proximity to residential land uses.
2817
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-20
located farther from receptors than the activities analyzed herein. Therefore, the proposed project’s construction-related noise impact would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.
Table 3.12-6: Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels–Grading Receptor Location
Grading
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Significance
Criteria
(dBA Leq)
Potentially
Significant?
Residences near intersection of Riggin Avenue and
Road 88
Exterior 72.8 80 No
Residences south of Riggin Avenue Exterior 72.8 80 No
Residences near intersection of Riggin Avenue and
Shirk Street
Exterior 66.4 80 No
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent noise level
Construction-related Traffic Noise
Haul trips, construction worker vehicle trips, and other construction-related trips would occur over the course of the proposed project’s construction. The greatest off-site traffic noise impacts would be associated with haul trips generated by the proposed project’s grading phase. The proposed project is anticipated to require approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil import, which would equate to approximately 5,650 truckloads of imported soils. Over the course of the proposed project’s grading phase, this would correlate with approximately 35 truck trips per day, or a few truck trips per hour. This level of haul truck activity would have a relatively minor effect on roadside ambient noise levels and would not be capable of causing or materially contributing to exceedances of the exterior or interior significance criteria at roadside residential land uses in the vicinity of the project site.
Mobile Source Operational Noise
Table 3.12-7 shows a summary of existing peak-hour traffic-related noise levels that were modeled using TNM 2.5 for select roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project. Noise levels were modeled based on roadway-specific parameters and peak-hour traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for the project.12 The “2022 Existing Without Project” scenario represents year 2022 traffic conditions and is intended to estimate existing roadside peak-hour ambient noise conditions, without the proposed project. The “2022 Existing With Project” scenario represents year 2022 traffic conditions with the addition of proposed project-related traffic. This is a hypothetical scenario to highlight the individual noise increases that could be generated by the proposed project’s traffic solely. In reality, due to the development of related projects and ambient traffic 12 Kimley-Horn. 2023. Transportation Impact Analysis Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. October. 2818
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-21
growth, traffic conditions—and therefore roadside noise levels—would be markedly different by the time of proposed project buildout, which is assumed to be no earlier than 2028.
Table 3.12-8 assesses the impacts of the proposed project at full buildout in 2028. Year 2028 is chosen as it represents the earliest year in which full buildout of the proposed project may occur.
The “2028 Without Project” scenario is intended to estimate roadside peak-hour ambient noise conditions that could exist even without development of the proposed project. The “2028 With Project” scenario represents year 2028 traffic conditions (as explained above) with the addition of proposed project-related traffic at full buildout. This scenario is intended to estimate roadside peakhour ambient noise conditions that could exist with full buildout of the proposed project at the earliest potential year. Modeling outputs are provided in Appendix H.
It should be noted that, while the traffic analysis also analyzed year 2033 “With and Without Project” traffic scenarios, the year 2033 peak-hour and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes all show that the percent contribution of the proposed project would be less in future years compared to the reasonable worst-case scenario of traffic conditions in year 2028. This is because the proposed project is assumed to be at full buildout in 2028, while background (non- project-related) traffic volumes will only continue to increase in future years past 2028 as other growth occurs in the City.
Therefore, this analysis presents the reasonable worst-case traffic noise level contribution of the proposed project.
As shown in Table 3.12-7, many roadway segments already experience hourly noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Leq, suggesting that their 24-hour CNEL levels may also exceed 65 dBA. Even without development of the proposed project, nearly every roadway segment is estimated to experience noise increases from a minimum 0.9 dBA Leq to a maximum 9.5 dBA Leq by 2028, compared to existing traffic noise levels. As shown in Table 3.12-8, the addition of the proposed project’s traffic would increase noise levels up to an additional 2.6 dBA Leq upon full buildout, compared to “2028 Without Project” estimated conditions. With the addition of the proposed project’s traffic, all studied segments would be estimated to experience hourly noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Leq, suggesting that 24-hour CNEL levels may also exceed the 65 dBA threshold of significance.
Consistent with the respective land use visions for the project site and vicinity as reflected in the General Plans of both the City and the County, the area surrounding the proposed project has undergone, and is continuing to undergo, substantial growth and transformative land use changes via the conversion of primarily agricultural uses into residential, commercial, and industrial uses that are associated with significantly greater traffic generation. Given this rapid growth and the proliferation of related urban commercial, industrial, and residential subdivision projects in the area, it is difficult to ascertain the individual effects that the proposed project’s traffic alone would have on the area’s roadside ambient noise levels. However, taken together, the noise levels shown in Table
3.12-7 and Table 3.12-8 indicate that the proposed project would contribute – at times considerably– to future traffic-related noise increases. For example, without the proposed project, some roadway segments (such as Shirk Street, north of Riggin Avenue) would experience hourly noise levels that are approximately 65 dBA Leq or lower by 2028. However, with the proposed project, it is estimated that every studied roadway segment would experience hourly noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Leq by 2028.
2819
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-22
Ultimately, 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. Riggin Avenue and major north–south thoroughfares in this area such as Shirk Street and Akers Street already experience noise levels of approximately 65 dBA CNEL or higher, or they would experience these approximate noise levels by the proposed project’s earliest buildout year of 2028. A substantial portion of the proposed project’s traffic would also utilize these roadways and thus would exacerbate this situation by contributing further trips to areas that would already be experiencing exceedances beyond the 65 dBA CNEL threshold of significance. As a result, residential land uses and other noise-sensitive receptors that are adjacent to these roadways would be exposed to exterior ambient noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL, depending on their setback from these roadways and whether there are any noise barriers in place.
Although many roadway-adjacent residential uses do possess permanent roadway noise barriers (such as residential uses along Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street near the project site where there are substantial masonry barriers) that would shield their exposure to excess ambient noise levels from traffic, some residential uses are not shielded by such barriers. As one such example, there are single-family residences located along Akers Street, south of Riggin Avenue, that face this roadway without any shielding to afford them reductions in traffic-related noise levels. Existing noise levels along this roadway segment are below 65 dBA CNEL. Without the proposed project, this roadway segment’s noise levels are projected to increase beyond 65 dBA CNEL by 2028, which would expose unshielded roadside residences to significant noise levels. Traffic from the proposed project would further exacerbate these 2028 conditions.
It would be infeasible to install permanent roadway noise barriers at every roadside residential receptor (and other sensitive land uses) within the proposed project’s trip distribution area due to, among other factors, ingress and egress access requirements for properties, zoning requirements, limitations on the acquisition of property for construction of noise barriers, and traffic safety constraints such as line of sight and minimum setback requirements for installation of noise barriers.
Therefore, as there is no feasible mitigation 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. This significant and unavoidable impact is consistent with the General Plan EIR, which analyzed full buildout of this area and its impact upon nearby noise sensitive land uses.
Table 3.12-7: Traffic Noise Increase Summary–Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Peak-hour
2022
Existing
Without
Project
(dBA Leq)
2022
Existing
With Project
(dBA Leq)
Increase
Over
Existing?
(dBA) Significant?
Riggin Avenue, West of Shirk Street AM 64.0 66.3 2.3 No PM 63.7 65.8 1.9 No
Riggin Avenue, East of Shirk Street AM 63.6 65.1 1.5 No 2820
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-23
Roadway Segment Peak-hour
2022
Existing
Without
Project
(dBA Leq)
2022
Existing
With Project
(dBA Leq)
Increase
Over
Existing?
(dBA) Significant?
PM 63.3 64.8 1.5 No
Shirk Street, South of Riggin Avenue AM 62.9 66.7 3.8 Yes PM 62.7 66.2 3.5 Yes
Shirk Street, North of Riggin Avenue AM 58.5 64.0 5.5 Yes PM 57.7 63.4 5.7 Yes
Riggin Avenue, West of Akers Street AM 66.1 67.3 1.2 No PM 65.1 66.4 1.3 No
Riggin Avenue, East of Akers Street AM 67.6 68.3 0.7 No PM 66.3 67.1 0.8 No
Akers Street, North of Riggin Avenue AM 67.2 67.3 0.1 No PM 63.3 63.5 0.2 No
Akers Street, South of Riggin Avenue AM 66.5 66.7 0.2 No PM 65.2 65.4 0.2 No
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent noise level 1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather, it assumes a worst-case of having a direct line of sight on flat terrain.
The modeling also does not consider that increased traffic conditions along roadway segments may result in reduced average travel speeds, which could have a moderating effect on noise increases.
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2023.
Table 3.12-8 Traffic Noise Increase Summary–Future Conditions Roadway Segment Peak-hour
2028
Without
Project
(dBA Leq)
2028 With
Project
(dBA Leq)
Increase
over 2028
Without
Project?
(dBA) Significant?
Riggin Avenue, West of Shirk Street AM 65.8 67.5 1.7 No PM 66.4 67.7 1.3 No
Riggin Avenue, East of Shirk Street AM 65.6 67.5 1.9 No PM 67.2 67.8 0.6 No
Shirk Street, South of Riggin Avenue AM 65.3 67.9 2.6 No PM 67.9 69.3 1.4 No
Shirk Street, North of Riggin Avenue AM 62.3 65.8 2.5 No PM 67.2 68.5 1.3 No
2821
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-24
Roadway Segment Peak-hour
2028
Without
Project
(dBA Leq)
2028 With
Project
(dBA Leq)
Increase
over 2028
Without
Project?
(dBA) Significant?
Riggin Avenue, West of Akers Street AM 68.2 69.0 0.8 No PM 69.3 70.2 0.9 No
Riggin Avenue, East of Akers Street AM 68.9 69.4 0.5 No PM 68.8 69.3 0.5 No
Akers Street, North of Riggin Avenue AM 68.1 68.2 0.1 No PM 65.3 65.5 0.2 No
Akers Street, South of Riggin Avenue AM 67.9 68.0 0.1 No PM 68.6 68.7 0.1 No
Notes:
1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather, it assumes a worst-case of having a direct line of sight on flat terrain.
The modeling also does not consider that increased traffic conditions along roadway segments may result in reduced average travel speeds, which could have a moderating effect on noise increases.
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2023.
Stationary Source Operational Noise
Parking Lot Activities
The proposed project would include approximately 3,797 surface parking spaces spread across the approximately 284-acre site. Its parking facilities and the intermittent noises associated with them (e.g., doors slamming, engines starting, backup monitors, drive-through intercoms, etc.) would have a nominal effect on surrounding exterior noise levels. Parking areas associated with the gas station, convenience store, and fast food restaurant uses constructed and the industrial buildings constructed would have the greatest potential to expose surrounding residential land uses to substantial parking-related noise levels because of their proximities to surrounding residential land uses and their greater relative trip generation, but even these uses’ parking areas would be spread across dozens of acres, which would have the effect of reducing parking-related noise levels at surrounding residential land uses. Parking lot noise impacts have been estimated based on a daytime hourly activity of 602 cars and trucks per hour and a nighttime hourly activity of 539 cars and trucks per hour for the proposed gas station, convenience store, and fast food restaurant uses. These figures are equivalent to the aforementioned land uses’ maximum vehicle trip generation. In other words, the analysis fully accounts for the peak hourly vehicle activities that may be associated with these land uses.
For the proposed industrial buildings, parking lot noise impacts have been estimated based on a daytime hourly activity of 265 cars and trucks per hour and a nighttime hourly activity of 265 cars and trucks per hour (also equivalent to these uses’ maximum vehicle trip generation). Noise levels at nearby residential uses were calculated based on these trip generation rates and distances to nearby parking areas. Table 3.12-9 shows the parking lot-related noise levels that are estimated to occur at the nearest residential uses. As shown, parking lot-related noise levels would not exceed the 2822
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-25
daytime or nighttime significance criteria for residential land uses. They also would have little to no effect on the area’s 24-hour CNEL noise levels, which are indicated to range between 60 dBA and 65 dBA according to the General Plan.
Parking lot activities also would not be expected to expose surrounding residential land uses to noises that are in excess of the General Plan instantaneous (i.e., Lmax) noise standards, which are a minimum 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours. Moreover, sporadic noises from sources such as car alarms or audible indicators would not be considered a significant environmental effect because of their sporadic nature.
Table 3.12-9: Parking Lot Activities Noise Levels
Receptor Time of Day
Parking Lot Activities
Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Significance
Criteria (dBA Leq)
Potentially
Significant?
Residences near intersection of
Riggin Avenue and Road 88
Day 25 50 No
Night 25 45 No
Residences south of Riggin Avenue Day 33 50 No
Night 33 45 No
Residences near intersection of
Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street
Day 31 50 No
Night 31 45 No
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent noise level
Mechanical Ventilation Equipment Operations
At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to the proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems for the proposed project. Therefore, a reference noise level for typical rooftop mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from commercially available rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment range from 50 dBA to 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. The proposed project’s rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment would be located hundreds of feet from the nearest residential receptors. In addition, in most cases they would be located behind parapets or otherwise screened, due to buildings or other structures that would block the line of sight to off-site receptors. However, based on distance attenuation alone, it is reasonable to conclude that noise levels from this equipment would be less than 40 dBA Leq at these residential land uses simply. There is no potential for this equipment to expose residential land uses to noise levels in excess of the minimum 45 dBA Leq nighttime significance criteria because, as noted, noise levels would be less than 40 dBA Leq at residential land uses. Additionally, because ambient noise levels near Riggin Avenue are indicated to be between 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL according to the Visalia General Plan Update, the proposed project’s mechanical ventilation equipment-related noise levels would have a negligible effect on 24-hour CNEL noise levels at surrounding residential land uses.
2823
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-26
Truck Loading Activities
Noise would also be generated by truck loading and unloading activities at the proposed industrial buildings. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 737 truck trips per day. As the proposed project would have 24-hour operations, truck loading activity would correspond with roughly 31 truck trips per hour, on average. Typical maximum noise levels from truck loading and unloading activity are 70 dBA Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.
A total of approximately 814 dock-high doors and approximately 24 grade-level doors would be spread across the proposed eight industrial buildings, but the proposed project has been designed to orient these loading areas away from surrounding residential uses. (See Exhibit 3.) Residential uses would be no less than approximately 450 feet from all truck loading areas, and they would also be shielded from these areas by the massing of the proposed project’s industrial and other buildings.
Based on this distance and shielding, truck loading-related noise levels at surrounding residential uses would not be expected to exceed 40 dBA Lmax or 40 dBA Leq. These noise levels would be below the minimum 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax nighttime significance criteria. Additionally, because ambient noise levels near Riggin Avenue, as documented in the Visalia General Plan Update, are indicated to be between 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL, the proposed project’s truck loading-related noise levels would have a negligible effect on 24-hour CNEL noise levels at surrounding residential uses.
Drive-through Car Wash Land Use
The proposed project would include the construction and operation of a drive-through car wash facility. At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to the design of the facility or its mechanical equipment. Therefore, reference noise levels for typical drive-through (i.e., “tunnel”) car washes were used to evaluate whether operations of the proposed project’s car wash may result in significant noise impacts. The car wash facility would be located to the north of the proposed drive-through restaurant uses, in the southeastern quadrant of the proposed project.
The nearest residential uses at the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street would be located approximately 500 feet south of the car wash facility.
Typical drive-through car wash facilities contain numerous noise sources. Vehicles themselves generate noise when accessing the facilities, and self-service vacuum equipment generates noise when used by car wash patrons. Car washing equipment within the drive-through tunnel generates noise. The loudest noise levels are commonly associated with dryer blower equipment at the tunnel exit. Measured noise levels from car wash blower operations have been documented to range from 70 dBA to 83 dBA Leq at a reference distance of 40 feet. During busy periods, car wash blowers have been observed to operate continuously for extended periods.
Table 3.12-10 shows noise levels that could be generated at surrounding residential land uses by the proposed project’s drive-through car wash facility, based on the reasonable worst-case 83 dBA Leq at 40 feet noise level described above. As shown, residential land uses south of Riggin Avenue and residential land uses near the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street may be exposed to noise levels in excess of the 50 dBA Leq daytime and 45 dBA Leq nighttime significance criteria as a result of the proposed project’s drive-through car wash operations. Without mitigation, this impact would be potentially significant.
2824
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-27
Instantaneous Lmax noise levels from the proposed project’s drive-through car wash would not be substantially greater than the noise levels shown in Table 11 because drive-through car wash equipment typically generate consistent noise levels. Therefore, this equipment would not result in exceedances of the General Plan’s Lmax noise standards for residential land uses, which are a minimum 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours. Additionally, because ambient noise levels near Riggin Avenue are indicated to be between 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL according to the Visalia General Plan Update, the drive-through car wash-related noise levels would not have the potential to cause 24- hour CNEL noise levels to increase by greater than the 5 dBA significance criteria because noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA Leq without mitigation.
Table 3.12-10: Drive-through Car Wash Noise Levels
Receptor Time of Day
Drive-thru Car Wash
Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Significance
Criteria (dBA Leq)
Potentially
Significant?
Residences near intersection of
Riggin Avenue and Road 88
Day 39 50 No
Night 39 45 No
Residences south of Riggin Avenue Day 55 50 Yes
Night 55 45 Yes
Residences near intersection of
Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street
Day 60 50 Yes
Night 60 45 Yes
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent noise level
MM NOI-1 is recommended to ensure that noise impacts from the proposed project’s drive-through car wash do not exceed the 50 dBA Leq daytime and 45 dBA Leq nighttime significance thresholds, which are based on the standards established by Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.040 and Table 8-4 of the General Plan. Implementation of MM NOI-4 would ensure that noise impacts associated with the drive-thru car wash are in compliance with the Visalia Municipal Code’s regulations concerning fixed noise sources and the General Plan’s guidance concerning stationary noise sources.
MM NOI-1 would require the proposed project to conduct an in-depth acoustical study of the drivethrough car wash prior to the issuance of its building permits. The study would assess whether the car wash’s design, mechanical equipment, and hours of operation would be capable of ensuring that car wash-related noise levels at surrounding residential uses are in compliance with the Visalia Municipal Code and consistent with the General Plan (as described above). If these details have yet to be established at the time of the study, the study would indicate how the drive-through car wash may be designed and operated in order to ensure compliance and consistency with these standards.
Building permits would not be issued unless it has been demonstrated by a qualified acoustic professional that operations of the drive-through car wash would not exceed the applicable 50 dBA Leq daytime and 45 dBA Leq nighttime limits established by the General Plan and Municipal Code.
Further, if noise reduction measures are recommended by the acoustical study, they would be included in the car wash’s plans, specifications, and other related permitting documents. Therefore, after implementation of MM NOI-1, this impact would be less than significant. 2825
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-28
Drive-through Restaurant Land Uses
The proposed project would include the construction of two drive-through restaurant land uses. At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to the design of the drive-thru restaurants, though it is known that they would be located in the southeastern corner of the project site, as shown in Exhibit 2-8. Therefore, reference noise levels for typical drive-through restaurants were used to evaluate whether operations of the proposed project’s drive-through restaurants may result in significant noise impacts.
Typical drive-through restaurants contain numerous noise sources. Vehicles themselves generate noise when accessing the facilities and idling in queues, and drive-through speakers also generate noise. The potential for on-site vehicle activities (i.e., cars accessing and parking at the project site, including the drive-through restaurants) to generate significant noise levels was assessed under the analysis for parking lot activities and determined to be less than significant. Regarding drive-through queueing, data on car idling noise levels is fairly limited but the following screening analysis rules out the potential for idling in the drive-through lanes to be a significant source of noise. In order to generate a noise level of approximately 45 dBA at the nearest residential uses near the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street, which would be approximately 200 feet from the proposed project’s nearest drive-through lane, noise from car idling would have to be approximately 77 dBA at 5 feet—the noise level of a busy highway. Reasonably, car idling noise would be significantly less than this because vehicle idling noise is not as loud as a busy highway. Therefore, this screening analysis demonstrates that noise due to car idling at the nearest residential land uses would be significantly less than the minimum 45 dBA Leq nighttime noise threshold.
The proposed drive-through speakers would be located more than 200 feet the nearest residential uses near the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street. Assuming that the noise level from a drive-through speaker is approximately 75 dBA at 5 feet, based on distance attenuation alone, the noise level at 200 feet would be less than 40 dBA. And because drive-through speakers would only produce intermittent noises, this further demonstrates that noise due to drive-through speakers at the nearest residential land uses would be significantly less than the minimum 45 dBA Leq nighttime noise threshold.
Instantaneous Lmax noise levels from the proposed project’s drive-through restaurants would not result in exceedances of the General Plan’s Lmax noise standards for residential land uses, which are a minimum 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours, because noise levels at residential land uses would be less than 40 dBA. Additionally, because ambient noise levels near Riggin Avenue are indicated to be between 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL according to the Visalia General Plan, the drive-through restaurantrelated noise levels would not have the potential to cause 24-hour CNEL noise levels to increase by greater than the 5 dBA significance criteria because noise levels would be less than 40 dBA.
Prospective Warehouses
The proposed project requests that the project site be zoned Industrial and Light Industrial, which allows for the development of warehouses. It is highly likely that some sort of warehouse uses will be constructed on the site, which could house any number of uses that are permitted by this zoning.
Therefore, future uses in these buildings–more specifically, noise generated by future uses–may have the potential to affect surrounding noise-sensitive receptors, especially those that are located along 2826
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-29
or near Riggin Avenue. Although it is unlikely that the interior operations of future warehouse, distribution, storage, and light manufacturing uses would be audible, much less be considered significantly considerable, there are residential land uses that are located within hundreds of feet from the proposed warehouse buildings. To be conservative, MM NOI-2 is recommended to prevent significant impacts from occurring. MM NOI-2 would require specific uses with the potential to result in noise-related conflicts between operations and existing or future noise-sensitive receptors to provide an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the City’s noise standards prior to issuance of operational permits. Permits would not be issued unless it has been demonstrated by a qualified acoustic professional that operations would not exceed the City’s noise standards.
Therefore, after implementation of MM NOI-2, impacts related to future warehouse uses would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
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.
2827
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-30
• 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.
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.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.
Groundborne Vibration/Noise Levels
Impact NOI-2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact Analysis
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would require a variety of large, steel-tracked earthmoving vehicles. According to the FTA, large bulldozers and similar heavy-equipment can generate groundborne vibration levels up to 0.089 in/sec PPV at a reference distance of 25 feet. In other words, these vehicles’ construction activities could expose buildings within 25 feet to groundborne vibration levels up to 0.089 in/sec PPV. However, there are no buildings within 25 feet of the proposed project or its construction activities, meaning that construction of the proposed project would not expose surrounding buildings to groundborne vibration levels in excess of 0.089 in/sec PPV. This groundborne vibration level is below even the most stringent significance criteria for FTA’s 2828
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-31
category of “Buildings Extremely Susceptible to Vibration Damage.” Therefore, it reasons that construction of the proposed project would not expose any surrounding buildings to potentially damaging levels of groundborne vibration.
Operation
Given the nature of the proposed uses and the fact that such land uses are located hundreds of feet from the project site’s primary use areas, implementation of the project would not include any permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. The analysis above indicates that it is unlikely any vibration generated on-site would be potentially damaging or perceptible at off-site sensitive land uses and structures. Additionally, the proposed project’s related truck and vehicle travel would not be considered a significant source of vibration, as truck and vehicle travel rarely generates perceptible groundborne vibration. Therefore, project operational activities would not generate excessive groundborne vibration levels as measured at off-site receptors, and this impact would be less than significant. In addition, there are no existing significant permanent sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity to which the proposed project would be exposed.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Excessive Noise Levels from Airport Activity
Impact NOI-3: Would the project 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?
Impact Analysis
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest public airport to the project site is the Visalia Municipal Airport, located approximately 2.68 miles southwest of the project site. The Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) shows the southwest corner of the project site to lie within the Visalia Municipal Airport’s Airport Influence Area but outside the aircraft 55 dBA CNEL noise contours. Based on this distance and the proposed project’s orientation to the airport’s runways, the proposed project would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from aircraft. Therefore, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the ALUCP.
2829
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-32
Implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons at the project site to noise levels from aircraft that would be in excess of acceptable standards for the proposed land uses, and no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.12.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis for noise and vibration impacts is limited to areas within 1,000 feet of the project site boundary for on-site noise sources, because of the localized nature of noise and vibration impacts. This analysis first evaluates whether the impacts of cumulative development could result in a cumulatively significant noise or vibration impact. If there is a cumulative significant impact, this analysis then considers whether the incremental contribution of the impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable. Both conditions must apply for the project’s cumulative effects to rise to the level of significance.
Construction 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 is consistent with the General Plan EIR, which analyzed full buildout of this area and its impact upon nearby noise sensitive land uses.
Operational Traffic Noise
If there is an identified cumulative traffic noise impact in the project vicinity, and if the proposed project would result in an incremental contribution to an identified cumulative traffic noise impact, then the project’s impact would be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Tables 3.12-7 and 3.12-8, there are roadway segments in the project vicinity that experience traffic noise levels in excess of noise levels that the City considers to be “normally acceptable” for some adjacent land uses., The tables show that project traffic would result in noise increases along these impacted roadway segments. Therefore, the incremental contribution of project traffic would also be cumulatively considerable and would be a significant impact.
2830
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Noise
3.12-33
As noted in the mobile source noise impact discussion above, it would be infeasible to install permanent roadway noise barriers along every roadside sensitive receptor within the proposed project’s trip distribution area due to, among other factors, ingress and egress access requirements for properties, zoning requirements, limitations on acquisition of property for construction of noise barriers, and traffic safety constraints such as line of sight and minimum setback requirements for installation of noise barriers. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact to less than significant, and the proposed project’s incremental contribution of project traffic would also be cumulatively considerable and would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Operational Stationary Noise
For stationary operational noise sources, a significant impact would occur if the cumulative projects would cause the Ldn at noise-sensitive uses to increase by 3 dB or more and exceed the “normally acceptable” level, or cause the Ldn at noise-sensitive uses to increase 5 dB or more and remain “normally acceptable,” or cause new noise levels to exceed the City Noise Ordinance thresholds of the minimum 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax nighttime significance criteria at any point on or beyond the project boundary.
The source of operational stationary noise within 1,000 feet of the project site that would produce the highest noise levels would be drive-through car wash activities or truck loading and unloading activities at future warehouses. However, as shown in the stationary source operational noise impact discussion above, implementation of MM NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce these potential projectrelated stationary noise source impacts to meet the City’s noise performance standards. Permits would not be issued unless it has been demonstrated by a qualified acoustic professional that operations would not exceed the City’s noise performance standards. In addition, there are not any existing stationary operational noise sources in the project vicinity that currently exceed the City’s noise performance thresholds. Therefore, the incremental contribution of project operational stationary source noise would not result in a significant contribution to any existing stationary operational noise impact, and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Noise Land Use Compatibility Consistency
Cumulative development would be required to comply with all 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, which would ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. As described previously, Riggin Avenue and major north–south thoroughfares in this area such as Shirk Street and Akers Street already experience noise levels of approximately 65 dBA CNEL or higher, or they would experience these approximate noise levels by the proposed project’s earliest buildout year of 2028. A substantial portion of the proposed project’s and cumulative development in the area’s traffic would also utilize these roadways and thus would exacerbate this situation by contributing further trips to areas that would already be experiencing exceedances beyond the 65 dBA CNEL threshold of significance.
Moreover, no feasible mitigation would be available to reduce this impact because it would be infeasible to install permanent roadway noise barriers for every roadside sensitive receptor within the proposed project’s trip distribution area due to, among other factors, ingress and egress access requirements for properties, some zoning requirements and limitations on acquisition of property for construction of noise barriers, and traffic safety constraints such as line of sight and minimum setback requirements for installation of noise barriers. This is the only noise land use compatibility 2831
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Noise Draft EIR
3.12-34
category that would apply to existing and planned development for parcels adjacent to the modeled roadway segments. Therefore, cumulative traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable because it would result in operational traffic noise levels that would conflict with the City 65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA Leq interior significance criteria for residential land uses.
Construction Vibration
The geographic scope of the cumulative construction vibration analysis is the project vicinity, including surrounding sensitive receptors. Construction vibration impacts are very localized; therefore, the area surrounding the project site (approximately 100 feet) would be the area most affected by proposed project construction activities. While there would be cumulative projects undergoing construction in the general vicinity, none of these are within 100 feet of the site and therefore, do not have to potential to create significant cumulative construction vibration impacts that would exceed potential impact criteria as measured at any sensitive receptor in the project vicinity. Thus, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to construction vibration. 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.
Operational Vibration
Because operational vibration impacts are very localized, the only potential sources of cumulatively considerable contribution to vibration conditions in the project vicinity would result from introduction of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future permanent sources of groundborne vibration in the project site vicinity. The only major sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity is railroad activity along the rail line located approximately 2.15 miles east of the project site.
Groundborne vibration levels from these cumulative sources would not be perceptible without instruments at any sensitive receptor in the project vicinity, therefore there is no significant cumulative impact. In addition, the project’s incremental contribution to this less than significant cumulative operational vibration levels would not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce any new permanent sources to the project vicinity that would result in groundborne vibration levels that would be perceptible without instruments as measured at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity and would also not increase railroad activity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to vibration conditions in the project vicinity. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2.
Level of Cumulative Significance
Significant and unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic noise impacts. 2832
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Public Services
3.13-1
3.13 - Public Services
3.13.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing conditions related to public services in the City in the project site and vicinity, as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the potential impacts related to public services that could result from implementation of the proposed project.
Descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on information provided by the City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan) and City of Visalia Municipal Code (Municipal Code), as well as information available on the City’s website, information received from relevant service providers (the Visalia Police Department, Visalia Fire Department, and Visalia Unified School District), and Master Planning Documents.
No comments were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping period related to public services.
3.13.2 - Environmental Setting
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
City of Visalia
The Visalia Fire Department (VFD) provides fire protection and emergency services to over 139,254 people within the City’s jurisdiction. 1 The VFD maintains six stations and an administrative division within the city limits. 2
Based on available information as of this writing, the VFD consists of a Fire Administration Division, an Emergency Services/Operations Division, and a Fire Prevention Division. Across these three divisions, the VFD staffs five fire engines, two ladder trucks, one Type II Tech Rescue Team, a Type 1 Hazardous Materials Team, and a Lighting/Air Support Team and employs 70 safety personnel and eight civilian firefighters. The City’s fire stations are staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with each apparatus being staffed by a minimum of three firefighters at all times. 3 The VFD strives to adhere to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) response time standard, aiming to respond to 95 percent of calls within 5 minutes, including 1 minute of “turnout” and 4 minutes of driving. However, areas of southwest Visalia and smaller areas in the northwest and northeast of the City located more than 0.5-mile from the VFD stations cannot reasonably be served within the Department’s target response time. 4
Currently, the VFD has an average response time of 6 minutes and 16 seconds for fire emergency calls and 5 minutes 37 seconds for medical/rescue calls. 5 In 2019, the VFD responded to 636 fire emergency calls and 11,170 medical/rescue calls. 6 In 2022, the VFD responded to 16,522 1 City of Visalia. 2021. Visalia Fire Annual Report 2021. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/documents/Fire/Annual/VFD%202021%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Accessed December 16, 2022. 2 Visalia Fire Department (VFD). 2022. Facilities. Website: https://www.visalia.city/depts/fire/info/facilities/default.asp. Accessed September 9, 2022. 3
Visalia Fire Department (VFD). 2022. Visalia Fire Department Information. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/fire/info/default.asp. Accessed December 9, 2022. 4 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Safety and Noise Element. October. 5 City of Visalia. 2023. Personal communication: CEQA coordination on April 28, 2023. 6 Ibid.
2833
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Public Services Draft EIR
3.13-2
calls for service. The great majority of these calls (95 percent) were not fire-related, with over half of calls being for emergency medical or rescue services. 7 Construction of a replacement fire station located at the southeast portion of the City is currently underway. 8 Engine 56 will relocate from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Tulare campus once construction is complete.
Project Site
Fire Station 55 is the nearest VFD fire station to the project site, located approximately 0.40 miles to the south at 6921 West Ferguson Avenue. The next closest VFD station is Fire Station 53, located approximately 4.1 miles to the southeast at 5025 West Walnut Avenue.
Police Protection
City of Visalia
The Visalia Police Department (VPD) is currently headquartered at 303 South Johnson Street. The VPD consists of three divisions: Operations Division, Operations Support Division, and Administration Division. 9 The more than 250 members of the VPD include sworn police personnel, community service officers, parking enforcement officers, communications operators, records specialists, administrative support personnel, crime lab technicians, property and evidence technicians, and civilian investigators. 10 The Operations Division consists of uniformed personnel of the VFD who respond to emergency and non-emergency calls for service and have regular contact with the public. 11 The Operations Support Division consists of the Investigations Bureau, the Professional Standards Bureau, and the Support Services Bureau. The Operations Support Division encompasses the areas of administration, emergency dispatch, and investigations. 12 According to the General Plan, the VPD does not have established service standards in terms of officers per thousand residents or incident response time. 13 The VPD responded to 135,682 calls for service in 2019 and 134,738 calls for service in 2020.
14 Police response time was less than 20 minutes for 71 percent of all calls in 2022; the average response time for Priority 1 calls was 7 minutes and 4 seconds. 15 The City opened the Visalia Emergency Communication Center (VECC) in 2017. The two-story, 18,872-square-foot building was designed as an essential services facility. Located near School Avenue and Burke Street, the VECC is the home for the Emergency Communication Center (911 Dispatch), VPD Administration including the Emergency Operation Center, Traffic Management Center, and the City’s secure Data Center for Information Services. 7 City of Visalia. 2023. Personal communication: CEQA coordination on April 28, 2023. 8 City of Visalia. 2023. Visalia Breaks Ground on New Fire Station. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2602&TargetID=1. Accessed March 27, 2023. 9 City of Visalia. 2022. Divisions, Bureaus, and Units. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/police/divisions_bureaus_n_units/default.asp. Accessed December 9, 2022. 10 Visalia Police Department. 2020. Visalia Police Department Annual Report. Accessed September 14, 2022. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Visalia General Plan 2030. 2014. Safety and Noise Element. October. 14 Visalia Police Department (VPD). 2020. Visalia Police Department Annual Report. Accessed September 14, 2022. 15 City of Visalia. 2023. Personal communication: CEQA coordination on April 28, 2023. 2834
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Public Services
3.13-3
Project Site
The VPD headquarters are located approximately 4.30 miles southeast of the project site. There are no residences located on the project site currently; however, several warehouses and industrial centers are located on nearby properties. Other surrounding uses consist of residential neighborhoods, parks, and schools.
Schools
City of Visalia
Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) provides K-12 education to the residents of Visalia. Providing educational services to a jurisdiction of 214 square miles, based on available information as of this writing, VUSD comprises 26 elementary schools, a newcomer language center, five middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, a continuation high school, an adult school, a charter independent school, a K-8 charter home school, and a charter technical early college high school. 16 Three of VUSD’s elementary schools and a charter school are located outside of the General Plan Planning Area.
17 Over 32,000 students in total are served by VUSD. 18 Project Site
The project site is within the service areas of Denton Elementary School, Ridgeview Middle School, and Redwood High School within the VUSD.
Parks and Other Recreational Facilities
City of Visalia
Based on available information, there are approximately 640 acres of parks and recreational facilities within the City, consisting of neighborhood parks, community parks, large city parks, pocket parks, and other parkland.
19 Additionally, the City owns three larger facilities, Plaza Park, Mooney Grove Park, and Riverway Sports Park, on the periphery of its jurisdiction. 20 The General Plan establishes the parkland standard of five acres per 1,000 residents. Based on the park acreage referenced in the General Plan, the City had a ratio of 5.1 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. However, the General Plan includes plans to add an additional 430 acres of new parkland by 2030 in order to accommodate its assumed population of approximately 210,000. 21 It is notable that the City’s actual population growth has been slower than previously anticipated in the General Plan. According to the United States Census Bureau, the City had a population of 142,384 in 2020. 22 The City has prepared an EIR for the construction of the East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project, which will provide approximately 139 acres of active recreational amenities and 130 acres of passive amenities in the eastern portion of the City. That project would contribute to the City’s park ratio goal. The proposed project would pay into a capital improvement program (CIP) 16 Visalia Unified School District (VUSD). 2022. About VUSD. Website: https://www.vusd.org/domain/9. Accessed September 14, 2022. 17 Visalia General Plan 2030. 2014. Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. October 2014. 18 Visalia Unified School District (VUSD). 2022. About VUSD. Website: https://www.vusd.org/domain/9. Accessed September 14, 2022. 19 Visalia General Plan 2030. 2014. Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. October 2014. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 United States Census Bureau. 2023. Visalia Quick Facts. Website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/visaliacitycalifornia. Accessed March 28, 2023.
2835
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Public Services Draft EIR
3.13-4
to fund the East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project and other future parks projects to offset impacts to park and recreation facilities. The Draft EIR for this project State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2014121076) was circulated for public comments between February 2, 2023 and March 20, 2023, and was certified by the City Council on November 20, 2023.
Project Site
The closest park to the project site is Lions Park (an approximately 4-acre park with recreational amenities such as playground and basketball court), located approximately 0.40 mile southeast of the project site. However, given its current entirely agricultural use (with no residential use), the project site does not generate any demand for parkland.
Libraries
City of Visalia
The Visalia Branch Library of the Tulare County Public Library system is located at 200 W Oak Avenue in central Visalia. Based on available information, the Tulare County Library system includes 17 library branches, five book machines, and an online website. 23 Project Site
The Visalia Branch Library is located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the project site. However, given its current entirely agricultural use (with no residential use), the project site does not generate any associated library service needs.
3.13.3 - Regulatory Framework
State
California Fire Code and California Building Code
The International Fire Code and the International Building Code, established by the International Code Council (ICC) and amended by the State of California, prescribe performance characteristics and materials to be used with the goal of achieving acceptable levels of fire protection. Standard fire safety requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance with the California Fire Code include the installation of fire sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures within wildfire hazard areas.
The California Fire Code also regulates fire department access, fire protection systems and devices, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, and standards for building inspection.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code, Sections 13100–13135, establish the following policies related to fire protection that are relevant to this analysis:
Section 13100.1 The functions of the office of the State Fire Marshall, including the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shall be to foster, 23 Tulare County Library. 2021. Visalia Branch Library. Website: https://www.tularecountylibrary.org/locations-visalia. Accessed December 13, 2022.
2836
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Public Services
3.13-5
promote, and develop strategies to protect life and property against fire and panic.
Section 13104.6 The Fire Marshall has the authority to require fire hazards to be removed in accordance with the law relating to removal or public nuisances on taxdeeded property.
California Senate Bill 50
California Senate Bill (SB) 50 (funded by Proposition 1A, approved in 1998) limits the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development, and provides instead for a standardized developer fee. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities funding match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available, whether the school district is eligible for State funding, and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round school, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.
SB 50 added the following language to Government Code Section 65996, set forth in relevant part:
. . . (b) The provisions of this chapter are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation and, notwithstanding Section 65858, or Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code, or any other provision of state or local law, a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the basis that school facilities are inadequate.
(c) For purposes of this section, "school facilities” means any school-related consideration relating to a school district’s ability to accommodate enrollment. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the ability of a local agency to utilize other methods to provide school facilities if these methods are not levied or imposed in connection with, or made a condition of, a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or a change in governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in Section 56021 or 56073. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the assessment or reassessment of property in conjunction with ad valorum taxes, or the placement of a parcel on the secured roll in conjunction with qualified special taxes as that term is used in Section 50079.
California Government Code, Section 65995(b) and Education Code, Section 17620 SB 50 amended Section 65995 of the California Government Code, which contains limitations on Section 17620 of the Education Code, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. Section 65995(b)(3) of the Government Code requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every 2 years, 2837
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Public Services Draft EIR
3.13-6
according to inflation adjustments. In 2022, the State approved increasing the allowable amount of statutory school facilities fees (Level I School Fees) to $4.79 per square foot of assessable space for residential development of 500 square feet or more, and to $0.78 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for commercial/industrial development. 24 School districts may levy higher fees if they apply to the State and meet certain conditions as set forth in the applicable laws and regulations.
Local
Resolution 2022-30
Development impact fees apply to industrial development in the City. Public safety impact fees are $2,279.00 per gross acre for fire protection facilities and $304 per gross acre for police facilities. The school facility fee for new industrial construction is $0.78 per square foot. Park fees and library fees apply to residential development only and do not apply to industrial development. 25 City of Visalia Fire Department Plan Check and Hydrant Ordinance Visalia’s requirements for new construction include provisions for the VFD to review building and site plans prior to the issuance of any building permit. The VFD ensures that proposed projects will be adequately served by water (for purposes of fire flow) and will be accessible to emergency vehicles and have adequate emergency evacuation access generally. The VFD also enforces the City’s Hydrant Ordinance, which states that applicants are responsible for the installation of water mains and hydrants, and determines the minimum spacing for fire hydrants. Street dimensions are scrutinized to ensure that space will be preserved for ladder trucks to be stabilized, and for emergency vehicles to turn around.
Master Mutual Aid Plan
The City actively participates in the California Master Mutual Aid Plan. Formal mutual aid agreements have been written between the City and surrounding jurisdictions, including the Tulare County Fire Department. A broad automatic aid agreement encompassing 59 square miles surrounding Visalia exists between Tulare County and the City. 26 Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazards Mitigation Plan
The City is one of 11 member jurisdictions of a Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazards Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) led by the Tulare County Office of Emergency Services. The MJ-LHMP is a formal document designed to significantly reduce loss of life and injuries resulting from a disaster; minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and activities; protect the environment; and promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy. 27 The most recent 24 California Office of Public School Construction. 2022. Annual Adjustment to SFP Grants and Developer Fee History. Website:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Public-School-Construction-Resources-List-Folder/AnnualAdjustment-to-SFP-Grants-and-Developer-Fee-History. Accessed December 13, 2022. 25 City of Visalia. 2022. Development Fee Schedule, Effective August 20, 2022. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=5702. Accessed December 14, 2022. 26 California Office of Public School Construction. 2022. Annual Adjustment to SFP Grants and Developer Fee History. Website:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Public-School-Construction-Resources-List-Folder/AnnualAdjustment-to-SFP-Grants-and-Developer-Fee-History. Accessed December 13, 2022. 27 City of Visalia. 2022. Hazard Mitigation Plan. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/fire/preparedness/hazard_mitigation_plan.asp. Accessed December 13, 2022. 2838
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Public Services
3.13-7
version of the MJ-LHP as of this writing was updated in March 2018; updates to the plan are carried out every 5 years. 28
Visalia Emergency Operations Plan
The California Emergency Services Act (Government Code §§ 8550-8668) requires each city to prepare and maintain an Emergency Plan for natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or extreme peril to life. The Visalia Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was updated and adopted in 2011 pursuant to this Act. The EOP includes planning and response scenarios for seismic hazards, extreme weather conditions, landslides, dam failure and other flooding, wildland fires, hazardous materials incidents, transportation emergencies, civil disturbance, and terrorist attacks. It is meant to work in conjunction with the Tulare County EOP and the State EOP. The Emergency Council of the Tulare County Operational Area meets for regional coordination purposes at least four times per year. In addition, the VFD has specific procedures for hazardous materials emergency response. 29
City of Visalia
General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan sets forth the following goals, objectives, policies, and actions that are relevant to public services for purposes of this analysis:
Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element PSCU-P-2 Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents. Credits for pocket parks can be granted under the Park Acquisition and Development Fee Program, subject to the design review criteria of Policy PSCU-P-8. These credits may be on a less than 1:1 basis.
PSCU-P-9 Continue to implement a Park Acquisition and Development Fee Program updated to be consistent with this General Plan, including the following:
• Land and fees received shall support a standard of five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents and provide park and recreation facilities serving the neighborhood quadrant in which the contributing development occurs;
• A portion of the fees collected are to be used for community-wide recreation facilities;
• Dedicated park land meeting specified criteria for community parks, neighborhood parks and pocket parks may be provided at the City’s discretion, in lieu of fees, or earn fee credits (the City will not accept undevelopable, unusable land); and
28 Tulare County is in the process of updating the MJ-LHMP. This analysis relies on the most recently adopted 2018 MJ-LHMP as of the NOP issuance date of August 2022. 29 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan, Safety and Noise Element. October. 2839
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Public Services Draft EIR
3.13-8
• Fee credits may also be given for storm drainage basins designed and built for dual recreational use, but these credits may be on a less than 1:1 basis depending on the amenities and facilities provided and their availability throughout the year.
Storm drainage basins can be under water and not available for public use three to four months a year; they also are difficult to maintain, and turf is usually in poor condition compared to turf on year-round playing fields. For these reasons, full fee credit will not be granted.
PSCU-P-10 Adopt and implement parkland dedication requirements for all subdivisions, consistent with the Quimby Act and Policy PSCU-P-2. This requirement will be integrated with the City’s Park Acquisition Development Fee Program.
Safety and Noise Element
S-P-27 Implement a fuel modification program, which also includes residential maintenance requirements and enforcement, plan submittal and approval process, guidelines for planting, and a listing of undesirable plant species. Require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.
S-P-29 Ensure availability of adequate water supplies to meet public health and safety needs, and for resource protection, by maintaining the following order of priority for water use:
• Potable water supply, fire protection, and domestic use • Resource protection and preservation
• Industrial, irrigation and commercial uses
• Water-oriented or water-enhanced recreation
• Air conditioning
S-P-30 Integrate the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, in particular the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections, into the development review process, the emergency operations plan, and capital improvement program, as appropriate.
S-P-32 Continue to make available fire alarm systems, as referred to in this Element, to be tied directly and automatically to the Visalia City Fire Chief’s alarm-receiving center.
S-P-38 Continue to rely on the Tulare County Office of Emergency Services to maintain inventories of available resources to be used during disasters.
S-P-39 Continue to upgrade preparedness strategies and techniques in all departments so as to be prepared when disaster, either natural or man-made, occurs. 2840
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Public Services
3.13-9
Municipal Code
Municipal Code Title 8 Health and Safety adopts the California Fire Code and establishes requirements for automatic fire extinguishing systems consistent with the CBC and California Fire Code.
3.13.4 - Methodology
This analysis identifies potential impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities based on development anticipated from the proposed project. This analysis is based, in part, on review of relevant materials, plans, and other documentation including the General Plan and Municipal Code, information provided on the City’s website, and consultation with VPD and VFD. Impacts to public services, parks, and recreational facilities were assessed using the City’s significance criteria as well as relevant State and local plans, regulations, and ordinances.
3.13.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The City, as lead agency, has elected in its discretion to utilize Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as thresholds of significance for the proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to public services resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be significant. Specifically, it would be a significant impact if the proposed project would:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
3.13.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures if and to the extent required.
Need for New or Altered Fire Protection Facilities
Impact PUB-1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency medical services?
2841
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Public Services Draft EIR
3.13-10
Impact Analysis
Construction
Upon annexation, the project site would be within the VFD service area. Therefore, the VFD would provide fire protection to the proposed project. Fire Station 55 is the nearest VFD station, located approximately 0.39 mile south of the project site at 6921 West Ferguson Avenue. The next closest station is Fire Station 53, located 3.27 miles southeast of the project site at 5025 West Walnut Avenue.
During construction, it is anticipated there would be a nominal increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, primarily related to typical risks associated with fire and construction safety issues. During the construction phase, heavy construction equipment and passenger vehicles driving on vegetated areas before clearing and grading could increase the danger of fire. Temporary electrical power lines, the storage and use of combustible materials, and heated mufflers could ignite surrounding vegetation and increase fire risk. If a fire were to occur, it is anticipated that personnel and equipment from VFD would have sufficient capacity to respond to a fire at the project site. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services resulting from project construction activities would be less than significant.
Based on this analysis, project construction would not create the need for new or altered fire protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. Therefore, construction impacts related to fire protection and emergency medical services would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Standards Code (CBC), which is adopted by Municipal Code Chapter 15.08 California Building Code, and the California Fire Code, which is adopted by Municipal Code Chapter 8.20 California Fire Code. In compliance with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code, included as Title 24 Part 9 of the CBC, during construction the proposed project would be required to follow applicable fire safety standards related to provision of sufficient water supply for fire flow, adequate fire apparatus access, and acquisition of building permits. Specifically, CBC Section 105.7.17 requires plans be submitted and a permit issued to install, improve, modify, or remove public or private roadways, driveways, and bridges for which VFD access is required by the Fire Code; adherence to this requirement would ensure adequate driveway/entry turning radius, height clearance, and fire hydrant access for fire trucks and engines at the project site during construction. In addition, CBC Section 105.7.18 requires plans be submitted to the Fire Code official for all land developments or for the construction, alteration, or renovation of a building within the jurisdiction where a building permit is required; adherence to this requirement would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not obstruct the VFD from delivering adequate levels of fire protection services and otherwise help to ensure that all applicable standards and requirements are satisfied. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section 16.36.120 establishes specific requirements for fire hydrants, water mains, and fire department access to ensure adequate fire protection services to the project site, and Chapter 8.16 establishes requirements for automatic fire-extinguishing systems consistent with the CBC and California Fire Code.
2842
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Public Services
3.13-11
Operation of the proposed project including new flex industrial, light industrial, and compatible commercial uses such as self-storage/RV parking, a convenience store, a car wash, and two drivethrough restaurants on the project site would result in new employees, patrons and visitors, which would result in an increase in calls for fire protection and emergency medical services and thus an increase in demand in this regard. Additionally, in general, industrial occupancy and associated hazardous use (if any) may also increase calls for service or require special equipment. The VFD and County provide some oversight of hazardous materials. However, given the nature of the proposed project, the only types of hazardous materials used that would be used are anticipated to be lubricants, hydraulic oils, and other substances (as discussed further in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), and thus would not result in any substantial increase in demand for fire protection and/or emergency medical services beyond the typical demand that would be expected to occur with this type of industrial and other compatible commercial uses. As part of operation, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the Visalia Municipal Code, the CBC, and the California Fire Code as discussed above. Specifically, the proposed project would be required to follow standards for fire safety such as fire flow requirements for buildings, fire hydrant location and distribution criteria, automated sprinkler systems, and fire-resistant building materials, as well as provision for adequate emergency vehicle access.
As noted above, the VFD strives to achieve the NFPA response time standard, aiming to respond to 95 percent of calls within 5 minutes. 30 Currently, the VFD has an average response time of 5 minutes 37 seconds for medical calls and 6 minutes and 1 second for fire calls. 31 According to the General
Plan, areas of southwest Visalia and smaller areas in the northwest and northeast located more than
0.5 mile of the VFD stations cannot reasonably be served within the VFD’s target response time.
The proposed project, which would result in indirect population growth (i.e., employees and their families, patrons, and other visitors) would generate an increase in demand for fire protection and emergency response services. However, such indirect population growth, which occurs as a result of new employment opportunities consistent with the City’s land use vision as set forth in the General Plan, is considered planned growth, as discussed in detail in Section 4.2.2, Population and Housing.
Moreover, the nature of the proposed project’s uses would not result in atypical service demand needs with respect to fire protection and/or emergency medical services.
Furthermore, to the extent calls for VFD service provision occur due to the proposed project, because Fire Station 55 is the nearest VFD station, located 0.39 miles south of the project site, the proposed project could be reached within 2 minutes and therefore would not be expected to significant impair or otherwise substantially affect response times or other VFD performance objectives. As discussed further in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Riggin Avenue, Shirk Street, and Kelsey Street are public City streets that run east–west and north–south, respectively, along the project frontages, facilitating emergency vehicle access to the project site during project operation.
30 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Safety and Noise Element. October. 31 Visalia Fire Department (VFD). 2019 Information Sheet. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=37488. Accessed September 9, 2022. 2843
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Public Services Draft EIR
3.13-12
Based on the foregoing, it is not anticipated that any new or altered fire protection facilities would be triggered to accommodate the demand generated by the proposed project to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.
Finally, each individual specific development proposed for the project would be required to pay the required applicable plan review and development impact fees toward fire protection facilities and equipment in accordance with the applicable Development Fee Schedule, which would reflect its pro rata fair share contribution to help ensure that the VFD can meet any increased demand for services associated with the proposed project (and other planned growth) and adequate levels of service. 32 Therefore, operational impacts related to a need for new or altered fire protection facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Need for New or Altered Police Protection Facilities
Impact PUB-2: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Impact Analysis
Construction
Once the project site is annexed into the City, the VPD would provide law enforcement services. VPD headquarters is approximately 4.31 miles southwest of the project site; however, response is not likely to originate from the station but rather from officers who are routinely patrolling the area.
During construction, it is anticipated there would be a nominal increase in demand for police protection. However, the proposed project would implement appropriate, standard security measures, such as provision of adequate lighting and a project boundary fence around the subject construction area to prohibit access by unauthorized persons to the site. With the provision of such security measures, project construction would not create the need for new or altered police protection facilities, and therefore impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Operation
Project operation would result in an increase in calls for police protection services on the project site. Primary access to the project site during operation would be from Riggin Avenue, Shirk Street, and Kelsey Street. Responses to calls for service would likely be from patrolling officers. In addition to calls for service related to the number of new employees, patrons and visitors occupying the 32 City of Visalia. 2022. Development Fee Schedule, Effective August 20, 2022. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=5702. Accessed December 14, 2022. 2844
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Public Services