Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, March 17, 2025 (part 8 of 16)

The proposed project would be required to implement applicable provisions of the Fire Code, including, among others, adhering to the minimum fire flows, the minimum spacing for and numbers of fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, smoke detection devices, and fire department access requirements.

Fire hydrants must be of a type approved by the Fire Marshal or Fire Chief. Therefore, the project site would have adequate water supplies for firefighting purposes and would have adequate access to fire hydrants, as well as adequate emergency access. New utilities such as electrical power and natural gas lines would be installed below ground, helping to reduce potential ignition and related fire risk above ground, as well as reducing the possibility of a power outage during a fire since underground power lines are less likely to be damaged by falling branches or flying debris.

In conclusion, due, in part to its location and the incorporation of project design features such as road improvements, availability of adequate water supply for firefighting purposes, undergrounding of new utility lines, and adherence to applicable laws and regulations relating to fire protection, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Therefore, no mitigation is required, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Flooding and Landslide Hazards Due to Post-fire Slope Instability/Drainage Changes Impact WILD-4: If located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Impact Analysis
See Impacts WILD-1 through WILD-3.

The project site is not located on or near steep slopes susceptible to landslides or downstream flooding. As discussed previously, the project site has also not been affected by previous wildfires that could have resulted in drainage changes or loss of vegetation. Additionally, the project site is not located in or near fire-prone areas, such as unmanaged open space or a designated fire hazard zone.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, which would include erosion and sediment control BMPs during construction, thereby reducing the potential of erosion and siltation during construction and would control potential flooding events that could occur during construction. Also, the proposed project would 1584
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Wildfire

3.16-17
install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of inlets, underground piping, and detention basins that would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and requirements pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. Runoff would drain to the proposed project’s drainage system located throughout the project site. The system would be designed to meet all applicable standards and requirements including accommodating a 100-year storm event and would be required to detain runoff and release it at a rate no greater than the pre-development condition of the project site.

In conclusion, the project site is not considered a high wildfire prone area; it would be required to implement all applicable standards and requirements related to wildfires and fire protection.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No mitigation is required, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

3.16.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative wildfire analysis is the City of Visalia and the western portion of Tulare County because based on the overall topography and existing development (including natural and man-made fire breaks), a fire event beyond this geographic scope is unlikely to affect the proposed project, and any fires starting in the project site and vicinity would not likely significantly affect lands beyond this geographic scope. The cumulative setting includes the built development and the wildland areas within the foregoing geographic scope. The cumulative projects relevant to this analysis include those listed in Chapter 3, Project Description, Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects. The City contains mostly urban and suburban uses with relatively little open space or foothill areas that would be susceptible to wildfire hazards. The western portion of Tulare County, which lies west of Sequoia National Park, contains the cities of Visalia, Tulare, Farmersville, Exeter, Woodlake, Lindsay, Porterville, and Dinuba as well as many “Urban Development” areas as identified by the Tulare County General Plan.
17 The western portion of Tulare County is predominantly within an LRA, with areas to the east of the cities of Woodlake, Exeter, Lindsay and Porterville identified as areas of “Moderate” and “High) FHSZ within a SRA.18 According to CAL FIRE, there are no VHFHSZs within City boundaries or its Sphere of Influence (SOI). With respect to the western portion of Tulare County, which is predominantly within an LRA, there are no areas identified as VHFHSZ. 19 In addition,
there are no SRA within the City or the western portion of Tulare County, and none of the cumulative projects are located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ.

Because none of the cumulative projects are located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 17 Tulare County. 2021. Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update. August. 18 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. FHSZ Viewer. Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

Accessed February 23, 2023. 19 Ibid.
1585
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Wildfire Draft EIR

3.16-18
Moreover, a combination of federal, State, and local laws and regulations help to limit or minimize the potential for exposure to wildfires by reducing the amount of development in WUI areas, ensuring new projects are developed according to the CBC and Fire Code and related standards and requirements, and incorporating mandates for fire-resistant construction into land use planning.

There are several plans at the County and City level that further help to implement various requirements, recommendations and guidelines to further reduce risks associated with wildfires.

The Cumulative Development listed in Table 3-1 (See Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis) consists predominantly of residential, commercial, and industrial developments, which would result in an additional number of persons and structures with the geographic scope. Planned uses proposed by the cumulative projects would increase the need for emergency services to a certain degree, and all development would be required to comply with applicable emergency access requirements and other Fire Code related mandates (e.g., relating to fire hydrants, fire flow, etc.), which would be imposed as enforceable standard conditions of approval. Given the location of the relevant cumulative developments, it is anticipated that the identified evacuation routes of SR-198 (east–west), SR-99 (north–south), and SR-63 (north–south) would be available and would not be substantially impaired. The cumulative developments would also need to comply with applicable laws and regulations relating to erosion and sediment control, thereby helping to further reduce significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

There would be cumulative project construction (including the installation and/or maintenance of associated infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities. However, adherence to applicable laws and regulations would help to ensure that cumulative development would not result in permanent road closures, nor impede established emergency access routes or interfere with emergency response requirements. Accordingly, cumulative projects would not exacerbate wildfire risk.

The proposed project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Moreover, the project site is not in a high fire-prone area, is relatively flat and not prone to flooding, does not have a history of prior wildfires, and would be required to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations relating to emergency access, use of fire-resistant materials, availability of adequate fire hydrants and fire flow supply/pressure, and sediment and erosion control. The proposed project is therefore not expected to exacerbate wildfire hazards or substantially impair emergency/evacuation response.

No mitigation is required and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Cumulative Significance
Less than significant impact.
1586
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Effects Found not to be Significant
4-1
CHAPTER 4: EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

4.1 - Introduction
This chapter is based, in part, on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated August 30, 2022, and contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. The NOP was prepared to identify the potentially significant effects of the proposed project and was circulated for public review between August 30, 2022, and September 28, 2022. During the NOP scoping period, certain impacts were anticipated to be less than significant given the nature of the various project components and the project site. In addition, in preparing this Draft EIR, certain other impacts have been determined to be less than significant in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as detailed more fully herein and based on substantial evidence in the record.

This chapter provides a brief description of effects found not to be significant or less than significant, based on the NOP and NOP public comments received, as well as more detailed analysis conducted as part of the EIR preparation process. No NOP public comments were received during the NOP scoping period related to Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Parks and Recreation.

Further information and analysis is set forth below as to the basis for concluding that the foregoing environmental topic areas would not result in any significant impacts. In addition to these topic areas, there are certain impacts in other environmental topic areas that were found to be less than significant, which are addressed in the various EIR topical sections (Sections 3.1 through 3.16), providing further comprehensive discussion to support the conclusion of less than significant, in order to better inform decision-makers and the general public.

4.2 - Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant

4.2.1 - Mineral Resources
Loss of Mineral Resources of Statewide or Local Importance There are no mineral resource recovery sites on the project site or in the vicinity; in fact, there are none within the entire City of Visalia Planning Area.
1 Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated by an applicable land use plan. A Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) and Resources Sectors map prepared by the California Geological Survey indicates that the project site is located outside of known mineral deposits of significance. Furthermore, given available information, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. In addition, the project site is currently zoned for agricultural purposes, which does not include any mineral resource-related operations. As such, no known mineral resources would be impacted by the proposed project, and there would be no impact.
1 California Geological Survey. 2022. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/. Accessed August 19, 2022. 1587
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Effects Found not to be Significant Draft EIR
4-2

4.2.2 - Population and Housing
Growth Inducement
The proposed project’s potential growth-inducing impacts are discussed in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations. As detailed more fully therein, growth-inducing impacts consider whether a project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. For example, 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 as a result of the proposed project. In terms of the removal of any direct barriers to growth, this would not occur due to the proposed project because it does not propose removing any existing obstacles that currently prevent growth within the City.

For example, the proposed project would not require expansion of existing water, wastewater, and/or other public facilities and services beyond what was already planned for in the General Plan.

Furthermore, the utility infrastructure installed as part of the proposed project would be sized and located expressly to serve the proposed project and would not, therefore, induce growth in the project vicinity.

Given the nature of the proposed project, it would likely be staffed primarily by local employees once operational. As of July 2022, the City had an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent, indicating a presence of approximately 6,005 unemployed workers.2 Approximately 22.5 percent of the City’s workforce works in industry sectors that the proposed project would occupy, including wholesale trade, manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation and warehousing. 3 Therefore, it is reasonable
to conclude there are at least 1,352 workers eligible to work in wholesale trade, manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation and warehousing sectors in the City.4 Thus, the proposed project would likely be able to hire from the City’s existing labor force. Furthermore, according to the U.S.

Census Bureau 2011–2015 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS) Commuting Flows, there are a total of 140,091 workers who both live in Tulare County and commute to work within the County. 5 It
is reasonable to assume that workers who currently reside in the Tulare County near the City of Visalia would continue to commute to work and thus also would be available to serve as employees for the proposed project. Nonetheless, a certain number of additional employees could potentially transfer into the area as a result of the proposed project, resulting in a certain amount of population growth. However, the General Plan projected that the 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.6 The population growth caused by increased employment would be within the planned growth anticipated in the General Plan. 2 State of California.2022. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Placed (CDP) July 2022. August 19. 3 United States Census. “OnTheMap” Tool. Website: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Accessed August 26,2022. 4 6005 * .225 = 1,352 5 United States Census. 2011–2015 5-Year ACS Commuting Flows. Website: https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/demo/tables/metro-micro/2015/commuting-flows-2015/table1.xlsx. Accessed November 17, 2022. 6 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 2: Land Use. October. 1588
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Effects Found not to be Significant
4-3
Additionally, the industrial uses on the project site were anticipated by the City in the General Plan, and thus the City generally assumed this number of employees needed for such a project. It is reasonable to conclude that any 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 this writing, the current housing vacancy rate in the City is approximately 3.9 percent, and the County current vacancy rate is approximately 5.7 percent. 7 Thus, the proposed
project would not result in a significant, unplanned change to the population of the City or alter the location, distribution, density, intensity, or growth rate of the anticipated population planned for the City. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be less than significant.

Further, implementation of the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact because the City is not experiencing unplanned growth and the project site has already been planned for industrial development; thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s long-range planning and land use vision for the project site and vicinity and would improve the overall jobs/housing projections by providing job opportunities within the City. Therefore, project implementation would not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing.

Displacement of Persons or Housing
The project site does not currently have any residential structures on the premises and consists entirely of agricultural land used as an almond grove. Because there are no residential structures located on the project site, no people would be directly or indirectly displaced by the proposed project. Furthermore, because the proposed project would not result in the displacement of any persons or housing, it would not contribute to any potential cumulative impact in this regard. There would be no impact.

4.2.3 - Parks and Recreation
Physical Deterioration of Park and Recreational Facilities As of 2014, the City has maintained approximately 640 acres of park and recreational lands within its jurisdiction. The City would need to provide a minimum of 429 additional acres of park land to reach a total of 1,048 acres by 2030 to meet its park standard for neighborhood and community parks of

5.0 acres per 1,000 residents at General Plan buildout. 8 According to the City of Visalia General Plan,
as of October 2014, the City has provided parks at a rate of 5.1 acres for every 1,000 residents and continues to implement a successful strategy preserving and providing parks.9 The City currently has approximately 4.74 acres of park per 1,000 residents. The City recently approved the East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project, which will provide approximately 139 acres of active recreational amenities and 130 acres of passive amenities in the eastern portion of the City.

That project would contribute to the City’s park ratio goal. The proposed project would pay into capital improvement program to fund the East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project and other future parks projects to offset impacts to park and recreation facilities. 7 California Department of Finance. 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. 8 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan–Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. October 14. 9 Ibid. 1589
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Effects Found not to be Significant Draft EIR
4-4
Furthermore, the nearest public park to the project site is Lion’s Park, located approximately 0.38 miles southeast of the project site. As discussed above, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 4,100 new employees at full buildout, and it is thus reasonable to assume that some of these employees would utilize, at least to some degree, the City’s available park and recreational facilities during the workday. However, given the nonresidential, industrial nature and location of the proposed project, it is likely that any such use would be limited and thus would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park and recreational facilities occurring or being accelerated. Moreover, as discussed in detail above, because the proposed project would not be expected to result in a significant increase to the population of the City (given the primarily local nature of the anticipated workforce), the quantity of existing visitors and total facility usage would not likely increase significantly as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing park and recreational facilities, and therefore impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

New or Expanded Recreational Facilities
Because the proposed project is not located within or adjacent to any designated natural or open space areas and would not likely significantly increase the City’s residential population (given the primarily local nature of the anticipated workforce), coupled with the limited likely employee usage of such facilities, the proposed project would not trigger the need to construct new or expanded park and recreational facilities to ensure that the applicable ratio of parks to residents would be maintained. Accordingly, there would be less than significant impact in this regard. 1590
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations
5-1
CHAPTER 5: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126 requires that all aspects of a project be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this analysis, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) must identify (1) significant environmental effects of the proposed project; (2) significant environmental effects which could not be avoided if the proposed project were implemented; (3) significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented; (4) growth-inducing impact of the proposed project; (5) mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects; and (6) alternatives to the proposed project.

This chapter provides a discussion of other CEQA-mandated topics, including significant unavoidable impacts, growth inducement, and significant irreversible environmental changes, if any, which would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented. Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, describes the significant environmental effects of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects to the extent feasible. Chapter 6, Alternatives to the Proposed Project discusses a reasonable range of potential alternatives to the proposed project.

5.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)(c) requires an EIR to identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including effects that could not be avoided if the proposed project were implemented. This includes those significant impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance.

As required under CEQA, the proposed project was analyzed for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental topic areas discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.16. The results of the analysis indicate that the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Project-Level Conversion of Prime Farmland: Although the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation and conversion of the project site to industrial use has long been envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan, the proposed project would result in the loss of agricultural land and conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses.

There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this impact. Accordingly, despite the fact that this conversion was previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR has evaluated and hereby discloses that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland identified by Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) mapping to nonagricultural use.
• Cumulative Conversion of Prime Farmland: Much of the City’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) consists of Important Farmland that would be converted to nonagricultural uses with 1591
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR
5-2
implementation of future development already envisioned by the General Plan Land Use Element. Development within Tier II and III of the UDB that would convert Prime Farmland is subject to the 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preservation elsewhere outside of the City’s UDB.

Although cumulative projects occurring in Tier II and III of the UDB would be required to preserve agricultural land elsewhere, loss of Prime Farmland would still occur and the cumulative impact remains significant. The development of the proposed project would further contribute to this already significant cumulative impact, due to the loss of approximately 284 acres of Prime Farmland, which has been identified as an individual significant and unavoidable impact due to lack of feasible mitigation. Moreover, the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative effect to agricultural resources would be considered cumulatively considerable.
• Project-Level Impact Related to Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation which means the proposed industrial use was accounted for in the Air Quality Plan (AQP) land use projections. However, the proposed project could create a localized violation of State or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative nonattainment pollutant violations, and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g. However, because MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2f would not reduce construction or operational impacts below the applicable thresholds and full implementation of MM AIR-2g cannot be guaranteed due to potential technical and/or financial feasibility, the proposed project’s potentially significant impact is conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with Criterion 1 of the AQP even after the incorporation of feasible mitigation. The impact would be significant and unavoidable.
• Project-Level Impact Related to Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) During Construction, and ROG, NOX, and PM10 During Operation: For purposes of a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR evaluated the potential impacts assuming that none of the three anticipated project phases overlapped (sequential), and also considered the potential impacts if the project phases did, in fact, overlap (concurrent). In the sequential phasing scenario, after the incorporation of MM AIR-2a and MM AIR-2b, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) daily emission screening levels for an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA), pursuant to District Rule 2201. However, if the three phases of construction occur concurrently, emissions of CO and NOX would exceed the applicable Valley Air District’s significance thresholds even after implementation of feasible mitigation. As such, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of identified mitigation.

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

However, the full implementation of MMs AIR-2c through MM AIR-2f would not reduce emissions below the applicable thresholds and MM AIR-2g cannot be guaranteed during project operation; therefore, the reasonable worst-case operational emissions would exceed 1592
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations
5-3
the applicable Valley Air District significance thresholds for CO, ROG, NOX, and PM10 and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Cumulative Significant Air Quality Impact: Because the proposed project would exceed certain identified construction and operational significance thresholds, its emissions would also be cumulatively considerable.
• Project-Level Impact Related to Mobile Source Operational Noise: Without development of the proposed project, nearly every roadway segment is estimated to experience noise increases from a minimum 0.9 dBA Leq to a maximum 8.6 dBA Leq by 2028, compared to existing traffic noise levels. The addition of the proposed project’s traffic would increase noise levels up to an additional 3.7 dBA Leq upon full buildout. The proposed project would contribute to increasing traffic volumes–and therefore traffic-related noise levels–in its primary trip distribution area, which is generally bounded by the project site/Riggin Avenue to the north, State Route (SR) 99 to the west, Akers Street to the east, and SR-198 to the south.

There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this impact to less than significant. The proposed project’s off-site mobile source operational noise impact from traffic generation would be considered significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative Noise Impact: The proposed project would exceed the identified operational significance threshold, its impact would also be cumulatively considerable.

5.2 - Growth-inducing Impacts
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, in the surrounding environment or may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, to assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, a project’s characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively could affect the environment must be evaluated (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d) and 15126.2(e)).

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, there would be a significant growth-inducing impact if the proposed project would:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area (for example, by proposing new homes or commercial or industrial businesses beyond the land use density/intensity envisioned in the general plan);
• Substantially alter the planned location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the population of an area; or
• Remove obstacles to population growth such as, for example, extensions of roads or expansions of other infrastructure not assumed in the general plan or adopted capital improvements project list, or otherwise upsize infrastructure (i.e., exceeds the needs of the project and could accommodate future developments) to serve unplanned growth.

The City 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 1593
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR
5-4
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, 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 Southern California Gas Company [SoCalGas]) and electrical services (to be provided by Southern California Edison [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.

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.1 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.
2 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. 3 Furthermore, Tulare County currently has an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, or 20,800 people of the working population.4 There are a total of 140,091 workers who both live in Tulare County and 1 State of California. 2022. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) July 2022. August 19. 2 United States Census. “OnTheMap” Tool. Website: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Accessed August 26, 2022. 3 6005 * .225 = 1,352 4 Employment Development Department – Labor Market Information Division. 2023. Visalia Porterville MSA (Tulare County). May 19.

Website: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/visa$pds.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2023. 1594
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations
5-5
commute to work within the County.5 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.6 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 this writing, the current housing vacancy rate in the City is 3.9 percent, and the County vacancy rate is

5.7 percent.7 Thus, 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, implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial indirect population growth within the City.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect growth. It would not negatively alter 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, growth-inducing impacts would be less than significant.

5.3 - Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
The environmental effects of the proposed project are summarized in the Executive Summary and are analyzed in detail in Section 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR.

As mandated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), the Draft EIR must address significant irreversible environmental changes (if any) that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as a highway improvement that 5 United States Census. 2011–2015 5-Year ACS Commuting Flows. Website: https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/demo/tables/metro-micro/2015/commuting-flows-2015/table1.xlsx. Accessed November 17, 2022. 6 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 2: Land Use. October. 7 California Department of Finance. 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. 1595
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR
5-6
provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Specifically, such an irreversible environmental change would occur if:
• The proposed project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources, which makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.
• Irreversible damage could result from environmental accidents associated with the proposed project.
• Any irretrievable commitments of resources are not justified (e.g., the proposed project results in the wasteful use of energy). (Refer to Section 3.6, Energy, which addresses this topic in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.)
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 California Building Standards Code (CBC), which are viewed as some of 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.
1596
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations
5-7
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, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site is designated as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Un-zoned, 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, 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. 1597

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1598
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-1
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6.1 - Introduction
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6, this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) contains a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project. The purpose of this section is to provide decision-makers, other interested organizations, and the public with a reasonable number of potentially feasible project alternatives that could attain most of the basic project objectives, while avoiding or reducing any of the project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for this alternatives analysis are noted below pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. • An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; • 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; - Infeasibility; or
- Inability to avoid significant environmental effects.

6.1.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
• Project-level conversion of Prime Farmland: Although the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation and conversion of the project site to industrial use has long been envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan, the proposed project would result in the loss of agricultural land and conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses.

There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this impact. Accordingly, despite the fact that this conversion was previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR has evaluated and hereby discloses that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland identified by Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) mapping to nonagricultural use.
• Cumulative conversion of Prime Farmland: Much of the City’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) consists of Important Farmland that would be converted to nonagricultural uses with implementation of future development already envisioned by the General Plan Land Use Element. Development within Tier II and III of the UDB that would convert Prime Farmland is subject to the 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preservation elsewhere outside of the City’s UDB.

Although cumulative projects occurring in Tier II and III of the UDB would be required to preserve agricultural land elsewhere, loss of Prime Farmland would still occur and the cumulative impact remains significant. The development of the proposed project would further contribute to this already significant cumulative impact, due to the loss of 1599
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-2
approximately 284 acres of Prime Farmland, which has been identified as an individual significant and unavoidable impact due to lack of feasible mitigation. Moreover, the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative effect to agricultural resources would be considered cumulatively considerable.
• Project-level impact related to implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation which means the proposed industrial use was accounted for in the Air Quality Plan (AQP) land use projections. However, the proposed project could create a localized violation of State or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative nonattainment pollutant violations, and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g. However, because MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2f would not reduce construction or operational impacts below the applicable thresholds and full implementation of MM AIR-2g cannot be guaranteed due to potential technical and/or financial feasibility, the proposed project’s potentially significant impact is conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with Criterion 1 of the AQP even after the incorporation of feasible mitigation. The impact would be significant and unavoidable.
• Project-level impact related to cumulatively considerable net increase of nitrogen oxide (NOX) during construction, and reactive organic gas (ROG), NOX, and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) during operation: For purposes of a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR evaluated the potential impacts assuming that none of the three anticipated project phases overlapped (sequential), and also considered the potential impacts if the project phases did, in fact, overlap (concurrent). In the sequential phasing scenario, after the incorporation of MM AIR-2a and MM AIR-2b, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) daily emission screening levels for an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA), pursuant to District Rule 2201. However, if the three phases of construction occur concurrently, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and NOX would exceed the applicable Valley Air District’s significance thresholds even after implementation of feasible mitigation. As such, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of identified mitigation.

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

However, the full implementation of MM AIR-2c through MM AIR-2f would not reduce emissions below the applicable thresholds and MM AIR-2g cannot be guaranteed during project operation; therefore, the reasonable worst-case operational emissions would exceed the applicable Valley Air District’s significance thresholds for CO, ROG, NOX, and PM10 and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Cumulative significant air quality impact: Because the proposed project would exceed certain identified construction and operational significance thresholds, its emissions would also be cumulatively considerable.
1600
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-3
• Project-level impact related to mobile source operational noise: Without development of the proposed project, nearly every roadway segment is estimated to experience noise increases from a minimum 0.9 A-weighted decibel (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) to a maximum 8.6 dBA Leq by 2028, compared to existing traffic noise levels. The addition of the proposed project’s traffic would increase noise levels up to an additional 3.7 dBA Leq upon full buildout.

The proposed project would contribute to increasing traffic volumes—and therefore trafficrelated noise levels—in its primary trip distribution area, which is generally bounded by the project site/Riggin Avenue to the north, State Route (SR) 99 to the west, Akers Street to the east, and SR-198 to the south. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this impact to less than significant. The proposed project’s off-site mobile source operational noise impact from traffic generation would be considered significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative noise impact: The proposed project would exceed the identified operational significance threshold, its impact would also be cumulatively considerable.

Potential significant impacts were identified with respect to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation; however, mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the impacts to less than significant.

6.1.2 - Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Following is an analysis of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project for evaluation of their comparative merits, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

The three alternatives to the proposed project analyzed in this section are as follows:
• No Project Alternative: Under this alternative, development of the project site would not occur, and the project site would remain in its current existing condition. • Reduced Footprint Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed in such a way as to reduce some construction and operational air quality impacts, operational noise impacts, and protect some of the on-site Prime Farmland by reducing the overall footprint of the developed areas. The eastern half of the project site, approximately 142 acres, would be preserved and would remain in agricultural production, and half of the total warehouse and industrial park land uses would be developed. The proposed associated commercial uses would be relocated to the western half of the site. The stormwater basins would be sized accordingly. It is assumed that culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch would be required, similar to the proposed project.
• Alternative Location: Under this alternative, the proposed project would be constructed in the approximately 284-acre parcels west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue (APNs 077-840-001, 077-840-002, and 077-840-003). These parcels are selected as they are few of the remaining parcels within Tier I of the UDB that is designated as Industrial therefore generally suitable for the proposed development. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to re-designate a portion of the site as Light Industrial for the proposed associated flex industrial/commercial uses conditionally allowed under Light Industrial. This site would be approximately 650 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors located to the southwest. 1601
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-4
The boundaries of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are shown in Exhibit 6-1. The three alternatives to the proposed project are analyzed below. These analyses compare the proposed project and each individual project alternative. In several cases, the description of the impact may be the same under each alternative when compared with the CEQA Thresholds of Significance (i.e., both the project and the alternative would result in a less than significant impact). The actual degree of impact may be slightly different between the proposed project and each alternative, and this relative difference will factor into this analysis in terms of a conclusion of greater or lesser impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) sets forth considerations to be used in evaluating an alternative location. The section states that the “key question” is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project.

The CEQA Guidelines identify the following factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of an alternative location:
1) Site suitability
2) Economic viability
3) Availability of infrastructure
4) General Plan consistency
5) Other plans or regulatory limitations
6) Jurisdictional boundaries
7) Whether the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.

6.2 - Alternative Eliminated from Further Consideration An EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to its location, which would feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives while reducing or avoiding any of its significant effects. An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(b)). Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(3)). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR need not evaluate every conceivable alternative to a project. The discussion of alternatives is subject to a rule of reason and the scope of alternatives to be analyzed must be evaluated on the facts of each case.

Following is the identification of one alternative initially considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible, along with a brief explanation of the reasons for its exclusion. As noted below, this 1602
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-5
alternative was eliminated from detailed consideration in the Draft EIR since it fails to meet most of the project objectives and is infeasible.

Self Storage/Lighter Use Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed as self storage or other uses allowed or allowed with a conditional use permit under the land use designations that would involve fewer use of heavy heavy-duty trucks that use diesel as the fuel source, such as office, selected types of eateries, and gas station. Operation may increase passenger trips but decrease heavy heavy-duty truck trips. However, due to the sheer size of the project site, it would not be economically viable to have these types of uses to fill the entire site. It would not be 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. It also would not maximize development of the currently underutilized site and would not create as many employment opportunities for the region. For these reasons, this alternative to develop the site as other uses is considered but rejected.

6.3 - Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the proposed project is to accomplish the orderly development of the project site as proposed, consistent with the General Plan’s industrial land use designation, which would provide economic benefits to the City, among others. As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, the objectives of the proposed project are to:

1. Ensure that development of the project site is accomplished in an economically viable manner consistent with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the City’s General Plan, including the land use vision set forth therein that contemplates light industrial and industrial uses, taking into account necessary site plan considerations including efficient access and loading.

2. Maximize development of the existing underutilized project site and generate increased revenue and economic development for the City in order to support the City’s ongoing City operations.

3. Develop of a mixed-use industrial park, with light manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, and/or flex industrial uses, in the City that is designed to meet market demand and contemporary industry standards including building size and clear height requirements, modern façades, articulated concrete panels, a natural color palette, and expansive glass entry features.

4. Create employment-generating businesses in the City to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and to improve the jobs-tohousing balance.

5. Maximize placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system (SR-99) and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths, as feasible, on other roadways and to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses or other sensitive receptors.
1603
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-6

6. Develop innovative industrial uses providing a range of building sizes with cross dock and rear load capability that have ready access to available infrastructure, including major transportation corridors and utilities to be used as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network.

6.4 - Alternative 1—No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires EIRs to evaluate a “No Project Alternative,” which is defined as the “circumstance under which the project does not proceed.” Under the No Project Alternative, the 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial and flex industrial development, infrastructure improvements, roadway frontage improvements would not be constructed on the project site and in its vicinity. In this scenario, the project site’s existing agricultural uses would remain; road improvements would not occur; trees and crops would not be removed or impacted; and grading would not take place. This alternative would not require annexation or conditional use permit.

6.4.1 - Impact Analysis
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
The proposed project’s impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant (See Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare). Under the No Project Alternative, the existing orchards, tree cover, retention basin, and pump station would not be converted and could remain on-site. The infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway frontage improvements would not occur. There would be no change in visual character, views, nighttime lighting, daytime glare, or shadow, as there would be no change to the existing on-site buildings, parking area, streets, utility lines, topography, or vegetation/landscaping, or conflict with zoning. Thus, there would be no aesthetics impacts under this alternative.

Because there would be no impacts under the No Project Alternative, this alternative would have a lesser impact as compared to the proposed project.

Agriculture and Forest Resources
The proposed project’s impacts related to agriculture would be significant and unavoidable, and there would be no impact related to forestry resources (See Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources). The No Project Alternative would not convert any Prime Farmland as identified by the FMMP to nonagricultural use, nor would it conflict with zoning or a Williamson Act Contract.

This alternative would have no impacts to existing conditions with respect to agriculture or forestry resources.

The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources that would result from the proposed project and would therefore have reduced impacts as compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet any of the proposed project’s objectives, fulfill the underlying purpose of the proposed project, or meet the General Plan’s development vision.
1604
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-7
Air Quality
Under the proposed project, air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable because construction and operational emissions would exceed applicable thresholds even after compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, and implementation of feasible mitigation.

Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not be developed with 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial and flex industrial uses, and existing site conditions would remain the same.

There would be no ground disturbance within the project site and within the areas proposed for the off-site improvements, and no construction or operation of the facilities would occur. Therefore, no impacts to air quality would occur under this alternative during construction, and the significant and unavoidable impacts in this regard would be avoided. Similarly, the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts related to operations would not occur. Therefore, this alternative would result in reduced impacts as compared to the proposed project.

However, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives related to air quality because it would not reduce commutes for regional residents by proving local employment opportunities or maximize the placement of industrial sites in proximity to major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths.

Biological Resources
The proposed project’s impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change related to wildlife or habitat on-site, and the No Project Alternative would not have any potential impacts to special-status wildlife species or jurisdictional wetlands. Thus, there would be no biological resources impacted under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in reduced impacts as compared to the proposed project.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed project’s impacts related to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.5, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change in historic, archaeological, or tribal resources, as there would be no change to the existing on-site structures and no ground disturbance. Thus, there would be no cultural or tribal resources impacts under this alternative, and there would be reduced impacts as compared to the proposed project.

This alternative would not meet the project objectives in terms of employment opportunities and infrastructure and services.

Energy
The proposed project’s impacts related to energy use and conservation would be less than significant (see Section 3.6, Energy). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change related to energy consumption, as there would be no change to the existing land uses or daily vehicle trips. Thus, there would be no impact related to energy use under this alternative, and the level of impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. 1605
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-8
The No Project Alternative would not result in the construction of industrial and flex industrial buildings or infrastructure improvements, and would therefore have no impact related to energy consumption. However, this alternative would not meet the project objectives related to energy because it would not provide local jobs to reduce the commute for regional residents, which would reduce energy impacts resulting from the use of car fuels, nor would it maximize the placement of industrial sites in proximity to major transportation corridors to reduce truck fuel usage.

Geology and Soils
The proposed project’s impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact related to potential exposure of persons and property to seismic- and soilrelated hazards, nor would there be any potential paleontological impacts. The No Project Alternative would not construct warehouses in a seismically active area and on soil that is expansive, unstable, and susceptible to liquefaction and other seismic-related ground failure. Therefore, there would be no impact with regard to geology and soils and paleontological resources under the No Project Alternative.

Therefore this alternative would have reduced impacts compared to the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project’s impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change related to GHG emission generation, as there would be no change to the existing land uses or daily vehicle trips. Thus, there would be no impact related to GHG emissions under this alternative. The No Project Alternative would have no impact related to GHG emissions, as it would not create emissions from construction or operation of the warehouses.

Therefore, it would have reduced impacts compared to the proposed project. However, it would not meet any of the project objectives related to GHG emissions, because this alternative would not reduce commutes for regional residents by proving local employment opportunities or place industrial sites in proximity to major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths.

Hazards and Hazardous Material
The proposed project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no demolition of the existing on-site buildings, and no potential exposure to lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials (ACM) would occur from demolition activities.

The No Project Alternative would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Therefore, it would have a lesser level of hazards and hazardous materials impact compared to the proposed project.
1606
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-9
Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change related to hydrology, stormwater runoff and drainage, water quality, groundwater recharge and depletion, or flooding, as there would be no change to the existing on-site buildings, hardscape, or landscaping resulting in changes in impervious vs. pervious surfaces on-site. The stormwater detention basin would eventually be constructed by the City as part of their Stormwater Master Plan. Thus, there would be no hydrology and water quality impacts or improvements under this alternative.

The No Project Alternative would have no impacts related to hydrology and water quality; thus, the impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives in terms of infrastructure improvements.

Land Use and Planning
The proposed project’s impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant, and the proposed project would meet many of the project objectives, including applying the goals and policies of the General Plan (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning). Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not be developed with 3,720,149 square feet of warehouse development, and the improvements to utilities, roadway frontage, and infrastructure would not occur.

This alternative would not be consistent with the project objective to apply the goals and policies of the General Plan, which focuses on developing employment opportunities and expanding the City’s industrial base. The No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the General Plan’s land use vision or with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant, which is similar to the proposed project. This alternative would not reduce impacts as compared to the proposed project and may result in somewhat increased impacts due to the land use inconsistency, although the impacts under this alternative would still be considered less than significant.

In addition, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives related to employment opportunities, land use, and industrial uses.

Noise
The proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to mobile source operational noise, less than significant impact with mitigation for temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction, and less than significant impacts for noise land use compatibility, groundborne vibration, and airport noise (see Section 3.12, Noise). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change in groundborne vibration and noise sources (including from traffic-related noise), as there would be no changes to the existing land uses or daily vehicle trips. Noise and vibration levels in the project vicinity would remain the same as under existing conditions. Thus, there would be no noise impacts under this alternative. 1607
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-10
Compared to the project, the No Project Alternative would have reduced noise impacts and would avoid the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable noise impact.

Public Services
The proposed project’s impacts to public services would be less than significant (see Section 3.13, Public Services). Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change related to fire, police, school, or library services, as there would be no change to the existing land uses on the project site.

There would be no impact.

The No Project Alternative would have a lower level of public services impacts compared to the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives related to public services, such as providing buildings that meet contemporary industry standards, providing industrial uses with ready access to available infrastructure, or applying the land use vision that is contemplated for this site. Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed project would not be implemented.

Under the No Project Alternative, transportation and traffic conditions would remain the same as the existing conditions because no development would occur on the project site. However, the proposed improvements to roadways and circulation, including new bike and pedestrian facilities, would not be implemented under this alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact, no mitigation would be required, and impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project.

While the project site conditions would remain the same as existing conditions under the No Project Alternative, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives related to transportation because this alternative would not reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, place industrial sites in proximity to major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths, or place innovative industrial facilities in proximity to the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network.

Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project’s impacts to utility and service systems would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems). Under the No Project Alternative, the infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway frontage improvements would not occur. There would be no change related to water supply and wastewater utilities and 1608
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-11
stormwater and solid waste collection service systems, as there would be no change to the existing on-site buildings and agricultural operations and associated utilities demand and infrastructure facilities. However, as discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities, the proposed project would use significantly less water than the existing almond farm on-site. As such, water demand would be greater under the No Project Alternative than under the proposed project. The Pacific Institute of California Department of Water Resources found that almond farms require 4.49 acre-feet per year (AFY) per acre, which is among the most water-intensive crops. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would demand more water than the proposed project. Furthermore, other project benefits related to utilities would not be implemented under this alternative, such as installation of stormwater retention basins, payment of impact fees for new water services, and reduced water use implementations from the policies outlined in the Visalia General Plan. However, because the existing water use on the project site is not considered a significant impact, no mitigation measures would be required, and this impact is considered less than significant. Thus, impacts related to utility and service systems would be less than significant under this alternative, which is less than the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would lessen impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Additionally, this alternative would not meet the project objectives related to utilities and service systems because it would not provide buildings that meet contemporary industry standards and ready access to available infrastructure, including utilities.

Wildfire
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to wildfire (See Section 3.16, Wildfire). The project site is not located in a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” nor is it located in an State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in a local, State, or federal responsibility area. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change to the project site with regard to wildfire susceptibility. Thus, there would be no impact related to wildfire under this alternative.

The No Project Alternative would not exacerbate existing wildfire conditions and would have a lower level of wildfire risk, as the existing agricultural operations would remain on-site and would not add additional facilities and associated employees, potentially exposing additional persons to wildfire risk. However, the No Project Alternative would not add enhancements to reduce roadway safety hazards or improve emergency access, which would incrementally reduce impacts associated with wildfires. As such, under this alternative, there would be no impact, which is less than the proposed project.

6.4.2 - Conclusion
Under the proposed project, the implementation of 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 farmland would be significant and unavoidable. Air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable. Noise impacts 1609
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-12
related to mobile source and operational noise would be significant and unavoidable. 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 implemented under this alternative; thus, these impacts would be lesser than the proposed project.

The No Project Alternative would further reduce the proposed project’s less than significant impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare; energy; hydrology and water quality; public services; and wildfire.

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.

The No Project Alternative would avoid the majority of the project’s impacts by leaving the site in its existing condition, thus avoiding impacts caused by the demolition of on-site buildings, construction of industrial and flex industrial buildings, infrastructure and off-site improvements, and impacts caused by the operation of the proposed project. Additionally, 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.

6.5 - Alternative 2—Reduced Footprint Alternative
Under this alternative, the alternative 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.

6.5.1 - Impact Analysis
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
The proposed project’s impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant (See Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare). Under Alternative 2, the square footage of the industrial park would be reduced, and approximately 142 acres would be preserved, which would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics, light, and glare as compared to the proposed project. Construction-related impacts including light and glare from construction equipment, construction machinery, and nighttime security lighting would be reduced because of the smaller development footprint. Additionally, the change in lighting and glare sources and changes to the existing character would not occur on 142 acres of the project site, resulting in incrementally reduced impacts. However, under Alternative 2, there would still be changes to the existing character of the project site, as well as the addition of 1610
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-13
new light and glare sources, resulting in less than significant impacts. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project.

Agriculture and Forest Resources
The proposed project’s impacts related to agriculture would be significant and unavoidable, and there would be no impact related to forestry resources. Most of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland and is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The proposed project would result in the conversion of 284 acres of farmland to urban uses (See Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources). Under this alternative, 142 acres on the eastern half of the project site would be preserved and would remain in agricultural production, resulting in a 50 percent reduction in the number of acres that would be converted from farmland to urban uses. This alternative would preserve approximately half of the agricultural lands as compared to the proposed project. However, a partial Nonrenewal of the Williamson Act Contract was approved by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors on May 3, 2022 (Resolution No. 2022-0677). Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 29, 2022 (Resolution No. 2022-1005).

Accordingly, the Williamson Act Contract will be issued a Certificate of Cancellation upon payment of cancellation fees. Under Alternative 2, half of the farmland on the project site would be preserved, but the Williamson Act Contract would still expire because of the County-approved cancellation.

The General Plan EIR planned for the conversion of approximately 14,265 acres of farmland to be converted into urban uses, including the project site. This conversion was evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR. By reducing the amount of farmland to be converted, the impacts that were evaluated in the General Plan would be slightly reduced. However, even with the preservation of 142 acres on the project site, the overall loss of farmland in the General Plan area would still be significant and unavoidable with no available mitigation measures. Under this alternative, the project would result in a loss of 142 acres of farmland. While the total loss of acres in the General Plan area would be lower, the Draft EIR would still need to conservatively conclude that the project impacts are significant and unavoidable due to the loss of Prime Farmland on the project site. The preservation of 142 acres would not be substantial enough to change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR or of the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative.

Furthermore, the preservation of an additional 142 acres of farmland would prevent the project from fully meeting several project objectives, including ensuring that development of the project site is consistent with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the City’s General Plan, including the land use vision set forth therein that contemplates light industrial and industrial uses; and maximizing development of the existing underutilized project site.

Air Quality
Under the proposed project, air quality impacts related to consistency with the applicable AQP and criteria pollutant emissions would be significant and unavoidable because construction and operational emissions and health risks would exceed applicable thresholds even after compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, and implementation of feasible mitigation. Whereas impacts related to odors would be less than significant.
1611
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-14
Under Alternative 2, the square footage of the industrial park would be reduced, and approximately 142 acres would be preserved, which would result in reduced construction and operational air quality impacts as compared to the proposed project. Reducing the size of development by 50 percent would reduce construction criteria pollutant emissions, such as CO and NOX, below the applicable thresholds, because 50 percent less development would result in fewer days of construction, fewer hours of operation of heavy equipment, less grading and hauling of soils, and fewer construction worker vehicles trips. In addition, Alternative 2 would reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions because 50 percent less development would result in fewer mobile emissions from trucks and passenger vehicles. However, despite the reduction of at least half of the proposed warehouse and industrial park uses and proportional heavy heavy-duty trucks trips during this alternative, operational criteria pollutant emissions would still exceed thresholds for CO, ROG, and NOX because the vast majority of operational emissions would still be from the use of heavy heavyduty trucks as part of warehouse and industrial park land uses. MM AIR-2c through MM Air-2f would reduce operational emissions. No additional mitigation measures would be feasible beyond what was proposed in the EIR, because the applicant would not have ownership over any of the heavy heavy-duty truck fleets. Therefore, although Alternative 2 would reduce some operational air quality criteria pollutants, air quality impacts related to operational emissions of criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable. By reducing the project footprint and preserving the eastern half of the site, the project’s distance from the nearest sensitive receptors is significantly increased to over 2,700 feet. Health risk impacts during construction would be reduced to less than significant levels because diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions would no longer be significantly concentrated in close proximity to sensitive receptors. This alternative would result in the same impacts related to odors because the type of land uses and development considered would be the same as analyzed in the EIR.

This alternative would meet the project objectives of developing innovative industrial uses as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network. However, because the project site would not be built out to its full potential, it would only partially meet the project objectives related to air quality, such as creating employment-generating businesses to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and maximizing the placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths.

Biological Resources
Under the proposed project, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 2, approximately 142 acres would be preserved, which would protect some of the project site’s farmland and reduce potential impacts to biological resources, including Swainson’s hawk, special-status wildlife such as San Joaquin kit fox, active bird’s nests, and roosting bats, because fewer habitats could be disturbed. Overall, Alternative 2 would have marginally reduced impacts to biological resources as compared to the proposed project, although mitigation to prevent impacts to birds, kit fox, and bats would still be required under this alternative. Additionally, under this alternative, culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch and mitigation related to the jurisdictional delineation would still be required. Therefore, with implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f, and MM BIO-3 impacts to special-status species and to wetlands 1612
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-15
and jurisdictional features under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which is similar to the proposed project.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the proposed project, impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 2, the overall footprint of the developed areas would be reduced, and approximately 142 acres would be preserved. Because of the reduced square footage of development, there would be less ground disturbance and potentially fewer impacts on cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. However, because ground will be disturbed under this alternative, the possibility of inadvertent discovery remains similar to the proposed project and the mitigation measures to prevent impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources from ground disturbance would still be required under this alternative. Therefore, with implementation of MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, and MM CUL-4, impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources, human remains, and to tribal cultural resources under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, which is similar to the proposed project.

Energy
Under the proposed project, impacts related to energy would be less than significant. Under Alternative 2, the overall footprint of the developed areas would be reduced. Under Alternative 2, there would be a smaller change related to energy consumption during construction because the overall amount of construction activity, including building square footage, would be smaller. In addition, during operation less energy would be needed for lighting and energy due to smaller overall building space and fewer vehicle fuel consumption due to less demand for employees and truck deliveries. As a result, impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would meet the project objectives of developing innovative industrial uses as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network. However, because the project site would not be built out to its full potential, it would only partially meet the project objectives related to energy, such as creating employment-generating businesses to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and maximizing the placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system and other major transportation corridors to reduce fuel usage from truck trips.

Geology and Soils
The proposed project’s impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils). Development under Alternative 2 could cause potential substantial adverse impacts associated with seismic ground shaking because of the project’s location in a highly seismic region within the influence of multiple faults, similar to the proposed project. Because geological impacts such as seismic hazards are due to the project’s location, this alternative would still require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project to reduce geological impacts to less than significant. Implementaiton of MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would reduce impacts related to earthquakes, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion and topsoil loss, unstable geologic location, and expansive soil. Furthermore, similar to the proposed project, 1613
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-16
structures would be designed in accordance with the current California Building Standards Code (CBC) and Visalia Building Code (Chapter 15.08) to reduce hazards posed by seismic ground shaking and the proximity to known active faults. Additionally, this alternative would have a reduced impact on paleontological resources because the development footprint is smaller than the proposed project; however, because this alternative would still result in ground disturbance, mitigation would still be required during construction. Implementation of MM GEO-3 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. With the implementation of mitigation, this alternative would have a similar level of impacts as the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the proposed project, impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions impacts would require rooftop solar panels or a solar-ready rooftop design, as well as roofing material with light coloring, electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, and limiting warehouse uses to dry storage. Under Alternative 2, the overall footprint of the developed areas would be reduced. Because of the reduced size of the facility and a smaller construction footprint and fewer operational vehicle trips, GHG emissions generation would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. However, under this alternative, mitigation measures such as rooftop solar and EV charging infrastructure would still be required in order to ensure the project would not conflict with applicable policies and plans with goals of reducing GHG emissions. Implementation of MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b would reduce impacts related to conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation that reduces GHG emissions. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Additionally, because of the reduced development, this alternative would only partially meet the project objectives related to GHG emissions, such as reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and maximizing the placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system and other major transportation corridors to reduce emissions from trucks.

Hazards and Hazardous Material
The proposed project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Under this alternative, the overall square footage of buildings would be reduced, and a portion of the site would be preserved for agricultural uses. The reduced development footprint would likely reduce the total amount of hazardous materials present on-site during both construction and operation; however, the hazardous materials on-site would require the same level of compliance with applicable regulations as the proposed project. Therefore, although impacts associated with hazards and the handling of hazardous materials may slightly decrease, the level of impacts would be less than significant, which would not be substantially lower than the proposed project such that there would be no impacts. However, similar to the proposed project, an unknown, abandoned, or unrecorded well may occur on-site and may be discovered during construction of this alternative, 1614
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-17
which would require adherence to MM HAZ-1. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated under this alternative.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Under this alternative, the overall square footage of development would be reduced, and ground disturbance would be reduced. Because of the reduced impervious hardscape due to preservation of existing agricultural lands, impacts related to hydrology, stormwater runoff and drainage, water quality, groundwater recharge and depletion, or flooding would be reduced. However, the level of impacts would not be reduced significantly such that there would be no impacts. Thus, hydrology and water quality impacts or improvements under this alternative would be less than significant, which is similar to the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning
The proposed project’s impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant, and the proposed project would meet many of the project objectives, including of applying the goals and policies of the General Plan (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning). Under this alternative, the total square footage of development would be reduced, and 142 acres of agricultural land would be preserved.

This alternative would be only partially consistent with the project objective of applying the goals and policies of the General Plan, which focuses on developing employment opportunities and expanding the City’s industrial base. This alternative would not fully implement the General Plan’s land use vision, which planned the project site for industrial and light industrial uses. Therefore, this alternative would result in the same or slightly increased land use and planning impacts as compared to the proposed project. Impacts under this alternative would still be considered less than significant, which is similar to the proposed project.

In addition, this alternative would only partially meet the project objectives related to employment opportunities, land use, and industrial uses.

Noise
Under the proposed project, mitigation would be required to reduce impacts from noise-generating equipment associated with the drive-through carwash during operation of the proposed project, as well as noise impacts from potential conflicts between noise-generating operations and noisesensitive receptors. However, impacts related to off-site mobile source operational noise impact from traffic generation would be significant and unavoidable.

Under Alternative 2, there would be a change in noise sources from traffic-related noise as a result of the reduced project footprint, and a fewer number of employees would result in fewer daily vehicle trips and fewer truck trips when compared to the proposed project. Operational noise levels from traffic generation in the project vicinity would be somewhat reduced as compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would still have the potential to result in impacts due to the drive-through carwash and conflicts between noise generators and noise-sensitive receptors and 1615
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-18
would therefore require implementation of the same mitigation measures as the proposed project. implementation of MM NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce impacts related to substantial noise increase in excess of standards. Additionally, the significant and unavoidable off-site mobile source operational noise impact from traffic generation would be reduced under this alternative. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and Alternative 2 would result in lesser noise impacts as compared to the proposed project.

Under Alternative 2, on-site construction activities would be located at the same distances from surrounding sensitive land uses (i.e., residences), meaning that construction-related noise impacts from on-site activities would be similar to the proposed project and also less than significant.

However, due to the reduction in land uses, Alternative 2 would require a shorter construction schedule. So, in this sense, the impact may be considered reduced compared to the proposed project.

Off-site construction noise impacts from sources such as haul trucks would be similar to the proposed project and also less than significant because haul trucks and other construction vehicles would likely utilize the same roadways as they would for the proposed project. But, as explained, Alternative 2 would require a shorter construction schedule and involve reduced construction requirements. As a result, Alternative 2 may require a shorter construction schedule. Overall, this alternative would result in lesser impacts as compared to the proposed project.

This alternative would not meet the project objectives related to placement of industrial uses to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses and other sensitive receptors.

Public Services
The proposed project’s impacts to public services would be less than significant (see Section 3.13, Public Services). Because of the reduced square footage, the demand for public services would be reduced under this alternative. However, development under this alternative would still generate a demand for public services, which would be considered a less than significant impact. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would only partially meet the project objectives related to public services, such as providing buildings that meet contemporary industry standards, providing industrial uses with ready access to available infrastructure, and applying the land use vision that is contemplated for this site.

Transportation and Traffic
The proposed project’s transportation impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation would include the preparation and implementation of a construction traffic control plan that would reduce the potential for construction vehicle conflicts with other roadway users, funding the addition of two flashing beacons/solar panels to be mounted on existing stop signs at the intersection, installing new STOP pavement markings and limit lines for the northbound and southbound approaches, and funding the addition of an advance intersection warning sign for the eastbound and westbound approaches, and additional improvements to intersections, drive approaches, and sidewalks, as well as installation of end-of-trip bicycle facilities and expansion of bicycle network. Implementation of MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-9, MM TRANS-10a, MM 1616
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-19
TRANS-10b, and MM TRANS-11 would reduce impacts related to circulation system, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), hazards, and emergency access.

Although the building footprint would be reduced, the proposed infrastructure improvements would still be required under this alternative. As such, this alternative would still generate potential conflicts between construction vehicles and other roadway users, and would require similar mitigation measures as the proposed project to reduce potential roadway safety hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under this alternative. This alternative would result in similar impacts related to transportation as compared to the proposed project.

This alternative would only partially meet the project objectives related to transportation, such as creating local employment opportunities to reduce the commute for regional residents and placing industrial facilities close to major transportation corridors.

Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project’s impacts to utility and service systems would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems). Under this alternative, the overall development would be reduced, but the infrastructure improvements to utilities would still be developed to serve the project. Because of the reduced square footage, the demand for wastewater and solid waste collection service systems would be reduced under this alternative.

However, under this alternative, approximately 142 acres of farmland would remain in agricultural production. As discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would use significantly less water than the existing almond farm. As such, because half of the existing almond farm would remain in production, water demand would be greater under this alternative than under the proposed project. However, water demand under this alternative would be reduced as compared to the existing conditions. Similar to the proposed project, development under this alternative would be adequately served by the existing water system and would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Similar to the proposed project, development under this alternative would be required to adhere to MM UTIL-1, which would require that debris and waste generated shall be recycled to the extent feasible, allowing the development to be served by a landfill that contains sufficient capacity. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which is similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would only partially meet the project objectives related to utilities, such as providing buildings that meet contemporary industry standards, providing industrial uses with ready access to available infrastructure, and applying the land use vision that is contemplated for this site.

Wildfire
The proposed project would have no impacts related to wildfire (See Section 3.16, Wildfire). The project site is not located in a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” nor is it located in an SRA or a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in a local, State, or federal responsibility area. Under this alternative, there would be no change to the project site with regard to wildfire susceptibility. Thus, there would be no impact related to wildfire under this alternative, which is similar to the proposed project. 1617
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-20

6.5.2 - Conclusion
Based on the above, 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.

This alternative would meet the project objectives of 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, and applying the goals and policies of the General Plan, which focuses on developing light industrial and industrial uses. However, because the project site would not be built out to its full potential, it would only partially meet the project objectives of 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.

Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project.

6.6 - Alternative 3—Alternative Location
Under this alternative, the alternative project would be constructed in the approximately 284-acre parcels west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue. These parcels are selected as they are few of the remaining parcels within Tier I of the UDB that is designated as Industrial therefore generally suitable for the proposed development. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to re-designate a portion of the site as Light Industrial for the proposed associated flex industrial/commercial uses conditionally allowed under Light Industrial. This site would be approximately 650 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors located southwest.

6.6.1 - Impact Analysis
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
The proposed project’s impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant (See Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare). Under the Alternative Location alternative, the project site would be located on a parcel west of the proposed project site (See Exhibit 6-1). Construction-related impacts including light and glare from construction equipment, construction machinery, and nighttime security lighting would be similar to the proposed project. Additionally, the change in lighting and glare sources and changes to the existing character of the alternative site would result in similar impacts. However, under this alternative, the nearest sensitive receptors would be located farther from the site, which would potentially reduce the light and glare impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors. However, the overall level of impacts would remain less than significant. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. 1618
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-21
Agriculture and Forest Resources
The proposed project’s impacts related to agriculture would be significant and unavoidable, and there would be no impact related to forestry resources. Most of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland and is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The proposed project would result in the conversion of 284 acres of farmland to urban uses (See Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources).

Under this alternative, the project site would be located on a site currently designated Industrial. A majority the alternative site is designated Prime Farmland, while the northern portion of the alternative site is designated Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 A partial Nonrenewal of the project site’s Williamson Act Contract was approved by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors on May 3, 2022 (Resolution No. 2022-0677). Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 29, 2022 (Resolution No. 2022-1005). Accordingly, the Williamson Act Contract will be issued a Certificate of Cancellation upon payment of cancellation fees. Therefore, under this alternative, the Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would be converted to nonagricultural uses; however, the Williamson Act Contract would still expire regardless of the alternative development because of the County-approved cancellation.

Similar to the project site, the alternate site is located within Tier 1 of the City’s UDB. 2 Therefore,
similar to the proposed project, the mitigation program required in LU-P-34 is not applicable to the alternative site. This alternative would result in the loss of Prime Farmland, which was evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project. Impacts under this alternative would conservatively be considered significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would meet the project objectives related to the conversion of agriculture, including ensuring that the development of the project site is consistent with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the City’s General Plan.

Under Alternative 3, the proposed project would be constructed in the parcels west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue, but the square footage would be the same as the proposed project, and the construction and operations of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project.

Accordingly, there would be significant and unavoidable air quality impacts from construction and operational activities associated with generation of criteria pollutants, such as CO, ROG, NOX, and PM10 in Alternative 3. Since this alternative would be of the same size and scale and within close 1 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June 13, 2023. 2 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Figure 6-4: Farmland. 1619
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-22
proximity of the proposed project, impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable, which is the same as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, under this alternative the same odor impacts would occur because the type of development-warehouse, industrial, and commercial uses would not generate significant odors.

This alternative would meet the project objectives of developing innovative industrial uses as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network. Because the project would be of similar size and scale under Alternative 3, it would achieve the project objectives related to air quality, such as creating employment-generating businesses to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and maximizing the placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths.

Biological Resources
Under the proposed project, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. With development of a similar project on an alternate site under Alternative 3, biological impacts could occur from development of a site previously used for agricultural purposes. The alternate location would potentially have similar biological resources as the proposed project (e.g., a project site used in an agricultural capacity), such as Swainson’s hawk, special-status wildlife such as San Joaquin kit fox, active bird’s nests, and roosting bats, which would require the same mitigation as the proposed project.

However, the Modoc Ditch runs through the center of the Alternative 3 site and would likely require multiple crossings or may require filling the Ditch in order to link the northern and southern parcels.

In contrast, the Ditch is located on the border of the current project site and would not require linking parcels between the Ditch. Therefore, mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the Ditch would be less practicable under this alternative as compared to the potential project impacts on the current project site.

With implementation of MM BIO1a through MM BIO-1f and MM BIO-3 impacts to special-status species and to wetlands and jurisdictional features would be reduced. Therefore, although impacts associated with biological resources would likely be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, this alternative would have greater impacts than the proposed project.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the proposed project, impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 3, there would be similar amounts of ground disturbance in a location near the proposed project site. The alternate site has not been evaluated for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. Because ground will be disturbed under this alternative, the mitigation measures to prevent impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources from ground disturbance would likely still be required under this alternative.

Additionally, a pedestrian survey or records search result could potentially indicate a greater sensitivity for cultural and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, with implementation of MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, and MM CUL-4, impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources, 1620
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-23
human remains, and to tribal cultural resources under this alternative would likely be less than significant with mitigation, which is similar to the proposed project.

Energy
Under the proposed project, impacts related to energy would be less than significant. Under Alternative 3, the overall footprint of the developed areas would be the same as the proposed project. With development of a similar project on an alternate site, energy impacts would occur from construction activities that utilize electricity and fuel and operational activities that utilize electricity, natural gas, and fuel. Since Alternative 3 would be of similar size and scale as the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as the proposed project.

Additionally, because Alternative 3 would be of a similar size, location, and scale and the proposed project, this alternative would meet the project objectives related to energy, such as reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and maximizing the placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system and other major transportation corridors to reduce energy use from trucks.

The alternate site would be approximately 3,000 feet (0.57 mile) west of the proposed project site, which is in a similar geological setting as the proposed project site. Furthermore, development under this alternative would be of a similar size and scale as the propsed project. Furthermore, similar to the proposed project, structures would be designed in accordance with the current CBC and Visalia Building Code (Chapter 15.08) to reduce hazards posed by seismic ground shaking and the proximity to known active faults. Additionally, this alternative would have a similar potential to result in the discovery of previously unknown paleontological resources, so mitigation would still be required during construction. Therefore, the same mitigation measures that would be required for the proposed project, MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, and MM GEO-3 would also be required under this alternative, and impacts related to earthquakes, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion and topsoil loss, unstable geologic location, expansive soil, and paleontological resources under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which is similar to the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the proposed project, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions impacts would require requiring rooftop solar panels or a solar-ready rooftop design, as well as roofing material with light coloring, EV charging infrastructure, and limiting warehouse uses to dry storage. Under Alternative 3, the project would be of a similar size and scale and would result in the same type of construction activities such as grading, hauling of soils, and building construction and 1621
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-24
operational activities such as heavy heavy-duty trucks trips. Since this alternative would be of similar size and scale to the proposed project and is approximately the same distance to urbanized areas of Visalia, impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Furthermore, the mitigation measures that would be implemented under the proposed project for solar-ready rooftop and EV charging would need to be implemented under this alternative. Implementation of MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b would reduce impacts related to conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation that reduces GHG emissions. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Additionally, because Alternative 3 would be of a similar size, location, and scale and the proposed project, this alternative would meet the project objectives related to greenhouse gas emissions, such as reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and maximizing the placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system and other major transportation corridors to reduce emissions from trucks.

Hazards and Hazardous Material
The proposed project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Under this alternative, the overall square footage of development would be similar to the proposed project, and the hazardous materials on-site would require the same level of compliance with applicable regulations as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards and the handling of hazardous materials would be the same as the proposed project. In addition, similar to the proposed project, an unknown, abandoned, or unrecorded well may occur on-site and may be discovered during construction of this alternative, which would require adherence to MM HAZ-1. The level of impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which would be the same as the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated under this alternative.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Under this alternative, the addition of new impervious surfaces would be the same as the proposed project, and associated improvements such as stormwater drainage would be similar to the proposed project. Impacts related to hydrology, stormwater runoff and drainage, water quality, groundwater recharge and depletion, or flooding would be similar to the proposed project. Thus, hydrology and water quality impacts or improvements under this alternative would be less than significant, which is similar to the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning
The proposed project’s impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant, and the proposed project would meet many of the project objectives, including of applying the goals and policies of the General Plan (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning). 1622
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-25
This alternative would not fully meet the project objectives related to land use and planning.

Although this alternative would be consistent with the project objective of applying the goals and policies of the General Plan, which focuses on developing employment opportunities and expanding the City’s industrial base, this alternative would not fully implement the General Plan’s land use vision because it would not implement the site of the proposed project for industrial and light industrial uses. Instead, it would develop on an alternate site that would require a General Plan Amendment to re-designate a portion of the site as Light Industrial for the proposed associated commercial uses conditionally allowed under Light Industrial. “General Plan consistency” is an important factor. CEQA case law is clear that EIRs for proposed private projects consistent with governing General Plan designations generally need not address alternative sites, given that such existing General Plan designations embody policy decisions already made by governing city councils and boards of supervisors. “[T]he keystone of regional planning is consistency—between the general plan, its internal elements, subordinate ordinances, and all derivative land use decisions.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 572.) “Case-by-case reconsideration of regional land use policies, in the context of a project-specific EIR, is the very antithesis of that goal.” (Id. at p. 573.) “[A]n EIR is not ordinarily an occasion for the reconsideration or overhaul of fundamental land use policy.” (Ibid.)
Therefore, this alternative would result in slightly increased land use and planning impacts as compared to the proposed project. However, with a General Plan Amendment, impacts under this alternative would still be considered less than significant, which is similar to the proposed project.

Under Alternative 3, on-site construction activities would be located farther from surrounding sensitive land uses (i.e., residences), meaning that construction-related noise impacts from on-site activities would be slightly less than the proposed project and similarly less than significant. Off-site construction noise impacts from sources such as haul trucks would be similar to the proposed project and less than significant because haul trucks and other vehicles would likely utilize the same roadways as they would for the proposed project.

However, because Alternative 3 would result in a similar number of new vehicle trips as the proposed project, it would have similar impacts on roadside noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, and mobile source operational impacts would therefore remain significant and unavoidable.

Overall, the level of impacts would be similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would meet the project objectives related to placement of industrial uses to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses and other sensitive receptors, which would have the benefit of limiting noise impacts to residences and other noise-sensitive receptors.
1623
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-26
Public Services
The proposed project’s impacts to public services would be less than significant (see Section 3.13, Public Services). Because of the similar scale and size of development under this alternative, as well as the close proximity to the proposed project site, the demand for public services would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative. Development under this alternative would generate a similar demand for public services, which would be considered a less than significant impact.

Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would not fully meet the project objectives related to public services. Although it would meet the project objectives of providing buildings that meet contemporary industry standards and providing industrial uses with ready access to available infrastructure, this alternative would not meet the project objective of applying the land use vision that is contemplated for the proposed project site.

With development of a similar project on an alternate site, transportation impacts would occur from construction (vehicles and equipment, which would require a Traffic Control Plan) and operation (vehicles associated with the residential and commercial development). Since Alternative 3 would be of similar size and scale to the proposed project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed project. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, the alternate site would be adjacent to Riggin Avenue, which would likely result in similar impacts as the proposed project regarding construction traffic and roadway safety, and mitigation would need to be implemented.

Implementation of MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-9, MM TRANS-10a, MM TRANS-10b, and MM TRANS-11 would reduce impacts related to circulation system, VMT, hazards, and emergency access.

Although the specific mitigation measures would be modified due to the alternate location, this alternative would not substantially reduce transportation impacts and would not eliminate the need for mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to construction vehicles and safety.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which is similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would meet the project objectives related to transportation, such as creating local employment opportunities to reduce the commute for regional residents and placing industrial facilities close to major transportation corridors.
1624
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-27
Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project’s impacts to utility and service systems would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems). Under this alternative, the location of the project would change, but the infrastructure improvements to utilities would still be developed to serve the alternate project site, which is currently undeveloped. Because the project would be of similar scale and size, the demand for wastewater and solid waste collection service systems would be similar under this alternative. Furthermore, development under this alternative would demand the same amount of water as the proposed project and would therefore be adequately served by the existing water system, and would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Similar to the proposed project, development under this alternative would be required to adhere to MM UTIL-1, which would require that debris and waste generated shall be recycled to the extent feasible, allowing the development to be served by a landfill that contains sufficient capacity. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which is similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would only partially meet the project objectives related to utilities and service systems. Although it would meet the project objectives of providing buildings that meet contemporary industry standards, providing industrial uses with ready access to available infrastructure, it would not meet the project objective of building out the land use vision that is contemplated for the proposed project site.

6.6.2 - Conclusion
Based on the above, this project alternative would not increase or decrease any impacts, but it would meet most of the project objectives. 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 1625
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft EIR
6-28
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 land use vision that is 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 proposed project site.

Therefore, this alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed project.

6.7 - Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires identification of an environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior, CEQA requires selection of the “environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative” from among the project and the alternatives evaluated. The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the proposed project are summarized in Table 6-1 below. As shown in Table 6-1, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, as future development within the planning area under the current General Plan and Zoning would result in fewer and less severe impacts.

Table 6-1: Summary of Alternatives
Environmental Topic Area No Project Reduced Footprint Alternate Location Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Lesser Similar Similar
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Lesser Similar Similar Air Quality Lesser Similar Similar
Biological Resources Lesser Similar Greater
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Lesser Similar Similar Energy Lesser Similar Similar
Geology and Soils Lesser Similar Similar
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lesser Similar Similar
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lesser Similar Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Lesser Similar Similar
Land Use and Planning Similar Similar Similar
Noise Lesser Lesser Similar
Public Services Lesser Similar Similar
Transportation Lesser Similar Similar
1626
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6-29
Environmental Topic Area No Project Reduced Footprint Alternate Location Utilities and Service Systems Lesser Similar Similar
Wildfire Lesser Similar Similar
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2023.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.

Of the two remaining alternatives, 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, this alternative would not meet the project objectives of maximizing development of the site to generate increased revenue and economic development, and would only partially meet the project objective of creating employment-generating businesses to reduce commuting and improve the jobs-to-housing balance. 1627

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1628
Exh ibit6-1
ProjectAlternativ es-SiteBoundary
Source:Bing AerialIm ag ery.Cityof Visalia,March 2024.

CITYOFVISALIA

SHIR K&R IGGININDUSTR IALPR OJECT

ENVIR ONMENTALIMPACTR EPOR T
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Unincorporated Tulare County
Project Alternatives
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
City of Visalia Urban Growth Boundary
Tiers
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
41150039•03/2024|6-1_project_alternativ es.m xd
1629

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1630
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Persons and Organizations Consulted/ Draft EIR List of Preparers
7-1
CHAPTER 7: PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/LIST OF

PREPARERS

7.1 - Persons and Organizations Consulted

7.1.1 - CEQA Lead Agency
City of Visalia
Planning Division
Principal Planner............................................................................................................... Brandon Smith Economic Development Division
Economic Development Manager........................................................................................Devon Jones Community Development Department
Community Development Director ........................................................................................ Paul Bernal CEQA Consultant- QK
Principal Planner.............................................................................................................Jaymie L. Brauer

7.1.2 - Other Agency Support
State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Regional Manager................................................................................................................... Julie Vance Environmental Scientist....................................................................................................Jaime Marquez Native American Heritage Commission
Cultural Resources Analyst .................................................................................................Cameron Vela San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Director of Permit Services...............................................................................................Brian Clements Air Quality Specialist........................................................................................................ Michael Corder

7.2 - Project Sponsor and Project Consultants

7.2.1 - Seefried Industrial Properties
Vice President.......................................................................................................................Bryan Frarey

7.2.2 - Kimley-Horn (Transportation Impact Analysis)
Project Engineer ..................................................................................................................... Joe Schultz 1631
Persons and Organizations Consulted/ City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project List of Preparers Draft EIR
7-2

7.2.3 - 4Creeks (Water Supply Assessment)
Assistant Planner............................................................................................................ Nate Antepenko Planner/Project Manager............................................................................................. Molly Baumeister

7.2.4 - Ninyo & Moore (Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment and Geotechnical Report)
Senior Staff Geologist........................................................................................................... Shayna Avila Principal Environmental Operations Manager..................................................................Jeff Aguilar, PG Principal Toxicologist........................................................................... Heriberto Robles, MS, PhD, DABT

7.3 - City of Visalia Consultants

7.3.1 - FirstCarbon Solutions (Environmental Impact Report) Project Director....................................................................................................................... Mary Bean Project Manager.................................................................................................................... Yael Marcus Project Manager.............................................................................................................................. Tsui Li Assistant Project Manager ......................................................................................... Stephanie Shepard Environmental Services Intern ......................................................................................Spencer Churchill Legal Counsel .................................................................................................................. Megan Starr, JD Director of Cultural Resources..........................................................................Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Archaeologist ................................................................................................................... Stefanie Griffin Director of Noise and Air Quality ...............................................................................Phil Ault, LEED® AP Senior Air Quality Scientist..............................................................................................Kimber Johnson Senior Noise and Air Quality Scientist................................................................................... Noah Tanski Air Quality Associate ...................................................................................................... Spencer Pignotti Senior Biologist .................................................................................................................. Robert Carroll Intern....................................................................................................................................... Kelly Evans Publications Manager ............................................................................................................Susie Harris Publications Coordinator ........................................................................................................ Alec Harris Document Specialist....................................................................................................... Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................Karlee McCracken GIS Specialist.................................................................................................................Sebastian Macias

7.3.2 - FirstCarbon Solutions Subconsultants
South Environmental (Jurisdictional Delineation)
Principal Biologist...............................................................................................Matthew R. South, CWB 1632
FINAL
Environmental Impact Report
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
City of Visalia, Tulare County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658
Prepared for:

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

FirstCarbon Solutions
7726 N. First Street, #413
Fresno, CA 93720
714.508.4100
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Yael Marcus, Project Manager
Report Date: January 17, 2025
1633

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1634
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Table of Contents
iii
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2: Responses to Written Comments................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 - List of Commenters ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 - Response to Comments.................................................................................................. 2-2 Errata.......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Changes in Response to Specific Comments..................................................................3-1 List of Appendices
Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Appendix I: Revised Appendix M of the Transportation Impact Analysis List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Terrestrial Connectivity Map .........................................................................................2-197 1635

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1636
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Introduction
1-1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The City of Visalia (City) is the Lead Agency for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658) for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (proposed project). In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15084 and 15087, the City prepared the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Draft Environmental Impact Report and appendices attached thereto (collectively, Draft EIR) and circulated the Draft EIR for public review in full compliance with CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR identifies significant effects on the environment which may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. After circulating the Draft EIR for the required 45-day public review and comment period, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City has evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR and prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR includes: a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR during the public review and comment period that ran from April 11, 2024, to May 28, 2024; the Responses to Comments containing the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; an Errata containing revisions to the Draft EIR; and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the purpose of ensuring the enforceability of the identified mitigation measures to be utilized by the City of Visalia in connection therewith. This document is organized into three sections:
• Section 1—Introduction. Provides an introduction to the Final EIR. • Section 2—Responses to Written Comments. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft EIR, annotated with numbered comments, and responses thereto are included in this section.
• Section 3—Errata. Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR which have been incorporated.

The Final EIR consists of, collectively, the following contents:
• Draft EIR (provided under separate cover)
• Draft EIR Appendices (provided under separate cover)
• Introduction and Responses to Written Comments on the Draft EIR (Sections 1 and 2 of this document)
• Errata (Section 3 of this document)
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) The EIR consists, collectively, of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. 1637

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1638
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-1
SECTION 2: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

2.1 - List of Commenters
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments during the public review period, which ran from April 11, 2024, to May 28, 2024, on the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Draft EIR (Draft EIR) is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

After the close of the public comment period, two additional comment letters were received. A letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was received by the City of Visalia (City) on June 4, 2024, and a letter from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) was received on June 6, 2024. Although not required to do so under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City chose to respond to these late comment letters as though they had been submitted during the regular public comment period. Accordingly, although the City is not required to provide a written response to late comment letter(s), the City has elected to respond, but without waiving its position that written responses to late comment letters are not required by law.

Commenter Commenter Code
State Agencies
California Department of Conservation ..........................................................................................CDOC Organizations
Advocates for the Environment........................................................................................................ AFTE Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ................................................................................. GSEJA Laborers International Union of North America, Local 294 ........................................................... LIUNA Carpenters Union Local 1109 ................................................................................................. LOCAL1109 Comments Received after the May 29, 2024 Close of Public Comment Period California Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................................................... CDFW San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District........................................................................ SJVAPCD 1639
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-2

2.2 - Response to Comments

2.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Visalia, as the Lead Agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022080658) for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (proposed project) and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

2.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Commenters.

CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR when the Lead Agency adds “significant new information” to an EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR for public review, but before EIR certification (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5). Recirculation is not required unless the EIR is changed in a way that would deprive the public of the opportunity to comment on significant new information, including a new significant impact for which no feasible mitigation is available to fully mitigate the impact (thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact), a substantial increase in the severity of a disclosed environmental impact, or development of a new feasible alternative or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen environmental impacts but which the project proponent declines to adopt (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a)). Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(b)).

These responses to comments include discussion providing clarification, amplification and/or minor modifications to specific environmental analyses. Neither the clarifications, amplifications, nor modifications constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
1640
Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director
State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation 715 P Street, MS 1904, Sacramento, CA 95814
conservation.ca.gov | T: (916) 324-0850 | F: (916) 327-3430 MAY 16, 2024
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

CITY OF VISALIA
ATTN: BRANDON SMITH, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
315 E. ACEQUIA AVENUE
VISALIA, CA 93291
Dear Mr. Smith:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHIRK AND RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT, SCH# 2022080658
The Department of Conservation’s (Department) Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (Project).

The Division monitors and maps farmland conversion on a statewide basis, provides technical assistance regarding the Williamson Act, and administers various agricultural land conservation programs. Public Resources Code, section 614, subdivision (b) authorizes the Department to provide soil conservation advisory services to local governments, including review of CEQA documents.

Protection of the state’s agricultural land resources is part of the Department’s mission and central to many of its programs. The CEQA process gives the Department an opportunity to acknowledge the value of the resource, identify areas of Department interest, and offer information on how to assess potential impacts or mitigation opportunities.

The Department respects local decision-making by informing the CEQA process, and is not taking a position or providing legal or policy interpretation.

We offer the following comments for consideration with respect to the project’s potential impacts on agricultural land and resources within the Department’s purview.

PROJECT ATTRIBUTES
The project applicant proposes to convert existing agricultural lands and develop the approximately 284-acre project site into an industrial park, consisting of eight industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing; six flex industrial buildings; two drive-through restaurants; a convenience store; a recreational vehicle and self-storage facility; gas station; and a car wash.

CDOC

Page 1 of 3 ends

1 1641

Page 2 of 3 ends

The project site would include sufficient amounts of trailer stalls and car parking stalls to serve the proposed uses in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project would also involve necessary infrastructure and improvements sufficient to serve the proposed uses. These would include detention basins on the east, west, and central portions of the project site and other necessary stormwater facilities to be sized and installed in accordance with all applicable requirements and standards. The project site contains Prime Farmland as designated by DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
The conversion of agricultural land represents a permanent reduction and impact to California’s agricultural land resources. The Department generally advises discussion of the following in any environmental review for the loss or conversion of agricultural land:

Type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting directly and indirectly from implementation of the proposed project.

Impacts on any current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity; e.g., land-use conflicts, increases in land values and taxes, loss of agricultural support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc.

Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.

Proposed mitigation measures for impacted agricultural lands within the proposed project area.

MITIGATING AGRICULTURAL LAND LOSS OR CONVERSION
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Department advises that the environmental review address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land. An agricultural conservation easement is one potential method for mitigating loss or conversion of agricultural land. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15370 [mitigation includes “compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.”]; see also King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814.)
Mitigation through agricultural conservation easements can take at least two forms: the outright purchase of easements or the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural easements. The conversion of agricultural land may be viewed as an impact of at least regional significance. Hence, the search for replacement lands may not need to be limited strictly to lands within the project’s surrounding area. A helpful source for regional and statewide agricultural mitigation banks is the California Council of Land Trusts. They provide helpful insight into farmland CDOC

Page 2 of 3 ends

1 CONT
2 3
1642

Page 3 of 3 ends

mitigation policies and implementation strategies, including a guidebook with model policies and a model local ordinance. The guidebook can be found at:

California Council of Land Trusts
Of course, the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation, and the Department urges consideration of any other feasible measures necessary to mitigate project impacts.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project. Please provide the Department with notices of any future hearing dates as well as any staff reports pertaining to this project.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Farl Grundy, Associate Environmental Planner via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Monique Wilber
Conservation Program Support Supervisor
CDOC

Page 3 of 3 ends

3 CONT
4 1643

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1644
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-7
State Agencies
California Department of Conservation (CDOC)
Comment CDOC-1
The CDOC notes their role as a Trustee Agency for agricultural resources and a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The commenter also summarizes the project’s proposed entitlements and project description. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no response is required.

Response to CDOC-1
The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment CDOC-2
The comment states that the conversion of agricultural land represents a permanent reduction and impact to California’s agricultural land resources and sets forth CDOC’s general recommendations for four discussion items in environmental review when there is loss or conversion of agricultural land.

Response to CDOC-2
The Draft EIR addresses all discussion items recommended for consideration by CDOC. As discussed further below and in the Draft EIR, there is a description of existing agricultural resources on the project site and its surrounding area and potential environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. Descriptions and analyses in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, were based, in part, on information contained in the City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan), the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the project site (Draft EIR Appendix G), and CDOC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps.

Specifically, the Draft EIR addresses the four discussion items listed in the comment as described below.
• Type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting directly and indirectly from implementation of the proposed project.
- The Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, Impact AG-1, discloses the amount of Prime Farmland that would be converted with the development of the proposed project (both directly and indirectly) and specifically discussed the type, amount and location of farmland conversion from the proposed project. For example, the Draft EIR explains that the project site is in current agricultural use, and that almost the entire 284-acre project site (except for approximately 0.31 acre that is designated “Other Land” under the FMMP) is considered Prime Farmland. The Draft EIR also described at length the amount of agricultural land within the City and its Planning Area that would be converted to nonagricultural uses at full buildout of the General Plan vision. Furthermore, it noted areas within the County that are north, east and south of the project site that are designated for agricultural uses that could conceivably be converted in the future for urban uses.

In addition, the Draft EIR explained the City’s approach to growth, which focuses on ensuring that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion through the implementation of the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use 1645
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-8
Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier I shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. Within Tier I, annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land is allowed to occur at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram. The project site is located within Tier 1 of the UDB and is designated as Light Industrial and Industrial under the General Plan.

The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. • Impacts on any current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity; e.g., land use conflicts, increases in land values and taxes, loss of agricultural support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc.
- Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, addresses whether the proposed project would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses, and confirms there would be less than significant impacts in this regard. The conversion of the project site from agricultural land to urban uses would be localized to the project site and would not significantly and adversely affect other agricultural operations in the area by, for example, causing land use conflicts, eliminating agricultural support infrastructure, etc. In part, this is due to the City’s phased approach to growth, which is focused on directing growth to appropriate locations, thereby balancing various land uses with well-planned supporting infrastructure within compact, concentric rings.

Moreover, as discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, the County Board of Supervisors confirmed the above conclusions in its findings when it voted to allow for the cancellation of the project site’s Williamson Act Contract.
1 Specifically, the Board found, among other things,
that cancellation:
○ is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use; ○ is for an alternate use that is consistent with the adopted General Plan; and ○ will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development.

The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. • Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.
- The Draft EIR, Section 3.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, includes a discussion of cumulative impacts as required under CEQA. As a preliminary matter, the Draft EIR discusses the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR, which recognized that implementation of the General Plan vision, including the development of lands designated for Industrial and Light Industrial uses such as the project site, would result in significant and 1 The project site is encumbered by a Williamson Act Contract. The landowner moved forward with cancellation proceedings under State law. To that end, the landowner obtained approval, subject to compliance with certain conditions, from the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County to remove the project site from the subject County Agricultural Preserve No. 0293 and to tentatively cancel the contract (WAC No. 2880) pursuant to Government Code Sections 51281 and 51282 on November 29, 2022 (see Tulare County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2022-1005, attached as Appendix G2 to the Draft EIR). 1646
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-9
unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of agricultural resources to urban uses for which there was no feasible mitigation. Accordingly, this impact has already been fully disclosed as set forth in the certified General Plan EIR. Nevertheless, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR addressed the proposed project’s individual and cumulative impacts with respect to the agricultural resources. In terms of cumulative impacts, this discussion acknowledged that the conversion of agricultural land associated with the project, combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the identified geographic scope (i.e., City’s Planning Area), would constitute a significant cumulative impact. The Draft EIR then concluded that the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant cumulative impact related to conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses. Finally, the Draft EIR, consistent with the General Plan EIR, determined there was no feasible mitigation to reduce this cumulative impact to less than significant (as discussed further below).

The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. • Proposed mitigation measures for impacted agricultural lands within the proposed project area.
- The Draft EIR considers and evaluates potential mitigation strategies to feasibly avoid or reduce the identified significant impact. Ultimately, for the reasons set forth below and in the Draft EIR, it concludes that no feasible mitigation measure(s) are available and thus determines that the proposed project would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to the loss of agricultural land and conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses. The foregoing is consistent with the impact conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR as a result of the long- envisioned buildout under the General Plan.

The comment has been noted for the record the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required.

Comment CDOC-3
The commenter states that the Draft EIR should address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land and explains that an agricultural conservation easement is one potential mitigation option, which can take at least two forms: either as purchase of easement or donation of mitigation fees to an appropriate entity. The commenter further states that conversion of agricultural land may be viewed as an impact of at least regional significance, and thus the search for replacement lands may not need to be limited strictly to lands within the project’s surrounding area and then references resources for regional or Statewide mitigation banking strategies. The comment also notes that the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation and urges consideration of any other feasible measures necessary to mitigate project impacts.

Response to CDOC-3
As disclosed in the Draft EIR and in Response to CDOC-2 above, the proposed project would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses, which would constitute a significant impact. As the Draft EIR explains, the project site is located within Tier 1 of the UDB, which is contiguous with the 1647
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-10
City’s municipal boundaries and is designated as Light Industrial and Industrial under the General Plan. Within Tier I, “annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land is allowed to occur at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram” (General Plan Policy LU-P20). Development of the proposed project would help to implement the long-planned vision for the City; the General Plan recognizes the need to convert Important Farmland (such as the project site) to urban uses to accomplish a balance of land uses, which would be achieved by providing for “. . . an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses” consistent with General Plan Policy LU0-12.

Given the competing interests of (1) the City’s goal to implement full buildout of its General Plan land use vision with a balance of uses, while (2) taking into appropriate consideration the importance of agricultural resources, General Plan Policy LU-P-34 requires the City to create and adopt a mitigation program via adoption of an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance 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 mitigation requirements. This makes sense because of the City’s concentric growth pattern strategy, which prioritizes conversion of agricultural lands that are closest to the City’s municipal boundaries. Development in this fashion will help to maintain the maximum amount of contiguous Important Farmland, avoiding “patchwork” easements and dispersed development in a manner that cannot be guaranteed through the requirement of purchasing agricultural easements.

The City adopted the above-referenced Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (Title 18 of Municipal Code) in May 2023. Pursuant to General Plan Policy LU-P-34, it would contain a specific exemption for lands within Tier 1, such as the project site. Accordingly, as disclosed in the Draft EIR, there is no available legally feasible mechanism for the City to impose mitigation requiring the acquisition of an off-site conservation easement, payment of in lieu funding for same, or some other unspecified mitigation. Therefore, the Draft EIR properly determined this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Several factors must be considered in determining the feasibility of potential mitigation for the conversion of agricultural lands. First, an off-site conservation easement (or funding for same) does not create new farmland to replace the agricultural lands being converted and thus does not offset the loss of farmland resulting from the subject project (e.g., King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 875). While a 2018 amendment to CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(e) added language indicating permanent protection of resources “in the form of conservation easements” can provide compensatory mitigation, the amendment does not explain how and to what extent such a measure might be viewed as offsetting or reducing the loss of farmland that results when it is converted to another use. Thus, the legal propriety of a lead agency finding that requiring an off-site conservation easement (or funding in lieu thereof) as mitigation is sufficient to “avoid,” “minimize,” or “substantially lessen” the impact to farmland that results when it is developed remains potentially unclear, particularly to the extent such reliance is intended to reduce the impact to less than significant (PRC §§ 21002, 21100(b)(3), and 21081(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b)(2)).
1648
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-11
As stated in the Draft EIR Section 3.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources page 3.2-10, the City adopted its Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) on May 15, 2023, in order to implement an Agricultural Mitigation Program (as outlined in General Plan Policy LU-P-34). As stated in the Draft EIR pages 3.2-10–3.2-12, Policy LU-P-34 [and the subsequently adopted APO] explicitly exempts conversions of agricultural lands located in UDB Tier I, such as the project site, from the mitigation program. Therefore, the mitigation program required in LU-P-34, and included in the APO, is not applicable to the proposed project. Although implementation of policies in the General Plan would reduce some agricultural impacts for General Plan buildout, over 14,000 acres of the existing Important Farmland would be lost. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that conversion of farmland from General Plan buildout would be significant and unavoidable.

Although previously addressed in the certified General Plan EIR, for purposes of a comprehensive and conservative analysis, the Draft EIR acknowledged that the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of the construction of the proposed urban uses. Furthermore, despite the fact this conversion was already evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR conservatively concludes that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Farmland. Because Policy LU-P-34 [and the adopted APO] does not apply to Tier 1 lands and further because there is no adopted APO, there is no feasible method to mitigate the loss of this Important Farmland. However, as noted in the Draft EIR, the project site has long been identified for conversion to urban uses.

Public agencies may use their discretionary powers granted by laws other than CEQA to mitigate environmental impacts. CEQA does not, however, expand the powers granted by other laws or otherwise confer an independent grant of authority to impose mitigation measures on a project.

When imposing mitigation for a project’s significant environmental effects, a public agency may only exercise those powers provided by legal authority independent of CEQA (PRC § 21004). The CEQA Guidelines specify that CEQA does not grant new or independent powers to public agencies (CEQA Guidelines § 15040). Accordingly, an agency’s exercise of discretionary powers must be within the scope of the power granted by laws and be consistent with express or implied limitations (CEQA Guidelines § 15040(d),(e)). Mitigation measures that are beyond the powers conferred by law on lead agencies are legally infeasible. Accordingly, here, because the City has not yet adhered to the specific procedural requirements necessary under the law to authorize imposition of such mitigation (i.e., lawfully adopting an APO that applied to the project site), it has no separate and independent authority to require conservation easements or mitigation fees in lieu thereof (e.g., Pinewood Investors v. City of Oxnard (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 1030, 1040; court help that a requirement to pay an increased sewer fee was not authorized by CEQA, noting that a city’s general police power did not override specific procedural limitations on sewer fees.) In summary, although previously addressed in the certified General Plan EIR, for purposes of a comprehensive and conservative analysis, this Draft EIR evaluated the proposed project’s impact on agricultural resources and disclosed that it would result in the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of the construction of the proposed urban uses. Furthermore, despite the fact this conversion was already evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR conservatively concluded that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Farmland. Because, however, Policy LU-P-34 does not apply to Tier 1 lands; and 1649
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-12
further, because there is no adopted APO, there is no legally feasible method to mitigate the loss of this Prime Farmland. However, as noted above, the project site has long been identified for conversion to urban uses. This reflects the City’s overall land use strategy that ensures the areas identified for growth are contiguous to existing development and to each other, and policies clearly require sequencing of growth so that minimal fragmentation of agricultural land will occur. The General Plan’s three-tier growth management system reinforces the City’s compact form, minimizing the interface between farming and urban uses. The General Plan establishes greenbelt buffers along the urban edge in some places, while providing requirements for buffering and screening of private development elsewhere. Furthermore, the City’s urbanized land use vision for the project site vicinity is evident in that the adjacent surrounding uses consist of industrial uses such as nearby existing distribution center/hub. However, as discussed above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation is available.

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

Comment CDOC-4
The concluding paragraph includes a request to be notified of future hearings and staff reports for this project.

Response to CDOC-4
The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. 1650
AFTE

Page 1 of 5 ends

2 1
1651
AFTE

Page 2 of 5 ends

2 CONT
3 4
5 1652
AFTE

Page 3 of 5 ends

5 CONT
6 7
8 9
1653
AFTE

Page 4 of 5 ends

9 CONT
10 11
1654
AFTE

Page 5 of 5 ends

11 CONT
12 13
14 15
1655

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1656
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-19
Organizations
Advocates for the Environment (AFTE)
Comment AFTE-1
The comment provides a brief summary of the project description, introduces Advocates for the Environment as a non-profit public interest law firm, and states the commenter’s mission. The commenter has reviewed the Draft EIR for the proposed project and hereby provides comments on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR’s greenhouse gases (GHG) analysis under CEQA.

Response to AFTE-1
This comment does not directly pertain to the EIR analysis, does not directly apply to the CEQA process, and does not change the conclusions in the EIR; therefore, no changes to the document have been made or are required.

Comment AFTE-2
The commenter asserts that given the current regulatory context and technological advancements, a net-zero significance threshold is feasible and “extensively supportable.” The commenter provides general information regarding the source of GHG emissions, and notes that it is more affordable to construct new projects as net-zero than seek to obtain the same level of GHG reductions through retrofitting of existing buildings. The commenter goes on to note how climate damage will continue until net-zero emissions is required, references State law mandates addressing net-zero emissions in 2045 and concludes summarily that it is “economically unsound to construct new buildings that are not net-zero.” The commenter purports to provide examples of several large-scale projects that have moved forward as net-zero communities after losing CEQA lawsuits to environmental groups and notes that the project should do the same (i.e., move forward as a net-zero community).

Response to AFTE-2
The comment is noted for the record. To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further changes to the document have been made or are required.

With respect to the commenter’s conclusion that the project should “move forward as a net-zero community,” the following response is provided.

As a preliminary matter, the commenter does not specifically question the GHG impact analysis or less than significant determination made in the Draft EIR. As previously noted, the City is not legally authorized under CEQA to impose mitigation measures or require applicants to incorporate project design features for impacts that have been determined to be less than significant. Therefore, imposing an obligation on the project to be “net-zero” would not be permitted under the law.

Furthermore, regarding the commenter’s conclusory statements as to the economic feasibility of constructing new projects as net-zero, this is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not relevant to the City’s exercise of its discretion as to the appropriate threshold to utilize in evaluating GHG impacts. The economic feasibility of requiring industrial buildings, specifically, and industrial operations more generally to be “net-zero” is highly questionable given that most of the operational GHG emissions are the result of heavy-duty truck traffic. Except in very limited circumstances not relevant here, most industrial users do not own or control their own truck fleets, 1657
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-20
and do not have any ability to control in perpetuity the truck fleets utilized by tenants. Moreover, given the volume of trucks anticipated to access the project site, the current high cost and relatively limited availability of electric trucks, and the current limitations related to electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure to serve heavy and medium-duty electric trucks, the commenter’s assertion that it is economically feasible for the project to be net-zero is not accurate or supported by substantial evidence in the record. The comment has been noted for the record. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR. The Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality and GHG have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis.

Comment AFTE-3
The commenter builds on what was presented in Comment AFTE-2. It specifically requests that the City utilize a net-zero significance threshold, which it claims is “well-supported” by GHG reduction plans such as ARB’s Scoping Plans. The commenter concludes by proclaiming that doing so would not only “be the right thing” but also “protect[ing] the City and applicant from CEQA litigation.” Response to AFTE-3
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, neither the 2017 Scoping Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, nor any requirements under CEQA require lead agencies such as the City, to utilize a netzero significance threshold. As described in the ARB 2017 Scoping Plan, "achieving net-zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project. . . and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net-zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA” (page 102).

In addition, the commenter erroneously cites language from the 2022 Scoping Plan that is not applicable to the proposed project. The net-zero threshold recommendation as stated in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, was intended for residential and mixed-use development that is not applicable to the proposed mixed-use industrial project. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, consistent with Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, as Lead Agency, can take into account the following three considerations, among others, in assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions.
• Consideration No. 1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
• Consideration No. 2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• Consideration No. 3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the 1658
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-21
project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR robustly evaluates the proposed project’s GHG impacts, both from a quantitative and qualitative perspective. Section 3.8.4 describes the significance criteria, assumptions and methodologies used by the City, in its discretion, to conduct this impact analysis.

With respect to the quantitative analysis, as detailed in the Draft EIR, it sets forth the reduction from Business As Usual (BAU) in the 2030 target year to show the progress anticipated prior to applying reductions from new strategies contained in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. To determine significance, the analysis first quantifies project-related GHG emissions under a BAU scenario, and then compares these emissions with emissions that would occur when all project-related design features are accounted for, and when compliance with applicable regulatory measures is assumed.

The standard and methodology are explained in further detail in the Draft EIR.

The analysis also included qualitative assessments of compliance with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and the 2022 Scoping Plan Update to support GHG significance findings under Impact GHG-2.

For the reasons described above, CEQA does not require the City to utilize a quantitative net-zero GHG emissions as a significance threshold to evaluate the proposed project. Achieving net-zero GHG emissions to evaluate the proposed project is not necessary to provide a legally defensible GHG threshold and, as acknowledged by the State of California, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project. Contrary to the commenter’s statements, ARB’s Scoping Plans support the Draft EIR’s threshold and methodologies. For example, as described in the ARB 2017 Scoping Plan:
“achieving net-zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net-zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA. Lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with this Scoping Plan, the State’s long-term GHG goals, and climate change science.” (emphasis added) The fact that the commenter reports that two very large developments (i.e., Newhall and Tejon Ranch projects) eventually decided to move forward as net-zero communities as a means of resolving ongoing litigation, does not mean that the City is required to adopt a quantitative net-zero emissions threshold under CEQA, nor does it constitute substantial evidence that achieving net-zero emissions would be feasible for the project.

Additionally, for informational purposes, it is noted that the proposed project would develop a mixed-use industrial park without residential uses, whereas the examples in this comment refer to mixed-use residential projects. Unlike Newhall Ranch and Tejon Ranch, each of which contemplated 1659
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-22
about 20,000 dwelling units as well as other nonresidential uses, mixed-use industrial developments, such as the proposed project involve different uses and thus different considerations. For instance, the vast majority of operational GHG emissions from the project, similar to other industrial developments, would result from mobile-source emissions associated with trucks. For the reasons noted above, imposing a net-zero emissions requirement on the project, including the truck fleets used during operations, is not feasible and not required under the law.

Therefore, the Draft EIR’s quantitative and qualitative thresholds utilized to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG impacts are appropriate under CEQA and within the City’s discretion. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR, and the comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR further explained its analytical approach for purposes of evaluating GHG impacts. Under applicable provisions of CEQA and as held in the California Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, GHG impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Conflict with a compliant GHG Reduction Plan if adopted by the lead agency; • Exceed threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.

The foregoing considerations utilized in applying the selected thresholds are consistent with the Appendix G Environmental Checklist questions of the CEQA Guidelines. The first impact criterion, “conflict with a compliant GHG Reduction Plan if adopted by the lead agency,” cannot be applied to the proposed project since the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is not considered a qualified GHG Reduction Plan as discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.8.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions -Thresholds of Significance. Moreover, the other two impact criteria presented closely align with the two Appendix G Environmental Checklist questions for GHG emissions. Therefore, the City, in its discretion, properly utilized the above considerations in selecting the thresholds and conducting the GHG impact analysis.

The analysis contained in the Draft EIR included both (1) a quantitative determination of the GHG emissions that would be generated by the proposed project, and (2) a qualitative assessment that addresses consistency with the robust regulatory framework, including SB 32 targets, the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Scoping Plan Update.

With respect to the quantitative threshold, as discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, the SJVAPCD Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA includes thresholds based on whether the project would reduce or mitigate GHG levels by 29 percent from BAU levels compared with 2005 levels. This level of GHG reduction is based on the target established by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. The ARB recognizes that AB 32 establishes an emissions reduction trajectory that will allow California to achieve the more stringent 2050 target: “These [greenhouse gas emission reduction] measures also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.”
1660
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-23
Consistent with the Newhall Ranch court decision and as further detailed in the robust analysis set forth in Draft EIR Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a project BAU analysis based on substantial evidence in the record was prepared for the project, which assessed “consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities.” Therefore, the Draft EIR evaluated project GHG emissions against an appropriate threshold that also evaluates consistency with Statewide GHG emissions reduction goals. In addition, the City of Visalia identifies the following thresholds in its CAP: 15 percent reduction from BAU levels in the year 2020 and a 30 percent reduction from BAU levels in the year 2030.

As explained in more detail in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is expected to become operational in phases beginning in 2025 and assumes full buildout in 2028, which is beyond the AB 32 target year. As a result, until a new threshold is identified for projects constructed after 2020, the only threshold to address significance is based on making continued progress toward the SB 32 2030 goal. As noted in the Draft EIR, this approach compares estimates of project emissions in the 2030 milestone year with the existing threshold to show the extent of progress achieved with existing regulations and the incorporation of specific project design features to address Considerations 1 and 2.

The Draft EIR also employed a qualitative evaluation by analyzing the project’s consistency with the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans as well as relevant provisions from the City’s CAP and General Plan. See Response to AFTE-4, below.

Therefore, the Draft EIR used the appropriate thresholds to evaluate GHG impacts. The comment has been noted for the record. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality and GHG have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis is required.

Comment AFTE-4
The comment notes that the Draft EIR derived the significance threshold by relying on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and then summarizes the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the project could have a potentially significant GHG impact because the project could conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. The comment also notes that the Draft EIR presented the project’s estimated annual GHG emissions, which were quantified using CalEEMod, and then asserts that the Draft EIR erroneously concluded these potentially significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation. The commenter alleges that the project would still have a significant impact even after implementation of mitigation, and therefore the City should have adopted more measures to fully mitigate “the full extent” of the project’s GHG impacts.

Response to AFTE-4
The comment is noted for the record. To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. 1661
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-24
To the extent the commenter raises specific issues with respect to the nature of the GHG threshold utilized in the Draft EIR, CEQA does not require the City to utilize a quantitative net-zero significance threshold to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG impacts. To the contrary, lead agencies, such as the City, have discretion to formulate their own significance thresholds (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7). The determination by a lead agency of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment, based to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(b)(1) and 15064.4(a)).

Thus, establishing a single threshold of significance, while perhaps desirable in certain instances, may not be feasible for every environmental impact, because the significance of an impact may vary with the setting. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, explains as follows:
“(a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.

A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.” CEQA Guidelines Appendix G includes sample questions for determining whether impacts related to GHG emissions and energy consumption are significant. These questions reflect the significant input of planning and environmental professionals at the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on robust input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. They also reflect the requirements of laws other than CEQA, such as Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32. As a result, most lead agencies derive their significance criteria from the questions posed in Appendix G. The City has chosen, in its discretion, to do so for this project.

The final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the City, as Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines The basis for the commenter’s opinion that the Draft EIR’s impact conclusions are flawed is not clear.

However, this response provides a summary of the methodology used by the Draft EIR in making the GHG impact conclusions in a good faith attempt to respond to the concerns raised.

See Responses to AFTE-2 and AFTE-3, above, regarding the basis for the City’s selection of significance thresholds and a summary of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations that were conducted.

With respect to the qualitative consistency analysis referenced in the comment, an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans (as well as the City’s CAP and General Plan) serves as a roadmap for evaluating a project’s current design, and to determine whether it 1662
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-25
complies with current policies and planned reduction measures for GHG emissions. The comparison of a project design to Scoping Plan proposals is not by itself a metric for determining project-level significance, but a step in showing how the project supports current regulations and is aligned with future GHG reduction strategies in development stages.

As discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, the 2022 Scoping Plan was recently adopted in December 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies strategies to meet the State’s SB 32 GHG reduction goals as well as feasible methods to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies the importance of local jurisdiction actions, such as cities and counties, because these entities have direct control over land use decisions in much of the State. While local jurisdictions influence land use development and building GHG reduction measures, the State largely influences transportation GHG reduction measures. As such, the 2022 Scoping Plan provides a strategy that is capable of reaching the SB 32 target if the measures included in the plan are implemented and achieve reductions within the ranges expected. Nevertheless, to date, neither a new quantitative threshold nor Best Performance Standards (BPS) have been identified for projects constructed after 2020. Therefore, significance is based on making continued progress toward the SB 32 2030 goal.

The State’s regulatory program is able to target both new and existing development because the two most important strategies—motor vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions from electricity generation— obtain reductions equally from existing and new sources. This is because all vehicle operators use cleaner low carbon fuels and buy vehicles subject to the fuel efficiency regulations, and all building owners or operators purchase cleaner energy from the grid that is produced by increasing percentages of renewable fuels. As the Draft EIR sets forth in detail, this includes regulations on mobile sources such as: the Pavley standards that apply to all vehicles purchased in California, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that applies to all fuel used in California, and the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Renewable Energy Standard that apply to utilities providing electricity to all California homes and businesses.

The reduction strategy where new development is required to do more than existing development is building energy efficiency and energy use related to water conservation regulations. For example, new projects are subject to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen Code Standards, and Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) water conservation requirements. New buildings and landscapes are much more energy-efficient and water efficient than the development that has been built over the past decades and will require much less energy. Title 24 is updated about every 3 years with the goal of reaching zero-net-energy from new residential buildings by 2020 and new commercial buildings by 2030. The proposed project’s commercial and industrial buildings would be constructed in and after 2025 and would be required to comply with the regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued.

Taking the foregoing into appropriate account, the Draft EIR provides a robust analysis that discloses potential impacts and identifies feasible mitigation, and therefore the commenter incorrectly asserts that the project would have a remaining significant impact even after the proposed mitigation. The substantial evidence in the record in this regard includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts to support the Draft EIR’s impact conclusions 1663
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-26
(CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5)). This comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

As noted in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR on pages ES-30 through ES-31, and described in detail in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project was found to be less than significant under Impact GHG-1 and less than significant with mitigation incorporated under Impact GHG-2. As noted in Responses to AFTE-2 and AFTE-3 above, the Draft EIR used appropriate thresholds to evaluate GHG impacts and CEQA does not require a quantitative net-zero threshold to properly evaluate GHG impacts under CEQA. The Draft EIR identified several mitigation measures to address GHG impacts; in addition, the Draft EIR identified numerous measures that would not only mitigation air quality impacts but would further support the State’s efforts at reducing GHG emissions.

For example, as described in Section 3.3 Air Quality, the Draft EIR included MM AIR-2c, which would require (1) that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment be zero-emission or all-electric, and (2) that all project buildings would be designed to support the use of zero-emission or allelectric service equipment. MM AIR-2d would require each project applicant, in connection with an individual specific development proposal, to include infrastructure for EV charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks) for the subject proposal, consistent with the applicable CALGreen Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). Furthermore, MM AIR-2d would require the design of the buildings’ electrical room to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on-site. MM AIR-2e would require the relevant project applicant to include signage and pavement markings along project site driveways and internal roadways to clearly identify on-site circulation patterns, minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel, and reduce vehicle idling.

The commenter provides no evidence for these assertions other than their unsubstantiated assertion to the same effect. The Draft EIR’s impact conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Draft EIR includes full disclosure of potential impacts and identified mitigation under Impact GHG-2 reduced any potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality impacts and GHG have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required.

Comment AFTE-5
The commenter notes that the Draft EIR included a discussion of the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2017 Scoping Plan, Visalia CAP, and the Visalia General Plan to support the City’s conclusion that the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for GHG emissions reductions. The commenter asserts that the significance analysis violated CEQA by “overlooking the project’s conflict” with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan, as well as failing to acknowledge and analyze all applicable plans for the reduction of GHGs.

Response to AFTE-5
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. 1664
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-27
While that comment makes the general assertion that the Draft EIR failed to acknowledge and analyze all applicable plans for the reduction of GHGs, the commenter does not explicitly indicate any additional plans that should have been included in this portion of the comment. Response to AFTE-9 clarifies what the commenter purports should have been analyzed.

To the extent the comment is framing the concern as one that relates to the appropriate significance threshold, see Responses to AFTE-2 and AFTE-3 above (CEQA does not require an evaluation of impacts against a threshold that requires net-zero GHG emissions).

Moreover, the robust regulatory framework in place on a State, regional and local level, including, without limitation, EO B-55-18, does not contain provisions that “prohibit the use of gasoline, diesel and natural gas.” Thus, the commenter’s assertion that the use of these fuels creates a conflict for purposes of CEQA review is inaccurate under the law.

The Draft EIR contains a thoughtful consistency analysis addressing all relevant plans and policies designed to reduce GHG emissions, including taking into appropriate account EO B-55-18. For example, in evaluating Impact GHG-2, the Draft EIR explains that its “analysis is accomplished via an assessment of the proposed project’s compliance with the Visalia CAP, Scoping Plan measures contained in the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Scoping Plan Update, and the Visalia General Plan.” Moreover, as detailed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, each of the project phases would achieve reductions beyond the ARB 2020 21.7 percent target and the SJVAPCD 29 percent reduction from BAU requirements from adopted regulations in their respective operational years. As shown in the emission estimates discussed in the Draft EIR and detailed in the Air Quality Report (Appendix B), in 2025, the proposed project would be expected to generate a total of approximately 63,290 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per year, which would be an approximately 37.05 percent reduction in GHG emissions from BAU (100,540 MT CO2e per year). This is above the 29 percent reduction required by the SJVAPCD threshold and well exceeds the 21.7 percent average reduction from all sources of GHG emissions now required to achieve AB 32 targets. Thus, the 37.05 percent reduction from BAU is 15.35 percent beyond the average reduction required by the State from all sources to achieve the AB 32 2020 target. Since the project buildout would occur after 2020, additional analysis was conducted to demonstrate consistency with the SB 32 2030 target. As shown in the Air Quality Report, the proposed project would achieve a reduction of 40.9 percent from BAU by the year 2030 with compliance with applicable regulations and identified project design features incorporated.

As described more fully in the Draft EIR, the 2022 Scoping Plan addresses AB 1279, which codified EO B-55-18’s target for California to achieve and maintain carbon net neutrality by 2045 (equivalent to a reduction in Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions of 85 percent below 1990 levels). The 2022 Scoping Plan establishes a scenario by which the State may achieve this goal by 2045 or earlier. The Draft EIR includes an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and found that the proposed project would be consistent, based on its design features, compliance with the robust regulatory framework, and with incorporation of MM AIR-2c, MM AIR-2d, MM AIR-2e, MM AIR-2f, MM GHG-2a (revised), and MM GHG-2b. Based on the foregoing, the Draft EIR disclosed in Impact GHG-2, on page 3.8-50 of the Draft EIR, “the proposed project would be consistent with State 1665
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-28
GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, and does not obstruct their attainment after incorporation of mitigation.” As detailed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets.

Regarding the use of diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles, see Responses to AFTE-2 through 8 above, which explain how the Draft EIR properly evaluated and disclosed the GHG emissions that would result from the project’s commercial and industrial components, including the use of diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles during operations. See also Responses to AFTE-2 and AFTE-3 above, which confirms that CEQA does not require each individual project to demonstrate carbon neutrality and thus the assertion that the Draft EIR is required to use a quantitative net-zero-emission threshold is inaccurate under the law.

Moreover, the commenter’s assertion that a determination that a subject development would be “inconsistent” with “any applicable policy” would constitute a significant impact is also incorrect under the law. The Draft EIR contains a thoughtful analysis that considers the project’s consistency with all applicable plans and policies and takes a holistic approach as to the determination whether the project would help or hinder the State’s achievement of its GHG emission reduction goals.

With respect to the assertion that the project “conflicts” with the 2022 Scoping Plan and 2017 Scoping Plan, the City, in its discretion, disagrees with the commenter in this regard. The Draft EIR considered this issue at length and included evaluations of the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan (as well as the City’s CAP and General Plan). As detailed more fully therein, the project was determined to be consistent with both plans. The basis for this consistency includes the following.

The Draft EIR and Final EIR (1) properly assume compliance with a robust regulatory framework (including, without limitation, citing relevant General Plan policies as well as guidance from the ARB and the Air District and set forth a thoughtful consistency analysis related thereto; (2) fully disclose all significant impacts; (3) identify all feasible mitigation measures to mitigate, avoid or reduce the identified significant impacts; and (4) include a summary of all such measures that will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be considered for adoption by the City Council in connection with its certification of the EIR and thereafter imposed as enforceable conditions of approval.

The proposed project is consistent with its existing General Plan land use designation of Industrial and Light Industrial; this reflects the long-planned urban development vision for the project site, which contemplates a variety of commercial, industrial and light industrial uses including, among others, warehousing and distribution. The proposed project has been designed to incorporate applicable development standards and design guidelines to help ensure it would be consistent with the urbanizing, industrial character of this portion of the City of Visalia. The proposed project would incorporate a number of design features and be required to comply with a robust regulatory framework, all of which would enhance its sustainability and help to reduce GHG emissions. For example, see Table 3.8-4 of the Draft EIR (Summary of Applicable Greenhouse Gas Regulations). 1666
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-29
Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Section 3.14, Transportation, the proposed project would implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures including installation of up to 60 secure bicycle storage lockers (MM TRANS-10a) and installation of a bike path along Modoc Ditch, which would connect to other planned trail improvements (MM TRANS-10b). The foregoing would reduce GHG impacts associated with VMT.

Moreover, the proposed project would be required to comply with the following mitigation measures: MM AIR-2c, MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b.

Moreover, from a construction-related standpoint, MM AIR-2a requires the use of Tier IV or Tier IV Equivalent Construction Off-Road Equipment. In addition, there are extensive existing regulations to which the proposed project would be required to comply that would other further net-zero-emission objectives. For example and among others, ARB has adopted its 2013 Optional Low-NOX Standard of

0.02 gram of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) per brake horsepower-hour for all heavy-duty trucks; there are also regulations that govern idling restrictions for heavy-duty vehicles (see, e.g., ARB On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program would require heavy-duty truck owners to limit idling to 5 minutes). In addition, the new ARB Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations Resolution 22-12 would require new gasoline powered cars purchased in the State to be zero-emission, which would lead to future tenants’ vehicle fleets containing some Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs).

MM AIR-2c requires that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. 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 CALGreen Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3).

Originally, MM GHG-2a required that the proposed project install one of the following: (i) rooftop PV solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop PV panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on August 30, 2022. These options were suggested by the SJVAPCD in their NOP comment letter dated September 2, 2022 (see Appendix A, of the Draft EIR). The latest 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBC) went into effect on January 1, 2023. The latest California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 140.10 now requires solar PV systems for the land uses such as warehouses, retail, and restaurants. The proposed project, which includes warehouse, self storage facility, drive-through restaurants, and convenience store would be subject to the solar PV requirements, unless otherwise exempt per Section 140.10. The required solar PV size is calculated based on the proposed project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage. The required solar PV system is intended to offset the annual electrical consumption of a mixed-fuel building such that it would self-utilize about 80 percent of the annual solar PV generation without battery storage, and about 90 percent with battery storage, over a year.2 In response to comments, the City agreed to modify MM GHG-2a to reflect the obligation under State law that the proposed project would be required to adhere to. This is an inadvertent omission of solar panel requirements, The subsequent modification of mitigation 2 California Energy Commission. 2022. Nonresidential Solar PV General Information. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programsand-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/2022-0. Accessed June 20, 2024. 1667
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-30
measure adds clarity to the EIR, it does not reflect a new or substantially increase significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 MM GHG-2b includes requirements that would limit GHG emissions from Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) in the event that any portion of the warehouse land use is used for cold storage uses. If any project warehouse(s) are used for cold storage, then prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for those building(s), the City of Visalia shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all TRUs entering the project site be plug-in capable.

As such, given the nature of the project combined with the requirement to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations as part of a robust regulatory framework, along with incorporation of identified mitigation, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the City’s determination that the project would not conflict with either the 2022 Scoping Plan or the 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted. In fact, contrary to the commenter’s assertions, given the foregoing, the project would contribute to the State’s overall climate goal of decarbonization that is a central theme of the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans.

Consistent with the comment, as discussed in the Draft EIR (see Chapter 3.6, Energy, and Chapter

3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the proposed project would be required to be designed in compliance with the applicable CBC, which reflect some of the most stringent requirements in the nation.

MM GHG-2a has been revised as follows:

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

Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the City of Visalia shall confirm that the subject proposal has been designed to include the following: a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space. Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system pursuant to this MM GHG-2a must also have a battery storage system.
1668
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-31
See also solar photovoltaic (PV) system to be included in accordance with 2022 Energy Code Section 140.10. The required solar module size would be calculated based on the proposed project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage. The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact after implementation of MM AIR-2d, MM GHG2a, and MM GHG-2b; this determination remains accurate with the updated MM GHG-2a, which would further increase opportunities for the use of on-site renewable solar power generation. An obligation to supply 100 percent of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the project is not required under CEQA. Therefore, no further mitigation is required and no change to the conclusions in the Draft EIR are warranted.

Under Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 (Laurel Heights II) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15088.5(a)(3)), when information added to the Final EIR includes a new mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure meets all of the following criteria:
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR;
• It would clearly lessen the project’s significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.

Recirculation is required only if each of the above is established. South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330. These modifications to MM GHG-2 add clarity to the EIR and do not reflect a new or substantially increased significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

See also Response to AFTE-4. These comments have been noted for the record. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarification as noted above.

Comment AFTE-6
The commenter notes that the 2022 Scoping Plan sets goals for 50 percent of all industrial energy demand to be electrified by 2045, and “displacing fossil fuel mix” with various low carbon alternatives. The commenter goes on to assert that the proposed project does not appear to be consistent with these goals because the proposed project would use renewable natural gas blends for heating and would not fully displace its fossil fuel use with low carbon alternatives. Thus, the commenter asserts that the proposed project is in conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan due to its “considerable reliance on diesel fuel and other nonrenewable energy sources in its operations.” Response to AFTE-6
As a preliminary matter, the City disagrees with the commenter’s interpretation of the nature of consistency review under CEQA. The law does not require a finding of inconsistency if a project is not 1669
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-32
able to fully accomplish every aspect of an applicable plan designed to reduce GHG emissions.

Rather, the consistency analysis is focused on whether the subject development would impede achievement of the goals and policies set forth in such plans.

Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, the Draft EIR contains a detailed discussion of the robust regulatory framework that would apply to the project as well as a thoughtful consistency analysis.

For example, as described in Section 3.6, Energy, on pages 3.6-12 through 3.6-13 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be subject to then-current Title 24 Energy Efficiency and CALGreen Standards, which are some of the most stringent in the nation and which include, among other things, minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. In addition, Southern California Edison (SCE), which supplies electricity to the project site and vicinity, would be required by SB 100 to incrementally increase the proportion of renewable electricity generation supplying its in-state retail sales until it reaches 100 percent carbon-free electricity generation by 2045. Furthermore, the proposed project would provide solar photovoltaic systems in compliance with 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 140.10. As such, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the project is consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan and would not impede the State from achieving the goals for 50 percent of all industrial energy demand to be electrified by 2045 and displacing fossil fuels with various low carbon alternatives.

See also Responses to AFTE-4 and AFTE -5 regarding the Draft EIR’s consistency analysis with the 2022 Scoping Plan. The comments have been noted for the record. The commenter does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Therefore, no revisions are required in response to this comment.

Comment AFTE-7
The commenter notes that the 2017 Scoping Plan was adopted to facilitate compliance with SB 32, which requires Statewide GHG emissions to be reduced by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The commenter then asserts that the consistency analysis in the Draft EIR does not explain how the project is consistent with “any of the goals” including GHG reductions by 2050 of 80 percent below 1990 levels. Rather, the comment states that the project’s per service population GHG emissions would “greatly exceed” the 2050 target and instead the Draft EIR should have been compared to the targets of 6 MT CO2e/capita by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e/capita by 2050. The commenter concludes by asserting that the proposed project would have a significant impact without the required mitigation.

Response to AFTE-7
With respect to the proper significance thresholds to be utilized here, those that the commenter suggested are intended for Plan-level Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction goals, such as a CAP, not project-specific thresholds. The targets of 6 MT CO2e/capita by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e/capita by 2050 set forth in the 2017 Scoping Plan, page 99 of the 2017 Scoping Plan clearly states that these goals are appropriate for the plan level (city, county, subregional, or regional level, as appropriate), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State. Therefore, these targets are not appropriate targets to be analyzed in the proposed project’s Draft EIR. As such, this threshold would not apply to the proposed project. Moreover, the commenter presents no 1670
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-33
evidence to substantiate the assertion that the project is inconsistent with “any of the goals” including GHG reductions or that the proposed mitigation is ineffective to reduce impacts.

As explained further herein, the Draft EIR evaluated GHG impacts against the appropriate thresholds as required by CEQA. Lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with this Scoping Plan, the State’s long-term GHG goals, and climate change science. As noted in Responses to AFTE-2 and AFTE-3, the analysis contained in the Draft EIR included both (1) a quantitative determination of the GHG emissions that would be generated by the proposed project, and (2) a qualitative assessment that addressed consistency with the SB 32 targets, the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Scoping Plan Update (as well as the City’s CAP and General Plan), which includes measures beyond the 2017 Scoping Plan to meet SB 32 targets. As disclosed in detail in the Draft EIR, this approach compares estimates of project emissions in the 2030 milestone year with the existing target to show the extent of progress that would be achieved by the project based on compliance with existing laws and regulations and the incorporation of specific project design features to address Considerations 1 and

2. The Draft EIR contained a thoughtful consistency analysis, and documents how the project—based on its design features, compliance with a robust regulatory framework and implementation of identified mitigation—would assist the State to make progress toward the emission reduction goals set forth in the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans and SB 32. Therefore, the Draft EIR used the appropriate thresholds to evaluate GHG impacts and no revisions are required. See also Responses to AFTE-2 and AFTE -3 for additional discussion as to the thresholds and methodologies used in the GHG impact analysis. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the analysis therein. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gases have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarification as noted above and no changes to the EIR are warranted.

Comment AFTE-8
The commenter makes a general assertion that the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact prior to the incorporation of mitigation.

Response to AFTE-8
The Draft EIR properly identified a potentially significant GHG impact in connection with Impact GHG-2 and identified feasible mitigation. As discussed in Responses to AFTE-2 through AFTE-7 herein, the Draft EIR appropriately analyzed the project’s GHG impacts and concluded GHG impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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

Comment AFTE-9
The commenter provides a summary of Executive Order B-55-18 (EO B-55-18) and notes that the EIR must evaluate consistency with “all other applicable plans” including demonstrating consistency with 1671
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-34
EO B-55-18. It then asserts that the project is inconsistent with EO B-55-18 because it does not prohibit the use of gasoline, diesel, and natural gas.

Response to AFTE-9
As explained in Responses to AFTE-2 and AFTE-5 above, it is not feasible to prohibit the use of gasoline, diesel and natural gas for this type of large, mixed-use industrial development or for it to be required to control in perpetuity the types of vehicles used by tenants during project operations.

Neither the future tenants nor the City would have control over the vehicles accessing the project site and thus neither would have the ability to enforce any obligation requiring that trucks utilize alternative low carbon fuels during the life of the proposed project. Given the volume of mediumduty vehicles that would be involved as part of the 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 EVs, the suggested mitigation is not feasible.

Moreover, 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 electric vehicles.

Rather, the emissions resulting from the vehicles accessing the project site would largely be influenced by laws and regulations (current and future) that would apply to vehicle manufacturers based on determinations made by the ARB, which is the expert public agency charged to address these issues via a comprehensive regulatory framework applied Statewide based on robust data and evaluation with consideration of multiple complicated factors.

For example, among others, the Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation (CCR, Title 13, §§ 2013, 2013.1, 2013.2, 2013.3, 2013.4, 2014,2014.1, 2014.2, 2014.3, 2015, 2015.1, 2015.2, 2015.3, 2015.4, 2015.5, 2015.6, and 2016) is the latest development in the ARB’s decades-long history of setting increasingly stringent emission standards for mobile sources. The Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation will help advance the introduction of zero-emission technologies into California’s truck and bus fleets requiring fleets that are well suited for electrification to reduce emissions through requirements to both phase-in the use of ZEVs for targeted fleets. In addition, the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation requires that manufacturers only manufacture ZEV trucks starting in the 2036 model year. Truck fleets that serve the proposed project would be required to meet these ZEV requirements which would further reduce GHG emissions and phase out fossil fuel use.

Therefore, the Draft EIR properly determined that the proposed project is consistent with all applicable plans and policies seeking to reduce GHG emissions and would not prohibit, prevent or impede the State of California from achieving the goals set therein, including, without limitation, EO B-55-18 (i.e., the proposed project would not result in barriers to the State achieving net-zero emissions). As such, all applicable plans and policies, including EO B- 55-18, were addressed in the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted for the record. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no and revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.

Comment AFTE-10
The commenter provides a general summary of CEQA requirements with respect to the identification of impacts and mitigation, and purports that the mitigation measures identified to reduce GHG impacts are insufficient because CEQA requires that the project include fair share 1672
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-35
mitigation for all significant cumulative impacts, consistent with the findings of Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 364. The commenter claims that, for this project, this means mitigation of the full extent of the project’s GHG impacts and therefore more mitigation is necessary.

Response to AFTE-10
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA or provides sustantiation of the claims asserted.

As detailed more fully in the Draft EIR and described in Responses to AFTE-4 and AFTE-5, numerous feasible mitigation measures were identified under Impact GHG-2 that would fully mitigate for the project’s potential GHG impacts. Moreover, GHG-2a has been further refined, which would further ensure that GHG impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The commenter does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comments have been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment AFTE-11
The commenter notes that MM GHG-2a allows the project to implement “solar-ready” rooftop design rather than specifying a specific number of solar panels to be installed. The commenter also purports that, as written in the Draft EIR, MM GHG-2a poses a conflict with the Visalia CAP because the CAP emphasizes solar panels be installed. Therefore, the commenter concludes that the project would have a significant, unmitigated impact.

Response to AFTE-11
As noted in Responses to AFTE-5 and AFTE-6, the Draft EIR provides a thoughtful and thorough analysis of the project’s potential GHG impacts and identifies feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant. The Draft EIR sets forth the detailed regulatory framework that would govern the project and explains that the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirement of these laws and regulations, which are some of the most stringent in the nation.

For example, the project would be required to adhere to applicable California Building Energy Efficiency and CALGreen Standards, including, among others, those set forth Section 140.10, which requires solar PV system for the land uses such as warehouses, retail, and restaurants. The proposed project, which includes warehouse, self storage facility, drive-through restaurants, and convenience store would be subject to the solar PV requirements, unless otherwise exempt per Section 140.10.

The required solar PV size is calculated based on the project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage. The required solar PV system is intended to offset the annual electrical consumption of a mixed-fuel building such that it will self-utilize about 80 percent of the annual solar PV generation without battery storage, and about 90 percent with battery storage, over a year.3 The foregoing, which is reflected in modified MM GHG-2a, further ensures the project’s GHG impacts would be less than significant through compliance with the foregoing, which incorporates a quantitative performance standard. This requirement has replaced the original language in MM GHG-2a. (See also AFTE-5 and Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR). 3 California Energy Commission. 2022. Nonresidential Solar PV General Information. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programsand-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/2022-0. Accessed June 20, 2024. 1673
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-36
Therefore, consistent with the analysis set forth in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP policy which encourages the installation of solar PV systems. The Draft EIR properly determined that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact after implementation of identified measures, including MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b. The commenter offers no evidnece or substantation of this assertion, which has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment AFTE-12
The commenter notes that MM GHG-2b would limit warehouse usage to dry storage but is unenforceable because it does not commit the City to the dry storage usage because it contains provisions that must be complied with if the warehouse is used for cold storage.

Response to AFTE-12
The commenter does not accurately reflect the contents of MM GHG-2b. The Draft EIR’s GHG analysis considered the impacts associated with emissions that would result if TRUs were involved as a result of any portion of the warehouses being used for cold storage. To reduce impacts in this regard, as noted in both the comment and the Draft EIR, MM GHG-2b contains provisions that must be complied with if any portion of warehouse(s) are used for cold storage. Specifically, MM GHG-2b would ensure that in the event there would be cold storage uses such that TRUs would be entering the project site, then all such TRUs would need to be plug-in capable. The intent of the mitigation measure is to limit the GHG emissions that would be produced if any portion of the project is used for cold storage. By requiring that the foregoing mandatory be incorporated in every lease, thereby making it contractually binding, this measure’s enforceability can be appropriately assured. This comment has been noted for the record. and no revisions to mitigation measures are warranted.

Comment AFTE-13
The commenter notes that MM AIR-2d would incorporate electric vehicle charging infrastructure for 20 percent of the project’s parking spaces. The commenter also notes that this represents the minimum requirement of the CBC, and then makes a general assertion that this amount would not be sufficient to mitigate the project’s potentially significant impact from vehicle GHG emissions.

Response to AFTE-13
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The commenter is not clear nor offers evidence as to the basis for the assertion that compliance with applicable mandates under State law, which are some of the most stringent in the nation, would not be sufficient to mitigate the project’s potential impacts associated with vehicle GHG emissions. The Draft EIR contains a detailed analysis that quantifies construction- and operational-related GHG emissions, including those resulting from mobile sources.

As noted in the Draft EIR, MM AIR-2 requires each development within the proposed project incorporate infrastructure for EV charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks). In so doing, this would facilitate achievement of the State’s GHG emission reduction goals by incorporating substantial opportunities for EV infrastructure to be available to serve the vehicles utilized during project operations. Furthermore, beyond what is required by the CBC, MM AIR-2d specifies that 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 project site.
1674
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-37
The Draft EIR appropriately analyzed the project’s GHG impacts and it was found, based on substantial evidence in the record, that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, there is no legal nexus to implement additional mitigation measures and no requirement under CEQA to do so. The comment has been noted for the record, and revisions to the Draft EIR or additional mitigation measure are not warranted.

See also Responses to AFTE-4 and AFTE-5.

Comment AFTE-14
The commenter makes the general assertion that there is no evidence that the mitigation measures identified in the GHG section of the Draft EIR would mitigate the project’s impact to a less than significant extent, let alone the fair share of the project’s significant GHG impact.

Response to AFTE-14
The comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA.

See Responses to AFTE-2, AFTE-3, AFTE-4, AFTE-5, AFTE-9, AFTE-10, AFTE-11, and AFTE-12. Contrary to the comment’s assertions, the Draft EIR and the responses to comments set forth in the Final EIR, constitute substantial evidence in the record that the project’s impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of the identified mitigation. The scope of the measures that would be imposed on the project are sufficient under the law to mitigate the project’s impacts as required under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment AFTE-15
The commenter reiterates the prior assertion that the determination of less than significant GHG impact after mitigation violates CEQA because the Lead Agency is required to mitigate significant cumulative impacts to the fair share extent when it finds a potentially significant impact, not just to the point of “less than significant.” The comment also restates that the proposed mitigation measures would not be capable of reducing the project’s GHG impact to a less than significant level because it would still conflict with the Scoping Plans and the Visalia CAP. The commenter also requests to be added to the public interest list for the proposed project.

Response to AFTE-15
The comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA.

See Responses to AFTE-4, AFTE-5, AFTE-10, AFTE-11, and AFTE-14. The Draft EIR describes its analysis, which determined that the proposed project would have less than significant GHG impacts with the incorporation of mitigation. The City is not permitted under CEQA to impose mitigation measures or require applicants to incorporate project design features for impacts that have been determined to be less than significant. The commenter is added to the public interest list for the proposed project. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR and new mitigation measures are not necessary.
1675

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1676

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 GSEJA

Page 1 of 17 ends

1 1677
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

boundaries of Tulare County. The proposed project would need to be annexed into the city limits, and upon annexation, would be served by the City of Visalia for purposes of water and wastewater.

The proposed project would require the certification of the EIR and the following discretionary approvals from the City:

1. Approval of a Development Agreement

2. Approval of Resolution Initiating Annexation Proceedings

3. Approval of the Site Plan

4. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map

5. Conditional Use Permit for the conditionally permitted uses proposed (convenience store, drive-through restaurants), some of the proposed lot sizes in the light industrial zoning, and lots without public street frontage.

1.1 Project Piecemealing
The EIR does not accurately or adequately describe the project, meaning whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the (CEQA § 15378). The project proposed by Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park is a piecemealed portion of a larger overall project to be developed within the larger Seefried Logistics Center in the City of Visalia. Other piecemealed projects include at minimum SPR210711(construction of a 1,044,950 sf warehouse/distribution center building at the southwest corner of Plaza and Ferguson - Ace Hardware), and SPR220412(construction of a 535,540 sf warehouse building at the southwest corner of Goshen and American, immediately south of Ace Hardware). Cumulatively, the three piecemealed applications construct a total of 5,300,639 sf of building floor area.

A project EIR must be prepared that accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the project into separate, smaller development projects to present unduly low environmental impacts. CEQA Section 15161 describes project EIRs as examining environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall 1 https://cd.visalia.city/CitizenAccess/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Engineering&TabName=Engineering &capID1=ENG21&capID2=00000&capID3=00278&agencyCode=VISALIA 2 https://cd.visalia.city/CitizenAccess/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Engineering&TabName=Engineering &capID1=ENG22&capID2=00000&capID3=00142&agencyCode=VISALIA GSEJA

Page 2 of 17 ends

1 CONT
2 1678
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and The specific development project is the construction and operation of all Seefried buildings.

Additionally, CEQA Section 15146 requires that the degree of specificity in an EIR correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater Because there are multiple proposed buildings as part of a single project, the project EIR must be more detailed in the specific effects of the project. A project EIR must be prepared which accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the project into separate, smaller development projects, development areas, or development phases to present unduly low environmental impacts.

2.0 Project Description
The EIR does not include a floor plan, detailed site plan, detailed building elevations for each proposed building, or a conceptual grading plan. The basic components of a Planning Application include a detailed site plan, floor plan, conceptual grading plan, written narrative, and detailed elevations. Only a representative elevation for one each of the warehousing and flex industrial buildings is provided; there are no elevations for the Self-Storage/Recreation Vehicle (RV) Buildings, Convenience Store and Gas Station, two 2,368 sf Drive-through Restaurants, or Car Wash. Additionally, the site plan provided in Exhibit 2-8 has been edited to remove pertinent information from public view. For example, it does not provide any detailed information such a, floor area ratio, earthwork quantity notes, or maximum building height. Providing the earthwork quantity notes via a complete conceptual grading plan is vital as the EIR states that, proposed project includes approximately 130,000 cubic yards of material to be cut, approximately 260,000 cubic yards of fill material, and a net import of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of new and there is no method for the public or decision makers to verify this statement.

Verification of the earthwork quantities is vital as it directly informs the quantity of any necessary truck hauling trips due to soil import/export during the grading phase of construction, thereby impacts mobile source emissions. A revised EIR must be prepared to include wholly accurate and unedited detailed project site plan, floor plan, grading plan, elevations, and project narrative for public review.

Additionally, the Project Description states that a necessary action to implement the proposed project is approval of a Development Agreement. However, the EIR has not included the Development Agreement for review by the public and decision makers. This does not comply GSEJA

Page 3 of 17 ends

2 CONT
3 4
1679
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

with requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the Development Agreement contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand and is a component of the proposed project. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the Development Agreement for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

The Project Description and EIR are insufficient in adequately describing the proposed project.

The Project Description states that a necessary action to implement the proposed project is approval of a Use Permit for the conditionally permitted uses proposed (convenience store, drive-through restaurants), some of the proposed lot sizes in the light industrial zoning, and lots without public street However, there is no specific information given in the EIR regarding which lots are affected, the deviations in lot sizes from the requirements, and which lots do not have public street frontage. This does not comply with requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)).

Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the complete and specific details of the Conditional Use Permit requests contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand and is a component of the proposed project. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the complete and specific details of the Conditional Use Permit requests for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
It must be noted that Table 3-1: Cumulative Projects excludes YS Industrial Park Phase 3 (SPR221303), which is immediately adjacent to the south of the project site and currently under review. The EIR must be revised to include this project for cumulative analysis in order to provide an accurate environmental analysis and an adequate informational document.

3.3 - Air Quality, 3.6 - Energy, and 3.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.04, screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed census tract (6107001003) is ranked in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden, meaning it is among the most polluted census tracks in the state. The 3 https://cd.visalia.city/CitizenAccess/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Engineering&TabName=Engineering &capID1=ENG22&capID2=00000&capID3=00585&agencyCode=VISALIA&IsToShowInspection= 4 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 GSEJA

Page 4 of 17 ends

4 CONT
5 6
7 1680
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

surrounding community bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on several pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 91st percentile for ozone burden, the 98th percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, and the 55th percentile for diesel PM. All of these environmental factors are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health conditions, even at low levels of exposure5. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer6. The census tract also ranks in the 78th percentile for contaminated drinking water. Poor communities and people in rural areas are exposed to contaminants in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state7. The census tract also ranks in the 85th percentile for groundwater threats. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes8. The census tract bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 95% of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water9. The census tract also ranks in the 99th percentile for toxic releases. People living near facilities that emit toxic releases may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident10. The census tract also ranks in the 72nd percentile for solid waste facility impacts and 87th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilites are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations11. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people12. 5 OEHHA Ozone Burden https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 6 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulatematter 7 OEHHA Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water 8 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats 9 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 10 OEHHA Toxic Releases https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/toxic-releases-facilities 11 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-andfacilities 12 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities GSEJA

Page 5 of 17 ends

7 CONT
1681
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 6 ends

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 50% Hispanic and 8% Asian-American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of poverty, meaning 39% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care13. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution14. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution15. Living in poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care.

Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 70th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 52nd percentile for incidence of asthma. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 40% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further inequities as a result.

Additionally, the proposed census tract (6107001003) and the census tracts adjacent to the project site (6107000900 (north/west) and 6107001004 (east)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities16. This indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts resulting from an over-saturation of the warehousing and logistics industry in the area have become distinctly inequitable. The severity of significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities must be included for analysis as part of a revised EIR. Each section of the EIR must include the specific analysis of each environmental impact on the Disadvantaged Communities, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

The State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares17 for non-residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, it cannot conclude the project will generate less than significant impacts and a finding of significance must be made. A revised EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in 13 OEHHA Poverty https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty 14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 17 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-1
GSEJA

Page 6 of 17 ends

7 CONT
8 1682
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 7 ends

order to adequately analyze the project s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the EIR utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not an approved software.

3.11 Land Use and Planning
The EIR does not discuss or analyze the compliance with the General Land Use Buildout Scenario. Table 1-4: Non-Residential Floor Area within the General Plan18 projected new development of 9,690,000 s.f. of building area in the industrial land use designations between 2010 and 2030. Table 1-5: Employment by Sector projects the associated creation of 9,670 jobs in the industrial sector. The EIR has not provided evidence that the growth generated by the proposed project was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, or AQMP. The whole of the action proposed by the project (inclusive of SPR21071 and SPR22041) proposes the development of 5,300,639 square feet of building area, which is 54% of the industrial buildout. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since General Plan adoption and projects the to determine if the project will exceed the General Plan buildout scenarios. For example, other development such as recent YS Industries projects (SPR19213, SPR21150 and SPR22130) proposes construction of 2,507,328 sf of building area on industrial lands. Combined with the proposed project (all Seefried buildings) will cumulatively generate 7,807,967 square feet of building area on industrial designated lands. This represents 80.5% of the industrial buildout through 2030 accounted for by only two recent developers. These totals increase when other industrial development approved, submitted, or the since General Plan adoption are added to the total. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a cumulative analysis on this topic.

Further, Table 3.11-2: General Plan Consistency Analysis provides an erroneous and misleading analysis of the proposed project and its significant and unavoidable impacts, and excludes several goals and policies from the General Plan for analysis. The EIR does not provide a consistency analysis with all land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project has significant potential to conflict with many of these items, including but not limited to the following from the General Plan:

1. T-P-9 Maintain acceptable levels of service for all modes and facilities, as established in Tables 4-1, Intersection Level of Service Definitions and 4-2, Level of Service Criteria for Roadway Segments.
18 https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp GSEJA

Page 7 of 17 ends

8 CONT
9 10
1683
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 8 ends

2. T-P-15 Require additional right-of-way and improvements of Circulation Element facilities where needed for turning movements or to provide access to adjacent properties wherever access is not feasible from the lower classification street system.

3. T-P-61 Encourage high-security off-street parking areas for tractor-trailer rigs in industrial areas.

4. AQ-O-3 Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change in accord with federal and State law.

Additionally, several goals and policies analyzed within Table 3.11-2 provide erroneous and misleading statements regarding the proposed project. For example, the EIR concludes the project is consistent with AQ-O-2: Strive to improve air quality by implementing emissions reduction efforts targeting mobile sources, stationary sources and construction-related because proposed project would include Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2a through MM AIR-2h to reduce emissions to the extent The EIR excludes from analysis that the project will have a significant and unavoidable direct project-level and cumulative impact to air quality after mitigation is implemented. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to the direct inconsistency with the General Plan.

The EIR also concludes the project is consistent with -P-24: Require that proposed developments make necessary off-site improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety because "As discussed in Section 3.14, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak-hours following recommendations established by the project-specific Transportation Impact Study. The proposed project would construct off-site street and intersection improvements to improve existing safety hazards and reduce However, the Transportation analysis has not provided a project-specific safety hazard analysis. The EIR has not adequately analyzed the potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the potential to result in inadequate emergency access. There are no exhibits depicting the available truck turning radius at the intersection of the project driveways and adjacent streets. There are also no exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site.

The Transportation analysis within the EIR states that, sight distance analysis for each project driveway was conducted to determine whether outbound vehicles would have adequate sight distance to observe conflicting traffic along the intersecting public roadways. Intersection sight distance for the project driveways were evaluated following methodology outlined by the City of GSEJA

Page 8 of 17 ends

11 12
13 14
15 1684
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 9 ends

Visalia Design and Improvement Standard SD-3, which is based on guidance outlined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Street, 7th Edition. The proposed project would be required to satisfy the required sight lines and clear zone requirements for all project driveways, to ensure roadway hazards are However, the EIR has not included the sight distance analysis for review by the public and decision makers. This does not comply with requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)).

Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the sight distance analysis contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand in reviewing the potentially significant impacts related to threshold Impact TRANS-3, and therefore it does not comply with General Plan Policy T-P-24. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the sight distance analysis for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

Further, Appendix I includes Table 23: Summary of Access Recommendations, which provides recommendations to the site plan and offsite street areas to related project traffic queuing and safety. None of these recommendations are included as mitigation measures in the EIR, indicating that they are not required to be completed by the proposed project and outstanding project traffic queuing and safety exist. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that the project will result in less than significant impacts under threshold Impact TRANS-3, and therefore has not complied with General Plan Policy T-P-24.

Further, the EIR does not discuss that the site is identified in the Draft Housing Element19. Table 41: Vacant Parcels Available for Emergency Shelters list the project site as a vacant site available to accommodate an emergency shelter and contributes to statutorily required capacity to accommodate the homeless individuals. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this information for analysis. The project also cannot be approved until and unless the Housing Element is revised to remove the project site from the sites inventory for statutorily required capacity to accommodate the homeless individuals.

Further, the EIR does not provide a consistency analysis with 2018 RTP/SCS. Due to errors in modeling, modeling without supporting evidence (as noted throughout this comment letter and attachments), and the determination that the project will have significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality, the proposed project is directly inconsistent with Goal 10 to improve air quality through congestion management, coordination of land use, housing and transportation system, provision of alternative modes of transportation and 19 https://hcdpowerbi.blob.core.windows.net/housing-elements/visalia-6th-adopted-122823.pdf GSEJA

Page 9 of 17 ends

15 CONT
17 16
1685
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 10 ends

provision of incentives that reduce vehicle miles traveled. The EIR relies upon the flawed reasoning that since the project is required to implement mitigation measures that reduce air quality emissions to the maximum extent feasible, this will improv(e) air quality, consistent with Goal This is erroneous and misleading to the public and decision makers as the project will have a significant and unavoidable direct project-level and cumulative impact to air quality after mitigation is implemented. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to the direct inconsistency with TCAG s 2018 RTP/SCS.

Table 3.11-1: LAFCo Consistency Analysis (Government Code § 56668) also provides an erroneous and misleading constituency analysis with statutory requirements for annexation requests. For example, Government Code Section 56668(g) requires analysis of the consistency with the RTP and City/County General Plans. The EIR concludes that the proposed project is consistent with this section in stating that, discussed throughout this Land Use section, the proposed project would be consistent with all transportation policies that are relevant to the proposed However, as shown above, the proposed project is not consistent with the RTP nor the General Plan. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to the direct inconsistency with LAFCo statutory requirements regarding annexation requests.

3.14 Transportation
The EIR states that the, proposed project is expected to increase VMT per employee within the TAZ it is located by approximately 0.15 mile, or 1.54 percent of the total miles traveled.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant VMT The EIR provides Mitigation Measures TRANS-10a and TRANS-10b to justify mitigating impacts to less than significant levels:

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.

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

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

Page 10 of 17 ends

17 CONT
18 19
1686
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 11 ends

Notably, the EIR has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that Mitigation Measures TRANS-10a and TRANS-10b will reduce VMT to below the significance threshold.

Mitigation Measures TRANS-10a and TRANS-10b are unenforceable mitigation in violation of CEQA § 21081.6 (b). The EIR has not provided an accurate, quantified calculation of the reduced VMT as a result of Mitigation Measures TRANS-10a and TRANS-10b. The EIR refers to the VMT Guidelines20, which state that per [Bike Parking in projects has minimal impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with the (Improve Design of Development) strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle and also that, benefits of Land Dedication for Bike Trails have not been quantified and should be grouped with the (Improve Design of Development) strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and improve connectivity to bicycle Appendix M within Appendix I indicates that the consultant used a proprietary software to calculate the VMT reductions of the proposed mitigation measures. The data inputs utilized for modeling are not provided to the public and decision makers and the outputs sheets from the software are blurry and illegible, which does not comply with requirements for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents (CEQA § 15121 and PRC 21003(b)). CAPCOA also notes that the proposed VMT mitigations do not stand alone to reduce VMT and must be paired with other strategies, which has not been proposed as part of the project.

Further, it is not possible for the City to ensure that Mitigation Measures TRANS-10a and TRANS10b will result in reduced VMT by project employees and be implemented continuously, at all times, throughout the life of the project and maintain a VMT reduction to less than significant levels at all times. Notably, MM TRANS-10b states that, mitigation is subject to contractability and approval by Cal indicating that it is further infeasible as mitigation and will not achieve any reduction of VMT. The efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures and reduction of VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds cannot be assured, and the VMT impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance because there is no possible assurance of the percentage of project employees that would utilize non-automobile or non-single occupant vehicle travel associated with the mitigation measures and mitigation of the VMT impact to less than significant is not feasible.

Further, the EIR has underreported the quantity VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees 20 https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=47045 GSEJA

Page 11 of 17 ends

19 CONT
20 21
1687
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 12 ends

arrive at work at the proposed project, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a warehouse, which will drastically increase projectgenerated VMT. The truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. The actual VMT generated by all aspects of project operation is not consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing VMT. A revised EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity.

The EIR has not adequately analyzed the potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the potential to result in inadequate emergency access. There are no exhibits depicting the available truck turning radius at the intersection of the project driveways and adjacent streets.

There are also no exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site. The EIR states that, sight distance analysis for each project driveway was conducted to determine whether outbound vehicles would have adequate sight distance to observe conflicting traffic along the intersecting public roadways. Intersection sight distance for the project driveways were evaluated following methodology outlined by the City of Visalia Design and Improvement Standard SD-3, which is based on guidance outlined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Street, 7th Edition. The proposed project would be required to satisfy the required sight lines and clear zone requirements for all project driveways, to ensure roadway hazards are However, the EIR has not included the sight distance analysis for review by the public and decision makers. This does not comply with requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)).

Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the sight distance analysis contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand in reviewing the potentially significant impacts related to threshold Impact TRANS-3. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the sight distance analysis for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

GSEJA

Page 12 of 17 ends

21 22
23 1688
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 13 ends

4.2.2 Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant: Population and Housing The EIR does not address the proposed annexation requirements in this analysis. The EIR states that, terms of the removal of any direct barriers to growth, this would not occur due to the proposed project because it does not propose removing any existing obstacles that currently prevent growth within the The annexation of the proposed project site into the boundaries will remove an existing obstacle that currently prevents growth within the City, and contribute towards the development thresholds that unlock development in the Tier II and Tier III Urban Development Boundary of the General Plan. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to this impact.

The EIR also states that, proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 4,100 new employees at full which was calculated based on ITE vehicle trip rates for the proposed project. This does not represent the best available data as local data is available in the General Plan. The General Plan21 provides employment generation rates, including the rate of 1 employee for every 750 square feet of light industrial building area.

Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:

Proposed Project: 3,720,149 sf / 750 sf = 4,961 employees Seefried Piecemealed Projects: 5,300,639 sf / 750 = 7,068 employees The EIR utilizes uncertain and misleading language which does not provide any meaningful analysis of the project s population and employment generation. In order to comply with CEQA s requirements for meaningful disclosure, a revised EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by all uses of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions. A construction worker employment analysis must also be included to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. It must also provide a job buildout analysis of the General Plan. Table 1-5: Employment by Sector within the General Plan indicates that the Industrial land use designation will allow for the creation of 9,670 new jobs from 2010-2030. The whole of the action proposed by the project (inclusive of SPR21071 and SPR22041) will create 2,071 new jobs, which is 21% of the industrial job buildout accounted for by a single project. Piecemealed Seefried projects combined with the proposed project cumulatively generate 7,068 employees, which is 73% of the industrial land use job buildout. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative 21 https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474 GSEJA

Page 13 of 17 ends

24 25
1689
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 14 ends

analysis discussion of projects approved since General Plan adoption and projects the to determine if the project will exceed the General Plan buildout scenarios. For example, other recent industrial projects such as recent YS Industries projects (SPR19213, SPR21150 and SPR22130; 2,507,328 sf of building area and 3,344 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 10,412 employees on land with industrial designations. This represents 107% of the industrial job buildout through 2030 accounted for by only a few recent projects. These totals increase when other industrial development approved, submitted, or the since General Plan adoption are added to the total.

The EIR also has not provided evidence that the local unemployed population is qualified for or interested in work in the industrial sector. The EIR states that, Given the nature of the proposed project, it would likely be staffed primarily by local employees once However, there is no specific information given about the of the proposed project in this context. The EIR also uses uncertain language in stating that the project will and have a staff of employees, and the geographic boundaries of the area are undefined. The EIR relies upon Census data to improperly conclude that because 22.5% of the active workforce is employed within the "wholesale trade, manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation and sectors, this translates to 22.5% of the unemployed workforce being available for work in these sectors. The EIR has not provided any information about the unemployed workforce and their qualifications/interest in work in the industrial sector. Even if the theory that workers within the City was viable, it would only account for 27% of the proposed employees and 19% of the piecemealed Seefried project employees, meaning that the majority of employees will commute from outside the City to the project. The EIR states here that, .S. Census Bureau 2011 2015 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS) Commuting Flows, 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 workers who currently reside in the Tulare County near the City of Visalia would continue to commute to work and thus also would be available to serve as employees for the proposed The EIR provides no information about the Tulare County workers and their interest/qualifications for work in the industrial sector, therefore this group cannot be relied upon to provide adequate staffing. Additionally, the EIR that the theoretical Tulare County workers also live the City of Visalia, and has not provided any meaningful evidence to support this claim, either. Relying on the entire labor force within the greater east bay region (Tulare, Kings, and Fresno Counties) to fill the construction and operational jobs will increase VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and operations and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances. A revised EIR must also include a cumulative analysis on this topic and a finding of significance due to the significant and unavoidable impacts discussed above.

GSEJA

Page 14 of 17 ends

Visalia City CouncilMarch 17, 2025

Visalia City Council
March 17, 2025