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. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-32–34)
The City Council hereby finds that MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 are feasible, are hereby adopted and will reduce cumulative operational stationary noise impacts to the fullest extent possible. However, the City Council hereby finds that cumulative impacts related to off-site mobile source operational 433
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 134
noise impacts from traffic generation remain significant and unavoidable, and no mitigation measures are available. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-32–34)
1.8 - Infeasible, Unnecessary, or Rejected Mitigation Measures The City Council, as Lead Agency, has the discretion to evaluate mitigation measures and approve or reject those measures for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, because of “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers.” (PRC § 21081(a)(3)). (See PRC §§ 21002, 21002.1(b)–(c); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15021(b), 15091(a)(3)). “Feasible,” as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21061.1, means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15021(b) furthers adds “legal” factors to the list of reasons the lead agency (in this case, the City) may rely upon to reject a mitigation measure, noting that an agency’s authority to impose mitigation measures is limited by its existing legal authority (PRC §§ 21004, 21081(a)(3)).
The City Council also has the discretion to decline to adopt a mitigation measure that it concludes will not be effective in mitigating an impact or that will not provide substantial additional mitigation beyond the measures that it does, in fact, adopt. Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 CA4th 296, 323; A Local & Reg’l Monitor (ALARM) v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 CA4th 1773, 1810; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1989) 209 CA3d 1502, 1519.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), and based on the entire record before it, the City Council hereby rejects the following mitigation measures (as well as other suggested measures proposed as part of late comment letters) proposed at various stages of the proceedings for the reasons summarized below and as otherwise supported by documentation, materials and information in the administrative record:
1.8.1 - Agricultural Conservation Easement
The California Department of Conservation (CDOC) suggested that the Draft EIR should address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land and explained that a conservation easement, either as purchase of an off-site easement or donation of mitigation fees, is potential mitigation. The comment further states that conversion of agricultural land may be viewed as an impact of at least regional significance, and mitigation could therefore be implemented through a regional or Statewide mitigation bank (Final EIR, pp. 2-3–2-5).
As disclosed in the Draft EIR and further discussed in the Final EIR, the proposed project would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses. The project site is located within Tier 1 of UDB.
When imposing mitigation for a project’s significant environmental effects, a public agency may only exercise those powers provided by legal authority independent of CEQA (PRC § 21004). The CEQA Guidelines specify that CEQA does not grant new or independent powers to public agencies (CEQA Guidelines § 15040). Accordingly, an agency’s exercise of discretionary powers must be within the scope of the power granted by laws and be consistent with express or implied limitations (CEQA 434
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 135
Guidelines § 15040(d)(e)). Accordingly, the City’s authority to require conservation easements and/or related agricultural mitigation is limited to the General Plan. General Plan Policy LU-P-34 requires the City to create and adopt a mitigation program to address the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tiers II and III of the UDB. While this policy identifies specific requirements for properties located in Tiers II and III, it specifically exempts lands located in Tier I from these requirements. The Draft EIR explains that because there is no adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance, there is no available feasible mechanism for the City to require the designation of a conservation easement (or payment toward same) to mitigate the loss of this Important Farmland. Without an adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance, the City has no authority to require an Agricultural Conservation Easement. Moreover, as set forth in the policy, even if this ordinance had been adopted, it expressly would exempt lands within Tier I, which would include the project site. For these reasons, the Draft EIR, as further explained in the Final EIR, concludes that there is no feasible mitigation for this impact (Final EIR, p. 2-9).
1.8.2 - Valley Air District Recommended Mitigation Measures Valley Air District recommended the City incorporate the following emission reduction strategies (noted in bold/italics) based on an assumption that these measures can reduce potential harmful health impacts:
Require cleanest available heavy-duty trucks and off-road equipment Given the volume of medium-duty vehicles that would be involved as part of the various tenants’ business operations, practical limitations on the owner(s)’ ability to control and enforce such an obligation, along with the current substantial cost and concerns regarding widespread availability of electric vehicles, the suggested mitigation is not feasible with regard to heavy-duty trucks.
The project applicants would be required to provide EV charging infrastructure throughout all parking areas as part of MM AIR-2d, which would improve charging infrastructure in the City and help facilitate the transition to EVs. Furthermore, MM AIR-2d requires the buildings’ electrical room to be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the project site. In addition, it would be speculative to attempt to quantify the amount of emission reduction that would occur from the suggested measure, and it also cannot be enforced in a way that would ensure a reduction to potential health impacts.
Regarding off-road equipment, MM AIR-2c requires all off-road equipment to utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially available. Furthermore, on-site service equipment shall be designed to include electric outlets to support the use of all-electric or zeroemission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially available. Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is similar to recommended measures already identified in the Draft EIR. See also Final EIR Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-9a for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
435
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 136
Require heavy heavy-duty (HHD) truck routing patterns that limit exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions
Trucks that are operated as part of the proposed project would be required to utilize designated truck routes as specified by the City Municipal Code Chapter 10.24 Commercial Vehicles. Therefore, this requested measure is similar to an existing regulation that would be applied to the proposed project as an enforceable condition of approval. The proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-2c through MM AIR-2g during project operation to reduce emissions, which represents all feasible and enforceable mitigation measures. See also Final EIR, Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-9b for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Require power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have “plug in” availability, which will eliminate prolonged idling while loading and unloading goods The proposed project does not include cold storage and would not have refrigerated trucks. This requested measure is not applicable to the proposed project and is therefore unnecessary. If the warehouse is later converted to cold storage uses, MM GHG-2b requires that Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the project site be plug-in capable.
Require minimization of heavy-duty truck idling
The ARB’s Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles currently limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes. Therefore, this requested measure is similar to an existing regulation that would be applied to the proposed project as an enforceable condition of approval.
Orient loading docks away from sensitive receptors unless physically impossible The current design of the proposed project is shown to have less than significant health risk impacts with implementation of identified mitigation. Nevertheless, it is noted that the project site would be located approximately 400 feet from the property line of MIR. Furthermore, the proposed flex industrial uses, self storage/RV parking, a convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants would provide a buffer between the proposed light industrial/industrial uses and sensitive receptors. Furthermore, ample landscaping that would be implemented as part of the proposed project would provide an additional buffer between loading docks and sensitive receptors.
Therefore, this mitigation measure is unnecessary. See also Final EIR Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-9d for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Require loading docks a minimum of 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptor unless dock is exclusively used for electric trucks Consistent with this recommendation, all proposed loading docks are at least 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptors. The current project design satisfies this requested measure.
Therefore, no mitigation in this regard is triggered under CEQA and this mitigation measure is unnecessary.
Require truck entries be located on streets of a higher commercial classification Trucks operated as part of the proposed project would be required to utilize designated truck routes as specified by the City Municipal Code Chapter 10.24 Commercial Vehicles. Trucks would access and leave the project site via Shirk Street, Riggin Avenue, and Kelsey Street. Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue, which are classified arterials which are high occupancy roads that connect freeways to 436
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 137
collector roads. These streets are also designated truck routes per Municipal Code Chapter 10.24.
Kelsey Street is a collector road that provides access to Riggin Avenue. Therefore, the project design satisfies this requested measure, no mitigation in this regard is triggered under CEQA, and this mitigation measure is unnecessary.
Ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100 percent of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the development project MM GHG-2a requires a solar photovoltaic system to be included in accordance with 2022 Energy Code Section 140.10. The required solar photovoltaic size is calculated based on the proposed project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage. The Draft EIR determines that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact after implementation of MM AIR2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b. Therefore, this mitigation measures is similar to what is already identified and is otherwise unnecessary. See also Final EIR, Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-9g for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Require power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have “plug in” availability, which will eliminate prolonged idling while loading and unloading goods The proposed project does not include cold storage and would not have refrigerated trucks. This requested measure is not applicable to the proposed project and is therefore rejected. If the warehouse is later converted to cold storage uses, MM GHG-2b requires that TRUs entering the project site be plug-in capable.
Designate an area during construction to charge electric powered construction vehicles and equipment, if temporary power is available
This measure would not result in a substantial quantifiable reduction in emissions as use of electric powered equipment may not be commercially available or feasible to use on a construction site that is not currently connected to the power grid. In addition, due to the size (284 acres) and the existing relatively non-urban nature of the project site, it is unknown whether there is availability of grid power that can service the entire site during construction, prior to installation of utility lines. The suggested mitigation would not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts and is unnecessary. See also Final EIR, Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-9i for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction The use of grid power during construction cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, it is infeasible to prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators as they are essential to power equipment during construction. However, any diesel generator over 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission standards per MM AIR-1a, which would significantly reduce NOx emissions and associated health risks. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.3-20, Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would have less than significant construction health risk impacts with implementation of MM AIR-1a. Because the suggested measure would not reduce an environmental impact caused by the proposed project, there is no legal nexus of this measure to any identified impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the suggested mitigation is not feasible, would not be effective to reduce any significant impact from 437
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 138
the proposed project, and is not required under CEQA. See also Final EIR, Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-9j for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Inform the project proponent of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program) offered to reduce air emissions from the project Providing tenants with information on incentive programs with goals to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks would not ensure that the tenants could or would apply for any of the programs, as applying for programs would be a voluntary action. In addition, the information would not be relevant to tenants that use third-party carriers, further limiting the potential benefit of including this suggestion mitigation. The suggested mitigation would not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts and is unnecessary.
Require all nonresidential buildings be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support the use of on-road zero emissions vehicles
MM AIR-2d requires infrastructure for EV charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3).
Furthermore, MM AIR-2d requires the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the site. Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is similar to recommended measures already identified in the Draft EIR and is therefore unnecessary. See also Final EIR Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-12 for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Include State Anti-idling Regulations
The recommended mitigation would not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts compared to the mitigation measure already evaluated and identified in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.3-22, Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would have less than significant combined construction and operation health risk impacts with implementation of mitigation measures. Because the suggested measure would not reduce a significant environmental impact caused by the proposed project, there is no legal nexus of this measure to any identified impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the suggested mitigation is not feasible, would not be effective to reduce any significant impact from the proposed project, and is not required under CEQA. See also Final EIR Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-13 for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Participate in Valley Air District’s Clean Green Yard Machines program MM AIR-2c requires that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment, including lawn and garden equipment, to utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is similar to recommended measures already identified in the Draft EIR and is unnecessary and thus rejected.
1.8.3 - LIUNA Recommended Mitigation Measures
LIUNA recommended the City incorporate the following mitigation measures (shown in bold/italics):
438
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 139
Expanding MM AIR-2b to include architectural coating requirements during project operation to reduce operation ROG emissions
MM AIR-2b requires all architectural coating material utilized in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal would not exceed 10 grams of volatile organic compound (VOC) per liter of coating. Future occupants would have access to consumer products available on the marketplace pursuant to a comprehensive regulatory framework that governs such products.
Regulation of consumer products available on the marketplace is not within the control of any individual project applicant or lead agency. Therefore, requiring the use of only low ROG supplies and equipment in perpetuity is neither feasible nor enforceable. Therefore, this mitigation measure is unnecessary. See also Final EIR Section 2 Response to Comments, Response to SJVAPCD-13 for a detailed response to this suggested measure.
Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities The suggested measure would not be an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA. The proposed project’s off- and on-road diesel vehicles would be subject to applicable ARB regulations that prohibit unnecessary idling, which would reduce emissions from the proposed project’s construction and operations-related vehicles. Therefore, this mitigation measure is unnecessary.
Assemble a comprehensive inventory list
The suggested mitigation measure would require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project, as well as prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for an ARBapproved fleet. Daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment is also be included in the suggested mitigation.
It is unclear how assembling an inventory of proposed project’s construction equipment and their daily usage would translate into emissions reductions. It is also unclear what “applicable percent reduction” is being referenced by the comment. Given these considerations, the suggested measure would not reduce the proposed project’s construction or operational emissions, and it is not an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA. MM AIR-2a would require all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to meet EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards, to the extent such equipment is reasonably commercially available. Therefore, all off-road equipment over 50 horsepower would utilize ARB-approved engines. Therefore, this mitigation measure is unnecessary.
Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained The suggested measure does not contain any methodology or mechanism for enforcement and is therefore not an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA. Further, it is unclear how this measure would result in quantifiable emissions reductions. Therefore, this mitigation measure is unnecessary.
439
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 140
Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements—saves fuel and reduces emissions.
As noted above, the proposed project’s off- and on-road diesel vehicles would already be subject to ARB regulations that prohibit unnecessary idling time exceeding five minutes. Therefore, this mitigation measure is unnecessary.
Consider applying for South Coast AQMD SOON funds
The proposed project is not located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Therefore, this mitigation measure is infeasible.
Without limitation, each of the above suggested mitigation measures is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth herein, the Draft EIR and other relevant documentation, materials and information in the administrative record.
1.9 - Findings Regarding Alternatives
1.9.1 - Introduction
This section presents findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. Because not all significant effects could be substantially reduced to a less than significant level by either adoption of feasible mitigation measures or by standard conditions of approval, the Draft EIR considered the feasibility of project alternatives compared to the proposed project. The section provides a summary and discussion of the feasibility of the following alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR and summarizes the basis for rejecting each one of the project alternatives. Additionally, Section 6 of the Draft EIR discusses alternatives that were initially considered but rejected from further consideration. Further evidence supporting these Findings is set forth in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) and in various responses to comments in the Final EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.
• Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative.
• Alternative 3: Alternative Location.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the City Council hereby finds that the Draft EIR contained a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project, which included sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. The primary purpose of this analysis is to provide decisionmakers and interested agencies, organizations and individuals with information about a reasonable range of potentially feasible project alternatives, which could avoid or reduce any of the proposed project’s significant adverse environmental effects. The Draft EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.
The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. Important considerations for this alternatives analyses are noted below:
• An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; 440
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 141
• An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process;
• Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
- Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives identified in Section 1.3.2 above. - Infeasibility; or
- Inability to avoid significant environmental effects.
When addressing the feasibility of alternatives, the lead agency may take into account a number of factors including site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). None of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternate sites always be included in an EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), in making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternate site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the proposed project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” An analysis of an alternative site was included in the Draft EIR and was ultimately considered, as detailed more fully therein and below.
This City Council hereby determines that the Draft EIR evaluated a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, which is sufficient to permit informed decision-making and public participation.
This City Council recognizes that commenters suggested additional alternatives and stated that additional detail should be provided for the alternatives that were studied. For the reasons set forth in the EIR and other relevant evidence in the administrative record, none of the requested information is necessary to ensure that a reasonable range of alternatives was studied at a sufficient level of detail.
For the reasons documented in the EIR and summarized below, this City Council hereby rejects each of the alternatives and approves the proposed project, based on the specific legal, economic, and other considerations that make each of the below-identified alternatives infeasible.
1.9.2 - Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.
Description: Under this alternative, development of the project site would not occur, and the project site would remain in its current existing condition.
Findings: Under the proposed project, the implementation of feasible mitigation measures would be required to reduce the potentially significant impacts associated with biological resources; cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; geology and soils; GHG emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; transportation; and utilities and service systems to less than significant levels. Agriculture and forest resource impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland would be significant 441
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 142
and unavoidable. Air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable. Noise impacts related to mobile source and operational mobile source noise would be significant and unavoidable. Because no development would occur under Alternative 1, no significant impacts would occur and thus none of the mitigation measures required for biological resources; cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; geology and soils; GHG emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; transportation; and utilities and service systems would be required. Thus, the foregoing impacts would be lesser than the proposed project.
The No Project Alternative would similarly have fewer impacts as compared to the proposed project with respect to aesthetics, light, and glare; energy; hydrology and water quality; public services; and wildfire, although under both scenarios, impacts would be less than significant without triggering the need for mitigation.
The No Project Alternative would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project’s less than significant impacts on land use and planning. This alternative would not result in any increased impacts as compared to the proposed project since no development at all would occur.
The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the proposed project’s impacts by leaving the project site in its existing condition, thus avoiding impacts caused by the demolition and ground disturbance of on-site structures, construction of industrial and flex industrial buildings, infrastructure and offsite improvements, and impacts caused by the operation of the proposed project. In particular, this alternative would avoid all of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture and forest resources, air quality, and noise.
However, the No Project Alternative would not offer any of the benefits of the proposed project and would not advance any of the overall project objectives (Draft EIR, pp. 6-27–6-28). The No project Alternative would not promote positive economic growth and new capital investment, would not generate an estimated 4,100 jobs, nor increase mass transit accessibility. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not advance the City’s long-term planning vision or advance the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan. Based on the analysis in the EIR and all other relevant evidence in the administrative record before it, this City Council hereby finds that the No Project (No Build) Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. The City Council further hereby rejects this alternative as infeasible.
1.9.3 - Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative.
Description: Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed in such a way as to reduce some construction and operational air quality impacts, operational noise impacts, and protect some of the on-site Prime Farmland by reducing the overall footprint of the developed areas.
The eastern half of the project site, approximately 142 acres, would be preserved and would remain in agricultural production, and half of the total warehouse and industrial park land uses would be developed. The proposed associated commercial uses would be relocated to the western half of the site. The stormwater basins would be sized accordingly. It is assumed that culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch would be required, similar to the proposed project. 442
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 143
Findings: This project alternative would result in lesser impacts related to noise. There are no greater impacts under this alternative. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project regarding aesthetics, light, and glare; agricultural and forestry resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; energy; geology and soils; GHG emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; public services; transportation; utilities and service systems; and wildfire. While these impacts would be marginally reduced under this alternative due to the reduced footprint of development and preservation of agriculture, it would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts or reduce the need for mitigation, with the exception of noise impacts, which due to the expected decreased trip generation anticipated with this alternative would be lower compared to the proposed project, but would still require mitigation (MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2).
This alternative would meet several of the project objectives to a certain degree, such as developing a mixed-use industrial park, placing industrial uses near the State Highway system (SR 99), developing innovative industrial uses as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network, and applying the goals and policies of the General Plan, which focuses on developing light industrial and industrial uses. However, because the proposed project’s development capacity would essentially be cut in half, it would not meet the project objective of developing the project site in an economically viable manner consistent with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the General Plan, including the land use vision set forth therein that contemplates light industrial and industrial uses, and would also not maximize placement of industrial uses in close proximity to SR-99 and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths, as feasible, on other roadways. Furthermore, it would not meet the project objective of maximizing development of the project site to generate increased revenue and economic development, and would only partial meet the objective of creating employment-generating businesses to reduce commuting and improve the jobs-to-housing balance.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would not meet several of the project objectives at all, and for others, it would not meet those to the same degree as the proposed project. Moreover, since it would eliminate half of the proposed project, it would be infeasible due to social, economic and other reasons. The substantial reduction in project size would significantly reduce the benefits offered by the construction and operation of the proposed project. These include among other things, the increased property and sales taxes received by the City, expansion of employment opportunities, implementation of the City’s vision of future land uses, the more efficient utilization of lands, and the resulting improvement of the area’s jobs-to-housing ratio). Based on the analysis in the EIR and all other relevant evidence in the administrative record before it, this City Council hereby finds that the Reduced Footprint Alternative does not meet a number of the project objectives at all, and for others, it would not meet those to the same degree as the proposed project. The City Council further hereby rejects this alternative as infeasible.
1.9.4 - Alternative 3: Alternative Location
Description: Under this alternative, the contemplated development would be constructed in the approximately 284-acre parcels west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue (APNs 077-840-001, 077-840- 002, and 077-840-003). These parcels were selected as they are few of the remaining parcels within 443
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 144
Tier I of the UDB that are designated as Industrial, and therefore potentially generally suitable for the proposed development. This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate a portion of the alternative site as Light Industrial for the proposed associated flex industrial/commercial uses conditionally allowed under Light Industrial. This alternative site would be approximately 650 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors located to the southwest.
Findings: As detailed more fully in the EIR, this alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project, including all identified significant and unavoidable impacts.
Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project regarding aesthetics, light, and glare; agricultural resources and forest resources; air quality; cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; energy; geology and soils; GHG emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; public services; transportation; utilities; and wildfire.
This alternative would result in marginal increases or decreases to several impacts, as well as a substantial reduction in noise impacts due to conflicts between noise generators and noise-sensitive receptors, but it would not reduce the overall level of impacts for any of the topical areas analyzed under Alternative 3 above. Biological resources impacts would be slightly greater due to the location relative to the Modoc Ditch.
Overall, this alternative would meet most of the project objectives. These include developing a mixed-use industrial park, placing industrial uses near the State Highway system, and developing innovative industrial uses as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network, maximizing development of the site to generate increased revenue and economic development, and creating employment-generating businesses to reduce commuting and improve the jobs-to-housing balance, and applying the goals and policies of the General Plan, which focuses on developing light industrial and industrial uses. However, this alternative would not meet the project objective of building out the General Plan’s envisioned land use contemplated for the proposed project site.
Furthermore, the alternative site that was analyzed under Alternative 3 is not currently under the ownership of the applicant, and the project applicant cannot reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site that was selected (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2)).
Additionally, this property would require a General Plan Amendment and is therefore less consistent with the General Plan than the project site.
Based on the analysis in the EIR and all other relevant evidence in the administrative record before it, this City Council hereby finds that while the Alternative Location Alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives (although the alternative site would require a General Plan Amendment and is therefore less consistent with the General Plan than the project site), it would not eliminate any of the identified significant and unavoidable impacts and would not otherwise have any type of meaningful reduction to other impacts as compared to the proposed project. Furthermore, the alternative site is not currently under the ownership of the applicant, and the project applicant cannot reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site that was selected (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2)). The City Council hereby rejects this alternative as infeasible.
444
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 145
1.9.5 - Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would, to a certain degree lessen the environmental impacts relative to the proposed project as described above and further in the EIR, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain in all cases except under the No Project Alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative—which is the case here as it results in fewer and less severe project impacts—the Draft EIR must also identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Overall, based on the analysis set forth in the EIR and other evidence in the administrative record, the Reduced Footprint Alternative (Alternative 2) has the greatest potential to yield reductions in the severity of the proposed significant and unavoidable impacts because the significant and unavoidable off-site mobile source operational noise impacts from traffic generation would be reduced under this alternative.
However, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not meet several of the project objectives at all, and for others, it would not meet those to the same degree as the proposed project. Moreover, since it would eliminate half of the proposed project, it would be infeasible due to social, economic and other reasons. As noted in Section 1.8.3, above, a substantial reduction in project size would significantly reduce the amount of property and sales taxes received by the City, reduce employment opportunities, would not implement the City’s vision of future land uses, or result in the improvement of the area’s jobs-to-housing ratio (Draft EIR, p. 6-20). Based on the analysis in the EIR and all other relevant evidence in the administrative record before it, this City Council hereby finds that the Reduced Footprint Alternative does not meet a number of the project objectives at all, and for others, it would not meet those to the same degree as the proposed project. The City Council further hereby rejects this alternative as infeasible.
1.10 - Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts
Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the Draft EIR for the proposed project includes a thoughtful analysis of cumulative impacts. The City, as the Lead Agency, has significant discretion in determining the appropriate baseline, with a focus on how those baseline conditions can most realistically be measured. For the reasons set forth in the EIR and as otherwise documented in the administrative record, the baseline for cumulative conditions (which involved a list of relevant cumulative developments along with a summary of General Plan projections) was sufficiently comprehensive to allow the proposed project’s cumulative impacts to be meaningfully considered and the potential severity and significance of the cumulative impacts were reflected accurately. In so doing, it took into appropriate account the City’s typical practice and timing related to review of the completeness of development applications as being a practical, feasible and reasonable point in time to utilize as a “cutoff date” for purposes of the cumulative projects list since, in the City’s experience, the ultimate feasibility, likelihood, nature, scope and specific parameters of development proposals are not generally sufficiently crystallized — and thus not sufficiently probable — until the application is determined complete.
445
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 146
As discussed throughout the Draft EIR and summarized in these Findings, except as to cumulative agricultural resource impacts, cumulative air quality impacts, and cumulative noise impacts, all other cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project are less than significant or less than significant with the implementation of applicable mitigation and compliance with applicable regulations. Additionally, the proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
As discussed in Section 1.7 of these Findings, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future cumulative developments, would have a cumulative significant impact on agricultural, air quality, and noise impacts which remains significant even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation. As detailed in the EIR and Section 1.9 above, no feasible project alternatives would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, while meeting project objectives.
1.11 - Findings Regarding Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical growth-inducing factors might be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or underserved area, or the removal of major barriers to development.
The City Council hereby recognizes that certain forms of growth are beneficial, both economically and socially. The proposed project would include the construction of flex industrial and light industrial uses and related improvements as well as other compatible non-industrial uses, such as self storage and RV parking, a gas station, convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants. The proposed project would be expected to employ a total of approximately 4,100 employees at full buildout. As described in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, Effects Found not to be Significant, direct population growth would result if the proposed project were to include residential units. Because the proposed project is industrial in nature and would not develop single-family or multi-family residential uses, no direct population growth would be expected to occur.
In terms of the removal of any direct barriers to growth, this would not occur as a result of the proposed project because it would not remove any existing obstacles that currently prevent growth within the City. For example, the proposed project would not require expansion of existing water, wastewater and public facilities and services beyond what was already planned for in the City General Plan. Instead, the proposed project only involves the connection to various City-operated existing utility and infrastructure systems for water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, as well as connection to existing non-City provided infrastructure such as natural gas (to be provided by SoCalGas) and electrical services (to be provided by SCE). The utility infrastructure installed as part of the proposed project would be sized and located expressly to serve only the proposed project and would not, therefore, induce growth in the project vicinity. The proposed project does not involve any extensions of roads or other infrastructure not assumed in the General Plan or adopted capital improvements project list, which would exceed the needs of the proposed project and thus accommodate future developments.
446
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 147
Therefore, because the proposed project does not involve housing, nor would it remove any direct barriers to growth, the proposed project would not directly increase population.
Indirect population growth occurs when a project creates substantial employment opportunities or provides new, upsized infrastructure that could lead to additional unplanned growth. As noted, the proposed project is anticipated to create approximately 4,100 new employees at full buildout. Given the nature of the proposed project, it would likely be staffed primarily by local employees. In 2022, the City had an unemployment of 4.2 percent, indicating a presence of approximately 6,005 unemployed workers. Approximately 22.5 percent of the City’s workforce works in industry sectors that the proposed project would occupy, including employment opportunities with potential tenants/operators involving wholesale trade, manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation and warehousing consistent with the proposed flex industrial, light industrial and other commercial uses.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude there are at least 1,352 workers eligible to in the City who could fill a portion of the jobs that are expected to result from the proposed project. Furthermore, Tulare County currently has an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, or 20,800 people of the working population. There are a total of 140,091 workers who both live in Tulare County and commute to work within the County. It is reasonable to assume that a number of unemployed County residents living near the City of Visalia could accept a job working at one of the proposed project businesses, and would commute to the City to work.
Nonetheless, additional employees could potentially transfer into the area as a result of the proposed project, resulting in population growth. However, the General Plan contemplated a certain amount of population growth, projecting that its population would grow from 125,000 people in 2014 to 210,000 people by 2030, which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. Employment in the City was projected to increase by 39 percent between 2010 and 2030, with a total of 25,520 new jobs projected during this time frame. Therefore, any population growth caused by increased employment opportunities provided by the proposed project would be within the planned growth anticipated in the General Plan. To the extent people transfer into the City and vicinity to fill the positions provided by the proposed project, it is reasonable to conclude that any such increase in potential housing demand could be readily absorbed by the local housing inventory and/or the pending and approved residential projects in the City and the surrounding area. As of the writing of the Draft EIR, the current housing vacancy rate in the City is 3.9 percent, and the County vacancy rate is 5.7 percent. Thus, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in a significant, unplanned change to the population of the City or alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the anticipated population planned for the City.
As noted above, existing infrastructure and services would be extended to make the necessary connections to serve the proposed project, but would not involve any upsizing of infrastructure that was not already planned for in the General Plan and relevant City master infrastructure plans and thus would not encourage additional unplanned growth. For these reasons, the City Council hereby finds that implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial indirect population growth within the City.
Based on the foregoing reasons and as detailed more fully in the EIR, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect growth. It would not negatively alter 447
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 148
the existing jobs/housing balance, be inconsistent with the General Plan or relevant City master infrastructure plans, or remove a barrier to growth through the extension of infrastructure or utilities to an unserved area or upsize infrastructure to serve unplanned growth. Therefore, growthinducing impacts would be less than significant.
1.12 - Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(d), the City Council, as Lead Agency, must address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the proposed project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources are not justified.
As discussed more fully in the EIR, the proposed project involves construction and operation of light industrial, flex industrial, as well as compatible commercial uses, consisting of self storage/RV parking, a gas station, convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants, which, at buildout, would total approximately 3.7 million square feet.
Stringent construction and demolition debris recycling practices consistent with applicable laws and regulations, which would be imposed on the proposed project, would be expected to facilitate the recovery and reuse of building materials such as concrete, lumber, and steel and would limit disposal of these materials, some of which are nonrenewable.
Construction of the proposed project would include the consumption of resources that are not replenishable, or that may renew so slowly to be considered nonrenewable. These resources would include the following: certain types of lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt, such as sand, gravel, and stone; metals such as steel, copper, and lead; petrochemical construction materials such as plastics; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. However, anticipated consumption of these common building materials and energy would be typical and consistent with other similar developments in the region and commitments of resources would not be unique or unusual to the proposed project. Given its nature and scope, development of the proposed project would not be expected to involve an unusual commitment of nonrenewable resources, nor would it be expected to consume resources in a wasteful manner.
At operation, day-to-day activities would involve the typical use of nonrenewable resources such as petroleum and natural gas during operations. However, the new buildings and related infrastructure would be required to adhere to the latest adopted edition of the CBC, which are viewed as some of 448
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 149
the most stringent in the nation; this would include a number of standards that would reduce energy demand, water consumption, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation that would collectively reduce the demand for resources. This would result in the emission and generation of less pollution and effluent and would lessen the severity of corresponding environmental effects.
Although the proposed project would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources, the commitment of these resources would not be significantly inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful.
Furthermore, given its nature and scope, the proposed project does not have the potential to cause significant environmental accidents through releases into the environment, as it would not involve large quantities of hazardous materials, as discussed in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site is designated as LRA Unzoned, which identifies areas with low fire frequency. The potential for wildfire on the project site is not considered high. In addition, the project site has not previously experienced wildfire and is not located in or near an area of steep terrain or historical wildfire burn, nor does it experience consistent high winds; therefore, the project site would not be prone to wildfire risk (see Section 3.17 of the Draft EIR, Wildfire). During operation, the proposed project would be readily and adequately served by police and fire protection services. The proposed project does not contain any uses or features that would exacerbate wildfire risks or place occupants at a greater risk to wildfire pollutants or uncontrolled wildfire. The proposed project would also be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code with regard to access and building materials. Public Resources Code 4291 further requires the proposed project to maintain, at all times, a minimum of 30 feet of defensible space in every direction from structures adjacent to forest, brush, grass, or lands covered with flammable material. In addition, new construction would be required to comply with applicable requirements as set forth in Chapter 7A of the most current adopted CBC, which would further reduce risk due to wildland fire. As such, the design of the proposed project would be required to incorporate fire safety features and comply with the applicable fire safety provisions of the CBC, thereby further reducing the risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Thus, implementation of the proposed project’s light industrial, flex industrial and other compatible commercial uses would not have the potential to result in significant environmental accidents and would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes.
The City Council, as Lead Agency, hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in significant irreversible changes.
1.13 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Guidelines Section 15091(d), the City Council, as Lead Agency, hereby adopts the MMRP prepared for the proposed project, attached to these Findings as Appendix A. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP is hereby made a condition of approval of the proposed project. The MMRP is hereby incorporated by reference in these Findings. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
449
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 150
This City Council hereby adopts this MMRP as it pertains to the proposed project, and hereby finds that the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP will reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project to the extent feasible for the reasons described in the EIR. In the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Draft EIR has inadvertently been omitted from the MMRP, this City Council hereby adopts such mitigation measure(s) as stated in the EIR and hereby incorporates said mitigation measure into these Findings by reference.
The mitigation measures as set forth in the MMRP are being made enforceable as conditions of approval. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts, as discussed further in Section 1.9 of these findings. Various measures were suggested by commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures or modifications to the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Other comments requested mitigation measures for impacts that were determined by the City to be less than significant or requested additional mitigation measures for impacts that were already determined by the City to be reduced to a less than significant level by the proposed mitigation measures. These requests are declined as unnecessary except as otherwise set forth in the Final EIR. This City Council hereby adopts the reasons set forth in the EIR and as otherwise further supported by documentation, materials and other information in the administrative record as its grounds for rejecting the suggested adoption of new mitigation measures beyond those detailed in the Final EIR.
In addition, certain commenters suggested that additional analyses be completed and/or that analyses be conducted utilizing different modeling, methodologies, thresholds and/or assumptions.
These requests are declined as unnecessary except as otherwise set forth in the Final EIR. This City Council hereby adopts the reasons set forth in the EIR and as otherwise further supported by materials and other information in the administrative record as its grounds for rejecting the suggested additional and/or modified analyses beyond that which is detailed in the Final EIR.
1.14 - Findings Regarding Recirculation
During the public review period after the EIR was published, the City received certain additional information. City staff and the technical consultants involved in preparing the various studies, reports and analyses included in the EIR have also presented additional information since the publication of the Draft EIR. Some of this information was contained in comments submitted on the Draft EIR, and in responses to those comments contained in the Final EIR. Other information was presented at or before public meetings/hearings on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR incorporates feasible mitigation, additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes, in response to comments and as determined appropriate by City staff and required under CEQA. The City also elected to respond to late CEQA comments, as detailed more fully in a technical memorandum by the City’s CEQA consultant and as otherwise set forth in the administrative record.
Under Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 (Laurel Heights II) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3), when information added to the Final EIR consists of a suggested additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new 450
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 151
mitigation measure meets all of the following criteria (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v.
County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330):
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR;
• It would clearly lessen the project's significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.
Recirculation is required only if each of the above tests is met. (South County Citizens, supra at 330).
As described in detail in the Final EIR, these Findings, and other relevant evidence in the administrative record, mitigation measures proposed during the public comment period (and/or raised in late comment letters) are either (1) not necessary; (2) not feasible; (3) or are already included as mitigation. Revisions to MM BIO-1d, MM BIO-3, and MM GHG-2a have been adopted to further reduce impacts as noted in Final EIR Section 3, Errata. Neither additional/revised mitigation measure has any significant effects.
The City Council, as Lead Agency, has considered all relevant information including, without limitation, the opinions and comments of interested public agencies, organizations and individuals.
This includes, without limitation, opinions and comments that disagree with some of the analysis, assumptions, methodologies, thresholds and conclusions in the EIR. As noted above, the entirety of the Draft EIR is incorporated into these Findings by reference. This City Council hereby ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the Draft EIR relating to the proposed project’s environment impacts and mitigation measures and the analysis related thereto.
The City Council, as Lead Agency, further hereby finds that the revisions to the mitigation does not meet the test for recirculation. Additionally, the City Council hereby finds that none of the additional information provided during the public comment period demonstrates any of the following situations requiring recirculation identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have occurred:
• A new significant environmental impact that would result from the project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project (or an alternative), but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. • The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Based on the foregoing and as explained herein and in more detail in the EIR as well as other evidence in the administrative record, and having reviewed all the information in the record of 451
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 152
proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that this additional information does not constitute significant new information nor does it otherwise trigger recirculation of the Draft EIR. The additional information merely clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR.
1.15 - Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires that a Lead Agency balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). CEQA requires that a Lead Agency support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate.
Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b). The Lead Agency’s written reasons are referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
As explained in these Findings of Fact and further detailed in the EIR and other relevant evidence in the administrative record, most of the proposed project’s impacts on the environment would either be insignificant or, through the incorporation of mitigation measures as enforceable conditions of approval of the proposed project, would be reduced to less than significant. However, as set forth in Section 1.9 above, certain impacts to Agricultural and Forest Resources, Air Quality, and Noise will remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.
Further, as set forth in Section 1.11 above, there are/are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project, which would mitigate or avoid those environmental impacts and which would also meet most of the project objectives.
Accordingly, as set forth below, the City Council hereby declares that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the following benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council further hereby finds that having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the proposed project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures contained in the EIR, the MMRP, and these Findings, having considered the entire administrative record on the proposed project, and having weighed the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, hereby finds that each of the project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR and therefore hereby finds those impacts to be acceptable. • The proposed project would promote positive economic growth and new capital investment. • The proposed pedestrian ramps and signalized crossings at the intersections of Kelsey Street and Riggin Avenue, Clancy Street and Riggin Avenue, and Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue would enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and improve mobility. • The proposed project would provide a high level of accessibility given its location and would enhance connectivity to Visalia Transit Route 17 services along Riggin Avenue by installing sidewalk and bicycle facilities.
452
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 153
• The proposed project would support the planned, orderly, efficient development of the project site, consistent with the General Plan, which would provide increased revenue, employment-generating businesses, and significant economic benefits to the City. • The proposed project would generate an estimated 4,100 jobs at buildout. The creation of these local and regional employment opportunities would substantially enhance economic opportunities in the City and improve the City’s jobs-to-housing balance. • The project site would be developed in accordance with the long-held land use vision, consistent with its Tier I location, thereby facilitating the City’s thoughtful approach to balanced growth occurring in concentric circles. With direct access to major transportation corridors, the project site is ideally situated to attract and support business without the need for major infrastructure expenditures, and will result in the siting of industrial and compatible commercial and flex industrial uses in proximity to other similar uses and appropriately distanced and buffered from sensitive receptors. This enables the City to facilitate goals of economic development and employment generation, while also helping to ensure the availability of lands in other locations in the City (and its SOI) for non-industrial uses; this encourages an appropriately diverse and balanced approach to land use consistent with the City’s General Plan.
• The proposed project would maximize the utility of its location and infrastructure to develop industrial and other compatible non-industrial and flex industrial uses in a manner that would promote land use patterns that reduce the number and length of motor vehicle trips and reduce VMT impacts consistent with the City’s planned land use vision.
Accordingly, the City Council, having reviewed and considered the EIR, all other written materials within the administrative record, and all oral testimony presented at public hearings and other public meetings on the EIR and the merits of the proposed project, has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the identified unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project, and hereby adopts all feasible mitigation measures with respect to such impacts, certifies the EIR, and approves the proposed project. This City Council has also examined the alternatives to the proposed project, none of which is feasible, meets most of the project objectives, or is environmentally preferable to the proposed project for the reasons discussed in Section 1.9 above and the EIR.
For the foregoing reasons and as otherwise supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, this City Council hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision to approve the proposed project.
1.16 - Custodian of Record; Scope and Content of Record The documents, information and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at:
Visalia City Hall
315 East Acequia Avenue
453
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 154
Visalia, CA 93291
This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Various documents, information, testimony, reports, studies, analyses and other materials (both oral and written) constitute the record upon which the City Council bases these Findings and the basis for the City Council’s approval and/or adoption contained herein. These Findings cite specific pieces of evidence, but none of the City Council's findings are based solely on those cited pieces of evidence.
Rather, these Findings are based upon the entire record, and the City Council, as the Lead Agency, intends to rely upon all supporting evidence in the record for each of its conclusions contained herein.
The documents in the record include all items referenced in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e):
(i) All project application materials;
(ii) The EIR (including the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and all appendices attached thereto); (iii) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the lead agency and/or consultants with respect to the lead agency’s compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of this division and with respect to the action on the proposed project; (iv) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the lead agency and written testimony or documents submitted by any person relevant to any findings or Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the lead agency pursuant to this division; (v) All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, public meetings, study sessions, and workshops on the Project EIR, and any transcript or minutes of the proceedings at which any advisory body or decision-making body heard testimony on, or considered the EIR;
(vi) All notices issued by the lead agency to comply with this division or with any other law governing the processing and approval of the proposed project; (vii) All written comments received in response to, or in connection with, the EIR, including comments on the Draft EIR;
(viii) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from, the lead agency with respect to compliance with this division or with respect to the proposed project; (ix) Any proposed decisions or findings submitted to the decision-makers by lead agency staff, or the project proponent, project opponents, or other interested agencies, organizations and/or individuals;
(x) The documentation of the final decision, including the Draft EIR and all documents, in addition to those referenced in paragraph (c), cited or relied on in the findings or in a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted pursuant to this division; (xi) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, 454
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 155
master plans together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area; (xii) Any other written materials relevant to the lead agency’s compliance with this division or to its decision on the merits of the proposed project, including any drafts of any environmental document or portions thereof, which have been released for public review, and copies of studies or other documents relied upon in any environmental document prepared for the project and either made available to the public during the public review period or included in the lead agency's files on the proposed project, and all internal agency communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to the proposed project or to compliance with this division;
(xiii) The full written record before any inferior administrative decision-making body whose decision was appealed to a superior administrative decision-making body prior to the filing of litigation; and
(xiv) Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law.
The EIR is incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the proposed project despite the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. 455
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
456
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Appendix A:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
457
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
458
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Environmental Impact Report
City of Visalia, Tulare County, California
Prepared for:
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
559.713.4636
Contact: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
7726 N. First Street, #413
Fresno, CA 93720
714.508.4100
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Yael Marcus, Project Manager
Report Date: January 17, 2025
459
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
460
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Preface
1 PREFACE
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) whenever it adopts an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conjunction with a project approval. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that compliance with the mitigation measures occurs during project implementation.
The Draft EIR prepared for the proposed Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (proposed project) concluded that project implementation could result in potentially significant effects on the environment. Accordingly, feasible mitigation measures were identified to be implemented by the proposed project, which would be imposed as enforceable conditions of project approval that reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level to the extent feasible. This MMRP documents how and when the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency will be implemented and confirms that potential environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant levels as identified in the Draft EIR.
The City of Visalia, as the Lead Agency, hereby finds that the mitigation measures set forth in this MMRP for the proposed project will reduce or avoid the identified potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to the extent feasible for the reasons described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (including appendices attached thereto) (collectively, Project EIR) and as otherwise documented in the materials that make up the proposed project’s administrative record. The Lead Agency intends for each of the mitigation measures to be adopted as recommended in the Project EIR and incorporated into conditions of approval for the purpose of ensuring compliance during project implementation.
In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR and MMRP, the MMRP shall control. In the event of any inconsistencies between the City’s standard conditions of approval imposed on the proposed project by the City of Visalia and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
This document does not discuss those environmental topic areas that the environmental analysis set forth in the Project EIR (along with other materials in the administrative record) has determined there would be less than significant impacts and for which no mitigation was necessary. 461
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
462
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 Table 1: Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
3.1 Air Quality
MM AIR-2a: Use of Tier IV or Tier IV Equivalent
Construction Off-Road Equipment
Before a construction permit is issued for the
proposed project, the project sponsors shall submit
construction emissions minimization plans to the
City of Visalia for review and approval. The
construction emissions minimization plans shall
detail compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Subject to same being commercially available,
all off-road equipment utilized in connection
with the subject individual development
proposal shall have engines that meet either
EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission
standards. Provided, however, if engines that
comply with Tier IV Final off-road emission
standards are not commercially available, then
the construction contractor shall use the next
cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier
IV Interim) available. For purposes of this
mitigation measure, “commercially available”
shall mean the availability of Tier IV Final
engines taking into consideration factors such as
(i) critical-path timing of construction; (ii) costs
of utilizing same are commercially practicable;
and (iii) geographic proximity to the project site
of equipment. The relevant contractor’s
provision to the City letters from at least two
rental companies for each piece of off-road
equipment that reasonably documents the lack
Review relevant
construction emissions
minimization plans for
subject individual specific
development proposal;
conduct site inspection
to verify signage.
Prior to issuance of grading
permit for each individual
specific development
proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
463
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
of commercially available off-road equipment
shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of
complying with this mitigation measure. The
project applicant and contractor shall consider
the use of near zero-emission or electric
construction equipment if that type of
equipment is commercially available at the time
of grading permit submittal.
(2) Post signage on the project site stating that
construction equipment idling times shall not
exceed five minutes.
MM AIR-2b: Super Compliant Architectural Coating
During Construction
Prior to issuance of a grading permit in connection
with an individual specific development proposal for
the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor
shall submit to the City of Visalia construction
contracts and/or subcontracts reasonably
documenting that all architectural coating material
utilized in connection with the subject individual
specific development proposal would not exceed 10
grams of volatile organic compound (VOC) per liter
of coating.
To satisfy the above, the relevant project sponsor
shall include in any construction contracts and/or
subcontracts for the subject individual specific
development proposal a requirement that all
interior and exterior architectural coatings used in
project construction meet the “supercompliant”
coating VOC content standard of 10 grams or less of
VOC per liter of coating. The relevant project
sponsor shall also specify in the subject
construction contracts and/or subcontracts the
Review relevant
provisions of the
construction contracts
and/or subcontracts for
subject individual specific
development proposal.
Prior to issuance of grading
permit for an individual
specific development
proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
464
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
requirement to use high-volume, low-pressure spray
guns during coating applications to reduce coating
waste.
MM AIR-2c: Electric or Zero-Emission On-site OffRoad and On-Road Service Equipment Prior to issuance of the construction grading permit
in connection with an individual specific
development proposal for the proposed project, the
relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable
documentation to demonstrate to the City of Visalia
that all on-site off-road and on-road service
equipment will utilize zero-emission technology,
subject to the same being commercially practicable.
Additionally, the relevant project sponsor shall
provide reasonable documentation to the City of
Visalia that all proposed buildings in connection
with the subject individual specific development
proposal that would use on-site service equipment
will be designed to include electric outlets to
equipment support the use of all-electric or zeroemission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially practicable.
Review and verify
reasonable
documentation (such
documentation may
include leasing
agreement) for subject
individual specific
development proposal
demonstrating
compliance.
Prior to issuance of grading
permit for an individual
specific development
proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM AIR-2d: Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in
connection with an individual specific development
proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs
first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide
reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia
demonstrating that the subject individual specific
development proposal shall incorporate
infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging
stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle
Review and verify
relevant documentation
demonstrating for
subject individual specific
development proposal
for compliance.
Prior to issuance of grading
or building permit for an
individual specific
development proposal,
whichever occurs first.
City of Visalia Project applicant
465
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
parking spaces (including parking for trucks),
consistent with the applicable California Green
Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential
Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). To satisfy
the foregoing, EV charging spaces must provide
electrical vehicle charging infrastructure to support
future installation of EV supply equipment and shall
meet the applicable design space requirements of
California Green Building Standards Code Section
5.106.5.3.
In addition, the buildings’ electrical room shall be
sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may
be needed to supply power for the future
installation of EV truck charging stations on the site.
Conduit should be installed from the electrical room
to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical
location(s) on the site determined by the project
applicant during construction document plan check,
for the purpose of accommodating the future
installation of EV truck charging stations at such
time this technology becomes commercially
available and the buildings are being served by
trucks with electric-powered engines.
MM AIR-2e: On-Site Signage and Pavement
Markings
In connection with an individual specific
development proposal for the proposed project, the
relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable
documentation to the City of Visalia demonstrating
signage and pavement marking that show on-site
circulation routes have been or will be included
along the relevant portions of the project site
driveways and internal roadways.
Review and verify
relevant documentation
for subject individual
specific development
proposal demonstrating
signage and pavement
markings.
In connection with an
individual specific
development proposal for
the proposed project.
City of Visalia Project applicant
466
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
MM AIR-2f: Vegetative Barrier
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in
connection with an individual specific development
proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs
first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide
reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia
demonstrating the inclusion of a vegetative barrier
along the south and east property boundaries of the
project site. Prior to issuance of first occupancy
permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to
the City of Visalia the installation of the vegetative
barrier at the described locations.
Review and verify
reasonable
documentation
(reasonable
documentation may
include landscaping plan)
for subject individual
development proposal
that shows a vegetative
barrier on plans.
Conduct site inspection
or review site photos to
confirm installation.
Prior to issuance of the
grading or building permit
in connection with subject
individual specific
development proposal.
Prior to issuance of first
occupancy permit subject
individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM AIR-2g: Voluntary Emission Reduction
Agreement
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in
connection with an individual specific development
proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs
first, the relevant project sponsor shall consult with
the City of Visalia about the feasibility of entering
into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement
(VERA) with the Valley Air District.
Project sponsor of
subject individual specific
development proposal to
consult with City of
Visalia, and reasonably
document sponsor’s
assessment of the
feasibility of entering a
VERA with the Valley Air
District.
Prior to issuance of the
grading or building permit
in connection with the
subject individual specific
development proposal,
whichever occurs first.
City of Visalia Project applicant
3.4 Biological Resources
MM BIO-1a Pre-construction Surveys for
Swainson’s Hawk
Prior to initial ground disturbance or building
permits of any project area, if during the nesting
season for Swainson’s hawk (March 20 to July 20), a
qualified Biologist shall conduct Swainson’s hawk
Subject project sponsor
of each individual
development proposal to
provide reasonable
documentation (e.g., preconstruction survey
Prior to initial ground
disturbance or building
permits for construction
activities within nesting
season (March 20 to July
20).
City of Visalia Project applicant
467
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
nesting surveys on-site and within a 0.5-mile radius
of the project site to determine whether nests are
present and if so, occupied. Occupancy shall be
determined through observation of all accessible
areas, including from public roads or other publicly
accessible observation areas of Swainson’s hawk
activity (e.g., foraging) on and near the project site.
If ground disturbance occurs outside the nesting
season, no further action is required.
A qualified Biologist shall follow the survey protocol
outlined in the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys
in California’s Central Valley, which recommends
surveys according to the following survey periods:
1. January–March 20: Conduct one survey total.
2. March 20–April 5: Conduct three surveys total.
Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to
10:00 a.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.
3. April 5–April 20: Conduct three surveys total.
Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to
12:00 p.m. and/or 4:30 p.m. to sunset.
4. April 21–June 10: Initiating surveys are not
recommended. Monitoring of known nest sites
only.
5. June 10–July 30: (post-fledging) Conduct three
surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted
between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:00 p.m.
to sunset.
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed for at
least the two survey periods immediately prior to
the subject ground-disturbing activities being
report) that a qualified
Biologist has been
retained as well as
provide results of preconstruction surveys.
If construction activities
will not take place during
nesting season (March 20
to July 20), then no preconstruction surveys are
required.
468
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
initiated, with the latest survey no more than 10
days prior to the start of the subject grounddisturbing. A copy of the survey results shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of
compliance.
MM BIO-1b Swainson’s Hawk Avoidance and
Minimization and Construction Monitoring
If nests are located and determined to be occupied,
minimization measures must be implemented by
the relevant applicant in connection with a specific
individual development application, and
construction monitoring conducted as follows:
1. Construction activities shall be prohibited
within 600 feet of an active and occupied
Swainson’s hawk nest or within 600 feet of
nests under construction to prevent nest
abandonment unless a smaller buffer is
approved pursuant to subsection (2) below. This
incorporates the maximum avoidance buffer
size stated in the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting
Surveys in California’s Central Valley.
2. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the
construction activity (e.g., other nearby
development, limited activities) indicate that a
smaller buffer, or no buffer at all, could be used,
the project developer may seek approval from
the qualified Biologist who, in coordination with
the CDFW, shall determine the appropriate
buffer size, which, once approved, shall govern.
3. No tree containing an active Swainson’s hawk
nest shall be removed.
Conduct pre-construction
surveys if required under
MM BIO-1b; if nests are
found, relevant project
applicant to implement
avoidance and
minimization measures
and related construction
monitoring.
Relevant project
applicant to submit
reasonable
documentation (e.g., Precon survey report (if no
Swainson’s hawks are
present) or if they are
present then you'd need
a monitoring report) to
City of Visalia to
document compliance.
Upon identification of
occupied nests during preconstruction surveys.
City of Visalia Project applicant
469
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
If (i) no nests are located or (ii) if nests are located and determined not to be occupied, then no
minimization measures shall need to be
implemented and no further mitigation under this
MM BIO-1b shall be required.
MM BIO-1c: Pre-Construction Surveys for
Burrowing Owl (includes avoidance and passive
relocation if found)
To determine whether burrowing owl have occupied
the project site prior to its development, a qualified
Biologist shall perform a pre-construction burrowing
owl survey to determine burrow locations within 30
days prior to construction activities using California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Guidelines.
If construction is delayed or suspended for more
than 30 days after the survey, the area shall be
resurveyed. Surveys for occupied burrows shall be
completed within all construction areas and within
300 feet of the proposed project impact area
(where possible and appropriate based on locations
of barren or ruderal habitats). At least 15 days prior
to the expected start, or restart, of any projectrelated ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall provide a burrowing owl survey
report with mapping exhibits to the CDFW. If no
burrowing owl are detected during the preconstruction survey, no further action is necessary.
If burrowing owl are detected during the preconstruction survey, the following actions shall be taken to offset impacts during construction (as
outlined in the CDFW 2012 Guidelines):
• During the nonbreeding season (September 1
through January 31), no disturbance shall occur
Subject project sponsor
of each individual
development proposal to
provide reasonable
documentation (such as
Pre-construction Survey
Report, or, if burrowing
owls are present, Daily
Monitoring Logs) to City
of Visalia that a qualified
Biologist has been
retained as well as
provide results of preconstruction surveys.
Subject project sponsor
to provide reasonable
documentation of its
submittal survey reports
to the CDFW.
If burrowing owl
detected, subject project
sponsor to provide to
City of Visalia the passive
relocation plan (if
applicable) for review,
and also provide
Within 30 days prior to
construction activities for
subject individual
development proposal.
At least 15 days prior to
the start or restart of
ground disturbance for
subject individual
development proposal.
Upon detection of
burrowing owl during preconstruction surveys.
City of Visalia Project applicant
470
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
within an approximately 160-foot radius of an
occupied burrow. During the nesting season
(February 1 through August 31), occupied
burrows shall not be disturbed within a 300-foot
radius unless a qualified Biologist approved by
the CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods
that either (1) the birds have not begun egglaying and incubation or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently
and are capable of independent survival.
• If owls must be moved away from the
disturbance area, passive relocation techniques
(as outlined by the CDFW [i.e., use of one-way
doors]) should be used rather than trapping. At
least one or more weeks will be necessary to
accomplish this and to allow the owls to
acclimate to alternate burrows.
• If unpaired owls or paired owls are present in or
within 300 feet of areas scheduled for
disturbance or degradation (e.g., grading) and
nesting is not occurring, owls are to be removed
per CDFW-approved passive relocation protocols.
Passive relocation requires the use of one-way
exclusion doors, which must remain in place at
least 48 hours prior to site disturbance to ensure
owls have left the burrow prior to construction. A
CDFW-approved exclusion plan would be
required to implement this measure.
• If paired owls are nesting in areas scheduled for
disturbance or degradation, nest(s) shall be
avoided from February 1 through August 31 by a
minimum 300-foot buffer or until fledging has
reasonable
documentation that
required actions are
implemented.
471
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
occurred. Following fledging, owls may be
passively relocated.
MM BIO-1d: Pre-construction Special-status
Species Wildlife Surveys and Protective Measures
if Found, Including Standard Avoidance Measures
for San Joaquin Kit Fox.
Not more than 14 days before start of ground
disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct
surveys to determine the presence/absence of the
following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s
bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing
owl, and American badger. Surveys conducted for
Crotch’s bumblebee will follow the survey
methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations
for California Endangered Species Act Candidate
Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the
event a Crotch’s bumblebee nest is detected within
the Project, CDFW will be consulted to determine
how best to implement Project activities and avoid
take. If take cannot be avoided, an ITP will be
obtained, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section
2081 subdivision (b).
Should San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl,
or American badger be detected, the qualified
Biologist shall coordinate with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as
appropriate and to the extend required under
applicable laws and regulations) to determine
adequate protection measures as may be required
under applicable laws and regulations, and the
relevant project developer shall implement all such
measures in connection with the development
Subject project sponsor
of each individual
development proposal to
provide reasonable
documentation to City of
Visalia that a qualified
Biologist has been
retained as well as
provide results of preconstruction surveys, and
copies of all reports and
communication (and
permit(s), if required)
with the relevant wildlife
agencies as required
under applicable law and
regulations.
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia reasonable
documentation of
compliance with
standardized
recommendations as
outlined by the USFWS
for the protection of San
Joaquin Kit Fox.
Not more than 14 days
before the start of ground
disturbance for subject
individual specific
development proposal.
During project
construction of subject
individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
472
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
proposal at issue. Copies of all reports and
communication with the appropriate wildlife
agencies shall be submitted to the lead agency as
evidence of compliance.
The following standardized recommendations as
outlined by the USFWS for the protection of San
Joaquin Kit Fox shall be implemented during project
construction:
1. Project-related vehicles should observe a
daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the
site in all project areas, except on county roads
and State and Federal highways; this is
particularly important at night when kit foxes
are most active. Nighttime construction should
be minimized to the extent possible. However if
it does occur, then the speed limit should be
reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of
designated project areas should be prohibited.
2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes
or other animals during the construction phase
of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or
trenches more than 2-feet deep should be
covered at the close of each working day by
plywood or similar materials. If the trenches
cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps
constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks
shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches
are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected
for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or
injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
shall be contacted as noted under measure 13
referenced below.
473
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures
such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and
become trapped or injured. All construction
pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a
diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored
at a construction site for one or more overnight
periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit
foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried,
capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.
If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that
section of pipe should not be moved until the
Service has been consulted. If necessary, and
under the direct supervision of the Biologist,
the pipe may be moved only once to remove it
from the path of construction activity, until the
fox has escaped.
4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers,
cans, bottles, and food scraps should be
disposed of in securely closed containers and
removed at least once a week from a
construction or project site.
5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
6. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be
permitted on the project site to prevent
harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or
destruction of dens.
7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project
areas should be restricted. This is necessary to
prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit
foxes and the depletion of prey populations on
which they depend. All uses of such compounds
should observe label and other restrictions
mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, California Department of Food and
474
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
Agriculture, and other State and Federal
legislation, as well as additional project-related
restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If
rodent control must be conducted, zinc
phosphide should be used because of a proven
lower risk to kit fox.
8. A representative shall be appointed by the
project proponent who will be the contact
source for any employee or contractor who
might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who
finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The
representative will be identified during the
employee education program and their name
and telephone number shall be provided to the
Service.
9. An employee education program should be
conducted for any project that has anticipated
impacts to kit fox or other endangered species.
The program should consist of a brief
presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit
fox biology and legislative protection to explain
endangered species concerns to contractors,
their employees, and military and/or agency
personnel involved in the project. The program
should include the following: A description of
the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a
report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project
area; an explanation of the status of the species
and its protection under the Endangered
Species Act; and a list of measures being taken
to reduce impacts to the species during project
construction and implementation. A fact sheet
conveying this information should be prepared
for distribution to the previously referenced
475
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
people and anyone else who may enter the
project site.
10. Upon completion of the project, all areas
subject to temporary ground disturbances,
including storage and staging areas, temporary
roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be recontoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project
conditions.
11. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or
structures should be installed immediately to
allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service
should be contacted for guidance.
12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency
personnel who are responsible for inadvertently
killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall
immediately report the incident to their
representative. This representative shall contact
the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead,
injured or entrapped kit fox.
13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and
CDFG shall be notified in writing within three
working days of the accidental death or injury
to a San Joaquin kit fox during project-related
activities. Notification must include the date,
time, and location of the incident or of the
finding of a dead or injured animal and any
other pertinent information.
14. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
A copy of the reporting form and a topographic
map clearly marked with the location of where
the kit fox was observed should also be
provided to the Service at the address below.
476
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
MM BIO-1e: Protection of Active Bird Nests
(includes pre-construction survey and
implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).
1. Removal of trees shall occur in compliance with
and as required by the City’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance.
2. If project development requires trees to be
removed during the nesting season, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted 7 days prior to tree removal to
determine whether active nests are present.
3. If an active nest is located during preconstruction surveys, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance
buffer based on species and anticipated
disturbance level. The buffer shall be 250 feet
for migratory bird species and 500 feet for
raptors. That no-disturbance buffer can be
reduced if it is determined whether a qualified
on-site monitor determines through monitoring
the effects of activities on the nest that the
buffer can be reduced without nest
abandonment or otherwise affecting nest
success.
4. The relevant applicant of the proposed
development at issue shall physically mark the
nest protection zone with Environmentally
Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow
caution tape. The nest protection zone shall be
maintained around the active nest site(s) until
the young have fledged and are foraging
independently, as determined by a qualified
Biologist. No construction activities or
construction foot traffic is allowed to occur
If required, subject
project sponsor of each
individual development
proposal to provide
reasonable
documentation (e.g., preconstruction survey
report) to City of Visalia
that a qualified Biologist
has been retained as well
as provide results of preconstruction surveys.
If tree removal occurs
during the nesting
season, conduct preconstruction survey;
submit monitoring
reports to City of Visalia
to document compliance
with required protective
measures.
If tree removal to occur
outside of nesting
season, then no further
mitigation under this
MM BIO-1e, outside of
compliance with the
City’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance, shall be
required.
7 days prior to tree
removal, if removal to
occur within nesting
season.
City of Visalia Project applicant
477
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
within the nest protection zones until the young
have fledged and are foraging independently, as
determined by a qualified Biologist.
5. The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active
nest(s) periodically during construction
activities to prevent any significant impacts that
may result from the construction of the
proposed project, until the young have fledged.
Copies of the survey report shall be submitted
to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
If no active nests are located, then no minimization
measures shall need to be implemented and no
further mitigation under this MM BIO-1e shall be
required.
MM BIO-1f: Protection of Roosting Bats (includes
pre-construction survey and implementation of
avoidance buffer, if found).
If tree removal or demolition of existing structures
is proposed in connection with project
development, trees and/or structures with features
capable of supporting roosting bats shall be
surveyed by a qualified Biologist for bat roosts or
evidence of bat roosting (guano, urine staining and
scent, dead bats) not more than 14 days before the
start of ground disturbance, including vegetation
removal. If active roosts are discovered, a
protection zone of no less than 50 feet around the
active roost shall be established by the qualified
Biologist. Disturbance may occur within the buffer
once active roosting ceases, as determined by the
qualified Biologist.
Subject project sponsor
of each individual
development proposal to
provide reasonable
documentation to City of
Visalia that a qualified
Biologist has been
retained; if active roosts
are found, then also
provide reasonable
documentation (e.g., preconstruction survey
report) of compliance
with protection zone.
Subject project sponsor
to also submit copies of
survey reports and
Not more than 14 days
before the start of
tree/vegetation removal or
demolition of existing
structures for subject
individual development
proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
478
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
If roosts are determined to be present and must be
removed, the bats shall be excluded from the
roosting site before the tree or structure is
removed. A bat Exclusion Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) prior to implementation. Exclusion
methods may include use of one-way doors at roost
entrances (bats may leave, but not reenter), or
sealing roost entrances when the site can be
confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts shall
be restricted during periods of sensitive activity
(e.g., during hibernation or while females in
maternity colonies are nursing young). Copies of the
survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency
as evidence of compliance. If no active roosts are
located, then no minimization measures shall need
to be implemented and no further mitigation under
this MM BIO-1f shall be required.
provide reasonable
documentation of
compliance with
avoidance buffer (if
needed); submit CDFWapproved exclusion plan
(if required).
MM BIO-3: The project developer shall submit the
preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and
coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies
(Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and
Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps
of Engineers [USACE]) to the extent required under
applicable laws and regulations to determine
whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under
Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or
Fish and Game Code 1602. Additionally, the Project
applicant shall submit a notification pursuant to Fish
and Game Code section 1602 to assist with review
of the submitted delineation materials.
Relevant project sponsor
to submit to City of
Visalia the jurisdictional
delineation. If any CWA
Sections 401 and 404
Permits are required for
the Modoc Ditch under
applicable laws and
regulations, then subject
project sponsor to obtain
same and submit copies
to City of Visalia; also
submit copy of any
required notifications
under Section 1602 to
Prior to the fill of any
potentially jurisdictional
waters or any construction
activities within Modoc
Ditch that may qualify as
jurisdictional.
City of Visalia Project applicant
479
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 20 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
If Modoc Ditch is considered jurisdictional by the
regulating agencies, the relevant project developer
shall, in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations, obtain the relevant permit applications
based on coordination with the appropriate
regulating agencies, if required prior to impacting
any waters.
As part of these authorizations, compensatory
mitigation may be required by the regulating
agencies to offset the loss of aquatic resources. If
so, and as part of the permit application process, a
qualified professional shall draft a Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan to address implementation and
monitoring requirements under the permit(s) to
ensure that the subject development proposal
would result in no net loss of habitat functions and
values. The Plan shall contain, at a minimum,
mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation location,
a discussion of actions to be implemented to
mitigate the impact, monitoring methods and
performance criteria, extent of monitoring to be
conducted, actions to be taken in the event that the
mitigation is not successful, and reporting
requirements. The Plan shall be approved by the
appropriate regulatory agencies and compensatory
mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an
appropriate off-site location, if required. Copies of
the Plan and associated report shall be submitted to
the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
Any material/spoils generated from project
activities containing hazardous materials shall be
located away from jurisdictional areas or specialstatus habitat and protected from stormwater City of Visalia to
document compliance.
If required, subject
project sponsor to
submit copy of approved
Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan and
associated report to City
of Visalia.
Subject project sponsor
to also submit copy of
approved SWPPP and
reasonable
documentation of
compliance with
identified protection
measures.
Promptly upon receipt of
approved Plan.
Promptly upon receipt of
approved SWPPP.
480
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 21 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
runoff using temporary perimeter sediment barriers
such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers,
sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as
appropriate and feasible. Protection measures
should follow project-specific criteria as developed
in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention and
Protection Plan (SWPPP).
Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials
shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic
ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from
contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet
outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional
water features.
Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be
done safely and in a feasible manner. In the event of
any such spillage, the contaminated area shall be
cleaned by the party responsible for the spillage,
and any contaminated materials properly disposed.
For all spills, the project foreman or designated
environmental representative shall be notified.
3.5 Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1: Archaeological Spot-Monitoring and
Halt of Construction Upon Encountering Historical
or Archaeological Materials
Prior to any ground disturbance in connection with
project development, a surface inspection of the
relevant portion(s) of the project site shall be
conducted by a qualified Archaeologist; a Tribal
Monitor/Cultural Staff from a culturally affiliated
Native American tribe identified by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be
permitted to observe, subject to an executed
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia reasonable
documentation
demonstrating retention
of a qualified
Archaeologist to conduct
surface inspection as well
as qualified
archaeological monitor
to observe same and
Prior to any ground
disturbance in connection
with project development
of an individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
481
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 22 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
agreement between the Tribe and the relevant
applicant (as noted below). The Archaeologist (and
Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff, subject to an executed
agreement with the relevant applicant) shall
monitor the relevant portion(s) of the project site
during initial ground disturbance activities that
occur in connection with the subject proposal.
The relevant applicant shall offer, in good faith and
based on commercially reasonable terms, a
culturally affiliated Native American tribe identified
by the NAHC the opportunity to provide a Native
American Monitor during ground-disturbing
activities that occur in connection with the subject
proposal. Tribal participation would be dependent
upon the availability and interest of the Tribe as well as the parties being able to reach mutually
acceptable terms.
In addition, the relevant applicant shall with
diligence and good faith coordinate with the Tribal
Monitor/Cultural Staff to enter into an agreement
on commercially reasonable terms wherein the
Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide preproject-related activities training to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which
shall include information on potential cultural
material finds and on the procedures to be enacted
if Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are found. Subject
to such an executed agreement, the Tribal
Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide the foregoing
activities prior to any ground disturbance in
connection with an individual specific development
proposal.
initial ground
disturbance activities
(subject to a mutually
acceptable agreement
being executed between
monitor and applicant).
In the event of a find,
subject project sponsor
and its qualified
Archaeologist to
coordinate, as
appropriate, with City of
Visalia and consulting
tribe, and provide results
of any further study
including reasonable
documentation of
compliance with any
required protective
measures.
If required, promptly after
the find.
482
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 23 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
In the event that TCRs are discovered during
project-related subsurface construction activities,
operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and
a qualified Archaeologist shall determine whether
the resource requires further study. In consultation
with the City of Visalia and consulting tribes, the
qualified Archaeologist shall determine the
measures that shall be implemented to protect the
discovered resources, including, but not limited to,
excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Measures may include avoidance, preservation in
place, recordation, additional archaeological resting,
and data recovery, among other options. Any
previously undiscovered resources found during
project-related subsurface construction activities
shall be recorded on appropriate California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms
and evaluated for significance. No further ground
disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery until approved by the qualified
Archaeologist.
MM CUL-2: Prior to the initiation of ground
disturbance activities for project development, the
relevant developer shall ensure that all construction
personnel conducting ground disturbance at the
project site in connection with the subject individual
specific development proposal shall be provided a
Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training
shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable
laws and statutes relating to archaeological
resources, types of resources that may be found
Subject project sponsor
to submit reasonable
documentation of
implementation of WEAP
training to City of Visalia.
Prior to the initiation of
ground disturbance
activities for subject
individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
483
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 24 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
within the project site, and procedures to be
followed in the event such resources are
encountered. The training shall be conducted by an
Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology. Any Native American Monitors or
representatives consulting on the proposed project
shall be invited to attend and participate in the
training session.
MM CUL-3: In the event that prehistoric or historicperiod archaeological resources are encountered during construction in connection with an individual
specific development proposal, all construction
activities associated therewith within 100 feet of
the find shall halt and the City of Visalia and an
Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology shall be notified by the relevant
applicant. Prehistoric archaeological materials may
include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g.,
projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking
debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”)
containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars,
pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered
stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted
stones. Historic period materials might include
stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled
wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or
ceramic refuse.
The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within
24 hours of discovery or as soon thereafter as is
reasonable and commercially practicable. If it is
If find is encountered,
subject project sponsor
to submit to City of
Visalia reasonable
documentation of
implementation of any
required Treatment Plan
and/or any required
mitigation measures, as
identified by the
qualified Archaeologist;
also provide related
reports.
Promptly upon
encountering prehistoric or
historic archaeological
resources.
City of Visalia Project applicant
484
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 25 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
determined that the construction associated with
the subject individual specific development
proposal could significantly damage a historical
resource or a unique archaeological resource (as
defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines),
mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section
15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference
for preservation in place. If avoidance is not
feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and
the relevant applicant shall implement a detailed
treatment plan in consultation with the City of
Visalia. Treatment of unique archaeological
resources shall follow the applicable requirements
of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
Treatment for most resources would consist of (but
would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact
collection, site documentation, and historical
research, with the aim to target the recovery of
important scientific data contained in the portion(s)
of the significant resource to be impacted by the
proposed project. The treatment plan shall include
provisions for analysis of data in a regional context,
reporting of results within a timely manner, curation
of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and
dissemination of reports to local and State
repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.
MM CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery
or recognition of any human remains during ground
disturbance activities in connection with an
individual specific development proposal, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections
If applicable due to an
accidental discovery,
subject project sponsor
to provide reasonable
documentation of
compliance with required
Promptly upon any
accidental discovery.
City of Visalia Project applicant
485
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 26 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
5097.94 and 5097.98 shall be followed by the
relevant applicant. Specifically, the following steps
shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or
disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until
the County Coroner is contacted to determine
whether the remains are Native American and if
an investigation of the cause of death is
required. If the Coroner determines the remains
to be Native American, the Coroner shall
contact the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the
NAHC shall identify the person or persons it
believes to be the Most Likely Descendant
(MLD) of the deceased Native American. The
MLD may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the
excavation work within 48 hours, for means of
treating or disposing of, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains, and any associated
grave goods as provided in Public Resource
Code Section 5097.98.
2. Where any of the following conditions occur,
the landowner or his or her authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American
human remains and associated grave goods
with appropriate dignity, either in accordance
with the recommendations of the MLD or on
the project site in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD.
• The identified MLD fails to make a
recommendation within 48 hours after being
notified by the commission.
mitigation measure,
including, among others,
incorporation of same
into plans.
486
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 27 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
• The landowner or his or her authorized
representative rejects the recommendation
of the identified MLD and mediation by the
NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner.
Additionally, California Public Resources Code
Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to
Native American remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of,
or the probable likelihood of, Native American
remains within a project, a lead agency shall work
with the appropriate Native Americans as
identified by the NAHC as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. Each relevant
applicant in connection with its individual specific
development proposal may develop a plan for
treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,
the human remains and any items associated
with Native American burials with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the
NAHC.
3.7 Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit
for each project development, the final grading,
foundation, and construction plans for the subject
proposal shall incorporate all the site-specific
earthwork, foundation, floor slab, lateral earth
pressure, and pavement design recommendations,
as detailed in a Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by
a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. The final grading
and construction plans for the subject individual
Subject project sponsor
to submit project plans
to City of Visalia to verify
compliance with this
mitigation measure by its
incorporation into
relevant plans.
Prior to issuance of the
grading permit for subject
individual development
proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
487
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 28 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
specific development shall be reviewed by the Cityapproved Geotechnical Engineer to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure. Grading
operations performed in connection with the
subject individual specific development proposal
shall satisfy all applicable recommendations
included in the Geotechnical Evaluation.
During construction performed in connection with
the specific development, the City-approved
Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor this
construction to ensure the earthwork operations
are properly performed in accordance with the
foregoing requirements.
Periodically during
construction of subject
individual specific
development proposal
(approx. once per
quarter), sponsor to
submit monitoring report
from the qualified
Geotechnical Engineer to
City of Visalia.
MM GEO-2: In order to reduce on-site erosion due
to project construction and operation, an erosion
control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site
preparation, construction, and post-construction
periods by a registered civil engineer or certified
professional. The erosion control plan shall
incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs)
consistent with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The erosion component of the plan must at least
meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB). If earth-disturbing activities are
proposed between October 15 and April 15, these
activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to
Subject project sponsor
to obtain SWPPP and
provide to City of Visalia
detailed project plans to
verify incorporation of
BMPs and any additional
erosion control
measures.
City of Visalia to monitor
erosion control plan and
SWPPP components per
applicable laws and
regulations.
Prior to issuance of any
grading permit for subject
individual specific
development proposal and
during construction of
same.
City of Visalia Project applicant
488
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 29 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
minimize potential erosion-related impacts.
Additional erosion control measures may be
implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia.
Prior to the issuance of any permit, the project
proponent shall submit detailed plans to the
satisfaction of the City of Visalia. The components of
the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be
monitored for effectiveness by the City of Visalia.
Erosion control measures may include, but not be
limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation
disturbance removal to the minimum area
necessary for access and construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with
construction to the right-of-way of designated
access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to
avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high
winds;
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with
temporary drainage and soil protection when
construction activity is shut down during the
winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to
construction and periodically during
construction activities of environmental
concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and
elements of the proposed erosion control
measures.
MM GEO-3: In the event a fossil is discovered during
construction performed in connection with project
development, the relevant project
developer/contractor shall cease ground-disturbing
In the event of a find,
then subject project
sponsor to provide to
City of Visalia project
Promptly upon a find
during construction
activities of subject
City of Visalia Project applicant
489
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 30 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
activities within 15 feet of the find. The qualified
Paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the
resources and recommend appropriate treatment
measures which shall be implemented by the
relevant applicant. In addition, all recovered fossils
should be deposited in an appropriate repository,
such as the University of California Museum of
Paleontology, located on the campus of the
University of California, Berkeley, where they will be
properly curated and made accessible for future
study.
plans to verify mitigation
measure is incorporated
into plans.
individual specific
development proposal.
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM GHG-2a: Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in
connection with an individual specific development
proposal, the City of Visalia shall confirm that the
subject proposal has been designed to include the
following: The building shall be designed to include
a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with
2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy
Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system
shall be sized based on calculations provided in
Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which
includes a number of factors such as the amount of
conditioned space. Unconditioned buildings, except
unoccupied or unused first-time tenant
improvement spaces do not need to be part of the
solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to
have a solar PV system pursuant to this MM GHG-2a
must also have a battery storage system.
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia site plans to verify
incorporation of solar
photovoltaic system.
Prior to issuance of the
first building permit for
subject individual
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM GHG-2b: Warehouse usage shall be limited to
dry storage. If the warehouse is used for cold
If required due to cold
storage, subject project
Prior to the issuance of the
occupancy permit for
City of Visalia Project applicant
490
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 31 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
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.
sponsor to submit
reasonable document to
City of Visalia to confirm
lease agreements include
TRUs be plug-in capable.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to verify
same.
subject individual
development proposal.
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Material
MM HAZ-1
(a) Any known wells on the project site shall be
delineated on an engineered site plan with a
minimum 10-foot radius no build area.
(b) In the event that any abandoned or unrecorded
wells are uncovered or damaged during
excavation or grading activities, all work shall
cease in the vicinity of the well, and the
California Department of Conservation Geologic
Energy Management (CalGEM), shall be
contacted for requirements and approval;
copies of said approvals shall be submitted to
the City of Visalia Planning and Community
Preservation Department. CalGEM may
determine that remedial plugging operations
may be required.
(c) The following note shall appear on all final maps
and grading plans: “If during grading or
construction, any plugged and abandoned or
unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged,
If required due to
presence of wells,
subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia site plans, as well
as copies of any
approvals required under
applicable laws and
regulations.
If known well, then
documentation to be
provided on site plan, to
occur prior to the issuance
of any grading permits.
Promptly upon discovery
of abandoned or
unrecorded well during
excavation or grading
activities.
City of Visalia Project applicant
491
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 32 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
CalGEM will be contacted to inspect and
approve any remediation required.
3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
MM HYD-3: Implement MM GEO-2. Refer to MM GEO-2 Refer to MM GEO-2 Refer to MM GEO-2
Project applicant
3.12 Noise
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 of Visalia Planning and
Community Preservation Department that
demonstrates that the design and operations of
a proposed drive-through car wash would not
result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal
Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise
limits for residential land uses. The study shall
evaluate factors such as:
• The location and orientation of noisegenerating equipment, such as dryer blowers and vacuums.
• The location and orientation of the drivethrough 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
Subject project sponsor
to submit for review and
approval to City of Visalia
the required in-depth
acoustical study, as well
as site plans to verify
incorporation of design
features or reduction
measures.
Prior to the issuance of
building permit for a drivethrough car wash.
City of Visalia Project applicant
492
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 33 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
reduction measures to reduce any identified
operational noise impact to meet applicable
noise performance criteria. These reduction
measures shall be included on all relevant plans,
specifications, and other permitting documents.
Measures and design features may include, but
are not limited to the following:
• Locating the car wash facility further away
from sensitive receptors, therefore reducing
its noise impacts at nearby residential land
uses.
• Orienting the facility so that the carwash exit
(where the drying blowers would be located)
is located facing away from nearby residential
land uses.
• Providing sound blankets to hang around the
edge of the carwash exit tunnel to help shield
the dryer blower noise.
• Locating the dryer blowers further inside the
car wash tunnel to help shield the dryer
blower noise.
• Providing screening, such as a structure or
sound wall, to shield the carwash exit where
the dryer blowers would be located from
nearby residential land uses.
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
If required due to
potential noise-related
conflict, then subject
project sponsor to
submit to City of Visalia
the required acoustical
analysis, as well as site
plans to verify
Prior to issuance of
building permit for
proposed use that could
result in noise-related
conflict.
City of Visalia Project applicant
493
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 34 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
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.
incorporation of any
required design features
or reduction measures.
494
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 35 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
3.14 Transportation
MM TRANS-1: Prior to the issuance of building
permits, the project shall comply with the City’s
Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and dedicate 28
feet for a pedestrian trail along the south side of
Modoc Ditch.
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia construction plans
to verify compliance with
ATP and offer of
dedication.
Prior to the issuance of the
first building permit for
relevant individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM TRANS-2: Prior to the issuance of building
permits, the developer shall appropriate Storm
Drainage and Waterways impact fees.
Subject project sponsor
to provide reasonable
documentation to City of
Visalia to verify payment
of impact fees required
for subject individual
specific development
proposal.
Prior to the issuance of the
building permit for each
individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM TRANS-3: Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue: Prior
to occupancy of Phase 2, the proposed project shall
provide site plans that show modification of the
raised median to extend the existing westbound
left-turn pocket by 100 feet, to provide a 400-foot
left-turn pocket. The existing northbound right-turn
stripe shall be extended to 300 feet. These
improvements shall occur when construction of the
proposed project’s Phase 2 846,920 square feet is
complete, as shown in the table included in this MM
TRANS-3. The project proponent shall be financially
responsible for these improvements. “Financially
responsible” shall equate to implementing the
project as well as paying for the project.
Subject project sponsor
to provide City of Visalia
with site plans to show
required modification.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to confirm
installation of required
improvements.
For provision of site plan,
to occur prior to the
issuance of Phase 2
grading permits.
Completion is required
prior to issuance of Phase
2 occupancy permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
495
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 36 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
Project
Phase
Total
Constructed
Square Feet
per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1
and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3,
4, and 7)
Gas Station/Convenience
Market (with 12 vehicle
fueling stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with
Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5,
6, and 8)
Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV
parking)
MM TRANS-4: Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue: Prior
to occupancy of Phase 1, the proposed project shall
provide dual northbound left-turn pockets (300-foot
minimum) and a 300-foot minimum southbound
left-turn pocket. Since a 300-foot eastbound rightturn pocket would already be installed by the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project, additional
recommendations are not proposed. These
improvements shall occur when construction of the
proposed project’s Phase 1 1,864,680 square feet is
complete, as shown in the table included in this MM
TRANS-4. The project’s contribution into the
Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) will assist in paying
for these improvements.
Subject project sponsor
to provide City of Visalia
with site plans to verify
incorporation of required
improvements, as well as
reasonable
documentation to verify
payment of applicable
TIF fees for subject
individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to confirm
Commencement of
construction to occur prior
to issuance Phase 1
grading permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
496
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 37 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
Project
Phase
Total
Constructed
Square Feet
per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1
and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3,
4, and 7)
Gas Station/Convenience
Market (with 12 vehicle
fueling stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with
Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5,
6, and 8)
Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV
parking)
installation of required
improvements.
MM TRANS-5: Shirk Street and Ferguson Avenue:
Prior to the issuance of final occupancy of any
project area, the proposed project shall signalize the
intersection, subject to pro rata cost sharing with
the adjacent Carlton Acres Specific Plan project. This
improvement would allow the intersection to
operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for
the deficient scenarios, while reducing the vehicles
queues for all intersection turn pockets below the
storage capacity. Costs of implementing MM
TRANS-5 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres
Specific Plan (CASP) and the proposed project as it
provides access to both sites.
Subject project sponsor
to provide City of Visalia
with site plans to verify
incorporation of required
improvements.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to confirm
installation of required
improvements
To be completed prior to
the issuance of Phase 1
occupancy permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
497
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 38 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
MM TRANS-6: Roeben Street and Ferguson Avenue:
Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 3,
the proposed project shall make a 26.2 percent fair
share contribution toward signalizing this
intersection. Based on the estimated signalization
and interconnect cost of $500,000, the proposed
project shall contribute up to $131,000 for these
future improvements.
Subject project sponsor
to provide reasonable
documentation of
required payment.
Prior to issuance of Phase
3 occupancy permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM TRANS-7: Akers Street and Riggin Avenue: The
proposed project shall provide an additional
northbound left-turn pocket and through lane and
provide an additional eastbound/westbound
through lane. Costs of implementing MM TRANS-7
are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific
Plan (CASP), the proposed project, and others as it
provides access to multiple sites under
development.
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia site plans to verify
incorporation of required
improvements.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to confirm
installation of required
improvements.
To be completed prior to
issuance of Phase 1
occupancy permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM TRANS-8: Akers Street and Ferguson Avenue:
The proposed project shall provide an additional
northbound/southbound through lane and rightturn pocket (150-foot minimum) and provide an eastbound right-turn pocket (150-foot minimum).
Costs of implementing MM TRANS-8 are expected
to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP)
and the proposed project as it provides access to
both sites.
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia site plans to verify
incorporation of required
improvements.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to confirm
installation of required
improvements.
To be completed prior to
issuance of Phase 2
occupancy permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM TRANS-9: Akers Street and Goshen Avenue:
The proposed project shall modify the raised
median to extend the existing southbound left-turn
pocket to 400 feet. It is not recommended to exceed
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia site plans to verify
incorporation of required
To be completed prior to
issuance of Phase 2
occupancy permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
498
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 39 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
this length further in order to maintain access to the
existing driveway north of the intersection. The
existing southbound right-turn stripe shall be
extended to 400 feet minimum. Costs of
implementing MM TRANS-9 are expected to be
shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) and the
proposed project as it provides access to both sites.
improvements.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to confirm
installation of required
improvements.
MM TRANS-10a: Prior to the issuance of building
permits, the site plan shall include the location of
up to six secured bicycle storage lockers near each
of the buildings entrances and the future transit
stop. Up to 10 potential locations shall be included,
for a total of up to 60 lockers throughout the site.
Lockers shall be provided for approximately 1.5
percent of the 4,178 site’s daily employees with
flexibility to add future lockers based on demand.
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia site plans to verify
incorporation of required
improvements.
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for each
individual specific
development proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM TRANS-10b: Prior to final occupancy of any
portion of Phase 1, the developer shall construct a
bike path along Modoc Ditch, between Kelsey Street
and Shirk Street (approximately 1 mile). The existing
Class I bike path along Modoc ditch runs to the east
of the proposed project, between Dinuba Boulevard
and the St. John’s River Trail. The Carlton Acres
Specific Plan (CASP) project also proposed to
construct a portion of the Class I path within the
site. Therefore, the bike path shall connect to a new
path proposed within the CASP site and future
segments to the east and west. This mitigation is
subject to contractability and approval by the
Modoc Ditch Company.
Subject project sponsor
to provide to City of
Visalia site plans to verify
incorporation of required
improvements.
City of Visalia to conduct
site inspection to confirm
installation of required
improvements.
Prior to issuance of Phase
1 first occupancy permit.
City of Visalia Project applicant
MM TRANS-11: Prior to the issuance of
construction permits, the project developer shall
Subject project sponsor
to submit to City of
Prior to the issuance of
grading street
City of Visalia Project applicant
499
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 40 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control
Plan to the City of Visalia for approval and
implement the approved Construction Traffic
Control Plan during construction. The Construction
Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance
with both the California Department of
Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook
and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following issues:
a. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and
building materials;
b. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
c. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic
control devices if required, including, but not
limited to, appropriate signage along access
routes to indicate the presence of heavy
vehicles and construction traffic;
d. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the
project site;
e. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying
traffic during materials delivery, transmission
line stringing activities, or any other utility
connections;
f. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and,
g. Specifying both construction-related vehicle
travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing
construction traffic during the AM and PM
peak-hour, distributing construction traffic flow
across alternative routes to access the project
sites, and avoiding residential neighborhoods to
the maximum extent feasible.
Visalia Traffic Control
Plan for review and
approval.
improvement permits for
each individual specific
development proposal in
Phases 1, 2, and 3.
500
City of Visalia
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 41 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Completion Party Responsible
for Implementing
Date Initial Mitigation
3.15 Utilities and Service Systems
MM UTIL 1: Debris and waste generated shall be
recycled to the extent feasible.
The provisions listed below shall apply to the
project during construction activities in connection
with project development.
a. An on-site Recycling Coordinator shall be
designated by the project proponent/contractor
to facilitate recycling.
b. The Recycling Coordinator shall facilitate
recycling of all construction waste through
coordination with contractors, local waste
haulers, and/or other facilities that recycle
construction/demolition wastes.
c. The on-site Recycling Coordinator shall also be
responsible for ensuring wastes requiring
special disposal are handled according to State
and County regulations that are in effect at the
time of disposal.
d. Contact information of the coordinator shall be
provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance
of building permits.
e. The project proponent/operator shall provide a
storage area for recyclable materials within the
fenced project area that is clearly identified for
recycling. This area shall be maintained on the
site during construction and operations. A site
plan showing the recycling storage area shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of any grading
or building permit for the site.
Subject project sponsor
to provide reasonable
documentation to City of
Visalia to verify retention
of a Recycling
Coordinator, and site
plans demonstrating a
recycling storage area.
During construction
activities of each individual
specific development
proposal.
City of Visalia Project applicant
501
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
502
Resolution No. 2025-10
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-10
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION NO. 2024-03: A REQUEST TO ANNEX THREE PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF VISALIA. THE ANNEXATION REQUEST
INCLUDES AUTHORIZING THE DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY
SERVICE AREA NO. 1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY
REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
AND ENTER INTO A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES,
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIGGIN AVENUE BETWEEN SHIRK STREET AND KELSEY STREET. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006)
WHEREAS, the project proponents approve to initiate proceedings for annexation to said city of territory described on the attached legal description and annexation map included as Exhibit “A” of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the proponent desires to annex said territory to the City of Visalia for the following reasons: 1) The annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; 2) The annexation will facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and 3) The annexation will provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands and subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzburg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 3 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the appendices thereto (collectively, the “Draft EIR”) for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, which considered impacts from Annexation No. 2024-03, was released on April 11, 2024, for circulation for a period of 45 days, ending on May 28, 2024; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR was released on January 17, 2025; for purposes herein, the “Final EIR” consists of the Draft EIR and the revisions of, and additions to, the Draft 503
Resolution No. 2025-10
EIR; the written comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; the written responses of the City of Visalia to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; errata to the foregoing; and other information included by the City of Visalia as detailed more fully therein and as specified in the record; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required that, in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identified one or more significant effects, the decision making body makes certain findings regarding those effects, which in full are contained in Resolution No. 2025-09 pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR prepared for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did review this proposal and hold a public hearing on February 10, 2025, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a ten (10) day published notice was given, and at the public hearing for March 3, 2025, the public hearing was withdrawn and planned for re-noticing on March 17, 2025 in order to also consider an appeal related to the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after a 10 day published notice, reviewed this proposal and held a public hearing on March 17, 2025, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia finds that Final EIR for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658, was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia initiates proceedings for Annexation No. 2024-03, and makes the following specific findings with regards to the project:
1. That the Annexation is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re-designate approximately 280 acres of AE-40 (Agricultural Exclusive 40-acre) County zone district to Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zone, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.
3. That the parcel is located within an Agricultural Preserve and a Land Conservation Contract, for which a Notice of Non-Renewal has been filed, and which has been approved for Tentative Cancellation by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors subject to the payment of a penalty fee.
504
Resolution No. 2025-10
4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.
5. That this Annexation is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final EIR (SCH# 2022080658) and for which said Final EIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to City Council’s consideration of this Annexation request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia initiates proceedings of the Annexation described in Exhibit “A” of Resolution No. 2025-10, subject to the following conditions:
1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zone, consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations as proposed through the General Plan Amendment.
2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Exhibit “B” of Resolution No. 2025-10. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
3. That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.
4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.
PASSED AND ADOPTED: March 17, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.
CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2025-10 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2025.
Dated: March 18, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
505
Resolution No. 2025-10
Exhibit “A” of Resolution No. 2025-10
Annexation legal description and map
506
Resolution No. 202
5-10
507
Resolution No. 2025-10
Exhibit “B” of Resolution No. 2025-10
Pre-Annexation Agreement
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of ________, 20___, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City”) and Jeffrey B.
Ritchie Family Limited Partners (hereinafter “Owner”). City and Owner are sometimes each individually referred to herein as a “party” and collectively as the “parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of the property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and WHEREAS, Owner desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as Light Industrial (I-L) and Industrial (I), as set forth in Chapter 17.22, where the designation would permit the Property to be used for industrial uses and associated improvements (the “Project”). The Project includes all required City-issued discretionary land use approvals necessary for Owner’s use of the Project in accordance with the contemplated Prezoning (defined below); and
WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 280 acres, and is an uninhabited annexation; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for a Resolution of Application to the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) to initiate proceedings as may be required for the City’s annexation of the Property; and WHEREAS, the City has, on March 17, 2025 adopted a Resolution of Application (City Resolution No. 2024-10) (the “Resolution”) requesting LAFCO to initiate proceedings to annex the Property to the City; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2004, the City Council of City adopted a General Plan Maintenance Fee effective June 21, 2004; and
WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings, California Land Conservation Act (hereinafter, the “Williamson Act”) issues may arise which may require indemnification of the LAFCO, the County of Tulare, and City and may therefore be required of Owner herein; and WHEREAS, the Resolution requires entry into this Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to LAFCO to commence the proposed annexation; and 508
Resolution No. 2025-10
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that, during the term of this Agreement, the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, provided the Property has first been finally annexed to the City, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the parties; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
WHEREAS, unless otherwise set forth herein, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by City of any tax, fee, or charge.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals and the following Covenants, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
I. AGREEMENT IN GENERAL
A. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are the City and Owner.
B. Incorporation of Recitals. The parties confirm and incorporate the foregoing Recitals into this Agreement.
C. Purpose/Limits of Agreement. A specific purpose of this Agreement is to set forth specific terms and conditions of annexation of the Property to City.
II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION;
PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
Generally, each party to this Agreement is benefited and burdened by detachment from the County and annexation to the City. Owner will obtain a variety of services from City (including but not limited to potable water, sewer and storm water drainage and treatment, police, and fire services), and City will obtain additional tax revenues. City has adopted ordinances, regulations, and policies concerning design, improvement, construction, development and use of property within the City. Unless otherwise set forth herein, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by City of any tax or fee. One purpose of this Agreement is to spell out additional conditions to which Owner will be subject following annexation and prior to development within the City due to the burden placed on City by Owner’s desired annexation:
A. Water Acquisition Policy: Although City’s current water service provider, California Water Service, continues to issue will-serve letters, City’s Council is aware of the steadily decreasing level of water in the City’s underground water aquifers and has 509
Resolution No. 2025-10
determined that increasing development is contributing to this serious problem.
Therefore, City’s Council has studied the issue and investigated possible solutions in order that it may continue to assure citizens that there will be water available to serve the community’s needs. City’s Council is actively engaged in water replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and it has adopted a policy, as set forth in Chapter 16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexation and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order to serve new development that comes with annexation, including development of the Property (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owner agrees that, at the time that LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property with potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owner’s reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owner complies with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owner agrees that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owner’s knowledge, have been used by Owner or its agents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to convey such rights, if any, to City. City shall cooperate with Owner in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owner further agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owner owns that may be in addition to those required to meet Owner’s obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that water rights need not be conveyed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more parcel maps or final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such water rights conveyance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final parcel or subdivision map, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final parcel or subdivision map covering the Property.
B. General Plan Maintenance Fee: On June 21, 2004, the City adopted (by Resolution 2004- 63, as corrected) a General Plan Maintenance Fee. Owner agrees that, at the time LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee and no post-annexation 510
Resolution No. 2025-10
permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more final parcel or subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final parcel or subdivision map, with payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final parcel or subdivision map covering the Property. Owner’s satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owner’s obligations related to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.
C. Williamson Act: Williamson Act Indemnification: Occasionally property to be annexed is burdened with Williamson Act contract(s). In such event, the following apply:
i.) Indemnification: Occasionally property to be annexed is burdened with contract(s) entered into pursuant to the Williamson Act which the City may succeed to and administer if the annexation is completed. In some events, the owners of land subject to a Williamson Act contract desire to cancel said contract(s). Specific statutory findings must be made in order to cancel said contract, as required by the Williamson Act. In the event of an Owner-initiated request for cancellation of Williamson Act contracts which burden land subject to this Agreement, Owner agrees to concurrently enter into an agreement to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, and agents, from and against any and all third-party claims, demands, or damages arising from its decision with respect to such cancellation request regardless of the date the cancellation request is made or initiated. The indemnification agreement contemplated by this Section II(C) shall also provide that Owner may, to the extent permitted by law, participate in any legal proceedings contemplated by this Section II(C) as a real party in interest, with legal counsel of Owner’s choosing.
D. Future Development Impact Fees: The Owner hereby acknowledges that the City may, from time to time, adopt additional development impact fees at some time in the future after annexation of the Property. The Owner hereby agrees that, in the event that the City adopts an ordinance imposing a development impact fee, in accordance with applicable legal requirements, prior to issuance of a vesting project approval for development of any portion of the Property, Owner will be subject to the requirements of such citywide development impact fee program to the extent applicable at the time Owner seeks a vesting project approval for a project on the Property. This provision is not intended to retroactively subject the Property to additional annexation-related fees that may be adopted in the future.
E. Prezoning. City agrees to promptly process and, after City completes and adopts its environmental review, consider Owner’s application to prezone the Property, as required 511
Resolution No. 2025-10
by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act’s prezoning requirements. The Light Industrial (I-L) and Industrial (I) zoning designations is the adopted prezoning for the Properties, in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapters 17.22, and Section 17.06.050(A), which section states that all territory which is annexed into the City shall be classified to the zone as indicated on the Visalia General Plan land use map, as adopted by the City (the “Prezoning”). The I-L and I zoning designations permit warehouses and other land uses, as specified by the City of Visalia Municipal Code. The I-L and I zoning designations also permits the continuing operation of agricultural land uses presently on the Property as a legally-existing “nonconforming use,” as further defined and regulated by Chapter 17.40 of the Visalia Municipal Code. The parties acknowledge that, if the Property is annexed to the City, a portion of such Property may be subject to one or more Williamson Act contracts. The Parties agree, and the prezoning shall specify, that, upon annexation, such contracted Property shall only be used in a manner that is compatible with the relevant Williamson Act contract(s) until such time as such contract(s) expire, terminate, or are cancelled in accordance with the Williamson Act. The Parties further agree, and the prezoning shall specify, that all urban uses permitted by the I-L and I zoning designations shall automatically be permitted on those portions of the Property subject to a Williamson Act contract upon the expiration, termination, or cancellation of such contract. Upon execution of this Agreement, City shall use its best efforts to (i) promptly complete its environmental review of the Project and consider its adoption thereof, and (ii) complete its preparation of the proposed prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E) and consider its approval thereof. If City approves the prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E), the terms and conditions of such prezoning shall be included in City’s application to LAFCO for the annexation of the Property to City, which application shall promptly be submitted to LAFCO by City.
F. Plan For Providing Services. The parties agree to cooperate in, and to take such actions as may be necessary to ensure, the diligent preparation of a Plan For Providing Services to the Property, to be submitted to LAFCO along with City’s annexation application, in accordance with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requirements.
G. Development Impact Fees: The Owner shall pay all applicable development impact fees for any subsequent development on the Property at the time that building permits are issued, or prior to issuance of final occupancy, if applicable, or at the time that a final map is recorded, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, or as may be required by ordinance, including but not limited to an ordinance that adopts a Development Agreement between Owner and City under Government Code section 65864 et. seq. and Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.60, which would include sections concerning the timing and payment of applicable development impact fees that would apply to Project. A list and amount of development impact fees can be located in the City’s current version of the Development Fee Schedule.
III. PROPERTY ZONING
Owner acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement shall not limit City’s authority to exercise the full range of its legislative and police powers with respect to development and use of the 512
Resolution No. 2025-10
Property in a manner consistent with this Agreement. Notwithstanding such authority, and provided Owner complies with the requirements of this Agreement, City agrees that the Property shall continue to be designated under the Visalia General Plan land use map for Light Industrial and Industrial land uses, and zoned Light Industrial (I-L) and Industrial (I), as set forth in Chapter 17.22 of the Visalia Municipal Code, during the term of this Agreement, unless otherwise consented to in writing by Owner. The ongoing agricultural use of the Property shall be permitted as a legal nonconforming use for the term of this Agreement in a manner consistent with Chapter 17.40 of the Visalia Municipal Code. Except as expressly set forth herein, neither this paragraph nor any portion of this Agreement shall be construed to protect the Property against changes in City policies, rules, regulations or conditions of development, including but not limited to permitted uses within the indicated zone or development impact fees, which would otherwise be applicable to the Property.
IV. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall become effective when fully executed by the parties hereto (the “Effective Date”) and continue for a period of twenty (20) years. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if either (a) the annexation proceedings are terminated for any reason; or (b) the completion of the annexation (recordation of a Certificate of Completion) does not occur on or before two (2) years from the Effective Date, which two (2) year period shall be extended in the event of an “Excusable Delay,” as such events are contemplated by subsection VII(O) of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the forgoing, Owner or its successors shall have the right, upon ten (10) day’s prior written notice to City, to terminate this Agreement prior to LAFCO’s issuance of a Certificate of Completion of the annexation (and the running of all applicable statutes of limitations related thereto) if it determines in its sole discretion that it is in its best interest to do so, and, in such event, City agrees to withdraw the Resolution then pending before LAFCO.
V. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT
In the event of breach or default of any term, condition, covenant or obligation of this Agreement by either party, the other party may exercise any rights available at law or in equity, including an action for specific performance, damages, or other injunctive relief, and all such remedies shall be cumulative. This Agreement shall be enforceable, unless lawfully terminated or cancelled, by any party to the Agreement or any party’s successor in interest, notwithstanding any subsequent changes in any applicable law adopted by the City which alters or amends the laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules or policies frozen by this Agreement.
VI. INDEMNIFICATION
Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all claims, demands, or damages including reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of this Agreement or its operation, or with any other annexation action or other action reasonably determined necessary by the City in order to effectuate the annexation of Owner’s property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement.
513
Resolution No. 2025-10
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Binding Effect/Covenants to Run With Land. The Parties hereto agree to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.
B. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld).
C. Authorized Signatory. The individuals executing this Agreement, by their signature hereto, declare that they are authorized to, and have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
D. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery to City, or Owner, as the case may be, three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:
To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
425 East Oak Ave., Suite 301
Visalia, CA 93291
With Copy to: Ken Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson Law Corporation
3746 W. Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
To Owner: Jeffrey B. Ritchie Family Limited Partners
Attn: Larry J. Ritchie
11878 Avenue 328
Visalia, CA 93291
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
E. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owner as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect. The parties intend this paragraph to be a conclusive recital of fact pursuant to Section 622 of the California Evidence Code. This Agreement is intended to be a final expression of the agreement of the parties and is an integrated agreement within the meaning of Section 1856 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. This Agreement 514
Resolution No. 2025-10
was jointly drafted by the parties.
F. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of both parties. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or their successors in interest. City’s city manager may execute any such amendment on City’s behalf, although the city manager retains the discretion to refer such matters to the City Council.
G. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.
H. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as provided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.
I. Conflict With Laws or Regulations/Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
J. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
K. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any questions arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. This Agreement was executed in Tulare County, California, and venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California.
L. Attorneys Fees. In the event either party commences any action or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including reasonable attorneys fees, court costs incurred in the action brought thereon.
M. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of City. City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making City and Owner joint venturers or partners.
515
Resolution No. 2025-10
N. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance. In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, thirdparty litigation or other legal challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time.
O. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions set forth herein.
516
Resolution No. 2025-10
P. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.
CITY
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Leslie Caviglia, City Manager
Attest:
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Ken Richardson, City Attorney
OWNER
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Larry J. Ritchie
517
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE SHIRK AND RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT (“PROJECT”) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO SAID AGREEMENT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIGGIN AVENUE BETWEEN SHIRK STREET AND KELSEY STREET. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006) WHEREAS, the developer of the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project (“Project”) desires, in accordance with the authority given under Government Code Section 65864 et. seq., to enter into a development agreement pertaining to the Project.
The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006); and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report and appendices attached thereto (collectively, the “Draft EIR”) for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, which considered the Project and an associated Development Agreement, was released on April 11, 2024, for circulation for a period of 45 days, ending on May 28, 2024; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR was released on January 17, 2025; for purposes herein, the “Final EIR” consists of the Draft EIR and the revisions of, and additions to, the Draft EIR; the written comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; the written responses of the City of Visalia to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; errata to the foregoing; and other information included by the City of Visalia as detailed more fully therein and as specified in the record; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required that, in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identified one or more significant effects, the decision making body makes certain findings regarding those effects, which in full are contained in Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2025-09 pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR prepared for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did review this proposal and held a public hearing on February 10, 2025, and found the Development Agreement for the Project to be in accordance with the Visalia Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.60 based on evidence contained in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia adopted Resolution No. 2025-07 recommending approval of the Development Agreement for the Project; and, WHEREAS, a ten (10) day published notice was given, and at the public hearing for March 3, 2025, the public hearing was withdrawn and planned for re-noticing on March 17, 2025 in order to also consider an appeal related to the Project; and, 518
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-02
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten (10) days published notice, held a 1st reading and public hearing for the Development Agreement for the Project on March 17, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia finds that the Development Agreement for the Project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 17.60 of the Municipal Code of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia finds that Final EIR for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658, was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia approves the Development Agreement for the Project, subject to making the following findings pursuant to Section 17.60.030 for development agreements based on the evidence presented:
1. That the proposed development agreement is consistent with the relevant objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and/or any proposed amendment to the general plan or applicable specific plan submitted simultaneously and in conjunction with the proposed development agreement, in each case as detailed in materials in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the Final EIR. The agreement speaks toward the development and operation of the project by the developer in a manner that is consistent with applicable city law in accordance with phasing and the payment of fees as described therein. No specific plans are applicable to the project.
2. That the proposed development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located. The development is predicated upon the project’s underlying General Plan land use designation of Industrial and Light Industrial, and the corresponding prezoning of Industrial and Light Industrial that is detailed and confirmed in the project’s Pre-Annexation Agreement.
3. That the proposed development agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. As stated in Recital J of the Agreement, it eliminates or reduces uncertainty regarding project approvals, including the subsequent approvals, thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to the contemplated uses and development of the property as envisioned by the project.
4. That the proposed development agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The City has made the findings, in connection with the project’s entitlements and environmental analysis as required under California Environmental Quality Act, regarding the project as it relates to public health, safety and general welfare, based upon its compliance with the applicable policies and provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and project mitigation measures.
This development agreement does not enact terms beyond the scope of the project that would put at risk any public health, safety, and general welfare. 519
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-02
5. That the proposed development agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The development agreement reinforces the project phasing as described in Section 5.1 and addresses any potential default against a mortgage lien in Section 8.1.
6. That this Development Agreement is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final EIR (SCH# 2022080658) and for which said Final EIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the City Council’s consideration of this Development Agreement request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia authorizes entering into a Development Agreement, as depicted per attached Exhibit “A”, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.60.030 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia.
PASSED AND ADOPTED: BRETT TAYLOR, MAYOR
ATTEST: ___________________________
LESLIE CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK APPROVED BY CITY ATTORNEY
___________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.
CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Ordinance 2025-02 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2025, and certify a summary of this ordinance will be published in the Visalia Times Delta.
Dated: March 18, 2025 LESLIE CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
520
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-02
EXHIBIT “A” OF ORDINANCE NO. 2025-02,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO THE SHIRK AND RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO SAID AGREEMENT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA:
Section 1: The following Development Agreement is hereby authorized to be entered into by the City of Visalia.
521
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Visalia
Attn: Visalia City Clerk
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
RECORDING FEE EXEMPT
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
§§ 6103 and 27383
522
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF VISALIA, SEEFRIED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC., LARRY J. RITCHIE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND JEFFREY B. RITCHIE FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
(Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project)
523
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF PREAMBLE, RECITALS AND EXHIBITS........................4 SECTION 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS. ....................................................................................4 SECTION 3. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. ...........................................................................8
3.1. Effective Date. .....................................................................................................8
3.2. Term of Agreement. .............................................................................................8
3.3. Effect of Termination............................................................................................8 SECTION 4. STANDARDS, LAWS, AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................8
4.1. Vested Right to Develop the Project.....................................................................8
4.2. Rules, Regulations and Policies Governing Development and Operation of the Project. ....................................................................................................9
4.3. Developer’s Application for Non-City Permits, Entitlements and Approvals........12
4.4. Processing Subsequent Approvals ....................................................................12
4.5. Compliance with CEQA......................................................................................12
4.6. Life of Project Approvals ....................................................................................12
4.7. Timing of Development ......................................................................................12
4.8. Potable Water and Wastewater Service.............................................................13 SECTION 5. DEVELOPER’S OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY..........................................................................13
5.1. Phasing of Project Development........................................................................13
5.2. Required Project Infrastructure Generally ..........................................................13
5.3. General Construction and Security Obligations..................................................13
5.4. Inspection and Acceptance of Improvements.....................................................14 SECTION 6. FEES AND OTHER PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS.................................................15
6.1. Regulatory Processing Fees ..............................................................................15
6.2. Impact Fees .......................................................................................................15 SECTION 7. PERIODIC COMPLIANCE REVIEW; NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE.....................15
7.1. Periodic Compliance Review..............................................................................15
7.2. Notice of Compliance.........................................................................................16 SECTION 8. DEFAULT, RIGHTS TO CURE AND WAIVERS; LEGAL ACTIONS; RIGHTS AND REMEDIES; EXCUSED DELAY; MORTGAGE HOLDER
RIGHTS. ............................................................................................................16
8.1. Default and Cure; Dispute Resolution ................................................................16
8.2. Legal Actions .....................................................................................................17
8.3. Rights and Remedies: Cumulative Nature .........................................................18 524
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
ii
8.4. Excused Delay: Extension of Times of Performance.........................................18
8.5. Rights of Mortgage Holders of Approved Security Interests in the Property .......19 SECTION 9. TERMINATION. .................................................................................................21
9.1. Termination Upon Completion of Project or Expiration of Term..........................21
9.2. Termination Due to Default ................................................................................21
9.3. Termination by Mutual Consent .........................................................................21
9.4. Documentation of Termination ...........................................................................21 SECTION 10. PARTICIPATION IN THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION; INDEMNITY. .......................21
10.1. In General..........................................................................................................21
10.2. Developer Indemnification in the Event of Third-Party Litigation.........................22
10.3. Cooperation in the Event of Third-Party Litigation ..............................................22
10.4. Defense Election................................................................................................22
10.5. Processing During Third Party Litigation ............................................................23 SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION; RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MORTGAGEES. ................................................................................................23
11.1. Assignment of Rights, Interests and Obligations ................................................23
11.2. Assumption of Rights, Interests and Obligations ................................................24 SECTION 12. GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................................................................24
12.1. Independent Contractors....................................................................................24
12.2. Severability of Provisions ...................................................................................24
12.3. Further Documents; Other Necessary Acts........................................................24
12.4. Time of Essence ................................................................................................24
12.5. Amendments......................................................................................................24
12.6. Project Is A Private Undertaking ........................................................................25
12.7. Covenants Running With The Land ...................................................................25
12.8. Recordation Of Agreement ................................................................................25
12.9. Good Faith and Fair Dealing ..............................................................................25
12.10. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties...........................25
12.11. No Financial Assistance; Prevailing Wage Matters ............................................26
12.12. Interpretation......................................................................................................26
12.13. Venue ...............................................................................................................27
12.14. No Waiver..........................................................................................................27
12.15. Entire Agreement...............................................................................................27 525
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
iii
12.16. Counterparts......................................................................................................27
12.17. No Third Party Beneficiaries ..............................................................................27
12.18. Authority To Execute..........................................................................................27
12.19. Listing And Incorporation Of Exhibits .................................................................27 526
1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF VISALIA AND SEEFRIED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC. (SHIRK AND RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT)
This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Development Agreement” or “Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Visalia (“City”), a municipal corporation and charter city, and Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., a Georgia corporation (“Seefried”), Larry J. Ritchie Family Limited Partnership (“LJR LP”) and Jeffrey B. Ritchie Family Limited Partnership (“JBR LP”), and their respective successors and assigns hereunder (together with Seefried, LJR LP and JBR LP, “Developer”), effective as of ________, 2025 (“Effective Date”). City and Developer may sometimes be referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
A. The Legislature enacted Government Code Section 65864 et seq. (“Development Agreement Statute”) in response to the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects, which can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of development, and discourage investment in and commitment to planning that would maximize the efficient utilization of resources. The Development Agreement Statute is designed to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development. It authorizes a city to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property regarding the development of that property and establishing certain development rights therein.
The Development Agreement Statute also authorizes a city to enter into a development agreement even though the subject property is outside of the city’s municipal limits so long as it is within the city’s sphere of influence (“SOI”).
B. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, City has adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements, which are set forth in the Visalia Municipal Code (“Municipal Code”) Section 17.60 (“City Development Agreement Procedures”). This Development Agreement has been prepared, processed, considered and adopted in accordance with such procedures and the Development Agreement Statute.
C. Developer has a legal or equitable interest in a total of approximately two hundred eighty four (284) acres, located in unincorporated Tulare County and adjacent to City’s municipal boundaries, as more particularly described and depicted on attached Exhibit 1-a and 1-b (“Property”). The Property 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 Property is within City’s Planning Area, its Tier 1 Urban Development Boundary (“UDB”), and its SOI.
D. The Property is designated by the City’s General Plan (“General Plan”) as “Industrial,” “Light Industrial” and “Conservation.” Thus, the Property has long been planned for industrial and light industrial uses as part of City’s land use vision for the Property and vicinity.
E. Developer is seeking to develop a mixed-use industrial park, consisting of a total of eight (8) industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing uses, six (6) flex industrial buildings, two (2) drive-through restaurants, a convenience store, a recreational vehicle (RV) and self-storage facility, a gas station, and a car wash, along with car/trailer parking areas and other related on- and off-site improvements, all as analyzed in the Proiect EIR and as documented in more detail in the Initial Approvals (collectively, “Project”). 527
2 F. The discretionary entitlement process for the Project is subject to compliance with CEQA. To satisfy requirements under CEQA, City, as the lead agency, has caused the preparation of an environmental impact report for the Project (SCN: 2022080658), which consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Final Environmental Impact Report, and all appendices attached thereto (collectively, the “Project EIR”).
G. On _________, 2025, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing (which took place on ____, 2025), the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing. After taking testimony and considering the matter, the City Council closed the public hearing, deliberated, and took the following actions, all of which are subject to LAFCO approval of the proposed annexation to effectuate same (collectively, the “Initial Approvals”):
1. By Resolution No. _____, approved an amendment to the General Plan, changing the land use designation for approximately twenty-one point twelve (21.12) acres of the Property from Light Industrial to Industrial (“General Plan Amendment”).
2. Confirmed that pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code section 17.06.050(A) the territory being annexed shall be classified to a zone that is consistent with the general plan as adopted and amended by the City of Visalia requirements. In addition, City and Developer have entered into a PreAnnexation Agreement, dated [__], 2025 (the “Pre-Annexation Agreement”), that details the prezoning of the Property.
3. Conducted the first reading of Ordinance No._____, an ordinance approving this Development Agreement and directing its execution by City (“DA Ordinance”).
4. By Resolution No. _____, initiated annexation proceedings for the Property (“Resolution to Initiate LAFCO Proceedings”).
5. By Resolution No. _____, approved the Project’s site plan (No. ____) (“SPR Permit Approval”) and tentative parcel map (No. ____) (“TPM Approval”).
6. By Resolution No. _____, approved the Project’s Conditional Use Permit (No. ____) (“CUP Approval”).
In support of the foregoing actions, by Resolution No. _____, and pursuant to and in compliance with the applicable provisions of CEQA, the City Council certified the Project EIR, adopted written findings related thereto, and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) as well as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
H. On _____________, 2025, the City Council conducted the second reading of and adopted the DA Ordinance.
I. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867. As required by Government Code Section 65867.5, City has found that the 528
3 provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in City’s General Plan.
J. For the reasons recited herein, City and Developer have determined that the Project is a development for which this Development Agreement is appropriate. This Development Agreement will eliminate or reduce uncertainty regarding Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals), thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to the contemplated uses and development of the Property as envisioned by the Project. Continued use and development of the Property, as proposed, will provide employment opportunities as well as property and sales tax revenue and related benefits to the Visalia community, thereby achieving the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted.
K. City and Developer now desire to enter into this Development Agreement to provide, among other things, for Developer’s vested right to develop the Project on the Property, along with Developer’s development obligations related thereto, as more particularly set forth herein and in accordance with the Applicable City Law.
L. City finds that this Development Agreement:
1. Will ensure the productive use of the Property and foster orderly growth and quality development in the Visalia community;
2. Will result in City’s receipt of increased property tax and sales tax revenues;
3. Will provide City benefit in the form of increased employment opportunities;
4. Is consistent with the relevant objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
5. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the applicable Industrial, Light Industrial and Open Space zoning districts;
6. Is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice; and
7. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals, which are deemed true and correct and which are incorporated into and made a part of this Development Agreement, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows. 529
4 AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF PREAMBLE, RECITALS AND EXHIBITS.
The Preamble paragraph, Recitals and attached exhibits, and all defined terms contained therein, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference as if set forth in full.
SECTION 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS.
This Development Agreement uses certain terms with initial capital letters that are defined in this Section 2 or elsewhere in this Development Agreement. City and Developer intend to refer to those definitions when the capitalized terms are used in this Development Agreement.
2.1. “Applicable City Law” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.2(a) below.
2.2. “Assignee” has the meaning set forth in Section 11.1 below.
2.3. “Assignment” has the meaning set forth in Section 11.1 below.
2.4. “Assignment Agreement” has the meaning set forth in Section 11.2 below
2.5. “Building Permit” means the document issued by City’s Building Official authorizing the holder to construct a building or other structure, as provided for in the City of Visalia Municipal Code.
2.6. “CEQA” means, collectively, the California Environmental Quality Act set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (Tit. 14 CCR § 15000 et seq.).
2.7. “Certificate of Completion” means the document prepared, executed and recorded by the executive officer of LAFCO and recorded with the County Recorder that confirms the final successful completion of the annexation, pursuant to Government Code sections 56020.5, 57176, and 57200.
2.8. “Certificate of Occupancy” means a final certificate of occupancy issued by City’s Building Official or, if City’s Building Code does not provide for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a particular structure, the functional equivalent thereto, as provided for in the City of Visalia Municipal Code.
2.9. “City” means the City of Visalia, a California municipal corporation and charter city, as set forth in the Preamble.
2.10. “City Council” means the Visalia City Council.
2.11. “City Development Agreement Procedures” has the meaning set forth in Recital B.
2.12. “Planning and Community Preservation Department” means the City’s Planning and Community Preservation Department.
530
5 2.13. “Planning and Community Preservation Director” means the head of Visalia’s Planning and Community Preservation Department.
2.14. “County Recorder” means the Tulare County Recorder, which is responsible, in part, for recording legal documents that determine ownership of real property and other agreements related to real property.
2.15. “DA Ordinance” has the meaning set forth in Recital G(1).
2.16. “Days” means calendar days. If the last day to perform an act under this Development Agreement is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in the State of California, said act may be performed on the next succeeding calendar day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in the State of California and in which City offices are open to the public for business.
2.17. “Developer” shall mean each of Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Larry J. Ritchie Family Limited Partnership (“LJR LP”) and Jeffrey B. Ritchie Family Limited Partnership (“JBR LP”), and their respective owners, officers, principals, partners, directors, managers, members, employees, agents, representatives, successors, and Assignees.
2.18. “Development Agreement” has the meaning set forth in the Preamble.
2.19. “Development Agreement Statute” has the meaning set forth in Recital A.
2.20. “Development Standards” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.1 below.
2.21. “Effective Date” means the date that is thirty (30) days following the adoption of the DA Ordinance approving this Development Agreement. The Effective Date shall be inserted above, where indicated. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865(b), this Agreement shall not become operative until annexation proceedings are completed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations no later than two (2) years from the Effective Date (“Annexation Timing”); provided, however, Developer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to extend the Annexation Timing so long as the application to annex the Property (“Annexation Application”) has been submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) for processing and consideration, with the Annexation Timing being so extended until such time as LAFCO takes action on and approves the Annexation Application and the related Certificate of Completion is prepared, executed and recorded by LAFCO.
2.22. “ENR” means the Engineering News Record (“ENR”) Construction Cost index (overall-California).
2.23. “Exaction(s)” means any exaction(s) that may be imposed by City or other governmental agency as a condition of developing the Project, including, without limitation, requirements for acquisition, dedication or reservation of land; and obligations to construct onsite or off-site public and private infrastructure such as roadways, utilities or other improvements; this is the case whether such exaction(s) constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation measures in connection with environmental review of the Project, or obligations otherwise imposed under applicable laws and regulations. Provided, however, any condition imposed on the Project that meets the definition of an Exaction, but also meets the definition of an “Impact Fee” (as defined in Section 2.25 below) shall be considered an Impact Fee. 531
6 2.24. “Excused Delay” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.4 below.
2.25. “Impact Fee(s)” means any monetary amount(s) charged by City or other governmental or quasi-governmental authority in connection with a Project Approval in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development of the Project on the environment; facilities, services, improvements and/or infrastructure; or other public interests, including, without limitation, any “fee” defined by Government Code Section 66000(b) as well as any fee imposed “in lieu of” an Exaction. Any such monetary amount imposed on the Project that meets the definition of an Impact Fee as well as the definition of an Exaction shall be considered an Impact Fee. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the City Impact Fees in effect on the Effective Date are identified in attached Exhibit 2.
2.26. “Initial Approvals” has the meaning set forth in Recital G.
2.27. “Later Enactment(s)” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.2(c) below.
2.28. “Major Amendment” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.5(b) below.
2.29. “Master Plan Infrastructure” means, collectively, those on-site (i.e., within the Property) and off-site (i.e., not within the Property) improvements that are necessary or desirable to develop the Project, as described more fully in (a) the Project Approvals and (b) the applicable, adopted Citywide infrastructure master plans, and (c) which are not considered NonProgram Improvements for purposes of this Development Agreement. This may include public improvements that under Applicable City Law may be eligible for reimbursement from City. If eligible for reimbursement, Developer and City will enter into a separate “Reimbursement Agreement” to detail the public improvements eligible for reimbursement under Applicable City Law and terms of reimbursement by City to Developer to occur in accordance with Applicable City Law.
2.30. “Minor Amendment” has the meaning set forth in Section 12.5(b) below.
2.31. “Mortgage” means any mortgage, deed of trust, security agreement, sale and lease-back financing, or other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion(s) of the Property and/or any of Developer’s rights under this Development Agreement.
2.32. “Mortgage Holder” means the holder of any Mortgage, and any Assignee of any such Mortgage Holder.
2.33. “MMRP” has the meaning set forth in Recital G.
2.34. “Non-Program Improvements” means, collectively, all improvements and infrastructure necessary or desirable to serve the Project as set forth in the Project Approvals and that do not constitute Master Plan Infrastructure. This may include public improvements that under Applicable City Law are required to be installed by Developer pursuant to the Project Approvals with no reimbursement from City.
2.35. “Notice of Compliance” has the meaning set forth in Section 7.2 below.
2.36. “Notice of Default” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.1 below.
2.37. “Notice of Intent to Terminate” has the meaning set forth in Section 9.2 below. 532
7 2.38. “Party” or “Parties” has the meaning set forth in the Preamble.
2.39. “Periodic Review” has the meaning set forth in Section 7.1 below.
2.40. “Planning Commission” means the Visalia Planning Commission.
2.41. “Project” has the meaning set forth in Recital E.
2.42. “Project Approvals” means, collectively, the Initial Approvals and Subsequent Approvals.
2.43. “Project Infrastructure” means, collectively, the Master Plan Infrastructure and Non-Program Improvements.
2.44. “Property” has the meaning set forth in Recital C.
2.45. “Regulatory Processing Fees” means any and all fees, costs and charges adopted or otherwise imposed by City for the purpose of defraying City’s actual costs incurred or to be incurred in the processing and administration of any form of permit, approval, license, entitlement, or formation of a financing district or mechanism, or any and all costs adopted or otherwise imposed by City for the purpose of defraying City’s actual costs of periodically updating its plans, policies, and procedures, including, without limitation, the fees and charges referred to in Government Code Section 66014.
2.46. “Reimbursement Agreement” means an agreement between City and Developer to detail the terms of any reimbursement from City that Developer may be eligible for under Applicable City Law.
2.47. “Subsequent Approval(s)” means any and all land use, environmental, building, construction and development approvals, entitlements and/or permits that are necessary or desirable to develop and operate the Project on the Property subsequent to the Effective Date, including, without limitation, amendments or other modifications to any Initial Approvals; vacation or abandonment of public right(s) of ways; tentative and/or final subdivision maps, tentative parcel maps, parcel maps, lot line adjustments, and lot mergers; annexation; demolition permits; improvement agreements; infrastructure agreements; sewer and water connection permits; site plan review; conditional use permits; development/design review; Building Permits; demolition permits; grading permits; encroachment permits; Certificates of Occupancy; formation of (or annexation to) financing districts or other financing mechanisms; General Construction Permit coverage; and any amendments thereto (administrative or otherwise).
2.48. “Term” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.2 below.
2.49. “Third-Party Litigation” means the filing of litigation by a third party challenging this Development Agreement and/or other Initial Approval(s) or Subsequent Approval(s) on CEQA or any other grounds.
2.50. “Urban Water Management Plan” means the California Water Service, Visalia District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan adopted by the Cal Water in June 2021. It is noted that under state law California Water Service is required to periodically update the Urban Water Management Plan.
533
8 SECTION 3. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT.
3.1. Effective Date. The rights, duties, and obligations hereunder shall be effective and the Term shall commence on the “Effective Date”, which shall be the effective date of the DA Ordinance.
3.2. Term of Agreement. Subject to Section 2.21 above, this Development Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue in full force and effect thereafter for a period of ten (10) years (“Initial Term”) unless extended pursuant to this Section 3.2 or earlier terminated as provided herein (the term of this Agreement, including the Initial Term and as it may be so extended or terminated, is herein referred to collectively as the “Term”). Within thirty (30) days of Developer’s request, the Term shall be extended once for a period of two (2) years so long as Developer is in compliance in all material respects with its obligations hereunder (“Mandatory Extension”). The City Manager shall have the authority to grant the Mandatory Extension administratively, and no public notice or public hearing shall be required. In addition to the Mandatory Extension, upon Developer’s request, the City Council may agree, in its sole discretion, to further extend the Term for a total of up to three (3) additional years (each, “Discretionary Extension”) so long as consideration of this request takes place at a duly noticed public hearing. In addition to the foregoing, the Term may be further extended at any time before termination by the Parties’ mutual agreement in writing and in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and City’s Development Agreement Procedures.
3.3. Effect of Termination.
(a) Expiration of Term. Following expiration of the Term (which shall include the Mandatory Extension and any mutually agreed upon Discretionary Extension(s)), this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect except for any and all obligations expressly provided for herein that shall survive termination. (b) Survival of Obligations. Upon the expiration or termination of this Development Agreement as provided herein, neither Party shall have any further right or obligation with respect to the Property and the Project under this Development Agreement except for any and all obligations expressly provided for herein that shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 4. STANDARDS, LAWS, AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
4.1. Vested Right to Develop the Project. As of the Effective Date, Developer shall have the vested right to develop and operate the Project on all or portion(s) of the Property in accordance with the Applicable City Law. The overall design, development, construction, and uses of the Project and all Project Infrastructure in connection therewith, including, without limitation, the permitted uses of the Property; the density and intensity of such uses; the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings; the provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the location of public improvements; the general location of public utilities; the construction, installation and extension of public improvements; and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project shall be as set forth in the Applicable City Law (collectively, “Development Standards”). In the event of any inconsistency between this Development Agreement and any Subsequent Approval(s), to the 534
9 fullest extent legally possible, the provisions of this Development Agreement shall prevail and control.
4.2. Rules, Regulations and Policies Governing Development and Operation of the Project.
(a) Applicable City Law. “Applicable City Law” shall consist of, collectively, the rules, regulations and official policies governing the Development Standards applicable to the Project on the Property existing as of the Effective Date, as supplemented and modified by the Initial Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals as and when they are issued, granted or approved, and Later Enactments, all except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement.
(b) Processing Subsequent Approvals with City Generally. The Parties acknowledge that in order to develop the Project, Developer will need to obtain City approval of various Subsequent Approvals. For each such Subsequent Approval, Developer shall file an application with City for the Subsequent Approval at issue in accordance with the Applicable City Law, and shall pay the applicable Regulatory Processing Fees in connection therewith. City shall diligently and expeditiously process each such application in accordance with the Applicable City Law, and shall exercise any discretion City has related thereto in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein, this Development Agreement does not restrict City’s exercise of its police powers, and City reserves those powers to itself. By approving the Initial Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its authority in considering any application for a discretionary Subsequent Approval for the Project to change the policy decisions reflected by the Initial Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project as set forth in the Initial Approvals and herein. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions.
(c) No Conflict with Vested Rights. City, or its electorate through adoption of initiative(s), may adopt new or modified rules, regulations and policies after the Effective Date (each, a “Later Enactment” and, collectively Later Enactments”); provided, however, any such Later Enactment(s) shall be applicable to the Project on the Property if and only to the extent that application of any Later Enactment does not modify the Project; does not prevent or impede development of the Project; and does not conflict with this Development Agreement. Any Later
Enactment shall be deemed to conflict with this Development Agreement and Developer’s vested rights hereunder if said Later Enactment seeks to accomplish any one or more of the following results, either with specific reference to the Project or the development of the Property, or as part of a general enactment that would otherwise apply to the Project on the Property:
(i) Limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project, or otherwise require a reduction in the total: number of proposed buildings, square footage, floor area ratio, number of floors, parking and/or loading spaces, and/or height of any proposed buildings or Project Infrastructure related thereto from that permitted under this Development Agreement and the Applicable City Law;
(ii) Alter or change any land use, including, without limitation, any permitted or conditionally permitted use(s) of the Project or require a change in the amount of any particular land use to be developed 535
10 on the Property from that permitted under this Development Agreement and the Applicable City Law;
(iii) Require, for any work necessary to develop the Project on the Property, the issuance of permits, approvals, or entitlements by City other than those required as of the Effective Date; (iv) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or Project Infrastructure, or limit the hours of operation or uses on the Property, in a manner that is inconsistent with the Initial Approvals;
(v) In any manner control, delay, or limit the timing, phasing, rate or sequencing of the development of the Project (including, without limitation, the timing of approval and issuance of the approval, development or construction of all or portion(s) of the Project), or materially limit the processing of, the procuring of applications for, or approval of the Subsequent Approval(s);
(vi) Increase any Impact Fees and/or impose new Impact Fee(s), except as permitted by Section 6.2 below;
(vii) Materially increase the obligations of Developer under this Development Agreement;
(viii) Limit or restrict the availability of public utilities, services, infrastructure or facilities (for example, without limitation, water rights, water connection or sewage capacity rights, sewer connections, etc.) to the Project and/or increase the Project’s obligations with respect to the Project Infrastructure (in size, cost and/or scope) necessary to serve the Project; or
(ix) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Property any fees, assessments, or other monetary obligations other than those specifically permitted by this Development Agreement; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not prevent or limit the imposition or collection of any generally applicable real or personal property taxes with respect to the Property or any generally applicable sales, use, excise taxes or business license fees with respect to any commercial uses within the Project.
(d) Applicable Later Enactments. To the extent that Later Enactments conflict with the vested rights hereunder, they shall not apply to the Project and/or the Property, except as provided in subsections (d)(i)-(iv) below, inclusive. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall not be precluded from applying a Later Enactment to the Project under the following limited circumstances:
(i) It is specifically mandated by changes in state or federal laws or regulations adopted after the Effective Date as provided in Government Code Section 65869.5;
536
11 (ii) It is specifically mandated by a court of competent jurisdiction; (iii) It is specifically mandated as a result of changes to the Uniform Building Code or similar uniform construction code(s) (such as the California Fire Code) so long as such code (as modified to include the foregoing changes) has been adopted by City and is in effect on a Citywide basis; or
(iv) It is (A) required as a result of a specific and identifiable issue in each case that is presently unknown or unforeseeable that would otherwise have an immediate and substantially adverse risk on the physical health and safety of the public, and (B) based on written findings by the City Council, and transmitted to Developer, specifically identifying, based on objective and quantifiable evidence in the official record, the precise nature and extent of the dangerous or hazardous circumstance(s) requiring such condition or denial or change in Applicable City Law, why there are no feasible mitigation or alternatives to the imposition of such condition or denial or changes in the law, and how such condition or denial or new law would alleviate the dangerous or hazardous circumstance (“Public Health and Safety Exception”).
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, before taking any action based on a Public Health and Safety Exception, City shall first provide Developer with written notice of the public health circumstance upon which such Public Health and Safety Exception is based, and if Developer responds in writing within fifteen (15) days confirming that Developer will correct such public health circumstance and which describes the means of such correction, and thereafter Developer diligently pursues such correction to completion, such Public Health and Safety Exception shall no longer be applicable and City shall take no further action based thereon. Developer retains the right to dispute any City reliance on the Public Health and Safety Exception.
If City imposes a Later Enactment on the Project as a result of the occurrence of one of the circumstances set forth in subsections (d)(i)-(iv) above, then the Parties shall work diligently and in good faith to amend this Development Agreement in a manner to reasonably reflect the required Later Enactment while still achieving the underlying purposes of this Development Agreement. If state and/or federal law(s) and/or regulation(s) enacted after the Effective Date prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement as set forth in subsection (d)(i) above, and further if Developer does not consent to a reasonable amendment that is required to make this Development Agreement consistent therewith in accordance with Government Code Section 65869.5, City shall provide Developer written notice of the immediate suspension of this Development Agreement, and it shall remain suspended until the date the Development Agreement is so amended. (e) Enforcement. Pursuant to Section 65865.4 of the Development Agreement Statute, unless this Agreement is terminated by mutual agreement of the Parties as provided for under Section 9.3 below, or terminated due to Default pursuant to Section 9.2 below, either Party may enforce this Development Agreement notwithstanding any Later
Enactment(s).
537
12 4.3. Developer’s Application for Non-City Permits, Entitlements and Approvals. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that other governmental agencies not within City’s control may possess jurisdiction to regulate aspect(s) of development of the Project on the Property with respect to certain Subsequent Approvals and that this Development Agreement does not limit the jurisdiction of such other authorities. City shall reasonably cooperate and diligently work with Developer in Developer’s effort to process and obtain approval of its applications for such Subsequent Approvals as may be necessary or desirable to develop and operate the Project; provided, however, City shall have no obligation to incur any material costs, without compensation or reimbursement, or to amend any City policy, regulation or ordinance in connection therewith.
4.4. Processing Subsequent Approvals. In accordance with Section 4.2(b) above, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed mechanisms to implement those final policy decisions reflected by the Initial Approvals and other provisions of Applicable City Law. City shall cooperate and diligently and expeditiously work with Developer to promptly process and consider all applications for Subsequent Approvals (provided such application(s) are in a proper form and include all reasonably required information and payment of any and all applicable Regulatory Processing Fees), in accordance with Developer’s vested rights granted hereunder, and taking into consideration such factors, among others, as cost efficiencies, economies of scale, and appropriate engineering practices. In the event that Developer determines that it would be necessary to retain additional personnel or outside consultant(s) to assist City to expeditiously process any Subsequent Approval(s), Developer may request, and City may consider, retaining such additional personnel or consultant(s), and City shall direct any such additional personnel or consultant(s) to work cooperatively and in a cost-efficient and timely manner with Developer to accomplish the objectives under this Section 4.4; provided, however, that Developer shall pay all actual costs associated therewith, although said personnel or consultant(s) shall be under City’s direction and City has sole authority over whether to hire or retain any additional personnel or select any consultants. Subject to Section 4.2(b) above and other terms of this Development Agreement and Developer’s rights hereunder, City shall retain its discretionary authority in its consideration of any and all Subsequent Approvals that involve discretionary decisions.
4.5. Compliance with CEQA. The Project EIR, which has been certified by City as being in compliance with CEQA, addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project as it is described in the Initial Approvals. To the extent that the Project will require the issuance of Subsequent Approvals that are discretionary in nature, City shall rely on the Project EIR to satisfy the requirements of CEQA to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA and City shall not require a new initial study, negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, or subsequent or supplemental EIR unless specifically required by CEQA and shall not impose on the Project any additional mitigation measures other than that which is specifically required by CEQA.
4.6. Life of Project Approvals. The life of all Initial Approvals and any and all Subsequent Approvals as and when granted, approved or issued, including, without limitation, tentative subdivision maps or parcel maps (pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6(a)), conditional use permit(s) and development and/or site plan review, shall be deemed extended for the longer of the Term of this Development Agreement or the term otherwise applicable to such Initial Approval or Subsequent Approval. Any tentative map prepared for the Project shall comply with Government Code Section 66473.7.
4.7. Timing of Development. The Parties acknowledge and agree that: (a) Developer cannot at this time predict if or when, or the rate at which, the Project may be constructed; 538
13 (b) there is no requirement that Developer commence or complete construction of the Project at all or within any particular period of time during the Term; and (c) except if and to the extent expressly required by the terms of this Development Agreement, City shall not impose any such timing requirement on any Subsequent Approval(s). Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465 that failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right to construct the Project (or any portion(s) thereof) in such order, at such rate, and at such time(s) as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole business judgment, subject only to City Applicable Law and the provisions of this Development Agreement.
4.8. Wastewater Service.
(a) Wastewater Service to Project. City shall reserve and allocate sufficient wastewater treatment and conveyance capacity to serve the Project consistent with the Project EIR and the City Wastewater Master Plan, and shall serve the Project upon application by Developer pursuant to the Project Approvals and payment of applicable connection fees. This reservation and allocation by the City shall be based on the Project as it is described in the Initial Approvals.
(b) Reserved.
SECTION 5. DEVELOPER’S OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
GENERALLY
5.1. Phasing of Project Development. Development of the Project is intended to be phased, as generally described and depicted in the Initial Approvals. Notwithstanding the foregoing and further subject to Section 4.7 above, Developer shall have the right, in its discretion, to commence and complete any Project phase(s) of construction sequentially or concurrently pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals, subject to City’s reasonable review to confirm the proposed phasing is consistent with the Initial Approvals.
5.2. Required Project Infrastructure Generally. City’s determination regarding which improvements are necessary for Developer to develop the Project shall be consistent with Developer’s vested rights hereunder, and shall be governed by the Applicable City Law. The Parties further agree that no additional requirements on Developer with respect to the Project Infrastructure may be imposed on the Project beyond those necessary to serve the proposed uses and to provide for the intended function of the improvements at issue. Upon Developer’s request, and at Developer’s sole cost, City shall cooperate with Developer (a) to locate any new City easements required for the Project so as to minimize interference with development of the Project, and (b) in Developer’s efforts to relocate or remove easements to facilitate development of the Project, subject to Developer funding all costs related thereto.
5.3. General Construction and Security Obligations. In constructing any Project Infrastructure, Developer shall (a) provide adequate security in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City’s Subdivision Ordinance; and (b) promptly and diligently oversee and coordinate the construction of said infrastructure in a good and workmanlike manner and free from all defects, and in accordance with the applicable Citywide infrastructure master plans, the Project Approvals, and any other applicable City standards 539
14 pursuant to the Applicable City Law. City shall use diligent and good faith efforts to timely prepare, process and consider any Subdivision Improvement Agreements (or similar improvement agreements) that are required to implement the Project upon Developer’s request, which shall be in substantially the same form as is typically used by City in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and City’s Subdivision Ordinance and which shall be consistent with this Development Agreement and reasonably acceptable to Developer.
5.4. Inspection and Acceptance of Improvements. Any Project Infrastructure constructed by Developer pursuant to this Development Agreement shall be subject to all required inspections, including the final inspection, and reasonable approval by the City Engineer in accordance with City’s Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. Upon inspection, the following shall govern:
(a) Meet and Confer Process. If the City Engineer reasonably determines, consistent with Developer’s vested rights hereunder, that the improvement at issue does not meet the applicable requirements and standards, City shall reasonably document this determination and promptly provide this information to Developer. Developer and City then shall, within seven (7) days of the City Engineer’s determination or at such other mutually acceptable time, meet and confer regarding any modifications to said improvement necessary to achieve conformity with the applicable requirements and standards. (b) Remedy of Any Improvement Deficiencies. Following any meet and conferral process pursuant to Section 5.4(a) above, if the Parties have not reached a mutually acceptable approach to addressing any necessary modifications identified by City, and/or Developer has not corrected, or agreed to correct by a date certain reasonably acceptable to City, the identified deficiencies in the improvement at issue, then City shall have the right, at Developer’s sole cost and expense, to remedy such deficiencies and complete the construction of said improvement in accordance with the applicable requirements and standards pursuant to the terms and conditions of the applicable Subdivision Improvement Agreement. (c) Roadway Construction. For all Project roadways constructed by Developer, Developer shall do so pursuant to the Project Approvals, including installing identified driveways, curb, gutter and streetlights and as well as all required service facilities (i.e., potable water, wastewater, storm lines, recycled water) concurrently with the installation of said roadways. Developer shall be permitted to complete any required widening or improvements within any existing City roadways or rights-of-way if Developer elects to perform this work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Provided, however, no roadway frontage improvements in back of curb shall be required to be constructed until such time as the lot fronting such street is developed.
(d) For Master Plan Infrastructure that Developer installs, including, for example and without limitation, planned roadway improvements on Shirk Street that consist of all pavement and other improvements outside of eight (8) feet from face of curb, Developer shall obtain fee credit and/or reimbursement pursuant to the City Applicable Law, including but not limited to the City Transportation Impact Fee Program.
(e) City intends to substantially complete construction of the planned Riggin Avenue roadway improvements pursuant to the City’s approved Capital Improvement Program by September 30, 2025 (as such date may be extended in the event of any Excused Delay). 540
15 (f) To the extent Developer is required to install Master Plan Infrastructure (e.g., intersection improvements) that benefit other third-party property owner(s), then City shall facilitate reimbursement of Developer’s costs and enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the Developer. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, City shall have no obligation to directly reimburse Developer under this subsection (f).
SECTION 6. FEES AND OTHER PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS.
6.1. Regulatory Processing Fees. Developer shall pay all Regulatory Processing Fees required by City under then-current regulations for processing applications for Subsequent Approvals. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer shall reimburse City or pay directly all reasonable and actual costs relating to the hiring of consultants and the performing of studies as may be necessary to review or process any applications for Subsequent Approvals or perform any related environmental review. Prior to engaging the services of any such consultant or authorizing the expenditure of any funds for such consultant, City shall consult with Developer in an effort to mutually agree upon terms regarding (a) the scope of work to be performed, (b) the projected costs associated with the work, and (c) the particular consultant that would be engaged to perform the work.
6.2. Impact Fees. Developer shall be required to pay all City Impact Fees that are not Regulatory Processing Fees that are in effect as of the Effective Date for a period of five (5) years from the Effective Date (“Fee Vesting Period”); thereafter, Developer shall be required to pay all City Impact Fees that are then in effect. The Impact Fees set forth in attached Exhibit 2 constitute all Impact Fees (both in type and amount) that are in effect on the Effective Date, and City shall not seek to impose any new Impact Fees (either in amount or type) on the Project during the Fee Vesting Period.
SECTION 7. PERIODIC COMPLIANCE REVIEW; NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE.
7.1. Periodic Compliance Review. No later than ten (10) months after the Effective Date, and no later than every twelve (12) months thereafter, Developer and City shall conduct the periodic review pursuant to City’s Development Agreement Procedures and the Development Agreement Statute (“Periodic Review”). In conducting this Periodic Review, City acknowledges and agrees that any finding of non-compliance on Developer’s part shall be limited in effect to Developer’s interest in the Property. Furthermore, City acknowledges and agrees that in the event and to the extent Developer has assigned all or a portion of its rights and obligations to other Assignee(s) pursuant to Section 11.1 below, then any such Assignee(s) shall be responsible for conducting the Periodic Review as it relates to their respective rights and obligations hereunder, although Developer shall cooperate with respect to reasonable information requests from any Assignee(s) in order to facilitate the Periodic Review process. If, as a result of City’s Periodic Review, City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Development Agreement, City may terminate this Development Agreement in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and City’s Development Agreement Procedures. Provided, however, Developer reserves any and all rights it may have to challenge in court City’s termination of this Development Agreement under this Section 7.1 and the basis therefor. If more than one Developer has obtained rights and assumed obligations hereunder as a result of an Assignment pursuant to Section 11.1 below, then termination of this Development Agreement as a result of a Developer Default shall extend only to those rights and obligations of the applicable Developer, and shall not terminate as to those rights and obligations of Developer(s) that are not in Default. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, the Parties’ collective 541
16 failure to complete the Periodic Review during a particular year shall not constitute a Default hereunder.
7.2. Notice of Compliance. At Developer’s request, City shall, from time to time, promptly execute and deliver to Developer a written “Notice of Compliance” in recordable form, duly executed and acknowledged by City, which certifies the following:
(a) This Development Agreement is in full force and effect; (b) This Development Agreement has not been amended or, or if so amended, identifying the amendment(s);
(c) Developer is not in Default of the performance of its obligations, or if in Default, to describe therein the nature and extent of any such Default(s); (d) City is not in Default of the performance of its obligations, or if in Default, to describe therein the nature and extent of any such Default(s); and (e) Any other information reasonably requested by Developer.
The Planning and Community Preservation Director shall execute and return such Notice of Compliance within fifteen (15) days following a request therefor. Developer shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to record the Notice of Compliance. Developer and City acknowledge that a Notice of Compliance hereunder may be relied upon by any existing or potential Mortgage Holders, tenant(s), and/or other Assignee(s). If City fails to deliver a Notice of Compliance within the aforementioned fifteen (15) day period, then Developer shall have the right to deliver a second request clearly indicating thereon that failure of City to respond within five (5) days of its receipt of such second notice shall be deemed City’s approval of all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Notice of Compliance.
SECTION 8. DEFAULT, RIGHTS TO CURE AND WAIVERS; LEGAL ACTIONS; RIGHTS AND REMEDIES; EXCUSED DELAY; MORTGAGE HOLDER RIGHTS.
8.1. Default and Cure; Dispute Resolution. Subject to any Excused Delay, failure or delay by either Party to timely perform any material term or condition of this Development Agreement constitutes a Default hereunder, but only if the Party who so fails or delays does not commence to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay within sixty (60) days after receipt of a written notice (“Notice of Default”) from the non-Defaulting Party specifying such failure or delay, and does not thereafter prosecute such cure, correction or remedy with diligence to completion (in such case, a “Default”). City shall continue to process in good faith development applications for any and all Subsequent Approval(s) during any cure period, but may delay taking formal action on any such application if it relates to a proposal for the Property with respect to which there is an alleged Developer Default whose interest is the subject of said proposal until such time as the subject Developer Default is resolved pursuant to this Section 8.
Upon occurrence of a Default and without any right to further notice or additional cure period, the non-Defaulting Party shall have all remedies available to it under this Development Agreement as set forth in Section 8.3 below; provided, however, neither Party shall have the right to recover any punitive, consequential, or special damages. Failure or delay in giving any Notice of Default shall not constitute a waiver of any Default and any waiver of a Default shall be in writing and be signed by the non-defaulting Party. For purposes of instituting a legal action 542
17 under this Development Agreement, any City Council determination as it relates to an alleged Default hereunder shall be deemed a final agency action. Except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement, waiver by either Party of the performance of any term or condition herein shall not invalidate this Development Agreement, nor shall it be considered a waiver of any other term or condition. Waiver by either Party of the time for performing any act shall not constitute a waiver of time for performing any other act or an identical act required to be performed at a later time. The delay or forbearance by either Party in exercising any remedy or right as to any Default shall not operate as a waiver of any Default or of any rights or remedies or to deprive such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall relieve a non-Defaulting Party from satisfying any and all applicable requirements of the California Government Claims Act.
The non-Defaulting Party shall provide the Defaulting Party written notice (“Dispute Notice”) that specifies, in reasonable detail, the reasons that a Default and dispute exists, and what, if any, reasonable actions may be taken to cure the Default and resolve the dispute.
Within thirty (30) days after the Dispute Notice is given, the Parties shall meet in person and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute. In addition to any other rights or remedies, if, following the meet and confer process, the non-Defaulting Party determines that the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the non-Defaulting Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy the Default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto, or obtain any other remedy consistent with this Development Agreement, subject to cure rights provided for by this Section 8.1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, if more than one Developer has obtained rights and assumed obligations hereunder as a result of an Assignment pursuant to Section 11.1 below, then provisions under this Section 8 shall apply only to the extent those rights and obligations so assumed by a Developer are implicated with respect to a Default hereunder. The inability of the Parties to timely meet and confer or to resolve any matter pursuant to this Section 8.1 shall not be deemed a Default hereunder.
8.2. Legal Actions.
(a) Institution of Legal Actions. Upon occurrence of a Default (but subject to cure rights set forth in Section 8.1 above) and further subject to the Parties’ good faith participation in the meet and confer process described in Section 8.1 above, the non-Defaulting Party shall have all rights and remedies available to it under this Development Agreement and other applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the right to institute a legal action or proceeding to cure, correct or remedy such Default. Legal actions must be instituted and maintained in the Superior Court of the County of Tulare, State of California, or in any other appropriate court in that county.
(b) Applicable Law and Forum. The internal laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement without regard to conflict of law principles.
(c) Acceptance of Service of Process. If any legal action is commenced by Developer against City, service of process on City shall be made by personal service upon the City Clerk, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. If any legal action is commenced by City against Developer, service of process on Developer shall be made by personal service upon Developer at the address indicated in Section 12.10 below, or in such other manner as may be provided by law.
543
18 (d) Attorney’s Fees. In the event of any litigation by either Party pertaining to this Development Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, shall be entitled to its reasonable litigation costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees.
8.3. Rights and Remedies: Cumulative Nature. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Development Agreement, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either Party of one or more of its rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same Default or any other Default by the other Party.
8.4. Excused Delay: Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to the specific provisions of this Development Agreement, performance by either Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in Default when the delay or Default is due to war; infectious disease; insurrection; strikes; lock-outs; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; pandemics; global and/or national health crises; epidemics or pandemics; quarantine or shelter in place restrictions and/or government orders related thereto; freight embargoes; non-City governmental restrictions that prevent compliance; unusually severe weather that prevents, limits, delays or hinders the ability to perform; environmental conditions discovered that delay construction or development, including delays resulting from investigation and/or remediation of such conditions; initiatives, referenda, Third-Party Litigation challenging this Development Agreement and/or other Project Approval(s) on CEQA or any other grounds; acts or the failure to act of a governmental or quasi-governmental authority (except that acts or the failure to act of City shall not excuse performance by City); or any other similar causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform (each, “Excused Delay”). Excused Delay shall also include (provided the Party seeking the extension is acting with reasonable diligence), additional reasonable period(s) (a) required to complete compliance with and/or obtain approval, adoption or certification (as applicable) of any supplemental or subsequent environmental analysis and/or documentation required for the Project or any portion(s) thereof; (b) the full and final resolution of any Third-Party Litigation filed (and if no Thirty-Party Litigation has been filed, then the running of all applicable statutes of limitations period(s)) challenging this Development Agreement and/or other Project Approval(s) on CEQA or any other grounds in a manner that is acceptable to Developer in its sole and absolute discretion; and (c) required to complete any pending application or request before City for an action or approval under this Development Agreement or before City for an action or approval under the Project Approvals. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, Developer’s failure to obtain financing for the Project shall not be considered an Excused Delay. City’s financial condition shall similarly not be considered an Excused Delay that can be relied on by City for failure to satisfy any City obligation hereunder.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement, no delay shall be deemed an Excused Delay unless the Party claiming the benefit of this provision shall, as a condition thereto, give notice to the other Party in writing within fifteen (15) days of the declaring Party having actual knowledge of the incident specifying with reasonable particularity the nature thereof, the reason therefor, the date and time such incident occurred and a reasonable estimate of the period that such incident will delay the fulfillment of obligations contained herein. If any notice of Excused Delay is given later than fifteen (15) days after the Party declaring such delay has actual knowledge of the existence of the Excused Delay, then the Excused Delay occurring during the period commencing on the sixteenth (16th) day after the commencement of the Excused Delay and ending on the date of such notice, shall be disregarded and deemed not to have occurred. 544
19 In the event of an Excused Delay, the Party delayed shall continue to exercise reasonable diligence to minimize the period of the delay. An extension of time for any such cause shall be limited to the period of the Excused Delay, and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Development Agreement may also be extended by mutual written agreement by City and Developer, with the City Manager having the authority on behalf of City to so consent.
8.5. Rights of Mortgage Holders of Approved Security Interests in the Property. (a) Developer’s Default Shall Not Defeat Mortgage Lien. If Developer Defaults, any such Default shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any Mortgage(s) made in good faith and for value as to the Property, or any portion(s) thereof or interest(s) therein; provided, however, that unless otherwise provided herein, the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement shall be binding and effective against any and all Mortgage Holder(s) whose interest is acquired by foreclosure, trustee’s sale or otherwise. (b) Holder Not Obligated to Commence or Complete Project. A Mortgage Holder shall in no way be obligated by the provisions of this Development Agreement to commence or complete construction of any Project phase(s) or to guarantee any such commencement and/or completion of same nor shall any covenant or any provision in the conveyances from City to Developer evidencing the realty comprising the Property or any part thereof be construed so to obligate such Holder; provided, however, nothing in this Development Agreement shall be deemed to or be construed to permit any such Mortgage Holder to devote the Property or any portion(s) thereof to any uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Development Agreement and the other Project Approvals. (c) Notice of Default to Mortgagee, Deed of Trust or Other Security Interest Holders. With respect to any Mortgage granted by Developer on the Property or any portion(s) thereof, whenever City shall deliver any notice or demand to Developer with respect to any Default by Developer, City shall at the same time deliver a copy of such notice or demand to each Mortgage Holder of record who has previously made a written request to City therefor, or to the representative of such Mortgage Holder as may be identified in such a written request.
No Notice of Default shall be effective as to the Mortgage Holder unless such notice is given. (d) Right to Cure Developer Default Hereunder. Each Mortgage Holder (insofar as the rights of City are concerned) shall have the right, at its option, within ninety (90) days after the receipt of the Notice of Default, to:
(1) Cure or remedy or commence to cure or remedy any such Default and diligently pursue said cure until the same is completed, and (2) Add the cost of said cure to the Mortgage debt and the lien of its Mortgage.
Provided that in the case of a Default that cannot with diligence be remedied or cured within such ninety (90) day period, such Mortgage Holder shall have additional time as reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such Default.
If possession of the Property (or portion(s) thereof) is required to effectuate such cure or remedy, the Mortgage Holder shall be deemed to have timely cured or remedied if it 545
20 commences the proceedings necessary to obtain possession thereof within ninety (90) days, diligently pursues such proceedings to completion, and, after obtaining possession, diligently completes such cure or remedy (the foregoing time periods being subject to extension during the period that such Mortgage Holder is precluded from taking or pursuing any such action as a consequence of any bankruptcy stay or other court order).
If there is more than one such Mortgage Holder, the right to cure or remedy a Default of Developer under this Section 8.5 shall be exercised by the Mortgage Holder first in priority or as the holders may otherwise agree among themselves, but there shall be only one exercise of such right to cure and remedy a Default of Developer under this Section 8.5.
Nothing in this Development Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize such Mortgage Holder to commence or continue the construction of any Project phase(s) (beyond the extent necessary to preserve or protect the improvements or construction already made) without first having expressly assumed Developer’s obligations to City with respect to such improvements by written agreement with respect to the Property or any portion(s) thereof in which the Mortgage Holder has an interest.
(e) Rights upon Failure of Holder to Cure Developer Default on Mortgage.
During the Term of this Development Agreement and subject to any rights of Developer to challenge, cure, or satisfy any liens or encumbrances on the Property or any portion(s) thereof, in any case where thirty (30) days after default by Developer on a Mortgage and Developer has not exercised the option to cure afforded in the Mortgage or if it has exercised such option and has not proceeded diligently to cure, City may cure the Mortgage default prior to completion of any foreclosure. In such event, City shall be entitled to reimbursement from Developer of all costs and expenses incurred by City in curing the Mortgage default, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees, which right of reimbursement shall be secured by a lien upon the Property or portion(s) thereof to the extent of such costs and expenses. Any such lien shall be subject to:
(i) Any Mortgage for financing permitted by this Development Agreement; and
(ii) Any rights or interests provided in this Development Agreement for the protection of such Mortgage Holders.
City shall execute from time to time any and all documentation reasonably requested by Developer to effect such subordination.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to impose upon City any affirmative obligation to cure a Mortgage default by Developer (by the payment of money, construction or otherwise) with respect to the Property in the event of its enforcement of any such lien. (f) Modifications. If a Mortgage Holder should, as a condition of providing financing for development of all or a portion of the Project, request any modification of this Development Agreement in order to protect its interest in the Property or this Development Agreement, then City shall consider such request consistent with its land use authority and processed as an amendment pursuant to the terms of Section 12.5(b) below; provided, however, that any such amendment shall affect only those rights and obligations of such Mortgage Holder and City but not those of any other Developer(s) or Mortgage Holder(s) without their respective written consent.
546
21 SECTION 9. TERMINATION.
9.1. Termination Upon Completion of Project or Expiration of Term. This Development Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of the expiration of the Term or when the Project on the Property has been fully developed in accordance with the Project Approvals, as evidenced by (a) the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy necessary for Project buildout, and (b) written documentation approved by both Parties that confirms Parties’ respective obligations in connection therewith and with this Development Agreement have been fully satisfied.
9.2. Termination Due to Default. After notice and expiration of the sixty (60) day cure period as specified in Section 8.1 above, if the Default has not been cured or it is not being diligently cured in the manner set forth above, the noticing Party may, at its option, give notice of its intent to terminate this Development Agreement pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute and City’s Development Agreement Procedures (“Notice of Intent to Terminate”).
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Notice of Intent to Terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review in the manner set forth in the Development Agreement Statute and City’s Development Agreement Procedures. Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review, the Party alleging the Default may give written notice of termination of this Development Agreement. If a Party elects to terminate as provided herein, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice of termination, this Development Agreement shall be terminated as it relates to the Defaulting Party’s rights and obligations hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a written notice of termination given under this Section 9.2 is effective to terminate the obligations of the noticing Party only if a Default has occurred. If the noticing Party is not so authorized to terminate, the non-noticing Party shall have all rights and remedies provided herein or under applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the right to specific performance of the Defaulting Party’s obligations under this Development Agreement. Once a Party alleging Default has given a written notice of termination, legal proceedings may be instituted to obtain a declaratory judgment determining the respective termination rights and obligations under this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such Default and related termination shall only extend to the Defaulting Party’s rights and obligations hereunder and shall not affect the rights and obligations of any other Assignee who has acquired other portion(s) of the Property in accordance with Section 11.1 below.
9.3. Termination by Mutual Consent. This Development Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of the Parties in the manner provided in the Development Agreement Statute and in City’s Development Agreement Procedures.
9.4. Documentation of Termination. While the Parties intend the foregoing termination to be automatic and self-executing upon the relevant trigger(s), City agrees to promptly execute and deliver such documents and instruments in recordable form as Developer may reasonably request in order to evidence the termination of this Development Agreement.
Thereafter, Developer may cause a notice of such termination to be duly recorded in the official records of Tulare County.
SECTION 10. PARTICIPATION IN THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION; INDEMNITY.
10.1. In General. The Parties acknowledge and agree that each shall have the right to elect to defend any Third-Party Litigation subject to the obligations of this Section 10, which shall survive the expiration or termination of this Development Agreement. 547
22 10.2. Developer Indemnification in the Event of Third-Party Litigation. Subject to Section 10.3 below, Developer agrees to indemnify City and shall hold and save City harmless from any and all Claims concerning any Third-Party Litigation except if and to the extent said Claims arise from City’s sole negligence, willful misconduct, or fraudulent acts. “Third-Party Litigation” shall mean any court action or proceeding instituted by any third party (i.e., any private individual or entity or any non-City governmental or quasi-governmental authority) solely for the purpose of challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement, the other Initial Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals as and when issued, granted or approved, or any CEQA issue(s) or document(s) approved in connection therewith. City shall provide Developer with prompt notice of the pendency of any action or proceeding for which it believes it is entitled to indemnity under this Section 10.2 and request that Developer defend it regarding such action or proceeding (but any delay or failure to notify Developer shall reduce Developer’s obligations to so defend or indemnify to the extent of any actual prejudice suffered by Developer due to the delay or failure). Developer’s indemnification obligations under this Section 10.2 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Development Agreement.
10.3. Cooperation in the Event of Third-Party Litigation. Subject to Section 10.4 below, Developer and City shall cooperate defending same pursuant to this Section 10.3, and the Parties shall keep each other informed of all developments relating to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements that may prevent the communication of such information. (a) Meet and Confer. If Third-Party Litigation is filed, upon receipt of the complaint or petition, the Parties shall have twenty (20) days to meet and confer regarding the merits of such Third-Party Litigation to determine whether each Party elects to defend same and if so, whether they elect to so jointly defend, which period may be extended by the Parties’ mutual agreement so long as it does not adversely and materially impact any litigation deadlines. Subject to an election to defend, City and Developer shall mutually commit to meet all required litigation timelines and deadlines. If City and Developer agree jointly to defend the Third-Party Litigation, they shall expeditiously enter a joint defense agreement, which shall include, among other things, provisions regarding the preservation of confidential communications. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and enter such joint defense agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney and Developer’s attorneys.
Such joint defense agreement shall also provide that any proposed settlement of the Third-Party Litigation shall be subject to Developer’s approval, in its reasonable discretion, except in the event City elects to solely defend under Section 10.4 below. If the terms of the proposed settlement would constitute an amendment of this Development Agreement, the settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment is mutually approved by the Parties in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
10.4. Defense Election. If, after meeting and conferring, the Parties mutually agree (each in its sole discretion) to defend against the Third-Party Litigation, then the following shall apply:
(a) Developer shall take the lead role defending such Third-Party Litigation and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice. (b) City may, in its sole discretion, elect to be separately represented by the City Attorney and designated litigation counsel for City, with the reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by Developer. Provided, however, if City elects to proceed with any outside legal counsel (other than the designated litigation counsel for City) of its choice in 548
23 addition to the City Attorney, then City shall be solely responsible for any such additional legal fees and costs.
(c) To the extent due hereunder, Developer shall reimburse City, within twenty (20) business days following City’s written demand therefor, reasonable legal fees and costs incurred by the City Attorney, as well as court costs, incurred in the month prior in connection with the Third-Party Litigation. Provided, however, that Developer shall not be required to pay any internal City staff costs associated with defending the Third-Party Litigation, nor any outside City legal costs (other than the designated litigation counsel for City); moreover, City shall provide Developer with reasonably sufficient information to document the basis for said request for payment.
The Parties intend that City’s role under this Section 10.4 shall be primarily oversight although City reserves its right to protect City’s interests, and City shall make good faith efforts to maximize coordination and minimize its legal costs (for example, minimizing filing separate briefs, and duplication of effort to the extent feasible).
If, after meeting and conferring, Developer and City both elect not to defend against the ThirdParty Litigation, Developer shall remain obligated to indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees or cost awards that are actually awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with Section 10.2 above.
In the alternative, if Developer elects, in its sole and absolute discretion, not to defend against the Third-Party Litigation, it shall deliver written notice to City regarding such decision. If Developer elects not to defend, City has the right, but not the obligation, in its sole discretion to proceed to defend against the Third-Party Litigation at its sole cost and expense, in which case City shall then take the lead role defending such Third-Party Litigation. If, following receipt of Developer’s notice of election not to defend, City elects to defend and takes the lead role in such litigation, then City shall be solely responsible for all damages, attorney’s fees or cost awards, if any, which are actually incurred or awarded from and after such time City has made such election. Provided, however, that City shall have no right to approve any settlement obligating Developer to make any payment(s), incur any liability or take any action(s) related thereto.
10.5. Processing During Third Party Litigation. The filing of any Third-Party Litigation against City or Developer shall not delay, suspend or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project or the processing, consideration and issuance of Subsequent Approval(s) unless the subject Third-Party petitioner obtains an injunction or other court order preventing the activity at issue.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION; RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MORTGAGEES.
11.1. Assignment of Rights, Interests and Obligations. Subject to compliance with this Section 11, Developer may sell, assign or transfer its interest in the Property (all or any portion(s) thereof) and related Project Approvals to any individual or entity (“Assignee”) at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement without obtaining City’s consent.
Developer shall provide written notice to City of any such assignment or transfer of its interest in the Property, or any portion(s) thereof (each, an “Assignment”) by providing City with a copy of the subject Assignment Agreement pursuant to Section 11.2 below. 549
24 11.2. Assumption of Rights, Interests and Obligations. Express written assumption by an Assignee of the obligations and other terms and conditions of this Development Agreement with respect to the Property or such portion(s) thereof sold, assigned or transferred, shall relieve Developer of such obligations and other terms and conditions so expressly assumed. Any such assumption agreement shall be in substantially the same form as attached Exhibit 3 (“Assignment Agreement”). No later than ten (10) business days after the date said Assignment becomes effective, Developer shall deliver to City a fully executed and acknowledged original of the Assignment Agreement. Developer shall duly record the Assignment Agreement with the County Recorder within ten (10) days of execution and acknowledgment. Upon the recordation of each such Assignment Agreement, Developer shall be released and have no further obligations or liability under this Development Agreement with respect to the interest(s) which are Assigned and the obligations assumed under the relevant Assignment Agreement.
SECTION 12. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
12.1. Independent Contractors. Each Party is an independent contractor and shall be solely responsible for the employment, acts, omissions, control and directing of its employees.
All persons employed or utilized by Developer in connection with implementing the Project shall not be considered employees of City in any respect. Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing contained in this Development Agreement shall authorize or empower either Party to assume or create any obligation whatsoever, express or implied, on behalf of the other Party or to bind the other Party or to make any representation, warranty or commitment on behalf of the other Party.
12.2. Severability of Provisions. If any term or condition contained herein is held to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other term or condition contained herein and the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
12.3. Further Documents; Other Necessary Acts. Each Party shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other Party all further instruments and documents and shall take such further actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement and the Project Approvals in order to provide or secure to the other Party the full and complete enjoyment of the rights and privileges granted hereunder.
12.4. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of each and every covenant and obligation to be performed by the Parties hereunder.
12.5. Amendments.
(a) Amendment by Written Consent. Except as otherwise expressly provided for herein, this Development Agreement may be amended only by the Parties’ mutual written consent.
(b) Major and Minor Amendments. Any amendment to this Development Agreement that affects or relates to: (i) the Term; (ii) permitted uses on the Property; (iii) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land; (iv) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (v) the density or intensity of the use of the Property or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (vi) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be deemed a “Major Amendment” and shall require giving of notice and a 550
25 public hearing before the City Council and otherwise adhere to the requirements set forth in the Development Agreement Statute. Any amendment that is not a Major Amendment shall be deemed a “Minor Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by applicable laws, require notice of public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto.
(c) Authority to Consider Minor Amendment. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to reasonably determine if an amendment is a Major Amendment or a Minor Amendment, as well as the authority to review and approve Minor Amendment(s) administratively without public notice or hearing. (d) Recordation of Amendment. In the event the Parties amend this Development Agreement, City shall cause notice of such action to be duly recorded in the official records of Tulare County within ten (10) days of such action.
12.6. Project Is A Private Undertaking. The Project is a private undertaking of Developer. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to or does establish the parties as partners, co-venturers, or principal and agent with one another.
12.7. Covenants Running With The Land. This Development Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and Assignees (including any and all persons acquiring all or any portion of the Property, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever). All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to California law, including, without limitation, Civil Code Section 1468.
12.8. Recordation Of Agreement. Within ten (10) days of the Effective Date, City shall cause this Development Agreement to be duly recorded in the official records of Tulare County.
12.9. Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Parties shall cooperate with each other and act in good faith in complying with the provisions of this Agreement. In their course of performance under this Agreement, the Parties shall cooperate and shall undertake such actions as may be reasonably necessary and appropriate to implement the Project as contemplated by this Agreement.
12.10. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties. Any notice, consent, report, demand, document or other such item (each, a “Notice”) to be given under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be given by: (a) certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; (b) personal delivery; (c) reputable “overnight courier” such as Federal Express (or similar courier company); or (d) email, to the Party to whom the Notice is directed at the address of the Party set forth below, or at any other address as that party may from time to time by written notice designate to the other. Any Notice so given shall be deemed to have been given upon receipt or refusal to accept delivery except that any Notice sent via email shall be deemed given on the date sent (as evidenced by the sender’s “sent mail” mailbox) if sent prior to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) on a business day and, otherwise, on the next succeeding business day.
City: City of Visalia
Attn: Planning and Community Preservation Director
551
26 315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Email: [__________]
Copy to: City of Visalia
Attn: City Attorney
220 N. Santa Fe St.
Visalia, CA 93292
Email: [_______________]
Developer: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.
Attn: Jason Quintel
2201 East Camelback Road, Suite 222
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Email: [email protected]
Larry J. Ritchie Family Limited Partnership
Attn: Larry Ritchie
[____________]
Email: [____________]
Jeffrey B. Ritchie Family Limited Partnership
Attn: Jeffrey Ritchie
[____________]
Email: [____________]
and: GVR Partners LLP
Attn: Nadia Costa
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: [email protected]
Notices sent by a Party’s attorney on behalf of such Party shall be deemed delivered to such Party. Notices to Mortgage Holders by City shall be given as provided above using the address provided by such Mortgage Holders. Notices to Assignees shall be given by City as required above only for those Assignees who have given City written notice of their addresses for the purpose of receiving such notices. Either Party may change its mailing address/email at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other Party in the manner provided herein at least ten (10) days prior to the date such change is effected.
12.11. No Financial Assistance; Prevailing Wage Matters. City is not providing any direct or indirect financial assistance to Developer that would make any part of the Project a “public work” “paid for in whole or in part out of public funds,” as described in California Labor Code Section 1720, such that it would cause Developer to be required to pay prevailing wages for any aspect of the Project.
12.12. Interpretation. This Development Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The terms of this Development Agreement 552
27 shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of this Development Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. The Section headings are for purposes of convenience only, and shall not be construed to limit or extend the meaning of this Development Agreement. The provisions of this Development Agreement and the attached exhibits shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against either Party, and in a manner that shall achieve the purposes of this Development Agreement.
12.13. Venue. Any action brought relating to this Development Agreement shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Tulare.
12.14. No Waiver. Waiver of a breach or Default under this Development Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. All waivers of the provisions of this Development Agreement, unless specified otherwise herein, must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives of City or Developer, as applicable.
This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both City and Developer and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement.
12.15. Entire Agreement; Conflicts. This Development Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein, or incidental hereto, and this Development Agreement supersedes all negotiations and previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of the Pre-Annexation Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to the fullest extent legally possible, this Agreement shall prevail and control.
12.16. Counterparts. This Development Agreement and any and all amendments hereto may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of the executed Development Agreement may be accomplished by transmittal of a PDF by electronic mail, and if so done, the electronically mailed copy shall be deemed an executed original counterpart of the Development Agreement for all purposes.
12.17. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Development Agreement and all provisions hereof is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of City, Developer and their respective successors and Assigns. This Development Agreement is not intended to create, nor shall it be construed to create, any third party beneficiary rights in any person or entity that is not a Party to this Development Agreement.
12.18. Authority To Execute. The individuals executing this Development Agreement represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Development Agreement on behalf of the representative legal entities of Developer and City.
12.19. Listing And Incorporation Of Exhibits. The exhibits to this Development Agreement, each of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference, are as follows:
Exhibit 1-a: Map of Property
553
28 Exhibit 1-b: Legal Description of Property
Exhibit 2: Existing Impact Fees
Exhibit 3: Form of Assignment Agreement
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
554
29 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Development Agreement as of the Effective Date.
“CITY”
CITY OF VISALIA, a municipal corporation
and charter city
By:________________________________
ATTEST:
LESLIE CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By: __________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
“DEVELOPER”
“SEEFRIED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC.”
By: _____________________________
“LJR LP”
LARRY J. RITCHIE FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership
By: _____________________________
Larry J. Ritchie, General Partner
“JBR LP”
JEFFREY B. RITCHIE FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a California limited
partnership.
By: _____________________________
Jeffrey B. Ritchie, General Partner.
555
30 Exhibit 1-a
Map of Property
556
31 Exhibit 1-b
Legal Description of Property
557
32 Exhibit 2
Existing Impact Fees
558
33 Exhibit 3
Form of Assignment Agreement
[SEE NEXT PAGE]
559
34 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
(Development Agreement)
This Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement (Development Agreement) (this “Agreement”) is executed as of _________, 20__, by and between [_______________], a [_________________] (“Assignor”), and [_____________], a [___________] (“Assignee”), and made effective as of the Effective Date set forth below.
A. Assignor and the CITY OF VISALIA, a municipal corporation and charter city (the “City”), entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated as of [_________], 2026 and recorded as Document No. [________] on [______], 2026 (the “DA”), relating to certain real property located within the Sphere of Influence of the City (as more particularly described in the DA, the “Property”). All capitalized terms used herein shall have the definitions given to them in the DA, unless otherwise expressly stated herein.
B. The DA provides for development of the Project (as that term is defined therein) on the Property, as more particularly described in the DA.
C. Assignor is selling, assigning or transferring a portion of the Property to Assignee, substantially concurrently with the date of this Agreement. The portion of the Property being conveyed to Assignee is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Assigned Property”). This Agreement shall become effective as of the date of recordation of a grant deed conveying the Assigned Property to Assignee (the “Effective Date”).
D. Assignor desires to assign to Assignee solely with respect to the Assigned Property those rights and obligations of Assignor under the DA specifically described in Section 3 of this Agreement (collectively, the “Assigned Interests”), and Assignee desires to assume from Assignor the Assigned Interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual agreements and covenants
set forth herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, Assignor and Assignee do hereby agree as
follows:
1. Assignment. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the Assigned Interests.
2. Assumption. Assignee hereby assumes from Assignor all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the Assigned Interests relating to the period from and after the Effective Date of this Agreement, and agrees to perform all of Assignor’s obligations under the DA with respect to the Assigned Interests relating to the period from and after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
3. Assigned Interests and Obligations. As used in this Agreement, Assigned Interests and obligations means the following provisions of the DA:
[___________]
4. Assignor’s Retained Rights and Obligations. As between Assignor and Assignee, Assignor hereby retains all other rights and obligations under the DA that are not specifically 560
35 applicable to the development of the Assigned Property, including without limitation, all rights and obligations applicable to development of the remainder of the Property owned by Assignor.
5. Severability. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenforceable in any situation shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the offending term or provision in any other situation.
6. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure solely to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.
7. Recording. The Parties shall execute and, concurrently with the recording of the grant deed conveying the Assigned Property to Assignee, Assignor shall record with the Tulare County recorder a copy of this Agreement.
8. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, applicable to contracts executed in and to be performed entirely within that state, and without regard to the conflict of laws provisions thereof.
9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one (1) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
561
36 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.
ASSIGNOR:
[________________________]
By:
Name:
Title:
ASSIGNEE:
[__________________________]
By:
Name:
Title:
562
37 EXHIBIT A
TO ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
[Insert legal description and map of portion of Property being transferred] 563
Exhibit 2 – Impact Fees
The following Impact Fees shall apply to the Project:
PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACT FEES1
Land Use /
Size
Demand Unit2 Civic
Center
Corporation
Yard
Library Total
Business Park Per 1,000 Sq Ft $584.00 $95.00 N/A $679.00 MiniWarehousePer 1,000 Sq Ft $7.42 $1.24 N/A $8.66
Warehousing Per 1,000 Sq Ft $235.00 $41.00 N/A $276.00
Manufacturing Per 1,000 Sq Ft $334.00 $54.00 N/A $388.00 Light
Industrial
Per 1,000 Sq Ft $425.00 $67.00 N/A $492.00
PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEES3
Land Use
Designation
Zoning Fire Protection Facilities
(Per Gross Acre)
Police Facilities
(Per Gross Acre)
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial IL $2,437.00 $325.00
Heavy Industrial4IH $2,437.00 $325.00
GROUNDWATER OVERDRAFT MITIGATION FEE5
Per Gross Acre $1,663.00
1 Per Chapter 16.50 of the Municipal Code as of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. Fees are based on land use designations under City’s General Plan. 2 Demand Unit shall be based on the total gross square feet of the building, structure or improvement to be constructed pursuant to the relevant building permit.
3 Per Chapter 16.46 of the Municipal Code as of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. Fees are based on land use designations under City’s General Plan. 4 For purposes of the Public Safety Impact Fee, the Heavy Industrial land use designation shall mean the Industrial land use designation and IH zoning shall mean I zoning. 5 Per Chapter 16.54 of the Municipal Code as of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. 564
Exhibit 2 – Impact Fees
STORM DRAINAGE & WATERWAYS IMPACT FEES6
Land Use Percent
Impervious
Acquisition
Fee
(per parcel)
Development Fee
(per
parcel)
Total Fee
(per parcel)
Waterway
acquisition
fee (per
gross acre)
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial
Park
N/A $1,758.00 $196.00 $1,954.00 $1,433.00
NOTE:
The Acquisition Fee shall be paid on each parcel of land within the 2020 Urban Development Boundary prior to the approval of the final subdivision or parcel map.
When no final subdivision or parcel map is submitted for approval prior to the commencement of the work of any development on each parcel of land, the Acquisition Fee shall be paid prior to the commencement of the work of any development thereon.
The Development Fee shall be paid on each parcel of land prior to the commencement of the work of any development thereon.
6 Per Chapter 16.40 of the Municipal Code as of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. 565
Exhibit 2 – Impact Fees
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES7
LAND USE CATEGORIES8 UNIT AMOUNT
COMMERCIAL
General Retail
Less than 125,000 sq ft 1,000 sq. ft. $18,735.00
More than 125,000 sq ft 1,000 sq. ft. $12,496.00
Gasoline Service Station9
1 st to 4th Per position $34,081.00
5 th to 8th Per position $25,560.00
9 th to 12th Per position $19,172.00
13th to beyond Per position $14,377.00
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial / Service Commercial Per 1,000 sq. ft. $2,616.00 Warehouse / Distribution
(0-20 KSF) Per 1,000 sq. ft. $2,388.00
(20-100 KSF) Per 1,000 sq. ft. $1,771.00
(100+ KSF) Per 1,000 sq. ft. $1,155.00
Mini-Storage Per 1,000 sq. ft. $1,228.00
7 Per Chapter 16.44 of the Municipal Code as of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. 8 As defined in 16.44.050 of the Municipal Code, “Land Use Categories” means the specific list of land uses shown in a fee schedule developed under the authority of this chapter that generate vehicle trips and were used to project future vehicle trips for the calculation of the transportation impact fee. 9 Fees for Gasoline Service Stations are cumulative
566
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2025-01:
A REQUEST TO DECREASE THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
AND TO INCREASE THE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROJECT SITE CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 284 ACRES, ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF RIGGIN AVENUE BETWEEN SHIRK STREET AND KELSEY STREET. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006)
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 is a request to decrease the Light Industrial land use designation and to increase the Industrial land use designation on the project site consisting of approximately 284 acres. The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN: 077-840-004, 005, 006); and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the appendices thereto (collectively, the “Draft EIR”) for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, which considered impacts from General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01, was released on April 11, 2024, for circulation for a period of 45 days, ending on May 28, 2024; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project was released on January 17, 2025; for purposes herein, the “Final EIR” consists of the Draft EIR and the revisions of, and additions to, the Draft EIR; the written comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; the written responses of the City of Visalia to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; errata to the foregoing; and other information included by the City of Visalia as detailed more fully therein and as specified in the record; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required that, in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identified one or more significant effects, the decision making body makes certain findings regarding those effects, which in full are contained in Resolution No. 2025-09 pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR prepared for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did review this proposal and did hold a public hearing before said Commission for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 on February 10, 2025; and, WHEREAS, a ten (10) day published notice was given, and at the public hearing for March 3, 2025, the public hearing was withdrawn and planned for re-noticing on March 17, 2025 in order to also consider an appeal related to the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten (10) days published notice, did review this proposal and did hold a public hearing before said Council for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 on March 17, 2025; and, 567
Resolution No. 2025-11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Visalia considered General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 to be in accordance with Section
17.54.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and consistent with the General Plan based on evidence contained in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia finds that Final EIR for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658, was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia approves General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:
1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in each case as detailed in materials in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the Final EIR.
2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment, which results in an overall reduction of
21.12 acres of Light Industrial designation and an equal increase in the Industrial designation, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties. While the site already incorporates adjoining residential and industrial land use designations that are separated by an arterial street, the proposed General Plan Amendment does not significantly increase the disparity of the use of Light Industrial land use designation as a buffer from residential uses, based upon the site development plan which calls for the use of small-scale flex industrial space, self storage, and commercial uses.
3. That the General Plan Amendment will continue to help facilitate the development of a master planned industrial park within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary, consistent with General Plan Policies, including Policy LU-P-99 which calls for allowing warehousing and distribution and other industrial related uses with supporting commercial services, and including Policy LU-P-103 which calls for incorporating buffering land uses and is implemented through the planned development of smaller scale flex space, storage, and commercial.
4. That this General Plan Amendment is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final EIR (SCH# 2022080658) and for which said Final EIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the City Council’s consideration of this General Plan Amendment request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia approves General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01, as depicted per attached Exhibit “A”, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.54.070 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia. 568
Resolution No. 2025-11
PASSED AND ADOPTED: March 17, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.
CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2025-11 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2025.
Dated:March 18, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
569
Resolution No. 2025-11
Exhibit “A”
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2025-01
City Council Resolution No. 2025-11
570
(PLANNED COLLECTOR) DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASINDETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN INDUSTRIAL BLDG 1 FOOTPRINT: 786,240 SF CLR. HGT: 40' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 2 FOOTPRINT: 1,078,440 SF CLR. HGT: 40' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 3 FOOTPRINT: 144,300 SF CLR. HGT: 36' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 5 FOOTPRINT: 156,140 SF CLR. HGT: 36' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 6 FOOTPRINT: 109,890 SF CLR. HGT: 36' INDUSTRIAL BLDG 7
FOOTPRINT: 513,240 SF
CLR. HGT: 40'
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 8
FOOTPRINT: 513,240 SF
CLR. HGT: 40' OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN INDUSTRIAL BLDG 4 FOOTPRINT: 173,160 SF CLR. HGT: 36' C-STORE 6300 SF
CAR WASH
6580 SF
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
17250 SF
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
15680 SF
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
17250 SF
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
13800 SF
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
15839 SF 205' 506' 473' 541' 525' 384' 417' 421' 434'
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
15680 SF 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 30' 30' 25' (TYP) 20' (TYP) 40' 40' 9' (TYP) 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 55' 84' 84'42' 40' 25' 40' 25' 40' SELF STORAGE 5600 SF SELF STORAGE 5600 SF SELF STORAGE 5600 SF SELF STORAGE 8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF
SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8800 SF SELF STORAGE
8000 SF SELF STORAGE
8400 SF SELF STORAGE
6600 SF SELF STORAGE 7200 SF SELF STORAGE
5600 SF
1200 SF 281' 281' DETENTION BASIN 367' DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN 25' 25' DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN EV EV EV EV
EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV EV
EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV DRIVE-THRU
5185 SF 16' 26' 26' 30' 38' 14' 24' 68' 54'30' 25' 26' 17' 25' DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN END AC DIKE CAUTIONCAUTION CAUTIONCAUTION CAUTIONCAUTION CAUTION CAUTIONCAUTION SP_FF_TANK_ 40K_US_0317 SP_FF_TANK_ 40K_US_0317 SP_FF_TANK_ 40K_US_0317 CAUTIONCAUTION
FRONT EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE ROLL-TOP DRUM SPILL CONTAINMENT CABINET PULL BOX EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE V EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE
EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE V RESTRICTED ELECTRIC VEHICLES ONLY
ELECTRIC VEHICLES ONLY PULL BOX
(E) 48'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 24'' SS 21'' SD 21'' SD 21'' SD 21'' SD 21'' SD 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 12'' W 48'' SS CIP IS INSTALLING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND FIBER OPTIC PULLBOXES IN ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CLASS IV BIKE LANE TO BE ACCOMODATED WITH CIP ENGiNEERING 150' RIGHT TURN POCKET CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. STREETLIGHT WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED TO BE BEHIND RIGHT TURN POCKET CURRENTLY SHOWN AT 150' PER THE APPROVED CARLTON ACRES COMMERCIAL PLANS. 200' CANNOT BE ACCOMODATED WITHOUT SHORTENING THE SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN POCKET ONTO RIGGIN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BIKE PATH ON WEST SIDE OF SHIRK 150' RIGHT TURN POCKET CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT INBOUND/OUTBOUND TRUCK TURNING PATHS CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 150' RIGHT TURN POCKET CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NO MEDIAN OPENING PROPOSED SEE CARLTON ACRES COMMERCIAL APPROVED PLANS 150' RIGHT TURN LANE CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION INBOUND/OUTBOUND TRUCK TURNING PATHS CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 150' MINIMUM RIGHT TURN POCKET, PLANNED STREETLIGHT WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED BEHIND RIGHT TURN POCKET INBOUND/OUTBOUND TRUCK TURNING PATHS CAN BE ACCOMODATED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CURRENT CIP SHOWS THIS AS A 300' LEFT TURN POCKET 2% 2% CL 1.5% 1.5% R/W RIGGIN AVE. PER CIP PROJECT STA: 10+86.28 - 12+25.89 (LOOKING EAST) ±2% ±36' ±10' ±5' EXIST. CITY STD. SIDEWALK EXIST. CITY STD. EXIST. PAVEMENT CURB & GUTTER CITY STD. SIDEWALK CITY STD. CURB & GUTTER 2% 7' 7' CITY STD. MEDIAN CURB 2' 68' 12" SUBGRADE @ 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION 7" ASPHALT CONCRETE 15.4" AGGREGATE BASE CL CITY STD. SIDEWALK 5' 57' R/W T.I.: 11.0 MAX. 1.5%6' MAX. 1.5% ±35' ±3' CITY STD. SIDEWALK CITY STD. CURB & GUTTER 12" SUBGRADE @ 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION 7" ASPHALT CONCRETE 15.4" AGGREGATE BASE CITY STD. CURB & GUTTER ±45' ±3' ±7' ±6' T.I.: 11.0 ±11' CITY STD. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE CITY STD. RAMP ±11' CITY STD. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE CITY STD. RAMP CITY STD. SIDEWALK SHIRK ST. PER CIP PROJECT STA. 10+53.59 TO STA. 10+73.12 (LOOKING NORTH) BACK OF SIDEWALK TO NORTH BACK OF SIDEWALK TO NORTH 55.0' PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE ST., STE. A P.O. BOX 7593 SITE DATA: VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION RIGGIN AVE PLAZA DRIVE TULARE COUNTY SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PARK APN: 077-840-001, 077-840-002, 003 ACRES: +/- 280 ACRES ZONING (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN (EXISTING): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL UTILITIES SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA WATER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA STORMWATER: ON-SITE BIOSWALES/BASINS GAS SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ELEC. SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON REFUSE SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA TELEPHONE: SBC FLOOD ZONE: X CITY OF VISALIA SEP 2024 RIGGIN AVE 250 250 OTHER ENTITLEMENTS · Tentative Parcel Map · CUP for proposed drive-thru restaurants and C-Store · Master CUP for reduced parcel size from City Standard SITE PLAN 571
(E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG IRR
(E) SD
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 2
(E) SD
(E) JT
(E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT (E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 1
W
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS
8'' SS
8'' SS
8'' SS
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS
8'' SS
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 18'' SD 18'' SD 24'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD
18'' SD 18'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD
WWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWW
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W
W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
P.O. BOX 7593
VISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
NORTH
200' 0' 200'
RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PHASING EXHIBIT (PHASE 1)
572
(E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 24'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD
(E) 18'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) SD
(E) JT
(E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT (E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT
STOP
(E) 18'' SS (E) 18'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W (E) 12'' W INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 7
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 3 INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 4
(E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UG (E) AT&T UGIRR (E) SD
36'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD
24'' SD 24'' SD 24'' SD 24'' SD
42'' SD 42'' SD 42'' SD 36'' SD
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS
W W W W W W W
WWWWW
WWWWWW
W W W W W W W
48'' SS 48'' SS 48'' SS
18'' SD 18'' SD
W
WWW
WWW
30'' SD
12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS 12'' SS
W W W W W 36'' SD 36'' SD 36'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
SELF STORAGE
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
P.O. BOX 7593
VISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
NORTH
200' 0' 200'
RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PHASING EXHIBIT (PHASE 2a-2b)
573
(E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS
(E) 8'' SS
(E) 8'' SS
(E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS
(E) 8'' SS
(E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 24'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD
(E) 18'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 18'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W
(E) W
(E) W
(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS W W W W W W W W W W W (E) 36'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 30'' SD (E) 42'' SD (E) 42'' SD (E) 42'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD
(E) 24'' SD (E) 24'' SD (E) 24'' SD (E) 24'' SD
(E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS (E) 8'' SS WWWWW
WWWWWW
W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W
(E) 48'' SS (E) 48'' SS (E) 48'' SS
(E) 18'' SD (E) 18'' SD
W
WWW
WWW
(E) 30'' SD (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 12'' SS (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD (E) 36'' SD WWWW
WWW
WWW
48'' SS 48'' SS 48'' SS 48'' SS 48'' SS 48'' SS 48'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) 6'' SS (E) SD
(E) JT
(E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT (E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT (E) JT
(E) JT (E) JT
STOP
(E) 18'' SS (E) 18'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) 15'' SS (E) GAS
(E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG
(E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) GAS (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG (E) E-UG INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 8
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 5 INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 6
30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD 30'' SD
24'' SD
24'' SD 24'' SD 24'' SD
W
W W W W W W W
W
WWWWW
WWWW
8'' SS 8'' SS
W W W
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
P.O. BOX 7593
VISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
NORTH
200' 0' 200'
RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PHASING EXHIBIT (PHASE 3a-3b)
574
PROJECT LOCATION
W RIGGIN AVENUE N KELSEY STREET N SHIRK STREET
50' IOD TO THE
CITY OF VISALIA
84' IOD TO THE
CITY OF VISALIA
55' IOD TO THE
CITY OF VISALIA
W RIGGIN AVENUE N SHIRK STREET N KELSEY STREET
550'
315' 192'
71'
59'
106'
72' 39'
241'
144' 800' 57'
135'
532'
501'
325'
100' 84'
233'
84'
2030'
90'
125'
249' 104'
773'
1261'
510' 254'
133'
76412 S.F.
13 149580 S.F.
11 617166 S.F.
5 1588310 S.F.
6 1602741 S.F.
7 441575 S.F.
9 411273 S.F.
10 102397 S.F.
12 577608 S.F.
3 640651 S.F.
4 2587224 S.F.
2 2400582 S.F.
1 241540 S.F.
6A
351109 S.F.
8 278'
14 9 ' 602' 1072' 479'
231'
28'
21'
236'
28'
31'
33'
205'
41'
28'
21'
392'
28'
31'
33'
74'
172'
28'
21'
93'
38'
38'
32'
42'
179'
5'
9'
160' 557' 299' 107' 39'
1350' 27' 4'
237'
28'
31'
32'
157'
40'
25'
25' 1162'
28'
31'
32'
196'
25'
25'
193' 254'
970'
110'
115'
63'
1592'
156'
779'
207'
206'
128'
1799' 249'
1069'
25'
25'
36'
160'
32'
31'
28'
891'
68'
42'
41'
38'
56'
33'
150' 160' 948' 1241' 27' 4' 1010' 504' 313'
153'
16 6 ' 579' 96' NORTH
240' 0' 240'
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1"=
1 2
MILE
SEP 2024
SITE DATA:
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PARK
APN: 077-840-001, 077-840-002, 003
ACRES: +/- 280 ACRES
ZONING (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PLAN (EXISTING): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PLAN (PROPOSED): LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL
UTILITIES
SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
WATER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
STORMWATER: ON-SITE BIOSWALES/BASINS
GAS SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPANY
ELEC. SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
REFUSE SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
TELEPHONE: SBC
FLOOD ZONE: X
RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT SUBJECT
TO CHANGE
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com
575
Operational Statement for
Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park
APN’s: 077-840-004, 077-840-005, 077-840-006
Project Overview:
The Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park will be located in central California on the northern edge of the City of Visalia. The project will provide for a mix of industrial and commercial uses within the western entry to the City. The Project is situated just north of the existing Visalia City Limits, at the northwest corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue. The City of Visalia General Plan designates the site as Industrial and Light Industrial. The City of Visalia’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance intend industrial land use areas be used to provide appropriate industrial areas to accommodate enterprises engaged in manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment. The Zoning Ordinance provides development standards for projects in the Industrial zones, including a maximum building height of 75 feet, minimum site area of 5 acres, and building setbacks ranging from 0-20 feet depending on adjacent land uses. The Project includes annexation of the project into the City Limits, as well as a Master Conditional Use Permit to allow the proposed convenience store (with drive thru) and drive thru restaurant, and for a reduction in minimum parcel size from the City standard. It is proposed that the Master CUP apply to all parcels involved in the Project.
Entitlements:
The Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park will require the following entitlements:
• Annexation 2024-03: to annex +/- 280 acres of property located withing the City’s Sphere of Influence into City Limits; upon annexation the property will be zone Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation.
• Tentative Parcel Map 2024-08: to subdivide +/-208 acres into 13 total lots, varying in size • Conditional Use Permit 2024-26: to allow a planned development that includes the creation of lots without public street frontage, reduces minimum lot sizes, and allows the development of a quick serve restaurant (QSR) with drive-thru, a convenience store with drive-thru, and car wash.
Proposed Uses:
Proposed Uses within the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park include warehouses, a drive-thru restaurant, a convenience store with a drive thru, a car wash, and other uses permitted within the City of Visalia Industrial Zone. A separate Conditional Use Permit will be required if additional non-permitted uses are proposed in the future.
Light Industrial
Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 will be zoned Light Industrial consistent with the land use designation of the Planned Land Use Map.
It is anticipated, and conceptually shown on the site plan, Lots 9 and 10 will develop with light industrial uses, such as light Manufacturing/Assembling (Lot 9) and self/mini storage (Lot 10). Both uses are permitted by right in the I-L zone district subject to the development standards outlined in Section 17.22.060 of the Visalia Municipal Code.
Lots 11, 12, and 13 are anticipated to be developed by uses that are permitted subject to a conditional use permit, as addressed by CUP 2024-26. Lot 11 is anticipated to be developed as a convenience store of 7,000 square feet or less. Lot 12 is anticipated to be developed with an automated car wash with drive thru. Lot 13 is anticipated to be developed with two pads, each with drive-thus. Although no end-users or tenants have been identified, these uses are assumed to operate similarly to other uses of the same kind. Additionally, these uses will be required to comply with all the development standards outlined in Section 17.22.060 of the Visalia Municipal Code, as well as any applicable special use standards.
Industrial
Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 will be zoned Industrial, consistent with the land use designation of the Planned Land Use Map.
Each of these lots is anticipated to develop with a use that is permitted by right pursuant to Section 17.25.030 and Table
17.25.030, generally warehousing uses.
576
Each lot will be subject to site plan review at the time of development. Any use outside of these parameters will be required to obtain any additional entitlements that may be applicable.
Planned Development:
As part of the CUP 2024-26, the project is requesting a planned development to allow a reduction in lot sizes to facilitate the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park as proposed, as well as allow for the creation of lots without direct access to public streets. However, it is important to note that a reciprocal access easement will be obtained for pedestrian and vehicular traffic for the shared internal circulation system and driveways.
Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.22.060 (A) requires that lots within both the I-L and I zones be a minimum of five (5) acres, or 217,800 square feet. The following table outlines the lots that require a reduction in minimum size and do not have direct access to a public roadway.
Lot # Square Footage Meets Minimum Lot Size Requirements (217,800 sf)
Public Street Frontage
1 2,400,582 Yes Yes
2 2,587,224 Yes Yes
3 577,608 Yes Yes
4 640,651 Yes Yes
5 617,166 Yes Yes
6 1,588,310 Yes No
7 1,602,741 Yes No
8 351,109 Yes Yes
9 411,575 Yes Yes
10 411,273 Yes Yes
11 149,580 No Yes
12 102,397 No Yes
13 76,412 No Yes
Parking Calculations:
Section 17.34.020 of the City of Visalia Municipal Code requires the following number of spaces for each applicable use within the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park:
Industrial (Parcels 9 and 10): Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses require one parking space for each employee during the shift of maximum employment, plus one space for each vehicle used in conjunction with the use. The “Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses” parking designation was used because the light industrial uses are anticipated for self-storage, which are not high parking generating uses. While self-storage does notreally fit this definition because such uses are generally minimally staffed, this definition is being utilized as there is no other definition that fits the requirements.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides employment data, including median square feet per worker.
Pursuant to the latest data table that was released in September 2021 and revised in December 2022, the mean square foot per worker for warehouse and storage uses is 2,222.
The total square footage of Parcel 9 is 95,499 which results in a total of 42.98 parking spaces, or 43 parking spaces.
The total square footage of Parcel 10 is 133,000 which results in a total of 59.32 parking spaces, or 60 parking spaces.
Convenience Store (Parcel 11): The convenience store use will utilize the “General Retail Store” use classification, which requires 1 parking space for every 300 square feet. At 6,300 square feet, the total required parking spaces is 21. The drivethru for the convenience store will be associated with a branded QSR whose end user is not known at this time. Since it is 577
associated with the convenience store, it is not anticipated that there will be significant dine-in operations, nor will the QSR be a high volume drive thru since those require stand alone shell buildings.
Car Wash (Parcel 12): The car wash use will utilize the “Commercial Service Establishment” use classification, which requires 1 parking space for every 500 square feet. At 6,580 square feet, the total required parking spaces is 13.
Restaurant with Drive-thru (Parcel 13): The restaurant with drive-thru use will utilize the “Restaurant” use classification, which requires 1 parking space for every 150 square feet. At 5,185 square feetre, the total required parking spaces for is
34.6, or 35 parking stalls. There is no end user at this time, and as such, the CUP is requested to be processed assuming there may be a 24-hour drive thru, though we can’t confirm at this time.
Warehousing/Industrial (Parcels 1-8): Utilizing the “Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses”, the employment density is estimated to be 1,500 square feet per employee, because these uses are generally a higher employment generating use. Because the sum of heavy industrial building space is 3,474,650 square feet, it is estimated that there will be approximately 2,316 employees.
The table below summarizes the parking requirements, and the number of stalls provided for each use and parcel.
Land Use Building
Area (SF)
Parking Requirements
Parking Required (# Spaces) Parking Proposed (# Spaces) SF / Employee Spaces / Building Area Industrial (Parcels 1-8) 3,474,650 1500 N/A 2,317 3,482 Light Industrial/Flex
Industrial (Parcel 9) 95,499 2,222 N/A 43 298
Self-Storage (Parcel
10) 133,000 2,222 N/A 60 41+32 trailer parking stalls73 C-Store (Parcel 11) 6,300 N/A 1 space/300 SF 21 16 + 12 spaces at fuel pumps 28 Car Wash (Parcel 12) 6,580 N/A 1 Space/500 SF 13 65
Drive-Thru Restaurant
(Parcel 13) 5,185 N/A 1 space/150 SF 35 37
TOTAL 2,489 3,983
578
PURSUIT SEEFRIED
VISALIA
KELSEY STREET
VISALIA, CA
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
SNR21-0165-00
09.15.2022
TOTAL PAGES IN THIS PACKAGE: 18
579
OFFICE
TYP.
60' 172'
60'
C-STORE
CAR WASH
RV & SELF-STORAGE
FLEX INDUSTRIAL
SHIRK STREET
RIGGIN AVENUE
EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV EV
EV EV
EV
EVEVEV
EV EV
EV
EV
EV EV EV EV
DRIVE-THRU
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV EV EV
EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV EV
24' 24' 35' 30'
30' 30' 40' 26' 40'
26'
26'
26' 38'
25' 26' 14' 35' 17'
30'
30' 24' 30' 49' 65'
16'
26'
30'30'
30'
NORTH
SHEET
08.27.2024
SNR21-0165-00
Conceptual Site Plan
Riggin Ave & Shirk St
scheme: East
Visalia, CA 93292 1
This conceptual design is based
upon a preliminary review of
entitlement requirements and on
unverified and possibly incomplete
site and/or building information, and
is intended merely to assist in
exploring how the project might be
developed.
Stormwater Management Design:
AVERAGE REGIONAL REQUIRED
PROVIDED
Boundary Source:
CIVIL CAD FILE
0 30 60 150 300
1" =60'
PAGE
2 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
SITE PLAN This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 580 PAGE 3 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
SITE AERIAL VIEW This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 581 PAGE 4 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
CROSS-DOCK PERSPECTIVE VIEW - SW This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 582 PAGE 5 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
CROSS-DOCK PERSPECTIVE VIEW - SE This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 583 PAGE
6 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
CROSS-DOCK EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
CLEAR HEIGHT
40’-0”
FINISH GRADE
0’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
45’-0”
MEZZ. FLOOR
15’-0”
EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
ENLARGED ELEVATION
SW 6796
BLUE PLATE
FORMLINER PATTERN
FITZGERALD #14667
SW 6275
GIBRALTAR
SW 6255
MORNING FOG
SW 6253
OLYMPUS WHITE
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 584 PAGE 7 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
REAR LOAD PERSPECTIVE VIEW - SE This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 585 PAGE
8 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
REAR-LOAD EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
CLEAR HEIGHT
36’-0”
FINISH GRADE
0’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
41’-0”
MEZZ. FLOOR
15’-0”
EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
ENLARGED ELEVATION
SW 6796
BLUE PLATE
FORMLINER PATTERN
FITZGERALD #14667
SW 6275
GIBRALTAR
SW 6255
MORNING FOG
SW 6253
OLYMPUS WHITE
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 586 PAGE 9 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
FLEX INDUSTRIAL CONCEPT
SHIRK STREET
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 6
OFFICE 9368.58' 3026.37' 22672.71' 8675.80' 5745.20' 480.00' 1320.00' C-STORE DRIVE-THRU 2 DRIVE-THRU 1 CAR WASH NORTH
SHEET
12.30.2021
SNR21-0165-00
Conceptual Site Plan
Kelsey Street
scheme: 02
Visalia, CA 93292
1 This conceptual design is based
upon a preliminary review of
entitlement requirements and on
unverified and possibly incomplete
site and/or building information, and
is intended merely to assist in
exploring how the project might be
developed.
Stormwater Management Design:
AVERAGE REGIONAL REQUIRED
PROVIDED
Boundary Source:
CIVIL CAD FILE
0 100 200 500 1000
1" =200
C:\JimTerry\Projects\Seefried\Visalia\SNR21-0165-00_SS04.dwg, 1/17/2023 4:13:20 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 587 PAGE
10 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
FLEX-INDUSTRIAL ELEVATIONS
FINISH GRADE
0’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
33’-0”
SIDE ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
SW 6180
OAKMOSS
FORMLINER PATTERN
FITZGERALD #14667
SW 6275
GIBRALTAR
SW 6255
MORNING FOG
SW 6253
OLYMPUS WHITE
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 588 PAGE
11 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
RV AND SELF-STORGE CENTER CONCEPT
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 6
OFFICE 9368.58' 3026.37' 22672.71' 8675.80' 480.00' 1320.00' C-STORE DRIVE-THRU 2 DRIVE-THRU 1 CAR WASH NORTH
SHEET
12.30.2021
SNR21-0165-00
Conceptual Site Plan
Kelsey Street
scheme: 02
Visalia, CA 93292
1 This conceptual design is based
upon a preliminary review of
entitlement requirements and on
unverified and possibly incomplete
site and/or building information, and
is intended merely to assist in
exploring how the project might be
developed.
Stormwater Management Design:
AVERAGE REGIONAL REQUIRED
PROVIDED
Boundary Source:
CIVIL CAD FILE
0 100 200 500 1000
1" =200
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 589 PAGE
12 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
RV AND SELF-STORGE CENTER ELEVATIONS
FINISH GRADE
0’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
15’-0”
SIDE ELEVATION
STREET FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
SW 6180
OAKMOSS
SW 6275
OLD ZINC GREY
SW 6255
SLATE GREY
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 590 PAGE
13 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
CAR WASH CONCEPT
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 6
OFFICE 9368.58' 3026.37' 22672.71' 8675.80' 480.00' 1320.00' C-STORE DRIVE-THRU 2 DRIVE-THRU 1 CAR WASH NORTH
SHEET
12.30.2021
SNR21-0165-00
Conceptual Site Plan
Kelsey Street
scheme: 02
Visalia, CA 93292
1 This conceptual design is based
upon a preliminary review of
entitlement requirements and on
unverified and possibly incomplete
site and/or building information, and
is intended merely to assist in
exploring how the project might be
developed.
Stormwater Management Design:
AVERAGE REGIONAL REQUIRED
PROVIDED
Boundary Source:
CIVIL CAD FILE
0 100 200 500 1000
1" =200
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 591 PAGE
14 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
CAR WASH ELEVATIONS
FINISH GRADE
0’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
34’-0”
SIDE ELEVATION
STREET FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
SW 6180
OAKMOSS
CMU
SW 6275
OLD ZINC GREY
SW 6959
BLUE CHIP
SW 6255
SLATE GREY
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 592 PAGE
15 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
QUICK-SERVE RETAIL CONCEPT
OFFICE
TYP.C-STORE
R WASH
RIGGIN AVENUE
EV EV EV EV EV
EV
EVEVEV
EV
EV EV
EV
EV EV EV EV
DRIVE-THRU
26'
26'
26' 38'
25' 26' 14' 35' 17'
30' 24' 30' 49' 65' 30'
NORTH
SHEET
08.27.2024
SNR21-0165-00
1 This conceptual design is based
upon a preliminary review of
entitlement requirements and on
unverified and possibly incomplete
site and/or building information, and
is intended merely to assist in
exploring how the project might be
developed.
Stormwater Management Design:
AVERAGE REGIONAL REQUIRED
PROVIDED
Boundary Source:
CIVIL CAD FILE
0 30 60 150 300
1" =60'
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 593 PAGE
16 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
RV AND SELF-STORGE CENTER ELEVATION
FINISH GRADE
0’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
21’-0”
SIDE ELEVATION
STREET FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ENTRY ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
BRICK VENEER (BR-A)
DARK BROWN
WOOD COMPOSITE (CM-1)
RESYSTA INTERNATIAL - PALE GOLDEN FINISH
METAL CANOPY (CP-1) (EC-1)
DUROLAST - MIDNIGHT BRONZE FINISH
EXTERIOR PAINT (PT-100)
SW 2807 ROOKWOOD MEDIUM
EXTERIOR PAINT (SC-1)
SW 7566 WEST HIGHLAND WHITE
STOREFRONT (ST-1)
YKK - DARK BRONZE (MATTE) FINISH
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 594 PAGE
17 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
C-STORE AND FUEL STATION CONCEPT
INDUSTRIAL BLDG 6
OFFICE 9368.58' 3026.37' 480.00' C-STORE DRIVE-TH DRIVE-TH CAR WASH NORTH
SHEET
12.30.2021
SNR21-0165-00
Conceptual Site Plan
Kelsey Street
scheme: 02
Visalia, CA 93292
1 This conceptual design is based
upon a preliminary review of
entitlement requirements and on
unverified and possibly incomplete
site and/or building information, and
is intended merely to assist in
exploring how the project might be
developed.
Stormwater Management Design:
AVERAGE REGIONAL REQUIRED
PROVIDED
Boundary Source:
CIVIL CAD FILE
0 100 200 500 1000
1" =200
C:\JimTerry\Projects\Seefried\Visalia\SNR21-0165-00_SS04.dwg, 1/17/2023 4:13:20 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 595 PAGE
18 SEEFRIED VISALIA 09.15.2022
VISALIA, CA - SNR21-0165-00
RV AND SELF-STORGE CENTER ELEVATION
FINISH GRADE
0’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
16’-6”
SIDE ELEVATION
STREET FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
CEDAR
WOOD
SW 6275
OLD ZINC GREY
SW7039
VIRTUAL TAUPE
BRICK VENEER
DARK BROWN
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 596
REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: February 10, 2025
PROJECT PLANNER: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4636
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Shirk-Riggin Industrial Project, for the development of an industrial park with a total building footprint of approximately 3,720,149 square feet on 284 acres, and consisting of the following actions:
Recommend Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658).
Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2024-03: A request to annex three parcels totaling approximately 284 acres into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area will be zoned Industrial (I) and I-L (Light Industrial) consistent with the land use designations of the Visalia General Plan Land Use Map. The annexation request includes authorizing the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements and authorizing the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement and a Development Agreement.
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01: A request to decrease the Light Industrial land use designation and to increase the Industrial land use designation on the project site consisting of approximately 284 acres.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08: A request to subdivide approximately 284 acres into 14 parcels to facilitate industrial and supportive service-oriented development.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26: A request to allow a planned development that includes the creation of lots without public street frontage, reduced lot sizes, and the establishment of two pads with drive-through lanes, convenience store, and car wash.
Project Applicant: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.
Project Location: The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN: 077-840- 004, 005, 006)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions.
Final Environmental Impact Report: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), including a Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the project, based upon the findings in said resolution.
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01: Recommend that City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-08. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings.
597
Annexation No. 2024-03: Recommend that City Council initiate the Annexation, as conditioned, including authorization to enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-06. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and the required findings.
Development Agreement: Recommend that City Council authorize to enter into the Development Agreement attached herein, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-07.
Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08: Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-09. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the required findings.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-10. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend that the City Council certify the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), according to Resolution No. 2025-05.
I move to recommend the initiation of Annexation No. 2024-03, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-06.
I move to recommend the initiation of a Development Agreement pertaining to the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-07.
I move to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-08.
I move to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-09.
I move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-10.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants, Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., have filed entitlement applications for the development of a 284-acre industrial park, containing primary industrial uses as well as commercial elements, on property located outside of City limits and within the Tier I urban development boundary.
The property is planned to be developed with industrial buildings of varying sizes and functions.
According to the site plan, attached as Exhibit “A”, a majority of the site will be developed with eight industrial buildings intended for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing use, with building sizes shown between 109,890 and 1,078,440 square feet. Other uses shown on the site plan are flex industrial space consisting of six identical buildings totaling 80,960 square feet, a self-storage facility totaling 133,000 square feet, and a commercial cluster consisting of a convenience store with drive-through lane, gas station, car wash, and restaurant pad with drivethrough lane. Entitlements for this project consist of an annexation, development agreement, commercial tentative parcel map, conditional use permit, and a general plan amendment.
Development is anticipated to occur over three phases as shown in Exhibit “B”. The project site is currently vacant.
598
The land use entitlement issues are addressed and incorporated into the project’s Environmental Impact Report, and the land use entitlements are being processed concurrently with the CEQA review process. No entitlement is required for the industrial buildings in accordance with the Industrial and Light Industrial zoning designations, which allow such uses as permitted by right.
Annexation No. 2024-03 is a request to annex three parcels totaling approximately 284 acres located outside the city limits and within Tulare County (see Annexation Plat Map included in the Resolution). Upon annexation, the Zoning designations for the project area will consist of Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zones, consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation as proposed through the General Plan Amendment. The site also includes area designated as Conservation, though upon annexation, the property’s zoning will conform to the adjacent land use designations.
In conjunction with the annexation, the property will be subject to a Pre-Annexation Agreement, and is being entered into a Development Agreement at the discretion of the applicant. The Development Agreement seeks to establish terms and understandings on subjects including but not limited to post-entitlement approvals, vested rights, commitments toward providing infrastructure, project phasing, and establishment of project fees.
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 is requested to change land use designations between the Industrial and Light Industrial land use designations. The objective of the General Plan Amendment is to align the property’s existing land use split between Industrial and Light Industrial with the tentative parcel map’s proposed property lines that separate the large-scale industrial uses from the small-scale industrial and commercial uses. This results in an overall reduction of
21.12 acres of Light Industrial designation and an equal increase in the Industrial designation. All acreage is located within the Tier I urban development boundary.
Current and proposed land use designations for parcels being annexed are summarized as follows:
Land Use Designation Zoning Designation Existing ac. Proposed ac.
Industrial I designation 225.79 246.91
Light Industrial I-L designation 50.35 29.23
Conservation N/A 8.44 8.44
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 is a request to subdivide the 280 gross acres among the three subject parcels into 14 parcels, which includes one parcel created to accommodate a ponding basin (see Exhibit “C”). The map coincides with the commercial development layout depicted in the site plan (Exhibit “A”). This includes establishment of warehouse buildings on Parcels 1 through 8, flex industrial and self-storage on Parcels 9 and 10, commercial uses on Parcels 11 through 13, and a ponding basin on Parcel 6A. Reciprocal access and utility easements are established between the parcels and for the creation of access points to the adjacent arterial and collector streets. An 84-foot wide irrevocable offer of dedication is also shown for the extension of Clancy Street, which is a planned collector roadway.
Public Hearing Notice: The above project description corrects an error discovered in the public hearing notice published and mailed to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site. The notice incorrectly identified the number of parcels being created as 13 instead of 14.
Staff notes that the discrepancy did not result in any deficiencies with notification to members of the public, nor does it affect the analysis provided within this report. 599
Conational Use Permit No. 2024-26 is a request to allow a planned development in conjunction with the development plan and tentative parcel map. The planned development will result in one parcel without public street frontage (Parcel 7) and parcels that are less than the Zoning Ordinance’s minimum site area of five (5) acres in the Light Industrial zone. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Access points will also be provided along Clancy Street, which will be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site.
The conditional use permit further considers two pads with drive-through lanes, a convenience store, and a car wash, which are all conditionally permitted in the Light Industrial zone. An operational statement associated with these uses is included as Exhibit “D”.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use
Designation:
Industrial, Light Industrial, Conservation
Existing Zoning: County AE-40
Zoning upon annexation to City: Industrial (I), Light Industrial (I-L) Surrounding General Plan &
Land Use:
North: Industrial & Light Industrial / Vacant land, dairy South: Industrial & Light Industrial / Vacant land,
warehouse and distribution centers, non-operational
dairy
East: Low, Medium & High Densit Residential,
Commercial Mixed Use, Parks/Recreation /
Agriculture land entitled for master-planned
community including a 30-acre commercial center
West: Industrial / Warehouse and distribution centers
Environmental Review: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project, State Clearinghouse #2022080658 Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 24-096, preceded by SPR 21-074
RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
Please see attached summary of related plans and policies.
RELATED PROJECTS
None.
600
PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Specifically, Annexation No. 2024-03 will facilitate a new industrial park on a 284-acre acre site in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan land use designations that exist within the project site, and will complement existing development to the south and west.
Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08, Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, and General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01, based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Annexation to City limits
The project area is made up of three properties totaling 280 acres. The annexation further includes an additional 4 acres of public right-of-way to capture the remaining overall width of Riggin Avenue located between the existing two-lane roadway and the private property (see plat map included in Resolution).
The proponent of the annexation owns all three parcels. The parcels are surrounded on three sides by the City limits; only the property to the north, across from Modoc Ditch, is outside of the City limits.
A majority of the parcels are currently developed with an orchard, with small portions containing vacant land and a ponding basin. Surrounding land uses include industrial development to the south and west and agricultural operations to the north and east.
The easternmost portion of the site, consisting of about 50 acres, contains a land use and prezoning designation of Light Industrial and is closest to the Residential land use designations as identified in the General Plan. The remaining portion on the westerly side of the site, consisting of about 226 acres, contains a land use and pre-zoning designation of Industrial.
Plan for City Services
City Services, including Police and Fire protection, will be provided to the project site area upon annexation. Sanitary sewer service is available to all three parcels, as is water service through the California Water Service Company. Following annexation and development, the full complement of city services and programs will be provided, including but not limited to Solid Waste and maintenance of any future streets.
General Plan Consistency
Being that the General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the project area as Light Industrial and Industrial, annexation of the area will thus result in the parcels being zoned Light Industrial (IL) and Industrial (I).
All parcels are within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary. Annexation of these parcels is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-20, which states “allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.” 601
The site can be serviced with all the requisite utility and infrastructure available to serve the site upon development. Cities can approve tentative maps prior to final approval of the annexation by the local agency formation commission (i.e., LAFCO) but cannot approve a final subdivision or parcel map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder. Staff has included this requirement as a condition of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08.
While the City finds the annexation of the parcels totaling 280 acres consistent with City policies, Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will need to analyze that the annexation will not cause an impact towards exceeding a 20-year supply of industrial land within the existing City limits, as a guideline for determining conformance with State Government Code 56377.
The project is otherwise consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the project constitutes a master planned concept for an industrial park located within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-99 calls for allowing warehousing and distribution and other industrial related uses with supporting commercial services within the Industrial land use designation. Furthermore, the project upholds Land Use Policy LU-P-103 which calls for incorporating buffering land uses and is implemented through the planned development of smaller scale flex space, storage, and commercial.
Consistency of General Plan Amendment with City’s General Plan The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in an overall reduction of 21.12 acres of Light Industrial land use designation, wherein this area will be added to the Industrial land use designation.
The Light Industrial land use designation is called out on the General Plan on the west side of Shirk between Doe Avenue and Avenue 320 for the purpose of creating a transition between the Industrial land use designations further to the west and the residential land use designations directly east of Shirk Street. At the project site, the depth of the Light Industrial designation is approximately 1,000 feet from Shirk Street after dedication is taken for the full right-of-way.
The General Plan Amendment will reduce the Light Industrial designation in order to create a separation between the large warehouse / distribution type buildings and the smaller industrial buildings. The area of designation being changed from Light Industrial to Industrial is shown on the project as being planned for warehouse / distribution type buildings, which is a use allowed by right in the Light Industrial zone designation.
Although the area of Light Industrial is being reduced, the site still provides Light Industrial in a manner that assigns with the original intent of this land use at this location. A majority of the remaining Light Industrial designation calls for the use of small-scale flex industrial space, selfstorage, and commercial uses in this space, to provide a transition to residential uses. The inclusion of an arterial road right-of-way, landscape setbacks, and building placement continues to provide separation between the Industrial and Residential land use designations.
Active Agriculture Preserve and Land Conservation Contract The property currently contains Agriculture Preserve No. 293 and Land Conservation Contract No. 2735. In accordance with the Williamson Act (California Government Code Section 51200), the contract must be cancelled or shall expire from its contract prior to development.
In 2022, the property owner applied to the County of Tulare to cancel the portion of the contract that covers the site. Tentative cancellation was granted by the Board of Supervisors on November 29, 2022, in accordance with State law, wherein a full Certificate of Cancellation will be issued upon payment of a cancellation fee and applying for cancellation of the Agricultural Preserve. 602
The property owner may complete the cancellation process prior to the annexation into City limits, or may be required by the Local Agency Formation Commission to finalize the cancellation prior to the annexation being recorded and taking effect. Staff is therefore recommending conditions of approval in the entitlements stating that no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from the Land Conservation Contract and Agricultural Preserve.
Development Standards for Planned Development
The Conditional Use Permit will allow for the property to be subdivided as a planned development with lots below the minimum site area requirement of five (5) acres and a lot to be developed without public street frontage. Notwithstanding, the existing Zoning Ordinance development standards in the I-L and I zones (Municipal Code Section 17.22.060) adequately address setbacks for all parcels. These setbacks are prescribed as being zero feet from all property lines excepting where parcels are fronting along roadways, wherein the amount of setback is determined by the roadway classification as defined on the Circulation Element Map. The site plan depicts compliance with all setback requirements of the I-L and I zones.
Analysis of Commercial Uses at Shirk & Riggin Intersection The project includes a convenience store with drive-through lane, fueling station, restaurant pad with drive-through lane, and a car wash. All uses are conditionally allowed in the I-L zone excepting the fueling station which is permitted by right. The project’s phasing plan anticipates these uses together with the self-storage facility to be developed in Phase 2, following the Phase 1 development of two large industrial buildings fronting Kelsey Street.
Detailed architectural drawings of the commercial uses have not been prepared given the premature nature of the uses and confirmation of the final tenants, although conceptual design drawings have been submitted by the applicant as Exhibit “E”. Finalized site plans will be required to be submitted to the City and evaluated by Site Plan Review prior to issuing building permits.
Staff has determined that the submittal of actual architectural drawings and an additional noise study, per Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1, may be deferred based upon the circumstances of the proposed project, its location, and the project Environmental Impact Report’s mitigation measure pertaining to noise impacts. The uses are considered supporting commercial uses toward the larger proposed industrial park and are shown on the tentative parcel map and site plan to have substantial lot sizes to accommodate on-site circulation. Recommended conditions of approval in the Conditional Use Permit require the uses to be developed at the same location, quantity and scale as shown on the site plan and described in the operational statement. Further, any deviation to the quantity and scale would require a new or amended conditional use permit.
Surrounding land uses will be future industrial land uses to the north, west, and south, future commercial uses to the east, and existing residential uses to the southeast. The existing residential uses (i.e., an established senior housing community at the southeast corner of Shirk & Riggin) are considered a sensitive receptor and would be located, measuring between property lines, approximately 200 feet to the restaurant with drive-through and approximately 500 feet to the car wash. The project’s acoustic analysis (Appendix H of the EIR) concludes potentially significant impacts from the car wash though not from the drive-through lane. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require an in-depth study of the car wash prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the design, mechanical equipment, and hours of operation would be compatible with Municipal Code requirements.
603
Subdivision Map Act Findings
California Government Code Section 66474 lists seven findings for which a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map if it is able to make any of these findings.
These seven “negative” findings have come to light through a recent California Court of Appeal decision (Spring Valley Association v. City of Victorville) that has clarified the scope of findings that a city or county must make when approving a tentative map under the California Subdivision Map Act.
Staff has reviewed the seven findings for a cause of denial and finds that none of the findings can be made for the proposed project. The seven findings and staff’s analysis are below.
Recommended finings in response to this Government Code section are included in the recommended findings for the approval of the tentative parcel map.
GC Section 66474 Finding Analysis
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans
as specified in Section 65451.
The proposed map has been found to be consistent with
the City’s General Plan. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 1 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(b) That the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
The proposed design and improvement of the map has
been found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan.
This is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the
Tentative Parcel Map.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for
the type of development.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed maps and its affiliated development plan, which is designated as Industrial and Light Industrial, and is developed at
densities that are within the allowed ranges of the
specified land use designations. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 3 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable
for the proposed density of development.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed map and its affiliated development plan, which is designated as Industrial and Light Industrial. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 4 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
The proposed design and improvements of the map has
not been found likely to cause environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This finding is further supported by the project’s determination of no new effects under the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), included as recommended Finding
No. 7 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or
type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The proposed design of the map has not been found to
cause serious public health problems. This is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the
type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision.
The proposed design of the map does not conflict with
any existing or proposed easements located on or
adjacent to the subject property. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 4 of the Tentative Parcel Map.
604
Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the proposed project (ref.: Shirk Riggin Industrial Park, Kimley Horn, February 2024), attached as Appendix I of the EIR. The purpose of the study is to analyze traffic conditions related to buildout of the project and its projected level of service (LOS) at multiple traffic scenarios, including Existing conditions, Near-Term opening year projection, and at Long Term operating scenarios at 5, 10, and 20 years beyond buildout, and the corresponding environmental impact as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The TIS concluded that various intersection improvements are needed at the different buildout scenarios and timeframes. Intersection improvements are summarized in Section 3.14.7 in the EIR.
Mitigation measures have been included in the Environmental Impact Report to address the roadway deficiencies described above, addressing various intersections.
For the Near-Term conditions, the following improvements are specified as mitigation measures, to be completed in association with various phases. Certain improvements, while required to be constructed, would coincide with the City’s Transportation Impact Fee program wherein construction costs can be paid back over time.
• Measures TRANS-3 and TRANS-4 require extending turn lanes or adding turning lanes to the intersections of Plaza Drive / Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street / Riggin Avenue. These improvements will be tied to the completion of project phases 1 and 2. • Measure TRANS-5 requires signalizing the Shirk Street and Ferguson Avenue intersection prior to the issuance of final occupancy of any portion of project area. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project. • Measure TRANS-6 requires that prior to the final occupancy of any portion of Phase 3, a fair share contribution be made towards the signalization of Roeben Street / Ferguson Avenue. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project.
• Measure TRANS-7 requires restriping the Akers Street / Riggin Avenue intersection to incorporate additional turn lanes and through lanes. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project. • Measure TRANS-8 requires restriping the Akers Street / Ferguson Avenue intersection to incorporate additional turn lanes and through lanes. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project. • Measure TRANS-9 requires extending turn lanes in the southbound lanes of the Akers Street / Goshen Avenue intersection. This would include pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carleton Acres Specific Plan project.
It should be noted that the City of Visalia is expected to break ground on a grant-funded Riggin Avenue widening project between Kelsey and Shirk Streets (1.0 miles), encompassing all of the project’s Riggin Avenue frontage. Utility pole relocation is expected to occur in the first half of 2025, while the roadway widening will be completed by the end of 2025.
The proposed project is expected to increase VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled) per employee within the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) it is located by approximately 0.15 miles, or 1.54 percent of the total miles traveled. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant VMT impact, requiring additional Mitigation Measures in order to assist with reducing the project’s VMT impact. 605
These measures consist of dedicating land and constructing a bike path along the south side of Modoc Ditch, installing secured bicycle storage lockers.
As a result, with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project EIR concludes that full buildout of the Project will result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Environmental Review
A Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared in association with the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It should be noted that this project would not be subject to Assembly Bill 98 pertaining to logistic uses, passed by California Legislature on September 30, 2024, since this project was initiated and had its Draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for review prior to the effective date of the bill, and is therefore considered to be currently in a local entitlement process per the law.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR has determined that all project impacts were either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of the following impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable:
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources – Conversion of prime farmland (project level) • Agriculture & Forestry Resources – Conversion of prime farmland (cumulative level) • Air Quality – Implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan (project level) • Air Quality – Cumulatively considerable net increase of nitrogen oxide (NOX) during construction, and reactive organic gas (ROG), NOX, and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) during operation (project level) • Air Quality – Exceeding certain identified construction and operational significance thresholds (cumulative level)
• Noise – Mobile source operational noise (project level) • Noise – Exceeding certain identified operational significance threshold (cumulative level) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15091 and 15092, the City, as the Lead Agency, may still approve a project for which the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the project. This requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each environmental impact that falls into the category of significant and unavoidable.
The decision to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by factual documentation that supports the decision that:
1. There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant impact; and,
2. Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
The findings and recommended conclusions for each of the seven environmental analysis areas noted above are contained in the resolution recommending certification of the EIR.
Mitigation Measures
The EIR further disclosed mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project to reduce or 606
avoid significant effects on the environment. The measures address the following resources:
• Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Air Quality for impacts of the project having a considerable net increase of a criterial pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment.
• Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources for impacts of the project to special-status wildlife species possible to occur on-site (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, San Joaquin Kit Fox).
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction.
• Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Geology and Soils to address potential impacts related to grading, the potential for on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, and the potential of exposing a fossil during construction. • Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Greenhouse Gas Emissions to address the potential for the project to conflict with an agency plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Hazardous Materials to address the potential presence o abandoned or unrecorded wells.
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Noise to address the impacts of drive-through lane and car wash noise upon noise-sensitive land uses, and the potential of any other specific uses that could result in a noise-related conflict. • Eleven (11) mitigation measures pertaining to Transportation for addressing impacts to Vehicle Miles Travelled, Level Of Service, and construction traffic. • One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Utilities and Service Systems for addressing the potential to attain solid waste reduction goals.
Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed Project. This Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
• Reduced Footprint Alternative: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed in a manner largely similar to the Project, except that the project would have a reduced overall footprint of development consisting of 142 acres of developable land and 142 acres preserved in agriculture use.
• Alternative Location: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed like the Project Concept at a different location, on 290 acres west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue. • No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would not be constructed, and the site would remain in agricultural production.
Public Review and Recommendation
Circulation of the Draft EIR followed a Notice of Availability period wherein the Draft EIR was duly noticed and conducted for the project for a 45-day public review and comment period from April 11 to May 28, 2024. The City of Visalia is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIR. Seven comment letters were received during this public review period. City staff and the preparer of the EIR have prepared responses to the comments received (refer to the Final EIR, dated January 607
2025). The Draft Program EIR, including the technical appendices, all the comments received and the responses to these comments, constitute the Final EIR.
The Planning Commission is asked to review the overall content of the Final EIR, the responses to the comments received to date, and consider any further testimony received during the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make its recommendations on the Final EIR and entitlements, including recommendations to the City Council where they have final authority. The recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council in Resolution form to be included in the materials presented to the City Council for its final determination. The certification of the EIR for this project rests with the final approving body, which is the City Council.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658 The findings are incorporated into Resolution No. 2025-05.
If the Planning Commission finds that the Annexation, GPA, and Agreement are consistent with the intent of the General Plan, staff recommends that the following findings be made:
Annexation No. 2024-03
1. That the Annexation is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re-designate 280 acres of AE-40 (Agricultural Exclusive 40-acre) County zone district to Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zone, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.
3. That the parcel is located within an Agricultural Preserve and a Lond Conservation Contract, for which a Notice of Non-Renewal has been filed, and which has been approved for Tentative Cancellation by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors subject to the payment of a penalty fee.
4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.
5. That this Annexation is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this Annexation request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
Development Agreement
1. That the proposed development agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and/or any proposed amendment to the general plan or applicable specific plan submitted simultaneously and in conjunction with the proposed development agreement. The agreement speaks toward the development and operation of the project by the developer in a manner that is consistent with applicable city law in accordance with phasing and the payment of fees as described therein. No specific plans are applicable to the project. 608
2. That the proposed development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located. The development is predicated upon the project’s underlying General Plan land use designation of Industrial and Light Industrial, and the corresponding pre-zoning of Industrial and Light Industrial that is detailed and confirmed in the project’s Pre-Annexation Agreement.
3. That the proposed development agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. As stated in Recital J of the Agreement, it eliminates or reduces uncertainty regarding project approvals, including the subsequent approvals, thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to the contemplated uses and development of the property as envisioned by the project.
4. That the proposed development agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The City has made the findings, in connection with the project’s entitlements and environmental analysis as required under California Environmental Quality Act, regarding the project as it relates to public health, safety and general welfare, based upon its compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and project mitigation measures.
This development agreement does not enact terms beyond the scope of the project that would put at risk any public health, safety, and general welfare.
5. That the proposed development agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The development agreement reinforces the project phasing as described in Section 5.1 and addresses any potential default against a mortgage lien in Section 8.1.
6. That this Development Agreement is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this General Plan Amendment request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01
1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment, which results in an overall reduction of 21.12 acres of Light Industrial designation and an equal increase in the Industrial designation, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties. While the site already incorporates adjoining residential and industrial land use designations that are separated by an arterial street, the proposed General Plan Amendment does not significantly increase the disparity of the use of Light Industrial land use designation as a buffer from residential uses, based upon the site development plan which calls for the use of small-scale flex industrial space, self storage, and commercial uses.
3. That the General Plan Amendment will continue to help facilitate the development of a master planned industrial park within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary, consistent with General Plan Policies, including Policy LU-P-99 which calls for allowing warehousing and distribution and other industrial related uses with supporting commercial services, and including Policy LU-P-103 which calls for incorporating buffering land uses and is implemented through the planned development of smaller scale flex space, storage, and commercial. 609
4. That this General Plan Amendment is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this General Plan Amendment request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08
1. That the proposed location and layout of the tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.
2. That the proposed tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The project site does not directly abut any existing developed uses, and development standards contained within the City’s Zoning Ordinance such as setbacks and landscaping will address land use conflicts.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is situated on land designated for Industrial and Light Industrial use.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map which is consistent with the underlying Industrial and Light Industrial Land Use Designation and zone. The design of the proposed parcel map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed industrial / commercial map. The industrial / commercial parcel map is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. Areas of dedication will be obtained as part of the tentative map recording for new street improvements, including the construction of curb, gutter, curb return, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and pavement.
5. That the proposed location of the tentative parcel map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the parcel map is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Certain General Plan policies, such as LU-P-100, identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new industrial / commercial development will contribute to positive land use compatibility.
6. That there is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards.
7. That the design of the parcel map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
8. That the proposed parcel sizes resulting from the parcel map are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance’s Planned Development and Industrial zone standards since they are part of a master planned development as identified in Site Plan Review Item No. 2024-096 and in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Environmental Impact Report. 610
9. That this Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this Tentative Parcel Map request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26
1. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
a. The proposed location of the conditional use permit is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That this Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the project description and the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2022080658), specifically for development that is identified and described in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this Conditional Use Permit request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2024-03
1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (I-L) zone, consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations as proposed through the General Plan Amendment.
2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft PreAnnexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2025-06. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
3. That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.
4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08
1. That the parcel map be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2024-096 incorporated herein by reference.
2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 be prepared in substantial compliance with the parcel map in Exhibit “C”.
611
3. That a common access, maintenance, and landscaping agreement be entered into for all project parcels. That CC&R’s including vehicular access, shared parking, landscaping and permanent maintenance of all common areas such as the public street parkways and perimeter landscaping, project identification signage and walls, stormwater basins and related infrastructure, and all similar infrastructure agreements shall be recorded with the final parcel map. The CC&R’s and/or vehicular access agreements shall address property owners’ responsibility for repair and maintenance of the easement, repair and maintenance of shared public or private utilities, and shall be kept free and clear of any structures. All property owners are equally responsible for these requirements. The City Planner and City Engineer shall review for approval these CC&R’s or vehicular access agreements verifying compliance with these requirements prior to the CC&R’s recordation.
4. That Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 be approved, and that requirements of the use permit that relate to this map shall be fulfilled.
5. That approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2024-03, placing the project site within the corporate limits of the City of Visalia, is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and is fully executed to include all conditions contained in the Pre-Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2024-03.
6. That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.
7. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.
8. That the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Final Environmental Impact Report certified for the project (State Clearinghouse 2022080658) and all conditions of this project be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26
1. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with Site Plan Review No. 2024-096.
2. That the commercial uses illustrated on the site plan in Exhibit “A” and described in the operational statement in Exhibit “D”, consisting of a convenience store with drive-through lane, gas station, car wash, and restaurant pad with drive-through lane, shall be separately submitted to and evaluated by the Site Plan Review group as described in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 prior to proceeding with applying for the necessary city permits. No additional conditional use permit nor an amendment to a conditional use permit is required for these uses if they are developed at the same quantity and scale shown on the site plan and described in the operational statement.
3. That the project shall be developed in general conformity with the site plan in Exhibit “A”, with specific details of the development layout to be confirmed through Site Plan Review as described in Condition No. 2. Any subsequent changes to the development plan layout depicted in Exhibit “A” shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan Review Committee and may be subject to an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.
4. That a queuing analysis shall be submitted, accepted, and implemented for each of the drivethrough lanes associated with the commercial uses. 612
5. That CC&R’s including vehicular access, shared parking, landscaping and permanent maintenance of all common areas such as the public street parkways and perimeter landscaping, project identification signage and walls, stormwater basins and related infrastructure, and all similar infrastructure agreements shall be recorded with the final parcel map. The CC&R’s and/or vehicular access agreements shall address property owners’ responsibility for repair and maintenance of the easement, repair and maintenance of shared public or private utilities, and shall be kept free and clear of any structures. All property owners are equally responsible for these requirements. The City Planner and City Engineer shall review for approval these CC&R’s or vehicular access agreements verifying compliance with these requirements prior to the CC&R’s recordation.
6. That the car wash and drive-through queue lanes shall not be visible from the public right-ofway. This shall be achieved by designing the site in a manner such that the queue lane is not located parallel with public street frontages, or by incorporating screening along a queue lane to a minimum height of three feet utilizing a combination of berms, hedges, and/or landscape materials, or solid walls if necessary.
7. That a noise analysis addressing noise impacts pertaining to the car wash, in conformance with the City of Visalia’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.36) shall be required and accepted by the City Planner prior to issuance of any building permit. Compliance of the noise levels, subject to the Visalia Noise Ordinance, shall be verified by the acoustical consultant or their designee prior to operation and building final for the carwash use.
8. That any car wash hours of operation beyond 7:00 p.m. shall only be permissible if supported by a noise analysis that confirms the car wash will not be inconsistent with the City of Visalia’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.36).
9. That adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems shall be incorporated into the car wash facility, such as through the installation of a sand-oil separator.
10.That a separate Conditional Use Permit shall be obtained for any additional conditionallyallowed uses not already shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit “A” that subsequently locate on the site.
11.That no permits shall be issued for grading or development on the site until the site is completely removed from any applicable Land Conservation Contracts and Agricultural Preserves encumbering the site.
12.That all applicable federal, state, and city laws and codes and ordinances be met.
13.That all of the conditions and responsibilities of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 shall run with the land and subsequent owners/operators shall also be subject to all of the conditions herein, unless amended or revoked.
14.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2022080658) are hereby incorporated as conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 613
APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation No. 2024-03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 For the Annexation and General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only. The final decision will be by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing.
Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation in this matter is not appealable.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145 and Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.080, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 N. Santa Fe Street, Visalia, CA 93292. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, or decisions not supported by the evidence in the record. The appeal form can be found on the City’s website at:
https://www.visalia.city/government/committees/planning_commission/default.asp.
Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2025-05 – Recommendation of certification of Final EIR • Resolution No. 2025-06 – Annexation No. 2024-03
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Pre-Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2025-07 – Development Agreement for Shirk-Riggin Industrial Park • Resolution No. 2025-08 – General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01 • Resolution No. 2025-09 – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 • Resolution No. 2025-10 – Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 • Exhibit "A" – Site Plan
• Exhibit “B” – Phasing Map
• Exhibit “C” – Tentative Parcel Map
• Exhibit “D” – Operational Statement
• Exhibit “E” – Conceptual Design Plans
• Draft Environmental Impact Report (for EIR Appendices, refer to website link below) The Draft EIR is also found at https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55426 • Final Environmental Impact Report
The Final EIR is also found at https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=57144 • Comments from Site Plan Review No. 2024-096
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
Available online via City of Visalia Website:
• EIR Appendices: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55428 614
RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
General Plan and Zoning: The following General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies apply to the proposed project:
General Plan Land Use Policies:
LU-P-19 Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.
LU-P-99 Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Industrial designation on the Land Use Diagram, to allow for primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities including those with outdoor facilities and also accommodate warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services and office space. Retail is not permitted.
LU-P-100 Establish zoning standards to assure high quality design and site planning for largescale industrial development.
Standards should include requirements for landscaping in parking lots, along perimeters and along building foundations visible from the street; visual screening of loading and parking areas visible from the street and adjacent residential neighborhoods; and basic requirements to break up large building masses and provide a unified façade treatment.
LU-P-101 As part of industrial developments, allow secondary uses such as restaurants, cafes, small convenience stores and day care facilities, to serve area employees.
LU-P-102 Ensure the timely completion of necessary infrastructure to support new industrial development.
LU-P-103 Require buffering land uses adjacent to existing or planned residential areas adjacent to industrial designations. Such uses may include parks, drainage ponds, open space, or other such uses.
LU-P-104 Preserve land designated for light and heavy industrial uses by limiting the intrusion of freestanding retail commercial or service commercial uses.
LU-P-105 Assist, on a case by case basis, in the relocation of older, existing service commercial and industrial uses from East Downtown or other redevelopment project areas to areas designated for similar uses.
LU-P-106 Develop performance standards to supplement and augment design standards to minimize the negative impacts (glare, signage, noise, dust, traffic) associated with the establishment of new or expansion of existing service commercial and industrial development.
LU-P-107 Reserve adequate sewage treatment plant capacity and sewerage capacity to meet the projected needs of industrial growth, and allow “package plants” where they represent a more fiscally appropriate solution if approved by the Department of Public Works. 615
Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 17.22 INDUSTRIAL ZONES
17.22.010 Purposes.
A. The two types of industrial zones included in this chapter are designed to achieve the following:
1. Encourage the location of new industries that do not generate substantial amounts of pollutant emissions, impacts on air quality, or other natural resources;
2. Ensure compatibility between industrial lands and adjacent dissimilar land uses;
3. Retain and strengthen the city's role as a regional manufacturing center in the Southern Central San Joaquin Valley;
4. Provide appropriate industrial areas to accommodate enterprises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment;
5. Provide adequate space to meet the needs of industrial development, including off-street parking and loading;
6. Direct industrial uses to and encourage expansion of the northwest industrial areas;
7. Protect areas appropriate for industrial use from intrusion by dwellings and other conflicting uses;
8. Protect residential and commercial properties and nuisance-free nonhazardous industrial uses from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, fire, explosion, noxious fumes, radiation and other hazards and objectionable influence incidental to certain industrial uses;
9. Preserve land designated for light and heavy industrial uses by limiting the intrusion of commercial or service commercial uses.
B. The purpose of the industrial land use zones are as follows:
1. Light Industrial Zone—( I-L). The purpose and intent of the Light Industrial zone district is to provide an area for uses that are characterized by low intensity research and development, warehousing and limited manufacturing and production, processing, assembling and packaging or treatment of food products from previously prepared materials. Uses that may restrict the operation of the above due to sensitivity to noise, truck traffic, etc., are not provided in this district.
2. Industrial Zone—( I). The purpose and intent of the Industrial zone district is to provide an area for uses that are characterized by the manufacturing, processing or assembling of semi-finished or finished products from raw materials. Uses that may restrict the operation of the above due to sensitivity to noise, truck traffic, etc., are not provided in this district. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7392)
17.22.015 Applicability.
The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within the I and I-L zone districts. (Ord. 2017- 01 (part), 2017)
17.22.020 Permitted uses.
Permitted uses in I and I-L zones shall be determined by Table 17.25.030 in Section 17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7393)
17.22.030 Conditional and temporary uses.
Conditional and temporary uses in the I and I-L zones shall be determined by Table 17.25.030 in Section 17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7393)
17.22.040 Required conditions.
616
A. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be employed which is determined by the planning commission to be injurious to persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property located in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinder, refuse, noise, vibration, illumination, glare or heavy truck traffic or to involve any hazard of fire or explosion or to emit electrical disturbances that adversely affect commercial or electronic equipment outside the boundaries of the site; B. No use shall emit visible smoke of a shade equal to or darker than No. 2 on a standard Ringelmann Chart issued by the United States Bureau of Mines or smoke of an equivalent opacity, except that smoke of a shade equal to No. 3 on the Ringelmann Chart may be emitted for four minutes in any thirty (30) minute period;
C. A site plan review permit must be obtained for all development in an I-L or I zone, subject to the requirements and procedures in Chapter 17.28. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7395)
17.22.050 Off-street parking and loading facilities.
Off-street parking facilities and off-street loading facilities shall be provided on the site of each use as prescribed in Chapter 17.34. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7396)
17.22.060 Development standards in the I-L and I zones.
A. The I-L and I zone districts include streets of varying width, carrying capacity and intended service.
The development standards vary by type of street in order to maintain a consistent streetscape and achieve a high quality visual impact necessary to sustain an attractive and viable industrial area. The following development standards shall apply to property located in the I-L and I zones:
A. Minimum site area: five (5) acres.
B. Maximum building height: seventy-five (75) feet.
C. Minimum required yards (building setbacks):
1. Frontage on major road: twenty-five (25) feet. (Major roads are defined as roads shown as arterials or collectors on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Goshen Avenue, Plaza Drive, and Avenue 308);
2. Frontage on minor road: fifteen (15) feet. (Minor roads are defined as roads shown as local streets on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Elowin Court, Clancy Drive, and Rasmussen Avenue);
3. Frontage on interior roads: ten (10) feet. (Interior roads provide access only to parcels within a development.);
4. Rear: zero (0) feet;
5. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: twenty (20) feet;
6. Side: zero (0) feet;
7. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: twenty (20) feet;
8. Side abutting railroad right-of-way: twenty-five (25) feet.
D. Minimum required landscaped yard (setback) areas:
1. Frontage on major road: twenty-five (25) feet. (Major roads are defined as roads shown as arterials or collectors on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Goshen Avenue, Plaza Drive, and Avenue 308);
2. Frontage on minor road: fifteen (15) feet. (Minor roads are defined as roads shown as local streets on the Circulation Element Map, including but not limited to Elowin Court, Clancy Drive, and Rasmussen Avenue);
3. Frontage on interior roads: ten (10) feet. (Interior roads provide access only to parcels within a development.);
617
4. Rear: zero (0) feet;
5. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: ten (10) feet;
6. Side: zero (0) feet;
7. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: ten (10) feet;
8. Side abutting railroad right-of-way: twenty-five (25) feet.
E. Additional standards:
1. Properties subdivided into parcels of less than five acres shall provide a common or joint storm drainage facility or pond, to be maintained through a private property owners' association formed at the time of subdivision.
2. An eight-foot masonry wall is required along property line where a site abuts an R-1 or R-M zone district. (Ord 2017-01 (part), 2017)
618
1 Brandon Smith
From: Pete Sheehan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 9:57 AM
To: Brandon Smith; cityclerk@visalia
Subject: Fw: GSEJA Public Comment Visalia Planning Commission Meeting 2-10-25 Shirk and Riggin EIR Public Hearing.
Attachments: 2024 City of Visalia Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project EIR Comments.pdf; GSEJA Shirk and Riggin Project.pdf
Subject: GSEJA Public Comment Visalia Planning Commission Meeting 2-10-25 Shirk and Riggin EIR Public Hearing.
To Whom It May Concern,
Attached and below are public comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. These comments are submitted to the Planning Commission to be included in the record for Planning Commission consideration regarding GSEJA Public Comment Visalia Planning Commission Meeting 2-10-25 Shirk and Riggin EIR Public Hearing.
For clarification purposes, only the highlighted yellow portion of the body of this email is the public comment to be added into the record along with the two attachments.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Public Comment
Good evening, my name is Pete Sheehan and I’m with the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. We submitted a comment letter to the Environmental Impact Report. Our letter identified several deficiencies with the EIR.
During these turbulent times, we as citizens expect and deserve our local government’s elected and appointed officials to protect us from environmental and social injustice, to aid in the preservation and rehabilitation of the environment in which we all share, and to ensure accountability and responsibility regarding the environmental decisions they may make.
We stand by our comment letter and believe the EIR is flawed and must be redrafted and recirculated for public review. In closing we call on this Commission to be a leader on the aforementioned issues and be the first line of defense for our citizenry and environment. Only by working together can we continue to be excellent stewards of our environment, outstanding stewards to our citizens and each other. Thank You.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank You,
Pete Sheehan
619
To: Visalia Planning Commission
From: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Subject: Shirk and Riggin Project EIR
This letter is to serve as further comment in addition to all previously submitted comments and documents by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.
CalEnviroScreen Information
CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores. CalEnviroScreen ranks communities based on data that are available from state and federal government sources. CalEnviroScreen is updated and maintained by The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, on behalf ofthe California Environmental Protection Agency.
CalEnviroScreen Data on : Shirk and Riggin EIR Project Location/Area The above listed project is in census tract (6107001003)). Overall, when compared to other census tracts, the project site census tract is in the 74th percentile regarding pollution. As far as pollution burden is concerned, this census tract is in the 99
th percentile. In terms of Diesel Particulate Matter,
this census tract is in the 55th percentile, and Toxic Releases 99th percentile, to name a few. 620
5 th and Sterling Warehouse EIR
Census Tract: 6107001003
Population: 25,636
Environmental Effects %
Cleanup Sites 95%
Sensitive Populations %
Cardiovascular Disease 70%
Asthma 52%
Exposures %
Ozone 91%
Drinking Water 78%
Toxic Releases 99%
Particulate Matter 2.5 98%
Socioeconomic Factors %
Housing Burden 52%
Education 66%
Poverty 49%
Overall Percentiles %
Pollution Burden 99%
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile 74%
621
Conclusion
Consider the above referenced information when making this important decision. Realize that you and the citizens of this area face some of the WORST POLLUTION in the entire state of California.
It is the responsibility of the City’s elected and appointed officials to make environmentally responsible development decisions. Based on the CalEnviroScreen data, this is more than sufficient evidence of the further air quality impacts that the citizenry of Visalia will continue to encounter with further development of another warehouse. We are not against development, as we believe it is necessary for further economic growth in our current society. Development needs to be conducted with the highest of expectations to ensure the local population does not suffer further air quality burdens.
We stand by our comments and believe the EIR is flawed and should be redrafted and recirculated for public review.
Respectfully Submitted,
Pete Sheehan
Pete Sheehan
GSEJA
622
Source -
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/4af93cf9888a424481d2868391af2d82/p age/home/?data_id=dataSource_2-1754d6afdb4-layer-9%3A7306 Glossary of Terms
Ozone - Amount of daily maximum 8-hour Ozone concentration Particulate Matter 2.5 - Annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations Diesel Particulate Matter - Diesel PM emissions from on‐road and non‐road sources Toxic Releases - Toxicity‐weighted concentrations of modeled chemical releases to air from
facility emissions and off‐site incineration.
Traffic -Traffic density, in vehicle‐kilometers per hour per road length, within 150 meters of the census tract boundary.
623
BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 572-
0400
May 24, 2024
Brandon Smith VIA EMAIL TO:
Principal Planner [email protected]
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
SUBJECT: Comments on Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project EIR (SCH NO. 2022080658) Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.
1.0 Summary
The Project site is approximately 284 acres and currently consists of an actively managed almond orchard with an onsite pump house and small structures supportive of the orchard operations. The proposed project would discontinue the existing agricultural uses, demolish remaining on-site structures that serve agricultural uses, and develop a mixed-use industrial park totaling approximately 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial, flex industrial, and commercial uses along with car/trailer parking areas and related on- and off-site improvements. The industrial park would involve both flex industrial and light industrial uses. Flex industrial uses would consist of small incubator space available for small manufacturing, storage, limited warehouse space, while the light industrial uses would consist of warehouse, distribution, storage, and light manufacturing.
The project site proposes construction of eight light industrial buildings (3,474,650 total sf), six flex industrial buildings (84,480 total sf), Self-Storage/Recreation Vehicle (RV) Buildings (144,800 total sf), Convenience Store and Gas Station (6,922 sf), two 2,368 sf Drive-through Restaurants (4,736 total sf), and a Car Wash (4,560 sf). The project site is located within the 624
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024