Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, March 17, 2025 (part 9 of 16)

25 CONT
1690
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 15 ends

5.2 Growth-inducing Impacts and 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 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 provides the same reasoning as provided in the Population and Housing analysis to conclude that the project will not result in significant growth inducing impacts. The EIR 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 Plan22 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 22 https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474 GSEJA

Page 15 of 17 ends

26 1691
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 16 ends

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 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 GSEJA

Page 16 of 17 ends

26 CONT
1692
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

Page 17 ends

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.

6.0 Alternatives
The EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA § 15126.6.) The alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required alternative and only two others - Reduced Footprint Alternative and Alternative Location Alternative. The EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives as only two alternatives beyond the required No Project alternative is analyzed. The EIR does not include an alternative that meets the project objectives and also eliminates all of the significant and unavoidable impacts. The EIR must be revised to include analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and foster informed decision making (CEQA § 15126.6). This must include alternatives such as development of the site with a project that reduces all of the proposed significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant levels.

Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
GSEJA

Page 17 of 17 ends

26 CONT
27 1693

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1694
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-57
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA)
Comment GSEJA-1
The comment provides general background information regarding the commenter and offers a summary of the proposed project. The commenter also requests to be added to the public interest list for the proposed project.

Response to GSEJA-1
This comment is noted for the record. As it does not raise any project-specific environmental issues under CEQA or otherwise provide information specific to the proposed project or the environmental document, no further response is necessary. The commenter has been added to the public interest list for the proposed project pursuant to applicable procedures. No changes to the document have been made or are required.

Comment GSEJA-2
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not describe the proposed project accurately or adequately, and purports that the proposed project is a piecemealed portion of a larger overall project to be developed within a larger industrial center in the project vicinity. The commenter notes two other industrial projects in the project vicinity (i.e., SPR21071 and SPR22041), which would total approximately 5,300,639 square feet of building floor area when combined with the proposed project. The commenter suggests that the proposed project should be analyzed with these two other projects, at a minimum, as a whole. It characterizes the “whole of the action” being “the construction and operation of all Seefried buildings.” The commenter then purports to set forth various legal principles under CEQA addressing the proper definition of the “whole of the action” and the asserted “degree of specificity” of the required CEQA analysis to ensure that the “unduly low environmental impacts” are not presented.

Response to GSEJA-2
The comment is noted for the record. To the extent the comment does not provide concerns regarding project-specific environmental issues under CEQA, then no further response is required.

This generalized comment does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant impact that was not adequately addressed.

In terms of the specific comment regarding the definition of “project” for purposes of CEQA, the comment is mistaken as to the nature of the two non-related development applications it references, as well as the relevant legal principles under CEQA. The fact that the same or similar entities may be seeking entitlements for distinct developments from the same local jurisdiction does not mean that these separate, different, and independent developments must or should be treated as a single overall “project.”
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the entire project being proposed for consideration for approval must be described to ensure the environmental impacts of the entire project are considered and disclosed. A lead agency may not split a single large project into smaller ones resulting in piecemeal environmental review that fails to consider the environmental consequences of the entire project.
1695
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-58
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR does not improperly artificially narrow the project description to evade environmental review. Instead, Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR provides a detailed description of all project components that are the subject of the discretionary land use entitlements being sought by the applicant, including all phases thereof. The comment has provided no substantial evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

For purposes of CEQA. the distinct development proposals referenced in the comment are the result of entirely distinct application processes, are independently functional separate actions, and are neither a part of, nor a consequence of, the proposed project. Except for referencing the name of Seefried that is common to the proposed project and the other two non-related proposals, the commenter has provided no basis to claim the proposed project: (1) is in any way dependent on the other referenced proposal(s); (2) is the necessary first step toward a larger development; or (3) requires or presumes completion of one or both of the other referenced proposal(s). To the contrary, the proposed project has substantial independent utility from the other distinct proposal(s); for example, and among other things, the two proposals mentioned in the comment (SPR21071 [Seefried-Visalia] and SPR22041 [Visalia Plaza 39/Seefried]) are located at different sites within the City, separated by existing development and intervening topography from the proposed project.

Additionally, the proposed project and two other proposals are independent in terms of utility and site planning and are able to move forward on independent tracks from the proposed project and from each other.

In terms of the comment regarding the “required specificity,” Chapter 2, Project Description of the Draft EIR contains a detailed discussion of all project components during all phases, setting forth sufficient information to provide the public, interested organizations and the decision-makers with an adequate opportunity to make a decision that intelligently takes into account the project’s environmental consequences. As provided for under CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, the degree of specificity in an EIR corresponds to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity that is described in the EIR, the level of required specificity is determined on the basis of the nature of the project and the rule of reason. Here, the Draft EIR describes the different types of proposed uses; the total maximum amount of square footage to be developed for each type of proposed use; the overall site plan including locations of each proposed use; the on-site vehicular circulation, access, and parking plan; building and related materials design; the on-site lighting, landscaping, and utilities; and off-site improvements and infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project. The Draft EIR contains a sufficient detailed description of the proposed project as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(c). Final design specifications are not required in the EIR where, as here, there is sufficient information to enable the public and the decision-makers to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Draft EIR is based on facts and analysis supported by reasonably available information, as well as informed estimates, where appropriate, particularly in light of the size and nature of the project.

The commenter does not raise a legitimate issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is necessary and no change is warranted. 1696
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-59
Comment GSEJA-3
The commenter states that the project description of the Draft EIR does not include a floor plan, detailed site plan, detailed building elevations, or a conceptual grading plan for the proposed project. The commenter further asserts that there is no plan depicting earthwork quantity notes or information regarding import/export of soils/materials. The commenter also notes that grading haul truck trips have the potential to add significant quantities of truck trips during project construction and therefore increases emissions. The commenter further states that the Draft EIR must be revised to include all application items for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision-makers.

Response to GSEJA-3
The comment is noted for the record. The project description set forth in the Draft EIR fully complies with CEQA’s requirements. For example, it is noted that, as demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th, 1053, a CEQA document’s description of the project description should identify the project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. The project description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15124).

The proposed project is thoroughly described within the Draft EIR (as well as supporting documents in the administrative record), which provide the level of detail necessary for a robust evaluation and disclosure of the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project for review by the public, interested organizations and decision-makers.

As such, detailed plans such as grading plans, floor plans, or detailed architectural elevations of each specific building are not required to be included in the Draft EIR’s project description and a general description of the proposed project and conceptual plans are allowed and appropriate here; the Draft EIR contains sufficient specificity as to all project components during all phases, setting forth substantial information to provide the public, interested organizations and the decision-makers with an adequate opportunity to make a decision that intelligently takes into account the project’s environmental consequences.

The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact. The proposed project involves discretionary land use entitlements necessary to implement the project, including, among others, a site plan review, which further delineates such details as, among others, parking and truck movements consistent with the project description set forth in Chapter 2, Project Description of the Draft EIR. All components of the proposed project that are necessary to study under CEQA are fully described, considered, evaluated and disclosed therein.

The proposed project, as with most larger projects, would involve subsequent approvals. To the extent those subsequent approvals are discretionary in nature, then CEQA compliance would be required. For those subsequent approvals that are ministerial in nature, such as the review and approval of interior tenant improvements, this would be governed by the applicable provisions of the California Fire Code, the CBC, and other related construction codes. The EIR project description provides sufficient information to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project.
1697
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-60
The extent and nature of the grading and related drainage and any potential flooding items are sufficiently described and evaluated in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and referenced in all other chapters as appropriate. The Draft EIR is supported by facts and analysis and, where appropriate, informed estimates, based on available information and is sufficiently detailed for purposes of conducting environmental review. For instance, as detailed more fully therein, based on the assumptions related to the estimated amount of cut and fill, the Draft EIR properly considered the amount of construction-related truck trips that would occur as a result of the off-haul demands generated by the project, and disclosed all potential environmental impacts associated therewith. Specifically, these assumptions are based on CalEEMod default values for trip lengths and vehicle fleets as explained in Appendix B, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information, of the Draft EIR, for the proposed demolition of approximately 1,065 square feet of existing outbuildings and foundations and the approximately 130,000 cubic yards of fill being imported to the project site.

The comment does not provide any basis for calling into question the Draft EIR’s assumptions utilized. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence in the record to support these assumptions as described more fully above and in the Draft EIR and supporting technical materials.

As will be detailed in the adopted MMRP, feasible mitigation would be imposed that require specified actions before a grading or building permit is issued that ensures compliance with applicable mitigation before any grading or other ground disturbance or other construction-related activities occur. For example and among others, the Draft EIR has properly identified the following:

MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g, MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f, MM BIO-3, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, MM GHG-2a through MM GHG-2c, MM HAZ-1, MM NOI-1, and MM TRANS1 through MM TRANS-11. Note that the following mitigation measures were revised, as shown in Section 3, Errata, of this Final EIR: MM BIO-1d, MM BIO-3, and MM GHG-2a.

With respect to heavy-duty trucks, the delivery vans/trucks that would access the project site during operations are anticipated to be from third-party vendors. Because it is not anticipated that future tenants occupying the proposed project would own these vehicles, neither the future tenants nor the City would have control over the nature and type of vehicles accessing the project site and thus neither would have the ability to enforce any such obligation during the life of the proposed project.

Rather, the emissions resulting from the vehicles accessing the project site would largely be influenced by the comprehensive body of laws and regulations (current and future) that would apply to vehicle manufacturers based on determinations made by the California Air Resource Board (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, with compliance with ARB regulations such as Advanced Clean Fleet, it is assumed that over the lifetime of the project, heavy heavy-duty (HHD) truck fleets traveling to and from the project will include increasingly zero and near-zero technologies as the project moves to later years.

Given the volume of medium-duty vehicles that would be involved as part of the future tenants’ business operations, practical limitations on the owner’s ability to control and enforce such an obligation, along with the current substantial cost and concerns regarding widespread availability of electric vehicles and related charging infrastructure, the suggested mitigation is not feasible. 1698
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-61
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 EVs. Furthermore, MM AIR-2d requires the building’s electrical room to be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the project site. In addition, it would be speculative to attempt to quantify the amount of emission reduction that would occur from the suggested measure, and it also cannot be enforced in a way that would ensure a reduction to potential health impacts. Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR as well as this Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Regarding off-road equipment, MM AIR-2c requires all off-road equipment to utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially available. Furthermore, on-site service equipment shall be designed to include electric outlets to support the use of all-electric or zeroemission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially available. Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is similar to recommended measures already identified in the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

As described further in the Draft EIR, Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) for both construction and operational were conducted based on a recognition that during construction and operation, the proposed project would result in emissions of several toxic air contaminants (TACs) that could potentially impact nearby sensitive receptors. The principal TAC emission analyzed in this assessment was diesel particulate matter (DPM) from operation of off-road equipment and dieselpowered delivery and worker vehicles during construction and operation.

For purposes of the operational HRA, air dispersion modeling was utilized to assess the proposed project’s potential health risks using American Meteorological Society/United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD) Version 22112, which is an air dispersion model accepted by the EPA and the District for preparing HRAs. Sources in the modeling included those from running and idle exhaust emissions from trucks on and operating off-site on adjacent roadways as well as gasoline service station emissions.

As illustrated in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the operational HRA prepared for the proposed project to support the analysis under Impact AIR-3 in Section 3.3, Air Quality, accounted for all possible local arterials that could support the future trucking activities of the proposed project. This consideration in the HRA accounted for known trucking information including the possible local route network (i.e., current and future truck routes), the quantity, type, volume of truck trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. For example, the CalEEMod operational scenarios used project-specific truck trip lengths based on applicant information of three points of origin for truck trips, which provided an accurate representation of the potential exhaust emissions associated with operations.

As noted in Section 3.3, Air Quality, Table 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s operational DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold or non-cancer hazard index 1699
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-62
significance threshold at the MIR. As shown in Table 3.3-22 and within the Air Quality Report, the combined impact from project construction and operation at the MIR would not exceed the cumulative health risk threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors from TACs during operation. The proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-2c through MM AIR-2g during project operation to reduce emissions, which represents all feasible and enforceable mitigation measures. Health risk impacts from construction and operations and construction with operations combined would be less than significant.

Moreover, trucks as part of the proposed project would utilize designated truck routes as specified by the City Municipal Code, Chapter 10.24, Commercial Vehicles. These truck routes have been designated as such due, in part, to goals of attempting to limit exposure to sensitive receptors; thus, utilizing these routes would help to achieve this underlying goal, consistent with the suggested measure. Therefore, this requested measure is similar to an existing enforceable regulation that would be applied to the proposed project. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

The ARB’s Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles currently limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the foregoing restriction. Therefore, this requested measure is similar to an existing regulation that would be applied to the proposed project. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the current design of the proposed project is shown to have less than significant health risk impacts, and thus the Lead Agency would not have the legal authority to require such a project redesign. Furthermore, the project site would be located approximately 400 feet from the property line of MIR. Furthermore, the proposed flex industrial uses, selfstorage/recreational vehicle (RV) parking, a convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants would provide a buffer between the proposed light industrial uses and sensitive receptors, thereby helping to achieve the objective of the suggested measure. Landscaping would provide an additional buffer between loading docks and sensitive receptors. Based on the foregoing and as further supported by the analysis in the Draft EIR, no change is warranted. The comment has been noted for the record.

Consistent with this recommendation and as discussed further in the Draft EIR, all proposed loading docks are at least 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptors. The current project design satisfies the requested measure. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Trucks that are used during project operations would utilize designated truck routes as specified by the City Municipal Code, Chapter 10.24, Commercial Vehicles. Trucks would access and leave the project site via Shirk Street, Riggin Avenue, and Kelsey Street. Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue are classified “arterials,” which are high occupancy roads that connect freeways to collector roads. These streets are also designated truck routes per Municipal Code Chapter 10.24. Kelsey Street is a 1700
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-63
collector road that provides access to Riggin Avenue. Therefore, the project design satisfies this requested measure and thus no change is warranted.

The proposed project does not include cold storage and would not have refrigerated trucks. This requested measure is not applicable to the proposed project. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

This measure is not considered feasible because use of electric-powered equipment may not be commercially available or feasible given a construction site that is not currently connected to the power grid. In addition, due to the size (284 acres) and the relatively rural nature of the project site, it is unknown whether there is sufficient availability of grid power that could service the entire site during construction, prior to installation of utility lines. Based on the foregoing, it would also be speculative to assume there would be a substantial quantifiable reduction in emissions if this suggested measure were implemented. Because temporary power would not likely be available and given that electric powered construction vehicles and equipment may not be commercially available, the suggested mitigation would not be feasible and would also not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

As discussed above, the availability and use of grid power during construction cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, it is infeasible to prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators as they are essential to power equipment during construction. However, any diesel generator over 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission standards per MM AIR-1a, which would significantly reduce NOX emissions and associated health risks.

Furthermore, as shown in Section 3.3, Air Quality, Table 3.3-20 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would have less than significant construction health risk impacts with implementation of MM AIR1a. Because the suggested measure is not necessary to reduce an environmental impact caused by the proposed project, there is no legal nexus of this measure to any identified impacts of the proposed project and therefore the City does not have legal authority to impose such measure.

Furthermore, as noted above, the suggested measure is not necessary to reduce construction health risk impacts to less than significant in any event. Therefore, the suggested mitigation is not feasible, would not be necessary to reduce the identified significant impact from the proposed project, and is not required under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

The comment has been noted for the record. Providing tenants with information on incentive programs with goals to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks would not ensure that the tenants could or would apply for any of the programs, as applying for programs would be a voluntary action.

In addition, the information would not be relevant to tenants that use third-party carriers, further limiting the potential benefit of including this suggestion mitigation. Finally, such a measure is not necessary to reduce any significant impacts. The suggested mitigation would not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts and is not required under CEQA; therefore, no change is warranted. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR and further response is necessary.
1701
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-64
See also Response to AFTE-5 and GSEJA-2.

For the reasons set forth above and as detailed further in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Draft EIR contains a thoughtful, detailed and robust project description that is sufficient for ensuring adequate analysis and disclosure as required under CEQA. The commenter does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted, and no further response is necessary.

Comment GSEJA-4
The commenter states that while the EIR acknowledges that a Development Agreement is a discretionary entitlement being sought, the Draft EIR does not include a copy of the full Development Agreement for review by the public and decision-makers. It alleges that the Development Agreement is a “component of the proposed project,” and therefore it purports that inclusion of the full Development Agreement in the EIR is required to satisfy CEQA’s mandate for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure. The commenter asserts that a revised EIR must be prepared to include the Development Agreement for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision-makers.

Response to GSEJA-4
The comment is noted for the record. It, however, does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that has not been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR or raise an issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. With respect to the Development Agreement, the commenter’s assertion as to the legal requirements under CEQA is inaccurate. The Development Agreement is a binding contract between the project site owner and the City that vests rights to develop the proposed project as well as related rights and obligations governing project implementation, which will be considered by the City Council concurrent with its review of this Draft EIR. Thus, the Development Agreement is not a “component of the proposed project;” rather, it is a legal mechanism to implement the proposed project that is being studied in the Draft EIR. It is not a distinct and different project element or component that requires separate and/or additional environmental review beyond what is already reflected in the Draft EIR and this Final EIR.

CEQA does not, however, require that detailed specific application materials themselves for such discretionary approvals be included in an EIR. Here, consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the Draft EIR expressly identified the required discretionary approvals, entitlements and permits, including, among others, the Development Agreement, in Section 2.6, Required Actions and Approvals. See, e.g., East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 291 (Draft EIR is sufficient if it makes reference to a required Development Agreement to alert persons interested in the document to its relevance but need not include the Development Agreement itself in the Draft EIR). To the extent the Development Agreement and/or other specific entitlement applications contemplate improvements or other physical changes in the environment, those improvements are identified and analyzed in the EIR as part of the project being studied.

Pursuant to applicable State and local laws and regulations, the Development Agreement will be 1702
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-65
considered for a recommendation by the Planning Commission prior to its consideration by the City Council; consideration by both of the foregoing bodies will occur as part of a duly noticed public hearing process. A draft of the proposed Development Agreement will be made available to the public pursuant to applicable procedures before its consideration by the advisory and decisionmaking bodies in accordance with the requirements of the Government Code and other applicable law.

For the reasons set forth above and as detailed further in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Draft EIR contains a thoughtful, robust project description that is sufficient for ensuring adequate analysis and disclosure as required under CEQA. The commenter does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted, and no further response is necessary.

Comment GSEJA-5
The commenter states that the project description and EIR are insufficient in adequately describing the proposed project because they do not provide specific information regarding which lots are affected by the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), deviations in lot sizes from requirements, and which lots do not have public street frontage. The comment suggests that a revised EIR must be prepared to include the complete details of the CUP.

Response to GSEJA-5
The comment is noted for the record. It does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact or otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR.

See also Response AFTE-4.

Thus, there is substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the proposed project would be consistent with AQ-O-3. To be responsive to the comment, AQ-O-3 is added to the GP consistency analysis table, see Errata section of this Final EIR. This minor revision reflects a clarification and amplification and would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in severity of a previously identified significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA, and no further response or change is warranted.

See also Responses GSEJA-10, GSEJA-11, and GSEJA-12.

Response to GSEJA-14
The commenter states that the analysis of several goals and policies within Table 3.11-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR, provides “erroneous and misleading” statements, such as concluding that the proposed project is consistent with Objective AQ-O-2 of the General Plan (strive to improve air quality by implementing emissions reduction efforts targeting mobile sources, stationary sources and construction-related sources). The basis for the comment’s assertion is that while the consistency analysis refers to the identified mitigation measures, it did not mention in this table that the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after mitigation is implemented, which reflects a “direct conflict.” See Responses to GSEJA-10, GSEJA-11, and GSEJA-12. As explained more fully in Response to GSEJA12, the commenter’s reference to a “direct conflict” equating to a significant and unavoidable impact is not accurate under CEQA.

Furthermore, the commenter does not provide any substantial evidence to support its claim of inconsistency. The Draft EIR provides a detailed and thoughtful basis for a consistency determination, which is within the purview of the City based on substantial evidence in the record.

Objective AQ-O-2 specifically concerns the implementation of emissions reduction efforts for mobile sources, stationary sources, and construction-related sources. The proposed project is consistent with the plain reading of Objective AQ-O-2, because the proposed project, with implementation of MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2h, would include a range of strategies to reduce emissions from mobile and construction-related sources (the proposed project would not involve major stationary emissions sources). For example, MM AIR-2d would require robust EV charging infrastructure for vehicles and future EV trucks. MM AIR-2c would require that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment be zero emissions, to the extent that the appropriate technologies are commercially available. Both of these measures would lead to direct and future reductions in emissions from mobile sources. MM AIR-2a would require the use of off-road construction equipment that meets 1715
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-78
EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission standards, to the extent that such equipment is commercially available. MM AIR-2b would require “super compliant” volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings during construction. Both of these measures would reduce the project’s constructionrelated emissions. See also Responses to AFTE-4 and AFTE-5.

As explained in Response to GSEJA-12, a project is not required to comply with all General Plan goals and policies, and CEQA does not contain any specific requirements for determining whether a project is inconsistent with an applicable plan. Courts will defer to a lead agency’s decision on consistency with its own plan unless, on the basis of evidence before the decision-making body, a “reasonable person” could not have found the project to be consistent. See The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883, 896; Clover Valley Found. V. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 239.

The City, as Lead Agency, has determined based on substantial evidence in the record that, due in part to the proposed project’s obligation to comply with MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2h, the proposed project would be consistent with Objective AQ-O-2, which specifically involves the implementation of emissions reduction efforts and not whether a project would result in exceedances of SJVAPCD thresholds (i.e., whether a project would result in significant air quality impacts).

However, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR does not exclude from analysis the fact that the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulativelevel impact to air quality. The Draft EIR provides a detailed, 72-page discussion of the proposed project’s air quality impacts—including significant and unavoidable impacts—in addition to hundreds of pages of detailed air quality modeling worksheets in the appendix. The consistency analysis within Table 3.11-2 addressing Objective AQ-O-2 does not conflict with this broader air quality analysis and its conclusions.

Therefore, the Draft EIR properly concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the relevant provisions of the General Plan. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, nor does it provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA.

Response to GSEJA-15
The commenter states that the Draft EIR has not adequately analyzed the proposed project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, as well as its potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The comment therefore suggests that the proposed project would not be consistent with Objective T-P-24 of the General Plan, as stated in Table 3.11-2 of the Draft EIR. The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR did not include a project-specific safety hazard analysis and discusses that there are no exhibits depicting the available truck turning radius at the intersection of the proposed project driveways and adjacent streets or within the project site. The commenter further states that the EIR does not include the sight distance analysis for review by the public and decision-makers, and thus the comment alleges this does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure.

Additionally, the commenter asserts that the recommendations within Table 23, Summary of Access 1716
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-79
Recommendations, of Appendix I were not incorporated as mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. As such, the commenter suggests that outstanding project traffic queueing and safety exist, resulting in potentially significant impacts related to Impact TRANS-3.

See Responses to GSEJA-10, GSEJA-11, and GSEJA-12.

Regarding Objective T-P-24, as noted in the comment, it provides: “Require that proposed developments make necessary off-site improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety hazards.”
As conceded by the commenter, the Draft EIR explained the basis of the City’s consistency determination. The City, as Lead Agency, determined the appropriate scope of CEQA review, in consultation with its expert transportation consultant, with respect to the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, as well as its potential to result in inadequate emergency access. Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, CEQA does not require a separate and distinct “project-specific safety hazard analysis” nor does CEQA mandate the inclusion of specific exhibits with respect to this topic. The City’s expert transportation consultant, in consultation with the City’s transportation engineer and planning staff, conducted a robust transportation study, including queueing and LOS analyses, which addressed all CEQA significance thresholds, including the one referenced by the comment.

Consistent with the City’s adopted traffic impact analysis guidelines, a collision analysis was conducted as part of the transportation study. The project proposes typical intersection and roadway improvements consistent with the City’s applicable street standards and, as explained in detail in the transportation study and Section 3.14, Transportation, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The transportation study identifies driveways that are proposed to accommodate truck turning movements. All improvements would be constructed “to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,” per applicable State/local design standards/requirements, and would be designed to accommodate appropriate vehicle types. The project would also require fire approvals for the emergency access and emergency vehicle maneuvers throughout the project site prior to issuance of any building permits, which would be considered in light of applicable Fire and Building Code standards and requirements, among others.

As conceded by the commenter, the transportation analysis within the Draft EIR states in relevant part provides:
“A sight distance analysis for each project driveway was conducted to determine whether outbound vehicles would have adequate sight distance to observe conflicting traffic along the intersecting public roadways. Intersection sight distance for the project driveways were evaluated following methodology outlined by the City of Visalia Design and Improvement Standard SD-3, which is based on guidance outlined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Street, 7th Edition. The proposed project would be required to satisfy the required sight lines and clear zone requirements for all project driveways, to ensure roadway hazards are minimized.”
1717
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-80
The transportation study was not incorporated by reference, but instead was attached as an appendix to the Draft EIR and the analytical basis and conclusions set forth therein were described in Section 3.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR for purposes of disclosure to the public, interested organizations and the decision-makers.

There is no roadway curvature or unusual circumstances near the access driveways that indicate sight distance constraints might occur. As part of the final site design for each individual specific development proposal that is pursued under the project, intersection sight distance assessment would be performed during the design of the street improvements by the civil engineer to confirm compliance with all applicable standards and requirements, and would include considerations of landscaping, street lighting, utilities and all other potential sight obstructions. The project's Civil Engineer would certify/approve the visibility prior to approval of street improvement plans pursuant to the City’s adopted procedures and other standards and requirements.

The recommendations identified in Table 23, which are included in the transportation study that is attached as an appendix to the Draft EIR, are consistent with, and incorporated into, the proposed site plan as design features. As such, the recommendations are incorporated into the project itself and none of the recommendations would be mitigation for a potential adverse environmental impact.

Therefore, the Draft EIR properly concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the relevant provisions of the General Plan. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response or change is warranted. No further response or change is warranted.

Comment GSEJA-16
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not discuss that the project site is identified in the City’s Draft Housing Element as a vacant site available to accommodate an emergency shelter and contributing to the required capacity to accommodate the City’s homeless individuals. The commenter further suggests that the proposed project cannot be approved until and unless the City’s Housing Element is revised to remove the project site from the sites inventory for capacity to accommodate the City’s homeless individuals. The commenter purports that a revised EIR must be prepared to discuss the project site’s listing in the Draft Housing Element.

Response to GSEJA-16
The comment is noted for the record. This comment does not raise a specific concern related to the proposed project’s physical impacts on the environment or otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response, change or recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is warranted. Nonetheless, for informational purposes, the following is noted. The project site is designated under the General Plan Land Use Element as Industrial and Light Industrial, and the proposed uses are consistent with these land use designations. It is noted that the Housing Element Table 41 identifies vacant parcels where homeless shelters can be developed by right. However, the City’s identification of parcels where emergency shelters can be developed by right does not mandate that those areas to be reserved for such shelters, be developed as such or preclude the sites from being developed with other appropriate uses as permitted by the relevant General Plan and zoning designations. Although the project site is 1718
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-81
identified as a potential location for an emergency shelter, it is not identified as a housing opportunity. Accordingly, as noted above, the commenter’s assertions are based on a mistaken understanding of legal requirements under State Housing Element Law and do not raise credible CEQA issues. The City adopted its Housing Element in December 2023; thereafter, the City submitted it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. Since this time, the City has continued to work with HCD to respond to its comments, as reflected in the revised Housing Element Update (August 2024). Consistent with Housing Element Program 5.2 Homeless Shelter Program, the City continues to work with experienced public and non-profit agencies to seek out opportunities to provide permanent, transitional, or emergency housing.

Moreover, the Housing Element identified more sites than needed to accommodate emergency shelter needs. As noted in the Housing Element, the nine vacant/underutilized parcels identified in Table 41 could conservatively provide almost double the capacity to accommodate the City’s homeless individuals. Accordingly, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the City may appropriately approve one or more of those sites for other uses without requiring a revision of the Housing Element. This commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, nor provides evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA and no further response or change is warranted.

Comment GSEJA-17
The commenter states that the EIR does not provide a consistency analysis with the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2018 RTP/SCS. The commenter suggests that the proposed project is inconsistent with Goal 10 to improve air quality through congestion management, coordination of land use, housing and transportation system, and provision of alternative modes of transportation and incentives that reduce VMT, which inconsistency is based on “errors in modeling, modeling without supporting evidence,” and the determination that the project will have significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality. The commenter further asserts that the Draft EIR relies upon flawed reasoning because the Draft EIR states that the proposed project would implement mitigation measures that reduce air quality emissions to the greatest extent feasible, which the commenter purports is erroneous and misleading.

Response to GSEJA-17
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR includes a detailed discussion of the TCAG 2018 RTP/SCS, and consistency with Goal 10 (among others) specifically, in Impact LAND-2. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact requiring a revision of the Draft EIR. Nor does the comment identify a specific inconsistency with a mandatory provision in the 2018 RTP/SCS or Goal 10. It is important to note that Goal 10 is a broadly-framed goal that is part of a larger, regional policy document that seeks to provide, from a regional perspective, opportunities to coordinate land use, housing and the transportation system— based on localities’ growth projections. The notion that a specific development proposal that is identified to have significant air quality or GHG impacts that cannot be fully mitigated constitutes an improper inconsistency that automatically equates to a significant impact under CEQA is not supported by the law. The 2018 RTP/SCS does not govern local land use decisions; the City, in its discretion, has designated the project site for Industrial and Light Industrial uses, which are reflected in the City’s land use vision and the population and employment projections relied upon in the 2018 RTP/SCS. See Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, for additional discussion in this regard. 1719
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-82
In reviewing CEQA documents, courts generally recognize that plan goals and consistency therewith, in particular, are designed to provide policy guidance rather than to mandate specific regulatory requirements. See, e.g., Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Moreover, courts have consistently held that lead agencies have particularly broad discretion in determining a project’s consistency with such goals. See, e.g., North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 632; Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563. Accordingly, the City may determine that the proposed project is consistent with a goal to improve air quality when it approves projects that mitigate impacts to the fullest extent feasible, even if the project-specific environmental impacts remain significant. See also Response to GSEJA-12.

The Draft EIR robustly and appropriately modeled and analyzed air quality emissions in accordance with all applicable guidance and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. It was found that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to air quality even with the implementation of feasible mitigation. Goal 10 of the 2018 RTP/SCS aims to improve air quality through congestion management, coordination of land use, housing and transportation system, provision of alternative modes of transportation, and provision of incentives that reduce VMT. The proposed project would implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2h, which would require the use and/or inclusion of Tier IV or equivalent construction equipment, super compliant architectural coating, electric or zero-emission service equipment, EV charging infrastructure, vegetative barrier, and good faith consideration of a potential Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD. Moreover, MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use vision and 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. See also Response to CDOVC-2.

As such, although the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to air quality, the proposed project would reflect anti-sprawl policies consistent with the City’s land use vision, implement all feasible mitigation and would further the underlying goals of the 2018 RTP/SCS.

As such and as further detailed in the Draft EIR, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the City’s determination that the proposed project would be consistent with the 2018 RTP/SCS. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, nor does it provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA and no further response or change is warranted.

Comment GSEJA-18
The commenter states that Table 3.11-1, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR is not accurate with regard to the statutory requirements for annexation.

The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would be consistent with all transportation policies relevant to the proposed project, but the commenter purports that the proposed project is not consistent with the RTP/SCS or the General Plan. Therefore, the commenter states that the EIR must 1720
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-83
be revised to include a finding of significance due to inconsistency with LAFCo statutory requirements regarding annexation.

Response to CSEJA-18
The commenter does not provide any substantial evidence to support the claim of inconsistency with LAFCo policies. The Draft EIR provides a detailed and thoughtful basis for a consistency determination, which is within the purview of the City based on substantial evidence in the record.

Please see Responses to GSEJA-10 through GSEJA-17. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with relevant provisions of the RTP/SCS and the General Plan. Additionally, as explained further in Response to GSEJA-12, it is important to note that inconsistency with a plan or policy by itself is not an environmental impact. See Orinda Ass’n v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145. Many potential inconsistencies are more appropriately characterized as legal issues related to planning and policy considerations, not a physical impact on the environment. See Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170.

Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR contains a detailed consistency analysis with all relevant LAFCo annexation policies, which constitutes substantial evidence in support of a consistency determination. This comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment GSEJA-19
The commenter briefly summarizes the findings in the Draft EIR regarding the outcome of the VMT analysis and states that the Draft EIR does not provide adequate evidence to support the conclusion that MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b would reduce VMT to below the significance threshold.

Additionally, the commenter suggests that the MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b are unenforceable mitigation in violation of CEQA Guidelines Section 21081.6(b) and that the Draft EIR does not provide an accurate, quantified calculation of the reduced VMT as a result of these mitigation measures. The commenter further states that the data inputs utilized for modeling must be provided to the public, while the output sheets are blurry and illegible. Finally, the commenter suggests that the proposed VMT mitigations must be paired with other strategies to reduce VMT effectively.

Response to GSEJA-19
The comment is noted for the record. The Draft EIR contains a thoughtful, accurate analysis of the project’s potential VMT impacts, which discloses a small, albeit significant impact under the applicable threshold, of 1.54 percent. The mitigation measures proposed by the project are based on the latest available guidelines published by CAPCOA in December 2021, taking into account the nature and location of the proposed uses. The CAPCOA guidelines include calculation methods that were developed from various studies and research conducted throughout the State and nation. The mitigation measure to provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities that is proposed would be sufficient to mitigate the impacts generated by the project, particularly when combined with the construction of adjacent planned bicycle facilities to be installed as part of the City’s CIP improvements on Riggin Avenue.

The quantified calculation of the percent reduction resulting from this mitigation measure is included below. The mitigation measure to expand the bike network would provide further 1721
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-84
reductions to the project’s VMT impacts but is not necessary to meet the required reduction. The quantification of this measure is not included since this measure is required to connect to future path that is to be constructed by other projects.

The Lead Agency reminds the commenter that CEQA requires neither scientific certainty nor exhaustiveness but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure in light of what is reasonably feasible. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 544 (“CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustive.”). This information adds clarity to the Draft EIR and does not reflect a new or substantially increased significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

Comment GSEJA-20
The commenter states that it is not possible to ensure that MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b would result in reduced VMT and be implemented continuously throughout the life of the project and maintain a VMT reduction to less than significant levels at all times. The commenter further suggests that MM TRANS-10b is not feasible as mitigation because it is subject to “contractability and approval” by California Water Service (Cal Water). Therefore, the commenter states that the Draft EIR be revised to find a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.

Response to GSEJA-20
The mitigation measures were selected specifically for the City’s ability to confirm these features are implemented as part of the site plan design and street improvements. The City does not currently support the majority of on-site TDM measures (ride sharing, cash-out programs, on-site commute programs, etc.) but is supportive of the measures selected because of the ability to verify with aerial 1722
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-85
imagery. Moreover, the appropriateness of TDM measures also takes into appropriate account the nature and location of the subject project and related considerations. Finally, the commenter is mistaken to the extent it assumes that TDM measures and related reductions are defined and calculated based on assumptions that they would be implemented by all potential users continuously throughout the life of the subject project. To the contrary, the appropriateness and effectiveness of TDM measures take into account reasonable assumptions as to overall usage, etc., as noted below.

The guidelines and reduction calculations are based on the latest CAPCOA Handbook. As indicated in the CAPCOA guidelines, the end-of-trip facilities are recommended to be installed at a size proportional to the number of commuting bicyclists and regularly maintained. This measure is included as part of the proposed project’s infrastructure costs and related ongoing obligations and would be maintained regularly along with other facilities within the parking area. As stated in the CAPCOA guidelines, the efficacy of mitigation measures that are based on employer-based programs may vary highly and depend on individual employers. Since the proposed measure is infrastructure based and embedded within the project’s infrastructure, the efficacy of this measure can be anticipated to be consistent throughout the life of the project as long as the facilities are maintained.

Moreover, a mitigation measure requiring coordination with Cal Water to implement bike lanes is appropriate when these approvals are subject to performance standards such as those typically found in Cal Water’s rules and standards. Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 CA4th 1359, 1395. See Sections 6.55, 14.15.

Comment GSEJA-21
The commenter makes a generalized assertion that the Draft EIR has underreported the quantity of VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The commenter notes that 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. The comment asserts that once employees 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 project generated VMT. The project’s 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 project’s actual VMT generated by all aspects of project operation is not consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce GHG emissions by reducing VMT. The comment concludes by stating that a revised EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity.

Response to GSEJA-21
See Response to GSEJA-20.

The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR has underreported the quantity VMT generated by the proposed project operations that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity. As a preliminary matter, the commenter does not provide any evidence beyond mere speculation that project VMT was underestimated in the Draft EIR.
1723
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-86
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR accurately reported the VMT results for the proposed project. The VMT analysis adhered to the metrics and threshold adopted in the City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, which are based on the OPR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. However, OPR guidelines exclude truck traffic from consideration in calculating project VMT.

Section 15064.3, subdivision (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” OPR further clarified in their 2018 Technical Advisory that “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, particularly cars and light trucks. Consistent with OPR guidance, the City adopted VMT thresholds of significance that only considers the commute-based efficiency metric, 'VMT per Employee that accounts for passenger vehicles.' This widely adopted threshold aligns with OPR guidelines. All trip types and vehicle types are typically included in the VMT analysis for a customerbased land use project where the VMT evaluation metric would be net change in total regional VMT.

The total absolute VMT is generally assessed for retail-based land uses, where all trip types and vehicle types are considered. If this project had been evaluated based on the net change in absolute VMT as the comment suggests, it would likely result in a net decrease in regional VMT, as these projects, as is the case here, are strategically located near delivery points, thereby reducing trip lengths by providing additional regional warehouses. CEQA VMT analysis is intended to consider how far the project’s vehicle trips are estimated to travel rather than how many additional trips the project is adding. Therefore, only trips associated with employee commute trips were considered for the purposes of evaluating VMT per Employee metric. Based on the foregoing and as further discussed and disclosed in the Draft EIR and related TIA, the project’s VMT analysis complies with CEQA’s requirements. Therefore, no change is warranted, and no further response is necessary.

Comment GSEJA-22
The commenter states that the Draft EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The commenter reiterates the basis for this position as asserted in Comment GSEJA-15, as well as repeating its concerns about a lack of purported exhibits depicting the available truck turning radius at the intersection of the project driveways and adjacent streets as well as the on-site turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site. The commenter concludes that a revised EIR must be prepared to include the sight distance analysis for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision-makers.

Response to GSEJA-22
See Response to GSEJA-15. This comment does not provide evidence that the project would pose unacceptable risks to the traveling public or otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR. The commenter does not contradict or contradict the determination made in the Draft EIR of a less than significant impact. This comment does not raise a specific concern related to the proposed project’s physical impacts on the environment or otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response, change or recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.is warranted.

No further response or change is warranted.
1724
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-87
Comment GSEJA-23
The commenter reiterates the assertion made in Comment GSEJA-15; it states that Appendix I Table 23: Summary of Access Recommendations, which provides recommendations to the site plan and off-site street areas to related project traffic queueing and safety, are not included as mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. For this reason, the commenter concludes that they are not required to be completed by the proposed project and outstanding project traffic queueing and safety issues exists, and the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts under Impact TRANS-3.

Response to GSEJA-23
See Response to GSEJA-15.

As noted above, the transportation study identifies driveways that are proposed to accommodate truck turning movements. All improvements would be constructed “to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,” per applicable State/local design standards/requirements, and would be designed to accommodate appropriate vehicle types. The commenter does not provide evidence that the project would pose unacceptable risks to humans or contradict the determination made in the Draft EIR of a less than significant impact. This comment does not raise a specific concern related to the proposed project’s physical impacts on the environment or otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response, change or recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.is warranted.

Comment GSEJA-24
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not address the proposed project’s annexation requirements in the population and housing analysis because annexation of the project site into the City’s boundaries would remove an existing obstacle that prevents growth within the City. As such, the commenter states that the proposed project would contribute toward the development thresholds that unlock development in the Tier II and Tier III UDB of the General Plan. The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance for this impact.

Response to GSEJA-24
The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that has not already been disclosed in the Draft EIR. The applicable threshold of significance with regard to population and housing focuses on the question whether a project would result in substantial unplanned population growth such that new housing would be required, which would in turn, trigger the need for the construction of such housing that would result in environmental effects.

The Draft EIR contains a robust discussion of the project’s consistency with various annexation requirements and policies as well as addressing potential population and housing related growthinducing impacts. (See Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, Section 5.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts.) As detailed therein, given the size of the available workforce and the current unemployment numbers in the City and County and the anticipated length of construction phases, there is no 1725
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-88
evidence that the proposed project would necessitate the construction of more housing units than anticipated as a result of employment opportunities associated with the proposed project.

In terms of potential growth-inducing impacts, the Draft EIR contains a thoughtful review in this regard (see, e.g., Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, 5.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts). Among other things, the Draft EIR disclosed the anticipated employees to be generated by the project, based on the conversion of Institute of Transportation Engineering (ITE) trip generation for building size and employee. The ITE is an international professional association of transportation professionals including transportation engineers, transportation planners, consultants, educators, technologists, and researchers. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is the most commonly used data source for the purpose of estimating trip and employee generation because it is based on a robust set of land use, employee, and trip data. Furthermore, the proposed project involves multiple types of land use including an industrial park, two drive-through restaurants, a convenience store, an RV and a self storage facility, gas station, and a car wash. The ITE manual contains trip and employee generation for these specific uses, whereas the General Plan utilizes a broad assumption of 1,000 jobs per square-foot for all industrial uses.4 Therefore, the ITE manual is a more appropriate source to estimate employment generation.

It is reasonable to assume, given the nature of the local employment population combined with the nature of the project, that employment needs generated by the proposed project would primarily be able to be filled primarily by employees who live within the City and nearby unincorporated areas in the County. As such and as further addressed in the analysis in the Draft EIR, although increased industrial growth may occur, it would not result in unanticipated growth that would lead to the need for unplanned housing.

Regarding assumptions with respect to employment generation and potential growth-inducing impacts, as described in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, the City had an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent in 2022, indicating the presence of approximately 6,005 unemployed workers. As approximately 22.5 percent of the City’s workforce works in industry sectors that the proposed project would occupy, it is reasonable to conclude there are at least 1,352 eligible workers in the City who could fill a portion of the jobs that are expected to result from the proposed project.

Furthermore, Tulare County currently has an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, or 20,800 people of the working population. There are a total of approximately 140,091 workers who both live in Tulare County and commute to work within the County. Given the foregoing plus the nature of the proposed project, 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. It is notable that the City’s actual population growth has been slower than previously 4 City of Visalia. General Plan - Introduction. Website: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30473.

Accessed August 29, 2024.
1726
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-89
anticipated in the General Plan. According to the United States Census Bureau, the City had a population of 143,966 in 2022. Employment in the City was projected to increase by 39 percent between 2010 and 2030, with a total of 25,520 new jobs projected during this time frame.

Therefore, any population growth caused by increased employment opportunities provided by the proposed project would be within the planned growth anticipated in the General Plan. To the extent people transfer into the City and vicinity to fill the positions provided by the proposed project, it is reasonable to conclude that any such increase in potential housing demand could be readily absorbed by the local housing inventory and/or the pending and approved residential projects in the City and the surrounding area. As of this writing, the current housing vacancy rate in the City is 3.9 percent, and the County vacancy rate is 5.7 percent. 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.

Furthermore, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the contemplated annexation is entirely consistent with and helps to implement the General Plan land use vision and the City’s approach to growth, which focuses on ensuring that it occurs in a compact and concentric fashion through the implementation of the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. See Response to CDOC-2. This helps to ensure the logical extension of City boundaries in a planned fashion consistent with the General Plan’s population and employment projections.

As such, the Draft EIR adequately and accurately describes potential environmental effects associated with annexation, construction workers, and the construction and operation of the proposed project. This comment does not raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response, change or recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.is warranted.

Comment GSEJA-25
The commenter states that the projected number of employees does not represent the best available data as local data is available in the General Plan. The commenter further states that the General Plan includes the rate of one employee for every 750 square feet of light industrial building area. The commenter then suggests that the proposed project would generate approximately 4,961 employees based on this generation rate; the commenter then seeks to combine the employment generation with two other projects the commenter suggests are improperly piecemealed, which would generate a total of 7,068 employees. The commenter asserts that these three projects would create 2,071 new jobs, which represents 73 percent of the City’s industrial land use job buildout because the General Plan indicates the creation of 9,670 jobs from industrial land uses between 2010 and 2030. Furthermore, the commenter describes that the cumulative analysis of the proposed project be revised because approved projects and projects under review would exceed the General Plan buildout scenarios.

The commenter further claims that the Draft EIR uses uncertain, misleading language with regard to population and employment generation. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR relies upon Census data to improperly conclude that 22.5 percent of the City’s active workforce is employed within this sector, translating to 22.5 percent of the unemployed workforce being available for work in these sectors. Additionally, the commenter contends that the Draft EIR does not provide 1727
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-90
information on whether the unemployed workforce is interested or qualified for work in construction and/or industrial sectors, and concludes that the Draft EIR needs to be revised and recirculated to address these issues.

Response to GSEJA-25
See Response to GSEJA-24.

The comments are noted for the record. However, the commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that is not already disclosed in the Draft EIR. An EIR must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information needed to make an intelligent decision concerning the project’s environmental effects (e.g., CEQA Guidelines § 15151.) An EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency’s mere conclusions or opinions. However, the data used in an EIR need not be exact. When precise data are not readily available, an EIR may rely on informed estimates. As the California Supreme Court has emphasized, an EIR need not achieve “technical perfection or scientific certainty.” Sierra Club v.

County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515. Instead, CEQA requires “adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” CEQA Guidelines § 15003(i). The appropriate degree ofspecificity and analysis a given issue warrants depends on “the nature of the project and the rule of reason.” North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 679; see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 (“An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.”).

The Lead Agency exercised its discretion in selecting the appropriate methodology and assumptions to be utilized when determining the number of employees that would be generated by the project for purposes of the CEQA review. Specifically, the Draft EIR estimated the employee amount at buildout based on the conversion of ITE trip generation rates for building size and employee, consistent with the project transportation study. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is regularly updated and was most recently updated in 2022. In contrast, the General Plan’s estimates for industrial employment generation are from 2011. Although the General Plan is more specific to the project site, the more regularly updated ITE trip generation rates associated employee estimates would likely be more accurate. Furthermore, the ITE trip generation rates take into account the different land uses that would occur on the project site, including warehouse and flex buildings, ministorage/RV parking, fast-food restaurants, convenience markets, and the car wash facility, while the General Plan only has general estimates for Light Industrial and Industrial. Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s assumptions and methodologies used to determine employee generation are supported by substantial evidence.

The environmental effects (i.e., air pollutant and greenhouse emissions associated with VMT for worker trips) associated with employees have been accounted for throughout the Draft EIR, for example within the project’s air quality and greenhouse gas emission analyses. In this case, because the exact locations of where workers trips would originate are too speculative to identify precisely, the analyses assumed a default worker trip. This default is a reasonable estimate of the average trip.

With respect to the commenter’s erroneous attempt to combine the project’s employment generation with other unrelated, separate projects based on an allegation of improper segmentation, see Response to GSEJA-2.

Based on the foregoing and as further detailed in the Draft EIR, the CEQA evaluation adequately analyzed the project’s impacts (both individual and cumulative) as required under CEQA, and no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.

Comment GSEJA-26
The commenter appears to reiterate statements made in Comment GSEJA-24 regarding the Draft EIR not addressing the proposed project’s annexation requirements in the population and housing analysis because annexation of the project site into the City’s boundaries would remove an existing obstacle that prevents growth within the City. The commenter also repeats statements made in Comment GSEJA-25 regarding the way in which the projected number of employees does not represent the best available data as local data is available in the General Plan.

Response to GSEJA-26
See Responses to GSEJA-24 and GSEJA-25.

The commenter requests a number of additional studies and analyses (construction worker employment analysis, job buildout analysis). These studies are not required by CEQA. “CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every recommended test and perform all recommended research to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project. The fact that additional studies might be helpful does not mean that they are required.” Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Cty. of Madera, (2003) 107 Cal.App 4th 1383, 1396, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 718. Consequently, CEQA does not contain a blanket requirement that agencies conduct exhaustive studies to cover every potentiality.

The OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impact in CEQA (December 2018) does not identify construction worker VMT as an issue that needs to be evaluated in a project VMT analysis.

Additionally, the ultimate end-users and construction schedule are unknown, making a construction worker employment analysis too speculative at this point.

This comment does not raise a specific concern related to the proposed project’s physical impacts on the environment or otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response, change or recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.is warranted.
1729
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-92
Comment GSEJA-27
The commenter purports to set forth various legal principles under CEQA related to alternatives analysis, including stating that the EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. The commenter asserts that the alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required “No Project” alternative and only two others. The commenter states that the EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives beyond the No Project Alternative, and fails to include an alternative that meets the project objectives and also eliminates all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.

Response to GSEJA-27
The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that has not already been disclosed in the Draft EIR. A general response to a general comment is sufficient (CEQA Guidelines §15088(c)). This comment provides a general objection to the alternatives discussion; however, it does not propose any specific alternatives for evaluation.

The Draft EIR reflects CEQA’s requirements with respect to an adequate alternatives analysis. As explained therein, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Draft EIR contained a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project. The purpose of this analysis was 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.

Adhering to the foregoing parameters, the analysis briefly discussed another alternative initially considered and then rejected from further consideration. It then evaluated three different alternatives in Chapter 6, Alternatives to the proposed project. Although none of the alternatives eliminated all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, there is no requirement for such an alternative in CEQA. Contrary to the comment’s assertions, CEQA merely requires a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives be considered, taking into account whether each alternative would reduce significant impacts and also whether it would meet most of the project objectives and be feasible to implement. All of the foregoing considerations are relevant and were taken into appropriate account in the Draft EIR’s alternatives analysis. The comments have been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. 1730
LIUNA

Page 1 of 89 ends

1 1731
LIUNA

Page 2 of 89 ends

1 CONT
2 1732
LIUNA

Page 3 of 89 ends

2 CONT
3 1733
LIUNA

Page 4 of 89 ends

3 CONT
1734
LIUNA

Page 5 of 89 ends

4 1735
LIUNA

Page 6 of 89 ends

4 CONT
1736
LIUNA

Page 7 of 89 ends

4 CONT
5 1737
LIUNA

Page 8 of 89 ends

5 CONT
6 1738
LIUNA

Page 9 of 89 ends

6 CONT
7 1739
LIUNA

Page 10 of 89 ends

7 CONT
8 1740
LIUNA

Page 11 of 89 ends

8 CONT
9 10
1741
LIUNA

Page 12 of 89 ends

10 CONT
11 12
1742
LIUNA

Page 13 of 89 ends

12 CONT
13 1743
LIUNA

Page 14 of 89 ends

13 CONT
14 1744
LIUNA

Page 15 of 89 ends

14 CONT
15 1745
LIUNA

Page 16 of 89 ends

1746
LIUNA

Page 17 of 89 ends

16 17
1747
LIUNA

Page 18 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1748
LIUNA

Page 19 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1749
LIUNA

Page 20 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1750
LIUNA

Page 21 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1751
LIUNA

Page 22 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1752
LIUNA

Page 23 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1753
LIUNA

Page 24 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1754
LIUNA

Page 25 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1755
LIUNA

Page 26 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1756
LIUNA

Page 27 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1757
LIUNA

Page 28 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1758
LIUNA

Page 29 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1759
LIUNA

Page 30 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1760
LIUNA Page 31 of 89 17 CONT
1761
LIUNA Page 32 of 89 17 CONT
1762
LIUNA

Page 33 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1763
LIUNA

Page 34 of 89 ends

17 CONT
1764
LIUNA

Page 35 of 89 ends

17 CONT
18 1765
LIUNA

Page 36 of 89 ends

18 CONT
19 1766
LIUNA

Page 37 of 89 ends

19 CONT
1767
LIUNA

Page 38 of 89 ends

19 CONT
20 1768
LIUNA

Page 39 of 89 ends

20 CONT
1769
LIUNA Page 40 of 89 20 CONT
1770
LIUNA Page 41 of 89 20 CONT
1771
LIUNA Page 42 of 89 20 CONT
1772
LIUNA Page 43 of 89 20 CONT
1773
LIUNA

Page 44 of 89 ends

21 1774
LIUNA

Page 45 of 89 ends

21 CONT
22 1775
LIUNA

Page 46 of 89 ends

23 1776
LIUNA

Page 47 of 89 ends

23 CONT
1777
LIUNA

Page 48 of 89 ends

23 CONT
24 1778
LIUNA

Page 49 of 89 ends

24 CONT
25 1779
LIUNA

Page 50 of 89 ends

26 25
CONT
1780
LIUNA

Page 51 of 89 ends

26 CONT
1781
LIUNA

Page 52 of 89 ends

1782
LIUNA

Page 53 of 89 ends

1783
LIUNA

Page 54 of 89 ends

27 1784
LIUNA

Page 55 of 89 ends

27 CONT
1785
LIUNA

Page 56 of 89 ends

27 CONT
1786
LIUNA

Page 57 of 89 ends

27 CONT
1787
LIUNA

Page 58 of 89 ends

27 CONT
1788
LIUNA

Page 59 of 89 ends

27 CONT
1789
LIUNA

Page 60 of 89 ends

27 CONT
1790
LIUNA

Page 61 of 89 ends

1791
LIUNA

Page 62 of 89 ends

28 29
1792
LIUNA

Page 63 of 89 ends

29 CONT
1793
LIUNA

Page 64 of 89 ends

29 CONT
30 1794
LIUNA

Page 65 of 89 ends

30 CONT
31 1795
LIUNA

Page 66 of 89 ends

31 CONT
32 1796
LIUNA

Page 67 of 89 ends

32 CONT
1797
LIUNA

Page 68 of 89 ends

32 CONT
33 1798
LIUNA

Page 69 of 89 ends

1799
LIUNA

Page 70 of 89 ends

34 1800
LIUNA

Page 71 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1801
LIUNA

Page 72 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1802
LIUNA

Page 73 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1803
LIUNA

Page 74 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1804
LIUNA

Page 75 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1805
LIUNA

Page 76 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1806
LIUNA

Page 77 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1807
LIUNA

Page 78 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1808
LIUNA

Page 79 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1809
LIUNA

Page 80 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1810
LIUNA

Page 81 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1811
LIUNA

Page 82 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1812
LIUNA

Page 83 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1813
LIUNA

Page 84 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1814
LIUNA

Page 85 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1815
LIUNA

Page 86 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1816
LIUNA

Page 87 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1817
LIUNA

Page 88 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1818
LIUNA

Page 89 of 89 ends

34 CONT
1819

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1820
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-183
Laborers International Union of North America, Local 294 (LIUNA) Comment LIUNA-1
The commenter provides background information on LIUNA and its technical consultants. It further states the commenter’s general position is that the Draft EIR fails to comply with CEQA because it (1) does not adopt feasible mitigation measures for significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, (2) does not adopt the environmentally superior Reduced Footprint Alternative, (3) does not account for all of the cumulative projects in the project vicinity, (4) does not adequately disclose and mitigate impacts to biological resources, (5) does not adequately analyze the proposed project’s energy impacts, and (6) does not provide substantial evidence that the proposed project would not result in increased cancer risk to nearby residents. As such, the comment requests that the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated to address the issues raised in the comment.

Response to LIUNA-1
The comment is noted for the record. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required.

Comment LIUNA-2
The comment provides a description of the proposed project.

Response to LIUNA-2
The comment is noted for the record. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is necessary.

Comment LIUNA-3
The commenter purports to provide a description of the general legal standard and other legal principles that govern environmental review under CEQA. The commenter reiterates assertions regarding the inadequacy of the Draft EIR and the proposed mitigation measures, as well as the omission of analysis. These comments are separately reiterated below and are specifically addressed in Responses to LIUNA-4 through LIUNA-34, below.

Response to LIUNA-3
The comment is noted. The Lead Agency concurs that the Draft EIR is an informational document.

The Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Draft EIR was prepared and reviewed by City staff and technical experts and is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines. The document includes analysis related to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural/Tribal Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Service, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Furthermore, Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR specifically states the purpose of the document (see Section 1.1.2, Purpose and Authority, on pages 1-1 and 1-2).

The Lead Agency concurs that the Draft EIR is a public informational document used in the planning and decision-making process. The Draft EIR also discloses potential impacts found not to be significant and significant cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA requires an EIR to reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency with respect 1821
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-184
to impacts, disclose the level of significance of the impacts both with and without mitigation, and describe the mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts.

This project-level Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The City of Visalia Planning Commission and City Counsel will consider the information in the Draft EIR, including public comments and responses to those comments, during the public hearing process.

Comment LIUNA-4
The first part of the comment sets forth various legal principles addressing CEQA requirements relating to consideration of mitigation measures and alternatives.

The second part of the comment notes the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Draft EIR; states that the Final EIR must require all feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts; and includes other suggested mitigation measures. The commenter also asserts that the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR included ROG emissions from architectural coatings during constructino but did not include an analysis of ROG emissions from architectural coatings during operations. The commenter states this is necessary because there is additional feasible mitigation available, and by failing to discuss and include these additional measures, the Draft EIR does not make a good faith effort at full disclosure.

Response to LIUNA-4
See Response to LIUNA-3, above. The first part of the comment does not raise any project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and thus no further response is necessary.

Regarding the second part of the comment, the Draft EIR adheres to CEQA’s requirement that the EIR describe feasible measures that could minimize the project’s significant adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)). An EIR may decline to propose a mitigation measure that would not effectively address a significant impact. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.

An EIR also need not identify and discuss mitigation measures that are infeasible. “Nothing in CEQA requires an EIR to explain why certain mitigation measures are infeasible.” Clover Valley Found. v.

City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 245. Nor must an EIR analyze in detail mitigation measures it concludes are infeasible. Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 351. See also Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, 2nd Edition. While an EIR must respond to comments making specific suggestions for mitigating a significant impact unless the suggested mitigation is “facially infeasible,” a response that provides a reasoned analysis of the City’s determination that a proposed measure is infeasible or would not be useful is sufficient. An EIR need not explain why suggested mitigation measures that are described in general terms and are not specific to the project are infeasible. While the City is required to respond to such comments, it is not required to accept the suggested mitigation measures.
1822
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-185
The commenter purports to assert legal principles under CEQA related to mitigation, and then claims that the proposed project would result in potentially significant air quality impacts from ROG, NOx and PM10 and did not implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce its significant impacts, and provides a list of recommended mitigation measures. Each suggested mitigation measure is discussed below.

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

For the reasons described herein, none of the above triggers has occurred with respect to the suggested measures.

The first requested measure relates to expanding MM AIR-2b to include architectural coating requirements during project operation to reduce operation ROG emissions. The Draft EIR adequately addressed potential ROG impacts that could occur during project construction and operation; disclosed identified impacts; and then identified a range of mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to the extent feasible.

Moreover, the Draft EIR considered potential health risk impacts associated with ROG emissions generated by the use of consumer products, which would be limited to the immediate area in which they are used on-site and would only occur during activities that use those products, such as facility cleaning activities. As the Draft EIR explained, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to significant amounts of consumer product ROGs during operation of the proposed project because residents would not be located on the project site and consumer product activities would only occur during scheduled cleaning activities. Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial ROG concentrations during project operations.

Finally, the suggested measure would not be feasible to implement. This is because future occupants would have access to consumer products available on the marketplace. Regulation of consumer products available on the marketplace is not within the control of any individual project applicant or lead agency. Therefore, requiring the use of only low ROG supplies and equipment in perpetuity is neither feasible nor enforceable.

As detailed more fully in the Draft EIR, the analysis identified mitigation to help reduce operational emissions. For example, MM AIR-2c, MM AIR-2d, MM AIR-2e, MM AIR-2f, and MM AIR-2g would contribute toward NOX emissions reductions. For example, MM AIR-2c would require (1) that all on1823 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-186
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 all-electric service equipment.

By utilizing zero-emission on-site service equipment, the proposed project would reduce NOX emissions to the extent feasible that would otherwise occur.

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 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). Although this measure would not directly include functioning charging stations, the installation of the infrastructure needed to support charging stations would allow for the future charging stations to be installed. Furthermore, MM AIR2d would require the design of the building’s electrical room to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on-site. By providing EV charging infrastructure, this measure would allow for the installation of charging stations, which would provide a convenient location for employees to charge EVs and incentivize employees to use EVs.

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, which would otherwise result in excessive NOX and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) emissions.

MM AIR-2f would require the proposed project to include a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries. Vegetative barriers utilize the natural process of photosynthesis, where plants intake air particles including gaseous pollutants, such as NOX, and release oxygen. By including a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries, MM AIR-2f would reduce exposure of NOX and PM10 emissions on nearby homes and sensitive receptors to the southeast.

Finally, MM AIR-2g would require each project applicant, in connection with an individual specific development proposal, to consider the feasibility of entering into a VERA District in order to reduce reactive organic gases (ROG), NOX, and PM10 emissions. As the Draft EIR explained, a VERA is a potential mitigation measure that provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions that exceed applicable thresholds. A VERA reduces construction and operational emissions through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving as the administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort.

However, a VERA is a voluntary recommendation, it is not a requirement of by the District or any regulation. Also, for purposes of CEQA, because the terms of a specific VERA are not currently known, whether this would be feasible is speculative at this time.

In addition to the foregoing measures, due to the proposed project’s size (i.e., the proposed project would result in the development of greater than 25,000 square feet of light industrial building space), the proposed project would be required to pay emission reduction fees associated with its Indirect Source Review application, consistent with the requirements contained in District Rule 9510.

The Indirect Source Review application and fees to the SJVAPCD would reduce project emissions 1824
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-187
since the Air District would direct the fees to fund other air quality improvement measures throughout the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Although the mitigation does not require a VERA, it does require consultation with the SJVAPCD regarding the feasibility of entering into a VERA.

Moreover, the incorporation of Indirect Source Review application measures and payment of applicable fees, as well as the implementation of the other identified mitigation, would further offset proposed project air pollutant emissions.

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

Comment LIUNA-5
The commenter purports to set forth legal principles under CEQA with respect to the adoption and rejection of alternatives. The commenter then goes on to summarize the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Draft EIR and provide a summary of the Reduced Footprint Alternative. The comment states that the City has not and cannot support a finding that the Reduced Footprint Alternative is infeasible.

Response to LIUNA-5
To the extent the comment makes general assertions but does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no response is necessary.

The basic purpose of an EIR’s discussion of alternatives is to suggest ways project objectives might be achieved at less environmental cost. An alternative that would substantially reduce the project’s environmental impacts should not be excluded from the analysis simply because it would not fully achieve all of the project’s objectives or be more costly (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)). An EIR need not, however, present alternatives that are incompatible with the project’s fundamental purpose or would otherwise change the basic nature of the proposed project.

An EIR must examine a range of alternatives that are “potentially feasible.” Id. The term “feasible” is defined as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological and legal factors (PRC § 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines § 15364). An EIR must contain a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which can attain most of the project’s objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project’s significant effects. (PRC § 21100(b)(4); 14 CCR § 15126.6(a)). The selection of alternatives to be discussed in an EIR is governed by the rule of reason.

Id. See also Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. An agency may eliminate from consideration alternatives that do not avoid or substantially lessen the project’s significant environmental impacts. Mann v. Community Redevelopment Agency (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1150-51. Courts reject ironclad rules for determining feasibility and have concluded that a pragmatic standard for weighing the feasibility of alternatives applies. An EIR does not need to determine whether the alternatives included for evaluation could feasibly be implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d)). However, if the EIR finds that an included alternative is infeasible, it should disclose the supporting evidence and analysis.

With respect to the comment regarding the alternatives analysis, contrary to its assertion that only economic issues were considered with respect to this alternative, there is substantial evidence in the 1825
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-188
record that supports a conclusion that the Reduced Footprint Alternative (1) would not achieve most of the project alternatives and (2) is not feasible.

The Draft EIR sets forth a thoughtful comparison of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. As detailed in the Draft EIR, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project (and, in fact, would impair achievement of same to a great degree in a number of cases) and would be infeasible due to social, economic and other reasons.

For example. a substantial reduction in project size (by half, from 284 to 142 acres) would significantly reduce the multiple "beneficial" aspects of the project, such as property taxes received by the City, generation of substantial employment and resulting improvement of the area’s jobs-tohousing ratio. It would also significantly undercut the fundamental purpose of developing a mixeduse industrial and commercial development in an economically viable manner given that this alternative would reduce the development opportunity by 50 percent, and require the remaining portion of the project site to be utilized for agricultural uses already determined to no longer be appropriate by the County Board of Supervisors during the Williamson Act cancellation process. Such marked economic infeasibility is in stark contrast to the case cited in the comment letter, Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 CA3d 1167, 1179, in which the decision to reject an alternative was based simply on fact that it would be more expensive or less profitable. Additionally, to satisfy that requirement, a project is not obligated to include an alternative that will not substantially reduce or avoid the project’s significant impacts. In Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, a case involving a proposed specific plan amendment and conditional use permit to build a 95,900-square-foot WinCo Foods store, the petitioners argued that the project EIR’s range of alternatives was insufficient because it did not include a “reduced-store-size” alternative. The court rejected this argument as “without merit” because the record did not establish that “a reduced-size alternative would substantially diminish any of the significant environmental impacts of the project.

The Reduce Footprint Alternative would also substantially hamper the ability of the City to implement its longtime vision for the project site and instead increase land use incompatibilities, thereby creating inconsistencies with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the General Plan, including the designations and policies that contemplate light industrial and industrial uses (rather than agricultural uses). This alternative also would severely impair the objectives that seek to:
maximize development of the existing underutilized project site; create employment-generating businesses to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and maximize 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. It would also 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.

Moreover, even with this drastic reduction-cutting the project in half-significant and unavoidable impacts would remain.

CEQA does not require the lead agency to approve the environmentally superior alternative. When determining whether to approve a project, it is up to the lead agency’s decision-makers to weigh the 1826
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-189
relative advantages and disadvantages of the project and the alternatives examined in the EIR. The lead agency has discretion to weigh environmental factors together with the entire range of legal and policy considerations relevant to its action on the project (PRC § 21081(a)(3); State CEQA Guidelines § 15091). The Draft EIR, along with other substantial evidence in the record, are adequate for the City to reject the Reduced Footprint Alternative. Accordingly, this comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration together with the entire record. However, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that this Draft EIR and the public review process has sufficiently complied with State CEQA Guidelines. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA.

Comment LIUNA-6
The commenter provides a summary of CEQA requirements in conducting a cumulative impact analysis, and states that the Cumulative Impacts section of the Draft EIR located within the Biological Resources, Section 3.4, is not complete as it does not include the industrial development proposed just south of the project site at the southwest corner of North Shirk Street and West Riggin Avenue.

The commenter then notes that the proposed project’s cumulative impact analysis needs to be revised to include the foregoing cumulative development.

Response to LIUNA-6
The Draft EIR appropriately considers all relevant cumulative developments, as described more fully therein. The City released a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-referenced “Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project” in April 2024. The physical conditions existing when the NOP for the subject development is published normally are used to establish the baseline for cumulative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15125 (a)(1). The NOP for the proposed project was issued August 29, 2022. The City has discretion to determine a reasonable date as a cutoff for which projects are to be included and considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 (agency has discretion to determine existing conditions baseline, subject to review for substantial evidence); Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 (county had discretion to set date of application for current project as cutoff date for deciding which projects to include in cumulative impacts analysis). In defining what constituted a “cumulative project” for purposes of this analysis, for purposes of “reasonably foreseeable future projects,” the City, in its discretion as lead agency, determined to include the following: (1) all approved but not yet constructed developments; and (2) all developments that had submitted formal applications with the City. When the project’s NOP was published, and the baseline for evaluation was set by the City, the application for the separate Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project had not been deemed complete, and therefore was not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable future project. Accordingly, the commenter’s suggestion that the Cumulative Impacts section of the Draft EIR is flawed for not including the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project is not accurate under the law; and the Draft EIR fully accounts for all relevant cumulative development projects known at the time environmental review commenced (i.e., NOP publication date). The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. No further response is required.
1827
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-190
For informational purposes, the following is noted. All proposed projects that involve discretionary review, regardless of whether they are included in the cumulative project list, including, without limitation, the “Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project” would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform with the applicable General Plan and City development standards and other requirements under applicable laws and regulations. For example, during the site-specific evaluation for the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project, its CEQA analysis determined that the foregoing development would not have any significant biological resources impacts, either individually or cumulatively, due to the fact that there is no suitable habitat for special-status species.

The Draft EIR includes adequate mitigation for cumulative impacts to biological resources. Those measures include MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f and MM BIO-3. MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f mitigate for potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger. If any of these species are found to be on-site prior to project-related activities, implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f would reduce impacts to these species to a less than significant level under CEQA.

The commenter’s specifies their approach to cumulative analysis as using the appropriate geographical context, identifying the relevant cumulative developments being considered, and accounting for cumulative impacts related to special-status species, including Swainson’s hawk, Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. However, the analysis in the Draft EIR confirms that, due to the already-urbanizing nature of the relevant geographic context, as well as the requirements that the relevant cumulative projects comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies, all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources, and all other site-specific mitigation measures, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

It should be noted that CDFW reviewed these mitigations and did not find them inadequate to mitigate impacts to these species. MM BIO-1d and MM BIO-3 have been revised to further meet CDFW standards. MM BIO-3 requires a Jurisdictional Delineation which, in association with applicable agencies will mitigate any impacts to jurisdictional features on-site. Implementation of these mitigations would mitigate potential project-related impacts to biological resources on-site and adequately mitigation for cumulative impacts to biological resources.

The Lead Agency concluded that a less than significant cumulative biological impact with mitigation incorporated. This is especially so where, as here, the impacts to sensitive species are small and the amount of habitat actually being used by those species is even smaller. CEQA requires that the project be adequately analyzed and that its environmental impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent feasible. The proposed mitigation measures satisfy CEQA by providing mitigation for the cumulative impacts to biological resources. Based on the information presented above, the lead agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to cumulative impacts and 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. 1828
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-191
The Cumulative Impacts portion of Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR adheres to the commenter’s suggested approach; for example, it specifies an appropriate geographical context, identifies the relevant cumulative developments being considered, and accounts for cumulative impacts related to special-status species, including Swainson’s hawk and Crotch’s bumblebee, through MM BIO-1b and BIO-1d (revised). The analysis in the Draft EIR confirms that, due to the already-urbanizing nature of the relevant geographic context, as well as the requirements that the relevant cumulative projects comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies, all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources, and all other site-specific mitigation measures, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Morever, as detailed in the Draft EIR and related BRA, the project site is an actively managed orchard that provides negligible habitat value for special-status species. With compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies and the implementation of all recommended species-specific mitigation measures (MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1c, and MM BIO-1d revised), potential project-related impacts to special-status wildlife species would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact. Thus, the cumulative impact analysis satisfies requirements under CEQA.

Comment LIUNA-7
The commenter generally summarizes responses to the Draft EIR (including the Biological Resources Assessment [BRA] attached thereto). It also raises a specific comment regarding a purported underestimation of the diversity of the species utilizing the project site.

Response to LIUNA-7
The general comments are noted for the record. To the extent the commenter does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

With respect to the specific comment regarding the purported underestimation of the diversity of the species utilizing the project site, CDFW has been consulted regarding the proposed project and did not provide comment regarding the underestimation of the diversity of species utilizing the project site. Further, CDFW did not recommend additional mitigation measures outside of what the Draft EIR has proposed. Lastly, where CDFW did provide comments on the Draft EIR (regarding proposed mitigation), these comments have been revised to include refinements recommended by the CDFW (see Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR). These refinements represent clarifying language to better ensure compliance with CDFW processes. Additionally, all surveys conducted for the project site were done in accordance with existing standards and did not identify the species the commenter observed. It should also be noted that the commenter’s mathematical extrapolations are not based on industry standards and are therefore speculative. Speculation does not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15145; 15384).

The commenter’s report describes the presence of 12 special-status species that were supposedly observed on-site during his purported “site visits.” The Lead Agency takes no position as to the accuracy of the purported species observed during the unauthorized and unpermitted access.

Additionally, Photo 6 is from 2022 from an unidentified site; this photo could have been taken at any site in the central valley, and there is no evidence provided to indicate the photo was taken on the 1829
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-192
project site. Therefore, the commenter’s assessment of the diversity of the species on-site is speculative at best.

The timing and scope of the survey referred to in the Draft EIR reflects standard industry practice; specifically, a stand-alone BRA was preprepared based on industry standard methodologies, and available as Appendix C of the Draft EIR. As explained further in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and in the BRA attached thereto, the analysis employed a thoughtful and robust methodology, consistent with industry standard practices, to identify special-status species that could potentially be impacted by the proposed project. Based on this methodological approach, a database search using California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) was conducted within the Goshen, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minuteTopographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles which resulting in 33 special-status species being initially considered, but due to a lack of potential habitat and other considerations, all but five were not determined to warrant further consideration. This evaluation included each species’ required habitat and determinations of the potential to occur on-site based on numerous considerations and documentary materials. A speciesby-species discussion is provided within Tables 1 and 2 with Appendix B of the BRA.

Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

Comment LIUNA-8
The commenter generally summarizes the findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD in response to the Draft EIR.

Response to LIUNA-8
These comments are noted. To the extent this comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary.

With respect to specific comments, following are responses are provided. First, with respect to the way in which the site surveys were conducted, the commenter suggests the survey process was “inadequate” due to its timing. The site survey was conducted by a qualified Biologist who specializes in this the biological resources of this area. The timing and scope of the survey reflected standard industry practice; specifically, a stand-alone BRA was preperared based on industry standard methodologies, and available as Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The objective of the survey was not to exhaustively search for every potential species occurring within the project site, but rather to ascertain general site conditions and identify potentially suitable habitat areas for specialstatus plant and wildlife species. Special-status or unusual biological resources identified during the literature review were confirmed during the reconnaissance-level survey for mapping accuracy.

Based on the foregoing and as otherwise detailed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and the BRA attached thereto, this site survey is adequate for purposes of this CEQA review.

The commenter also states that the site survey is inadequate for failing to explain how it conducted habitat assessments. Contrary to the foregoing assertions, the site survey and related BRA explains 1830
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-193
how the habitat assessments were conducted. As detailed more fully therein, Section 3 of the BRA describes the methodlogy used to carry out the field survey and subseqent report. Methods included a literature review of nine USGS quadrangles in order to compile a list of threatened, endangered, and otherwise special-status species previously recorded on-site and the surrounding area; review of City and County tree ordiances, a review of areial photography to identify any potential natural drainge features and water bodies.

Third, the commenter asserts that the BRA “improperly screened out many special-status species from further consideration” based on an improper reliance on specified databases. As explained further in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and the BRA attached thereto, the analysis employed a thoughtful and robust methodology, consistent with industry standard practices, to identify special-status species that could potentially be impacted by the project. Based on this methodological approach, a database search using California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and CNPSEI was conducted within the Goshen, California USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles resulted in 32 special-status species being initially considered, but due to a lack of potential habitat and other considerations, all but five were determined to warrant further consideration. This evalution included each species’ required habitat and determinations of the potential to occur on-site based on numerous considerations and documentary materials. A species by speices disucssion is provided within Tables 1 and 2 with Appendix B of the BRA.

It should be noted that the California Supreme Court has emphasized an EIR need not achieve “technical perfection or scientific certainty.” Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515. Instead, CEQA requires “adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15003(i)). The appropriate degree of specificity and analysis a given issue warrants depends on “the nature of the project and the rule of reason.” North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 679; see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 (“An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.”). “CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every recommended test and perform all recommended research to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project. The fact that additional studies might be helpful does not mean that they are required.” Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Cty. of Madera, (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1396, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 718. Consequently, CEQA does not contain a blanket requirement that agencies conduct focused or protocol-level surveys. See Id.

See also Response to LIUNA-7.

Comment LIUNA-9
The commenter generally summarizes comments to the Draft EIR with respect to habitat loss, movement impacts, traffic mortality, and cumulative impacts regarding biological resources. 1831
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-194
Specifically, with respect to habitat loss, the commenter states that the Draft EIR fails to fully account for the impacts associated therewith, including in terms of immediate numerical decline as well as permanent loss of productive capacity. The commenter then references a calculation that projectrelated “loss of habitat for bird nests would result in 21,645 birds born per year,” which would be “very substantial and highly significant” but states this impact was not disclosed or mitigated in the Draft EIR.

Response to LIUNA-9
To the extent this comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary. See also Responses to LIUNA-7 and LIUNA-8.

Regarding purported habitat loss due to the proposed project, the key State resource agency, CDFW, has commented on the Draft EIR regarding the proposed project. Except for minor species-specific revisions proposed to specific mitigation measures, CDFW did not set forth any concerns regarding the Draft EIR’s description of the environmental setting and/or its impact analysis. Additionally, the commenter’s formula for quantifying habitat loss is not recognized by industry professionals as a proper methodology for assessing habitat loss under CEQA and is based on speculation, which is not cognizable under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15145; 15384). Instead, the Draft EIR reflects feasible and appropriate measures specific to migratory and nesting birds and roosting bats that are consistent with standard industry practice, which would become binding mitigation measures via enforceable conditions of approval (see MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1c, MM BIO-1e, and MM BIO-1f). On the contrary, the Draft EIR addressed at length the potential for the project to result in the loss of suitable habitat for a variety of special-status species. For the reasons set forth therein, and in the BRA attached thereto, suitable habitat exists on-site for relatively few special-status species. For those, the Draft EIR discussed and fully disclosed these potential impacts as significant and identified feasible mitigation to ensure impacts would be reduced to less than significant (see MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f). MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f mitigate for potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger through several methods, including pre-construction surveys, project safety procedures to be implemented during project construction, and the implementation of buffer zones if any of these species are found. If any of these species are found to be on-site prior to project-related activities, implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f would reduce impacts to these species to a less than significant level under CEQA. It should be noted that CDFW reviewed these mitigations and did not find them inadequate to mitigate impacts to these species. Note that MM BIO-1d has been revised to further meet CDFW standards.

With respect to the specific comment regarding the loss of productive capacity that would result in the predicted loss of “21,645 birds born per year,” the commenter does not define what is meant by the protection of “productive capacity.” To the extent it is meant to reference the future number of species that could potentially be birthed on the site, this is not a threshold or topic area under CEQA and is therefore not a necessary component that will be addressed in this response. Regarding purported habitat loss due to the project that would potentially result in the loss of production capacity, the key State resource agency, CDFW, has commented on the Draft EIR regarding the proposed project. Except for minor species-specific revisions proposed to specific mitigation 1832
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-195
measures, CDFW did not set forth any concerns regarding the Draft EIR’s description of the environmental setting and/or its impact analysis. Additionally, the commenter’s formula for quantifying habitat loss is not recognized by industry professionals as a proper methodology for assessing habitat loss under CEQA and is based on speculation, which is not cognizable under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15145; 15384). Instead, the Draft EIR reflects feasible and appropriate measures specific to migratory and nesting birds and roosting bats that are consistent with standard industry practice, which would become binding mitigation measures via enforceable conditions of approval (see MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1c, MM BIO-1e, and MM BIO-1f).Based on the information presented above, the lead agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

Comment LIUNA-10
The commenter generally summarizes comments to the EIR.

In terms of specific comments on wildlife corridors, the commenter states that the Draft EIR applied improper standards in determining there were less than significant impacts on wildlife movement.

The commenter goes on to note that a project can have a significant impact on wildlife movement “regardless of whether the movement is channeled through a corridor.” The comment states that the project would “cut wildlife off from one of the last remaining stopover and staging opportunities in the project area” and this constitutes a significant impact.

Response to LIUNA-10
These comments are noted. They are general in nature and do not include any specific evidence to support the allegations that the analysis is incomplete or inaccurate. Based on the information presented above (Responses LIUNA-6 through LIUNA-9), the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above. For the reasons set forth herein, the commenter’s suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA, and the Lead Agency has determined to rely upon its biological resource experts in terms of the methodology and conclusions set forth in the Draft EIR and related BRA. Please also refer to Responses to LIUNA-9. 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.

To the extent Response to LIUNA-10 is general in nature and does not raise any specific projectrelated environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary.

As a preliminary matter, the Draft EIR and related BRA do not limit the analysis with respect to potential impacts to wildlife movement to formal “corridors.” As detailed more fully in the Draft EIR and related BRA, while the project would result in the loss of a certain amount of local wildlife habitat, it would not significantly interfere with wildlife movement for migratory birds and bats. For example, the Draft EIR and related BRA recognize that extensive suitable alternative stopover habitat (e.g., undeveloped) for migratory birds can be found to the north and west of the project site. In 1833
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-196
fact, these other areas are less fragmented, isolated, and less prone to disturbance from human activities and therefore may be more desirable for some migratory species.

With respect to the movement of any terrestrial species or species with limited dispersal ability, as discussed in the Draft EIR and related BRA, such movement is likely currently inhibited given the semi-urban location of the project site. Areas directly south and east of the project site are composed of extensive industrial, commercial and residential developments. The project site does not contain habitat features such as riparian corridors that could function as wildlife corridors or otherwise facilitate wildlife movement. Importantly, the project site is not within a designated wildlife corridor based on the CDFW’s Essential Connectivity Areas geospatial data set, which uses habitat modeling to identify areas of land with value as wildlife corridors. As such, contrary to the commenter’s assertions, the project site is not considered to be “critically important” to wildlife movement.

Lastly, the proposed project would not remove all trees on-site. For example, a large oak tree near the boundary of the project site would remain after construction. Additionally, numerous smaller ornamental trees are planned for planting as part of project landscaping which would continue to support roosting birds.

The Draft EIR and related BRA includes a detailed discussion of wildlife movement on the project site during existing conditions and the potential impacts of the project thereon. As described more fully therein, most of the project site consists of actively managed orchards and does not contain habitat features such as riparian corridors that could function as wildlife corridors. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by active roadways, active agriculture, industrial, and residential development, all of which impede the movement of wildlife and limit the use of the project site as a potential corridor for wildlife movement.

Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR and related BRA considers the proposed project’s potential impact on species movement in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Impact BIO-4.

Specifically, Section 4.5 of the BRA details how the project site is not a wildlife movement corridor.

The BRA states, “Most of the project site consists of actively managed orchards and does not contain habitat features such as riparian corridors that could function as wildlife corridors. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by active roadways, active agriculture, industrial, and residential development, all of which impede the movement of wildlife and limit the use of the project site as a potential corridor for wildlife movement. The project site is not within a known wildlife corridor.” Therefore, the site would not attract special-status species that would be subject to traffic movement, lowering the potential for traffic collisions.

Moreover, CDFW’s Terrestrial Connectivity Map identifies the project site as a 1, having limited connectivity opportunity (measured on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being an irreplaceable and essential corridor) (see Figure 2-1: Terrestrial Connectivity Map). The project site is not within a known wildlife corridor. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.
1834
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-197
Figure 2-1: Terrestrial Connectivity Map
1835
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-198
Comment LIUNA-11
The commenter makes the general statement that the Draft EIR fails to address the impacts to wildlife due to traffic collisions and provides estimates of species’ casualties based on the reported findings from Shawn Smallwood, PhD. The commenter concludes that this is a significant impact that must be disclosed, discussed, and mitigated in a recirculated Draft EIR.

Response to LIUNA-11
To the extent this comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

With respect to specific comments, the following responses are provided. In terms of wildlife mortality, this comment is noted. The photographs and related assertions included in this comment are not from the project site and thus any asserted relevance to this analysis would be speculative.

In fact, the traffic mortality study cited in this comment was conducted in Contra Costa County, which is hundreds of miles away from Tulare County; the commenter’s numerous assumptions in applying that study’s conclusions to the proposed project are not supported by substantial evidence in the record but rather reflect mere speculation. In summary, the mathematical calculations provided are based on speculative assumptions from non-related projects far outside Tulare County and the project site.

As discussed above and detailed more fully in the Draft EIR and related BRA, potential impacts to wildlife movement due to the proposed project are considered at length. The project site is not considered to be within a designated wildlife corridor. Instead, the project site is surrounded by active roadways and existing industrial, commercial, and residential development that limits species movement on and through the project site. The site plan and design of the proposed project would not encourage species to traverse internal roadways to reach habitat since, among other things, the site does not contain undisturbed habitat or vegetation that provides habitat value for a majority of special-status species. Instead, the site plan would mitigate for any special-status species anticipated to occur on-site and account for functional groups such as nesting birds. As such, the construction and operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the movement of any species, as discussed in Impact BIO-4.

The commenter provides a model that is based on conjecture and without any substantive evidence to support the assertion. The project site is generally surrounded by other large industrial developments and does not propose a project that would create traffic volumes that exceed other surrounding developments. Moreover, CDFW was consulted regarding the proposed project and that agency did not provide a comment regarding traffic collisions. The species-specific mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR would be sufficient to mitigate the proposed project’s impacts on species and habitat. Moreover, a traffic analysis regarding the potential for wildlife collisions is not required under CEQA; rather, impacts to special-status species are fully addressed under Draft EIR, Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Impact BIO-1. The CEQA Guidelines require recirculation only when “significant new information” is added to an EIR after the Draft EIR is released for public review but before certification of the Final EIR. (PRC § 21092.1; 14 CCR § 15088.5(a)). Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately 1836
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-199
mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above
See also Response to LIUNA-10.

Comment LIUNA-12
The commenter makes the general statement that the cumulative impact analysis is flawed because it is based on flawed premises about the lack of presence of special-status species and the project site’s lack of importance for wildlife movement, as well as an improper reliance on compliance with existing laws and regulations to find a less than significant impact. The commenter asserts that the six biological mitigation measures, MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f are not adequate to mitigate for the project’s impacts. Because of the foregoing, the commenter concludes the determination of less than significant cumulative impacts is not supported by substantial evidence.

Response to LIUNA-12
The commenter contends that the identified mitigation measures are inadequate because they rely on pre-construction surveys, which alone, may not be sufficient mitigation, and states that the Draft EIR improperly treats these pre-construction surveys as protocol-level surveys. The commenter then references proposed mitigation that would require: (1) protocol-level surveys prior to preconstruction surveys; (2) the preservation of open space as close to the project site as possible to compensate for habitat loss; and (3) compensatory mitigation payments for wildlife research and rehabilitation.

To the extent this comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary.

However, for the reasons described in detail in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and related BRA, the identified mitigation measures adequately avoid, reduce and/or lessen the identified significant impacts. MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f mitigate for potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger through several methods, including pre-construction surveys, project safety procedures to be implemented during project construction, and the implementation of buffer zones if any of these species are found. If any of these species are found to be on-site prior to project-related activities, implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f would reduce impacts to these species to a less than significant level under CEQA. It should be noted that CDFW reviewed these mitigations and did not raise any issues regarding their adequacy to mitigate impacts to these species. Note that MM BIO-1d has been revised to further meet CDFW standards.

As a preliminary matter, it is important to note there is concurrence with the premise that preconstruction surveys would not necessarily be sufficient, on their own, to fully mitigate identified impacts. Rather, such surveys are a first step; i.e., intended to confirm presence/absence of a species. To the extent presence is determined as a result of pre-construction surveys, then further steps would need to be taken, in the form of feasible protective measures, in order to reduce impacts.
1837
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-200
Accordingly, the mitigation measures referenced by the commenter go beyond simply requiring preconstruction surveys, and instead also include other detailed provisions to ensure adequate mitigation in the event special-status species are located on-site during ground/vegetation disturbance and/or construction activities. Furthermore, the City has agreed to revise, and the project applicant has agreed to implement, certain mitigation measure refinements as suggested by CDFW, which would further ensure impacts are fully mitigated. There is no requirement under CEQA or otherwise for the project applicant(s) to implement the commenter’s suggested mitigation. CDFW reviewed the Draft EIR and had three very minor comments. CDFW did not propose any additional mitigation measures that were not already include in the Draft EIR, rather they provide minor comments on mitigation that was already contained within the Draft EIR. Further, the applicant addressed their comments in this document. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

See also Responses LIUNA-6 through LIUNA-12.

Comment LIUNA-13
The commenter purports to set forth legal requirements under CEQA with respect to the environmental topic area of energy. The commenter then claims that an analysis that simply relies on the project’s compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy, and that the Draft EIR should discuss renewable energy features and provide rooftop solar panels. The commenter asserts that the proposed approach, which assumes the project would be required to either (1) install rooftop solar panels or (2) construct buildings that structurally can accommodate future solar panels is inadequate. The commenter claims that installation of rooftop solar panels would also ensure the project complies with the City’s CAP.

Response to LIUNA-13
To the extent the comment makes general assertions but does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no response is necessary.

With respect to the commenter’s assertion regarding the adequacy of the energy impact analysis, contrary to the its assertion, the Draft EIR adequately analyzed and disclosed the project’s construction and operation energy impacts, which included, among other things, consideration of opportunities for on-site renewable energy generation.

As shown in Section 3.6, Energy, the Draft EIR provided a thoughtful analysis to determine whether the project would exceed the applicable significance thresholds. Specifically, in addition to discussing compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the other applicable provisions of a comprehensive regulatory framework that governs development in California and which reflects some of the most stringent requirements in the nation, the analysis also disclosed the amount of fuel that would be used by construction equipment and vehicle trips, energy use of an construction office trailer, energy consumption from the proposed building operations, and fuel consumption from trucks and passenger vehicles. The analysis also evaluated relevant energy efficiency laws and regulations such as, among others, ARB’s idling limitation for on-road and off1838 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-201
road equipment, Visalia Municipal Code provisions related to construction hours and the installation of short- and long-term bike facilities, and the proposed project’s TDM measures, all of which would reduce the project’s energy consumption and promote energy efficiency.

The latest California Building Energy Efficiency Code went in effect on January 1, 2023. The latest requirements for solar panel installation (Section 140.10) are more stringent than the original MM GHG-2(a), which, crafted per SJVAPCD suggestion in their NOP comment letter dated September 28, 2022, only required the project applicant to install 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. Therefore, MM GHG-2(a) has been revised to reflect the solar panel installation obligation under State law per California Building Energy Efficiency Code Section 140.10.

The proposed project would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Building Code Standards. The foregoing include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting, are widely regarded as the some of the most advanced and stringent building energy efficiency standards in the country. Moreover, as the Draft EIR explains, the proposed project would be required to incorporate electrical conduit to facilitate future installation of EV charging infrastructure. In addition, as specified in Subchapter 6, Part 6 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to either include rooftop solar systems or design the proposed buildings to structurally accommodate future installation of a rooftop solar system. Among others, the project would be required to adhere to California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 140.10, which requires the installation of a solar photovoltaic system for all proposed land uses unless otherwise exempt per Section 140.10. The required solar photovoltaic size is calculated based on the project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage.5 As such, the Draft EIR concluded that the design of the proposed project would facilitate the future commitment to renewable energy resources.

With respect to energy associated with project-related vehicle trips, the proposed project would include the installation of bicycle parking fixtures consistent with the Visalia Municipal Code requirements for new development, encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation for worker commutes. Regional access to the project site is provided via State Route (SR) 99, which is

0.85 mile to the east of the project site. As a result, the proposed project would be located within 1 mile of a major transportation corridor that provides interstate regional access. Moreover, as discussed in Section 3.15, Transportation, the proposed project would be required to implement various TDM measures that would contribute to fuel savings through incentives for project staff to utilize nonmotorized transportation modes. Furthermore, the proposed project would generate vehicle trips that would travel to other cities and states in order to deliver goods and the location of the proposed project would not result in excessive or wasteful vehicle travel.

The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with CAP actions related to Energy by including MM GHG-2a which requires installation of solar photovoltaic system to increase 5 To present a conservative estimate of emissions, the Draft EIR did not take any reductions related to the inclusion a solar photovoltaic system.
1839
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-202
generation and use of renewable energy. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with other CAP actions related to reduction energy consumption such as, including drought-tolerant landscaping that requires less water demand and consequently less electricity to convey that water to the project site.

Based on the foregoing, the Draft EIR concluded energy impacts would be less than significant.Therefore, the Draft EIR properly analyzed the project’s energy impacts, including opportunities for the generation of on-site renewable energy soursces and the proposed project would be implementing solar photovoltaic system that is being requested by the commenter. The Lead Agency is of the opinion that this Draft EIR has sufficiently complied with State CEQA Guidelines. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA, and no further analysis or revisions are required.

Comment LIUNA-14
The commenter provides a summary of the HRA from the Draft EIR and claims that health risk impacts could not be verified by the commenter’s consultant and may thus be underestimated.

Specifically, the comment asserts that the Draft EIR and supporting documentation do not provide the values used in the HRA for ASF and FAH.

Response to LIUNA-14
As shown in Section 3.3, Air Quality, pages 3.3-54 through 3.3-57, a screening analysis was prepared in accordance with Section 8.4.2 Ambient Air Quality Screening Tools of the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

As described in the Draft EIR, District Rule 2201 requires that an AAQA be conducted for a project when that project’s maximum daily emissions exceed 100 pounds for any single criterion or precursor pollutant after incorporation of all mitigation. The District’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impact (GAMAQI) includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an AAQA. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO).

An analysis of maximum daily emissions during construction and operation was conducted to determine whether emissions would exceed the 100 pounds per day screening threshold for any pollutant of concern. NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 during project construction and operation are shown to be below 100 pounds per day with mitigation. See Draft EIR Tables 3.3-16, 3.3-17, and 3.3-18.

Therefore, an AAQA screening analysis was appropriately prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix A of Draft EIR Appendix B Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report. As noted in the Draft EIR, localized emissions of CO would remain significant even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures for both construction and operations.

See Response to GSEJA-7 for further justification for the methodology used for the HRA. 1840
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-203
No further response is needed.

Comment LIUNA-15
The comment restates the summary of its general position is that the Draft EIR fails to comply with CEQA.

Response to LIUNA-15
The comment is noted for the record. Please see Response to LIUNA-1. No further response is necessary.

Comment LIUNA 16
The commenter notes his qualifications and credentials as a Biologist. The commenter then makes the general statement that the existing environmental settings within the Draft EIR are deficient and that the impacts analysis is incomplete and inaccurate.

Response to LIUNA-16
These comments are noted. They are general in nature and do not include any specific evidence to support the allegations that the analysis is incomplete or inaccurate. Based on the information presented above (see Responses LIUNA-6 through LIUNA-12), the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

Comment LIUNA-17
The commenter describes the environmental conditions and lists species observed during his two site visits. The commenter included photos that were purportedly taken during the “site visits” and a species table that asserts to be predictive of the potential species present within the project site.

Response to LIUNA-17
The commenter indicates that they were on-site and the photographs included in this comment were clearly taken from within the site. Neither the commenter nor any individual from LIUNA were granted permission to access the private project site.

Regarding the commenter’s wildlife observations during their unpermitted access none of commenter’s observations, if accurate, would result in revisions to the conclusions in the Draft EIR, which remain accurate for the reasons set forth therein and in these Responses to Comments. No further response is required.

The commenter describes the presence of 12 special-status species supposedly observed on-site during purported “site visits.” The Lead Agency takes no position as to the accuracy of the purported species observed during the unauthorized and unpermitted access. Additionally, Photo 6 is from 2022 from an unidentified site; this photo could have come from any site in the central valley, and there is no evidence provided to indicate the photo was taken on the project site.

Regarding the potential for each of the referenced species to occur on-site, see Appendix B of the BRA, which details the habitats, occurrences, and potential for each of the special-status species identified to be present within the site. The table details why the anticipated potential for each of 1841
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-204
these species to occur on-site were either addressed further in the BRA or was “None.” Additionally, all surveys were conducted based on industry standards and were not commented on in CDFW’s review. CDFW is the acting Trustee and/or Responsible Agency to provide biological expertise to review and comment on CEQA environmental review.

Moreover, even assuming the accuracy of the commenter’s observations, the protection of these species is covered under MM BIO-1d with species-specific mitigation; also, there is additional species-specific mitigation for Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl described under MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1c. The commenter’s reported observations are consistent with the results disclosed in the Draft EIR and do not trigger any changes to the analysis to ensure adequate disclosure and mitigation. The commenter’s suggestion that predictive modeling is necessary for an adequate analysis under CEQA is not accurate; the method of predictions set forth in the comment letter reflects speculation and is not a recognized method pursuant to industry standards for identifying potential species on a site for CEQA purposes. CEQA does not require speculation in describing the relevant environmental setting.

The commenter also alleges that a year of surveys would be needed to accurately report the number of species on the project site. However, as discussed above in Response to LIUNA-8, such an expansive approach to surveying is not required by CEQA and is not consistent with standard industry practices; instead, the methodology utilized in the Draft EIR for characterizing the existing environmental setting, including the methodology utilized in conducting the reconnaissance-level surveys, is appropriate. The methodologies utilized in the Draft EIR, including conducting the surveys, are robust by taking into account numerous types of information, data, and expertise and is based on industry-established standards.

The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA. Therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

Comment LIUNA-18
The commenter first generally summarizes requirements under CEQA in terms of the scope of information necessary to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting (including the relevant regional setting), which is then used as the basis for opining as to the potential impacts of the project being considered. The commenter then asserts that the Draft EIR’s analysis, and the related steps taken, were “incomplete and misleading.”
Response to LIUNA-18
As an example of the Draft EIR’s inadequacy, the commenter points to the description and conclusions set forth int the BRA regarding a valley oak (that has a substantial portion of its canopy overhanging the project site). The commenter disagrees with the conclusion there are no roots south of Modoc Ditch. To the extent this statement is general in nature and does not raises any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. 1842
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-205
Regarding its specific comment about the valley oak, the commenter’s assertion about the nature and scope of the root zone for the above-referenced valley oak is speculative. As a preliminary matter, the Draft EIR and related BRA identify the valley oak, although rooted on adjacent property, as having a substantial portion of its canopy overhanging onto the project site, and characterize it a sensitive biological resource due to its local rarity, the locally unique ecosystem services it provides (including shading, nesting, and roosting and foraging opportunities, nutrient cycling, and others), and its status as a protected tree under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Specifically with respect to the root zone, the relevant conclusions set forth in Appendix C, Biological Resources Supporting Information, to the Draft EIR are as follows: the roots of the on-site valley oak “are on the north side of the ditch away from construction and would avoid impacts as a result.” Furthermore, compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those set forth in the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24, Article 4 Oak Tree Preservation), which prevents any encroachment into the canopy dripline of the oak trees during construction, regardless of root location, would ensure impacts to the oak tree in question (which is a “protected” tree under the Ordinance) are less than significant.

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

Comment LIUNA 19
The commenter first generally summarizes requirements under CEQA in terms of the scope of information necessary to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, which is then used as the basis for opining as to the potential impacts of the project being considered. The commenter again asserts the timing of the survey was not proper and thus resulted in inaccurate survey results. Finally, it states that it is unclear how “general site conditions” were assessed and how potential suitable habitats for species were identified. The commenter also argues that no gradient of habitat suitability is described, nor is there any evidence of a check-off sheet between known habitat associations and what the Biologist saw on the project site. The commenter also attacks the methodology used for performing biological reconnaissance surveys.

Response to LIUNA-19
To the extent LIUNA-19 is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. See Response to LIUNA-8, above, regarding survey timing and scope. With respect to the commenter’s suggestion that habitat associations or ideally measured intensities of use should have been used, please refer to Response to LIUNA-17, which details how Appendix B of the BRA addresses habitats, occurrences, and potential for each of the special-status species identified to be present within the site, essentially offering a check-off sheet between known habitat associations and what the Biologist saw on-site.

The table details why the anticipated potential for each of these species to occur on-site was either addressed further in the BRA or was “None” based on a lack of suitable habitat. 1843
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-206
As noted in Response to LIUNA-8 above contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the BRA describes how “general site conditions” as well as the basis for determining the suitability of the habitat for specific species were assessed.

The baseline for assessing general site conditions and potential suitable habitat for species on-site is built on established industry standards and implemented pursuant to accepted protocols by qualified Biologists with significant expertise in this arena. As explained in the Draft EIR, the analysis is based on, in part, a robust review of relevant literature and databases as well as a site-specific biological reconnaissance survey performed on July 5, 2022, and a subsequent site-specific, comprehensive BRA (included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR). The commenter suggests that the survey did not accurately detail the species on-site. However, as specifically noted in the BRA, the objective of the survey was not to exhaustively search for every potential species that could occur within the project site. (See Appendix C, Biological Resources Supporting Information, p. 16.) Instead, consistent with industry standard practice, the survey was performed consistent with established protocols to ascertain general site conditions and confirm likelihood of presence based on the nature of existing conditions, supplemented by the literature review, database searches, and expertise of the qualified Biologist in terms of habitat features that are required for specific species, none of which are dependent on time of day or month. As such, the Draft EIR properly describes the environmental setting for purposes of CEQA, and the commenter’s criticisms regarding the timing of and/or approach used in the survey do not raise relevant issues regarding the general site conditions. The information and evaluation in Appendix C to the Draft EIR provide a scientifically sound basis for establishing existing conditions necessary for an adequate analysis of potential species impacted. Consistent with industry standards and based on a thoughtful review of relevant literature and databases, as well as the experience and knowledge of an expert Biologist, habitat was assessed based on a combination of literature review, aerial photographs, soil surveys, and a site visit. Additionally, the Special-status Species Evaluation Tables, located in Appendix C.2 of the Draft EIR, documents in detail special-status species recorded within the Goshen, California USGS 7.5- minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles by the CNDDB and CNPSEI. This table depicts these species' required habitats and potential to occur within the project site based on habitat types observed on-site as well as other relevant information, data, and materials, as discussed above. Lastly, the methodology utilized in the Draft EIR for conducting the biological resources analysis, including, without limitation, the performance of the surveys, is appropriate and can be properly relied upon to provide accurate results for the reasons set forth above and therein. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA.

Comment LIUNA 20
The commenter first generally summarizes the purpose of literature and database review when conducting a CEQA analysis and then states its understanding of the scope of the “desktop review” outlined in the BRA and Draft EIR. The commenter then asserts that “no explanation was provided of 1844
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-207
how these data bases were used to determine which species warranted analysis of occurrence likelihoods” and then states that clearly too few (only 12) species were evaluated. The commenter also argues that if [CDFW California Natural Diversity Database] CNDDB and Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database were used as methods to screen out species for analysis of occurrence potential, this was flawed. The commenter then asserts, based on personal analysis, that the project site likely supports multiple special-status species of wildlife, including tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike. The commenter ultimately states that the Draft EIR should be withdrawn from circulation and revised.

Response to LIUNA-20
These comments are noted for the record. The list of special-status species considered in the Draft EIR was determined based on established protocols reflecting standard industry practice for the preparation of an EIR, including a literature search of special-status species with potential to occur in the area along with review and consideration of other relevant documentation, materials, and data, followed by observations by expert Biologists during the July 5, 2022, field survey of the project site.

The literature search included, among other things, a search of the CDFW CNDDB, which is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The CNDDB was only one of several databases utilized and was not solely relied upon in making the determinations set forth in the Draft EIR and related BRA in terms of determining potential presence. The CNDDB search queried all special-status species recorded in the Goshen, California USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles. Seventeen plant and 15 wildlife (not 12, as the commenter states) special-status species were evaluated within the Draft EIR and related BRA. The evaluation included the species’ status, required habitat types and features, and potential to occur within the project site, as well as supporting analysis and rationale. Based on the field survey and background research, several special-status wildlife species, including Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger, were determined to have the potential to occur within the project site, and thus significant impacts could result with implementation of the proposed project, thereby triggering required mitigation, as described more fully therein. With respect to specialstatus plant species, as detailed in the BRA, none of the special-status plant species were determined to have potential to occur on-site, primarily due to the absence of suitable habitat, past and current land use, and the extent and frequency of ground disturbance.

No special-status birds were observed during the site visit. In addition, it is worth noting that the field survey conducted by the project’s consultant as a part of the Draft EIR and the commenter’s unauthorized site visit took place during different times of the year, February and April respectively.

It is possible that the species observed on-site may be different during these months due to migration patterns, differences in wildlife species life history, weather conditions and the availability of food resources. Consequently, general biological surveys in support of CEQA tend to focus on wildlife habitat to assess potential for species to occur while noting observed species during site visit(s) to further support the conclusions set forth in the analysis. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every recommended test and perform multiple research efforts to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project. The fact that additional biological studies might be helpful does not mean that they are required.” Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Cty. of Madera, (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1396, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 718. Consequently, CEQA does not contain a blanket requirement that agencies conduct multiple biological surveys. An appropriate biological survey was conducted at the 1845
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-208
project site. Given that special-status wildlife reported from the region that may be resident on the subject property the survey methodology was sufficient to detect all such special-status species that may occur. Given the mobility of birds, particularly special-status raptor species, aerial surveys have limited utility to judge site characteristics.

Based on the expertise of Biologist conducting the survey and other relevant information, documentation, data, and materials, the City, as Lead Agency, has elected to rely upon its experts’ conclusions and analysis, supported by substantial evidence, and therefore does not agree that tricolored blackbird or loggerhead shrike (or other species noted by the commenter) are likely to occur on the project site. As Lead Agency, the City has discretion to choose among differing expert opinions. (CEQA Guidelines § 15151). Table 2 of the BRA, included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR, explains that these (and other) species do not have the potential to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat. Recent occurrences of these species may have been identified by the commenter; however, this does not dictate a likelihood to occur on-site if suitable habitat is absent. For example, the tricolored blackbird prefers farm fields, pastures, and cattle pens, all of which the project site lacks.

Additionally, loggerhead shrike prefers to build nests on stable branches in dense shrubs or trees, usually well-concealed. The project site, which is heavily disturbed, does not contain the habitat types to support either species.

Moreover, it is noted that CDFW (who acts as a Trustee and/or Responsible Agency and provides biological expertise to review and comment on CEQA environmental review), did not require mitigation measures for tricolored blackbird or loggerhead shrike or otherwise criticize the Draft EIR for not identifying these (or other) species as being significantly impacted by the project.

The commenter indicates that he observed several birds recognized as federal Bird Species of Conservation Concern (BCC) during his two site visits that were previously not recorded or observed during biological assessment of the project site. A majority of these species are not listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or as a California Species of Special Concern (SCC) recognized by CDFW or otherwise considered as special-status species that would trigger review under CEQA. As a result, the commenter’s reported observations, even if accurate, would not change the Draft EIR’s analysis of and/or conclusions regarding impacts of the proposed project to specialstatus wildlife. Furthermore, the Draft EIR discloses potential impacts to protected bird species under Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and identifies feasible mitigation to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level, as set forth in MM BIO-1e.

The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA and therefore does not trigger recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No further analysis or revisions are required.

Section 3.4.4 of the Biological Resources Section of the Draft EIR describes the methodology utilized to conduct this analysis, which went well beyond simply relying on the CNDDB. Instead, the methodology used included review of relevant existing documentation with respect to literature 1846
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-209
review, topographical maps and aerial photographs, soil surveys, and a comprehensive database search that included, among others, the CNDDB; in addition, a reconnaisance-level site survey was conducted by a qualified Biologist. Specifically with respect to the databases considered, the qualified Biologist searched the CDFW CNDDB, the USFWS IPaC database, and the CNPSEI of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database for the Goshen, California USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles. The CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5) database was used to determine the distance between known recorded occurrences of special-status species and the project site.

Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s analysis is consistent with the comment; i.e., it does not rely only on the CNDDB but rather considered multiple sources of information, materials, site review, and databases to determine the potential for special-status species to be present on-site and potentially impacted by the proposed project. Furthermore, the Draft EIR accounts for pre-construction surveys for multiple special-status species, nesting birds, and roosting bats through MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f. The Lead Agency is of the opinion that this Draft EIR and the public review process has sufficiently complied with State CEQA Guidelines. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA.

See also Response to LIUNA-6 through LUINA-8.

Comment LIUNA-21
The commenter first generally summarizes the purpose of a biological impacts assessment and then states that the accuracy of the analysis depends on the accuracy of the characterization of the environmental setting. It then asserts generally that the Draft EIR’s environmental setting is inaccurate and that several potential impacts have been inadequately analyzed. These impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality.

In terms of specific comments, the commenter argues that the permanent loss of “productive capacity” of the project site would be “very substantial and highly significant” and notes that it is not analyzed or mitigated for in the Draft EIR. The commenter also discusses the potential for habitat loss based on the commenter’s review of non-related projects.

Response to LIUNA-21
These comments are noted. To the extent this comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. The commenter does not describe why review of other non-related sites is relevant and instead makes a generalized statement regarding the impacts associated with urban development. This generalized comment does not warrant a specific response under CEQA; see also Responses to LIUNA-6, LIUNA9, LIUNA-12, LIUNA-15, and LIUNA-20, regarding habitat loss concerns.

The commenter does not define what is meant by the protection of “productive capacity.” To the extent it is meant to reference the future number of species that could potentially be birthed on the site, this is not a threshold or topic area under CEQA and is therefore not a necessary component that will be addressed in this response.
1847
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-210
Moreover, as discussed in detail in the Draft EIR and related BRA, the habitats present on-site are not considered sensitive because, among other reasons, they have been significantly altered from their natural state to support an actively managed almond orchard.

Regarding purported habitat loss due to the project, the key State resource agency, CDFW, has commented on the Draft EIR regarding the proposed project. Except for minor species-specific revisions proposed to specific mitigation measures, CDFW did not set forth any concerns regarding the Draft EIR’s description of the environmental setting and/or its impact analysis. Additionally, the commenter’s formula for quantifying habitat loss is not recognized by industry professionals as a proper methodology for assessing habitat loss under CEQA and is based on speculation, which is not cognizable under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15145; 15384). Instead, the Draft EIR reflects feasible and appropriate measures specific to migratory and nesting birds and roosting bats that are consistent with standard industry practice, which would become binding mitigation measures via enforceable conditions of approval (see MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1c, MM BIO-1e, and MM BIO-1f).

Comment LIUNA-22
The commenter again states that the Draft EIR’s less than significant determination regarding potential impacts on wildlife movement is not accurate because it is conclusory and not based on any evidence and since it relies on the conclusion that the project site does act as a wildlife movement corridor. In so doing, the commenter asserts that the Draft EIR fails to recognize that the project would interfere with wildlife movement, even if it is not a corridor, because it is a “stopover” and “staging” site” during migration, dispersal and home range patrol.

Response to LIUNA-22
See Response to LIUNA-10.

Comment LIUNA-23
The commenter reiterates a generalized comment regarding how vehicle collisions throughout North America have taken “devastating tolls” on wildlife and also makes a general comment regarding how the project-related traffic (including on roads far from the project footprint) would endanger wildlife.

The commenter then includes several photographs of wildlife on roadways throughout California over a span of numerous years that apparently have collided with vehicles. It then details findings from a study conducted in another county, at great distance from the project site, and states that this information has predictive value as to how many collision fatalities can be assumed to occur based on VMT. The commenter then applies this assumption to “predict” the number of wildlife fatalities due to vehicle collisions that would result from the proposed project, characterizing these numbers as “very substantial and highly significant.” Based on this assessment, the commenter argues that compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be 1848
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-211
caused by the proposed project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region and mitigation that “improve[s] wildlife safety along roads” is suggested.

Response to LIUNA-23
See Response to LIUNA-11.

Comment LIUNA 24
The commenter reasserts that the cumulative impact analysis is inadequate for the following reasons:
(1) because of the inaccurate characterization of the environmental setting in terms of assumptions about lack of presence of numerous species; (2) based on the Draft EIR’s failure to accurately describe the project site as important for wildlife movement; and
(3) its reliance on cumulative projects’ compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies to ensure cumulative impacts are less than significant. Then, the commenter cites the project-specific mitigation measures as the basis for a less than significant conclusion, which the commenter characterizes as relying solely on pre-construction surveys that the commenter views as inadequate.

Response to LIUNA-24
These comments are noted for the record. See Response to LIUNA-6 regarding the Draft EIR’s scope and adequacy of its cumulative analysis. First, the Draft EIR does not state that special-status species of wildlife do not occur at the project site or on other cumulative development sites. Rather, the Draft EIR states within Section 3.3, Biological Resources, Section 3.4 Cumulative Impacts portion that “No special-status species are expected to successfully establish at the project site long term,” and describes the basis for this conclusion. In addition, the Draft EIR states that “there is a low likelihood of special-status wildlife or plants, wildlife nursery sites, or protected trees occurring within these urban cumulative project areas due to past ground disturbance and planned for development.” To address why the proposed project would not significantly impact wildlife movement, please refer to Response to LIUNA-11. To address the sufficiency of the listed pre-construction surveys and the lack of need to respond to lost production capacity, please refer to Response to LIUNA-11. No further response is required.

Comment LIUNA 25
The commenter asserts that “most of the mitigation plan” consists of pre-construction surveys. He then asserts that protocol-level detection surveys are needed for pre-construction surveys to be efficient in terms of avoiding and mitigating impacts to species. He also argues against the validity of MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-3 as effective mitigation measures based on a characterization of them relying solely on pre-construction surveys.

The commenter also refers to the 36,100 trees present on-site. 1849
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-212
Response to LIUNA-25
These comments are noted for the record. As a preliminary matter, the commenter’s statement about the number of trees on-site is grossly inaccurate. Furthermore, the commenter’s focus on identifying “nest density” and reference to time spent on other non-relevant studies are not issue(s) cognizable under CEQA or otherwise necessary for an adequate analysis of impacts to biological resources.

The commenter’s assertion that MM BIO-1e is subjective and unenforceable is not accurate; rather, this mitigation measure would be imposed on the proposed project as an enforceable condition of approval through adoption of the MMRP.

With respect to potential impacts to jurisdictional features, the Draft EIR and related BRA fully consider this environmental topic area, identify a potentially significant impact, and then set forth recommended mitigation. MM BIO-3, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, does not merely reflect “an administrative step to obtain take authorization” but rather sets forth a specific requirement based on adherence to detailed criteria governed by applicable resource agencies under a robust regulatory framework. Moreover, as recognized in the Draft EIR and discussed further below, “legal authority to determine whether these features are jurisdictional and thus regulated lies with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW.” This measure properly reflects and respects the governing regulatory framework and properly contemplates implementation to occur once the City, as Lead Agency under CEQA and the local land use agency, considers and takes action on the proposed project, not beforehand as the commenter asserts.

This commenter asserts there are 36,100 trees present on-site. This presumably refers to the actively managed almond orchard present on-site and argues that mitigation and surveying of these trees would not be achievable in 7 days. However, this underestimates the manpower allocated to the subsequent survey efforts and assumes the number of hours needed to survey the site. The commenter’s argument is based on assumptions and does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. 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.

Also, please see Responses to LUINA-9, LIUNA-11, and LIUNA-21, above. No further response is required.

Comment LIUNA 26
The commenter reiterates his prior recommendations regarding changes and/or additions to project mitigation. Specifically, the commenter recommends the addition of requirements to (1) conduct protocol-level detection surveys, (2) provide compensatory mitigation for habitat loss, (3) provide compensatory mitigation for the increased wildlife mortality and road traffic, and (4) provide compensatory mitigation that includes funding contributions to wildlife habitation facilities to cover the cost of injured animals due to automobile collisions. 1850
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-213
Response to LIUNA-26
These comments are noted for the record. For the reasons set forth herein, the commenter’s suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA, and the Lead Agency has determined to rely upon its biological resource experts in terms of the methodology and conclusions set forth in the Draft EIR and related BRA. Please also refer to Responses to LIUNA-9, LIUNA-10, LIUNA-11, LIUNA-12, LIUNA15, and LIUNA-21). 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 LIUNA-27
The commenter provides a CV for Kenneth Shawn Smallwood, an ecologist, who prepared a peer review of the BRA of the Draft EIR and sets forth comments to the Draft EIR.

Response to LIUNA-27
The comment is noted for the record. Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

Comment LIUNA-28
The commenter (SWAPE) offers a brief introduction to the claims, a brief description of the proposed project, and a general summary of the issues raised, wherein the commenter asserts that based on their review of the Draft EIR, it fails to adequately evaluate air quality, health risks, and GHG impacts.

The commenter then states that a revised EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the foregoing impacts.

Response to LIUNA-28
It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required.

Comment LIUNA-29
The commenter first provides a summary of the project’s air emission impacts as stated in the Draft EIR. The commenter then asserts purported legal principles under CEQA and claims the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the impacts remain significant and unavoidable is incorrect. Thus, the commenter alleges that the Draft EIR has failed to discuss or implement all available feasible mitigation measures for reducing the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and that this also results in a failure by the City to make a good faith effort at full disclosure. To support its contention, the comment references a list of “additional feasible mitigation” that it recommends for adoption.

Response to LIUNA-29
The first part of the comment is a summary of the air emission analysis and does not include any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is necessary.

The second part of the comment refers to the suggested mitigation measures that are thoroughly discussed in Responses to AFTE-3 through AFTE-5, SJVAPCD-9 and LIUNA-4.

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 1851
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-214
the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarification as noted above.

Comment LIUNA-30
The commenter sets forth certain of the Draft EIR’s conclusions with respect to the construction and operational HRA. It then asserts that the Draft EIR’s evaluation of potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less than significant conclusion, is incorrect, and states that the Draft EIR does not provide the HRA’s exposure assumptions for ASF and FAH. It then alleges that the HRA’s reliance on an equation that fails to implement specific exposure assumptions with respect to ASF and FAH prevents the commenter’s consultant from verifying whether the calculation of construction cancer risk is accurate. Until this information is provided, the commenter asserts that the risk may be underestimated.

Response to LIUNA-30
See Responses to LUINA-14 and GSEJA-7.

Comment LIUNA-31
The commenter provides excerpts of the project’s operational GHG emissions from the Draft EIR, as well as statements regarding the project’s consistency with the City’s CAP and identification of feasible mitigation measures. The commenter asserts that MM GHG-2a provides three options, each of which would yield different results in terms of emission reductions. It purports to State legal principles under CEQA and then asserts that the project should demonstrate consistency with the most conservative approach. Similarly, the commenter claims that the proposed project should provide rooftop solar panels in order to be consistent with the City’s CAP.

Response to LIUNA-31
As discussed in Responses to LIUNA-13 and LIUNA-14, the proposed project would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 140.10 per modified MM GHG2(a), which requires the installation of a solar photovoltaic system for all proposed land uses such as warehouses, self storage facility, drive-through restaurants, and convenience store, 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. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent’s the CAP policy which encourages the installation of solar PV systems. The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact after implementation of MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b. The revisions to MM GHG-2a only further strengthen this conclusion, which remains accurate. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.

See also Responses to AFTE-3 through AFTE-5.

Comment LIUNA-32
The commenter reasserts claims made in LIUNA-4 related to potentially significant air quality impacts from ROG, NOX and PM10. The commenter reiterated that the Draft EIR did not implement all feasible mitigation measures, as well. The comment raises a number of other issues with these measures.
1852
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-215
Response to LIUNA-32
See Responses to AFTE-3 through AFTE-5 and LIUNA-4.

To the extent the commenter identified other issues beyond those listed in LIUNA-4, the comments are addressed below.
• “Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities.” The scope and underlying obligations of the suggested measure is unclear given its general language; therefore, as an initial matter, it is noted that “minimizing unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities” is too vague to be defined or quantified for determining what, if any, reduction such a measure would have and also too vague for purposes of ensuring adequate enforcement. Therefore, the suggested measure would not be an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA. It is worth noting that the proposed project’s off- and on-road diesel vehicles would be subject to applicable laws and regulations as part of a comprehensive framework that is being implemented across the State to reduce emissions, such as, among others, applicable ARB regulations that prohibit unnecessary idling, which would reduce emissions from the proposed project’s construction and operations-related vehicles. Moreover, MM AIR-2a reinforces this stated regulatory obligation by requiring signage to this effect.
• “Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a ARB-approved fleet. Daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment should also be required.” The commenter does not provide any information or evidence as to how assembling an inventory of proposed project’s construction equipment and their daily usage and a daily logging of operating hours would translate into emissions reductions, and if so, how much of a reduction would occur. It is also unclear what “applicable percent reduction” or “a plan for approval” is being referenced by the comment. As discussed at length in the Draft EIR, the project would be required to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations during construction and operation, including adherence to all Air District rules and regulations, including, without limitation, any permitting requirements. Given these considerations, the suggested measure would not reduce the proposed project’s construction or operational emissions, and it is not an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA. Moreover, for the reasons set forth herein and the Draft EIR, the air quality analysis is adequate for purposes of CEQA. From a mitigation standpoint, for example, implementation of MM AIR-2a would require all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to meet EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards, to the extent such equipment is reasonably commercially available. Therefore, all off-road equipment over 50 horsepower would utilize ARB-approved engines, subject to commercial availability.
• “Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained.” 1853
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-216
Similar to the other suggested measures, this language is general and vague in nature, which (1) makes a determination as to its potential ability to result in quantifiable emissions reductions speculative, and (2) raises enforcement issues that make implementation infeasible. For example, the measure does not contain any methodology or mechanism for enforcement. Based on the foregoing, it is not an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA. • “Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements–saves fuel and reduces emissions.”
As noted above, the proposed project’s off- and on-road diesel vehicles would already be subject to applicable ARB regulations that prohibit unnecessary idling time exceeding five minutes. Moreover, MM AIR-2a reinforces this stated regulatory obligation by requiring signage to this effect. Therefore, the commenter’s suggested measure would already be imposed upon the project, and thus no change is warranted.
• “Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD ‘SOON’ funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available, low-emission heavy-duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOX emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles.”
The proposed project is not located within the South Coast Air Basin, and thus the suggested measure would not be applicable. No change is warranted.

As demonstrated above, the proposed project would implement all feasible suggested measures. For the reasons set forth herein and in the Draft EIR (including appendices attached thereto), the City disagrees with the commenter’s assertions that the suggested mitigation measures (1) would reduce construction and operational emissions; and (2) are a “cost effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features.”
To the contrary, the Draft EIR contains a robust analysis that reflects a good faith effort at full disclosure. The Draft EIR consistently utilizes conservative assumptions, methodologies and conclusions in conducting its air quality, energy and GHG analyses. For example, the Draft EIR considered both concurrent and sequential phasing scenarios (even though the likelihood of concurrent phasing is relatively low given the size and nature of the project). It also identified a range of thoughtful, feasible mitigation to ensure impacts were reduced to the extent feasible but then disclosed that, in the absence of certainty that the identified mitigation can be feasibly mitigated such that project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to NOX during construction and ROG, NOX, PM10 during operation of the proposed project.

The measures suggested by the commenter are, for the most part, general in nature, thereby making it difficult if not entirely speculative to confirm whether quantificable emission reductions would occur. Such general and vague language also make implementation and enforcement infeasible.

Finally, because the Draft EIR reflects a reasoned analysis that thoughtfully discloses the project’s air quality, energy and GHG impacts and identifies mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to 1854
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-217
the extent feasible, the Draft EIR is sufficient under the law, no changes are warranted, and recirculation is not triggered. 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.See also Responses to AFTE-3 through AFTE-5, SJVAPCD- through SJVAPCD-9 and Response to LIUNA-4, above.

Comment LIUNA-33
The commenter provides a disclaimer regarding the right to revise or amend this SWAPE report if additional information regarding the proposed project becomes available. The comment also states that the SWAPE report may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information provided by third parties.

Response to LIUNA-33
The comment is noted for the record. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required.

Comment LIUNA 34
The comment provides a CV for Matthew F. Hagemann and Paul Rosenfeld, a Principal Environmental Chemist, who prepared a review letter of the air quality analysis of the Draft EIR.

Response to LIUNA-34
The comment is noted. No specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA are raised, and therefore no further response is required.
1855

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1856
LOCAL1109

Page 1 of 278 ends

1 1857
LOCAL1109

Page 2 of 278 ends

1 CONT
1858
LOCAL1109

Page 3 of 278 ends

1 CONT
2 1859
LOCAL1109

Page 4 of 278 ends

2 CONT
1860
LOCAL1109

Page 5 of 278 ends

2 CONT
3 1861
LOCAL1109

Page 6 of 278 ends

3 CONT
1862
LOCAL1109

Page 7 of 278 ends

3 CONT
1863
LOCAL1109

Page 8 of 278 ends

3 CONT
1864
LOCAL1109

Page 9 of 278 ends

3 CONT
1865
LOCAL1109

Page 10 of 278 ends

3 CONT
4 1866
LOCAL1109

Page 11 of 278 ends

4 CONT
1867
LOCAL1109

Page 12 of 278 ends

4 CONT
5 1868
LOCAL1109

Page 13 of 278 ends

5 CONT
6 1869
LOCAL1109

Page 14 of 278 ends

6 CONT
7 1870
LOCAL1109

Page 15 of 278 ends

7 CONT
1871
LOCAL1109

Page 16 of 278 ends

7 CONT
8 9
1872
LOCAL1109

Page 17 of 278 ends

9 CONT
1873
LOCAL1109

Page 18 of 278 ends

9 CONT
10 1874
LOCAL1109

Page 19 of 278 ends

1875
LOCAL1109

Page 20 of 278 ends

11 1876
LOCAL1109

Page 21 of 278 ends

11 CONT
1877
LOCAL1109

Page 22 of 278 ends

11 CONT
1878
LOCAL1109

Page 23 of 278 ends

11 CONT
1879
LOCAL1109

Page 24 of 278 ends

12 1880
LOCAL1109

Page 25 of 278 ends

13 1881
LOCAL1109

Page 26 of 278 ends

13 CONT
1882
LOCAL1109

Page 27 of 278 ends

13 CONT
1883
LOCAL1109

Page 28 of 278 ends

13 CONT
1884
LOCAL1109 Page 29 of 278 13 CONT
1885
LOCAL1109 Page 30 of 278 13 CONT
1886
LOCAL1109 Page 31 of 278 13 CONT
1887
LOCAL1109 Page 32 of 278 13 CONT
1888
LOCAL1109 Page 33 of 278 13 CONT
1889
LOCAL1109 Page 34 of 278 13 CONT
1890
LOCAL1109 Page 35 of 278 13 CONT
1891
LOCAL1109 Page 36 of 278 13 CONT
1892
LOCAL1109 Page 37 of 278 13 CONT
1893
LOCAL1109 Page 38 of 278 13 CONT
1894
LOCAL1109 Page 39 of 278 13 CONT
1895
LOCAL1109 Page 40 of 278 13 CONT
1896
LOCAL1109 Page 41 of 278 13 CONT
1897
LOCAL1109 Page 42 of 278 13 CONT
1898
LOCAL1109 Page 43 of 278 13 CONT
1899
LOCAL1109 Page 44 of 278 13 CONT
1900
LOCAL1109 Page 45 of 278 13 CONT
1901
LOCAL1109 Page 46 of 278 13 CONT
1902
LOCAL1109 Page 47 of 278 13 CONT
1903
LOCAL1109 Page 48 of 278 13 CONT
1904
LOCAL1109 Page 49 of 278 13 CONT
1905
LOCAL1109 Page 50 of 278 13 CONT
1906
LOCAL1109 Page 51 of 278 13 CONT
1907
LOCAL1109 Page 52 of 278 13 CONT
1908
LOCAL1109 Page 53 of 278 13 CONT
1909
LOCAL1109 Page 54 of 278 13 CONT
1910
LOCAL1109 Page 55 of 278 13 CONT
1911
LOCAL1109 Page 56 of 278 13 CONT
1912
LOCAL1109 Page 57 of 278 13 CONT
1913
LOCAL1109 Page 58 of 278 13 CONT
1914
LOCAL1109 Page 59 of 278 13 CONT
1915
LOCAL1109 Page 60 of 278 13 CONT
1916
LOCAL1109 Page 61 of 278 13 CONT
1917
LOCAL1109 Page 62 of 278 13 CONT
1918
LOCAL1109 Page 63 of 278 13 CONT
1919
LOCAL1109 Page 64 of 278 13 CONT
1920
LOCAL1109 Page 65 of 278 13 CONT
1921
LOCAL1109 Page 66 of 278 13 CONT
1922
LOCAL1109 Page 67 of 278 13 CONT
1923
LOCAL1109 Page 68 of 278 13 CONT
1924
LOCAL1109 Page 69 of 278 13 CONT
1925
LOCAL1109 Page 70 of 278 13 CONT
1926
LOCAL1109 Page 71 of 278 13 CONT
1927
LOCAL1109 Page 72 of 278 13 CONT
1928
LOCAL1109 Page 73 of 278 13 CONT
1929
LOCAL1109 Page 74 of 278 13 CONT
1930
LOCAL1109 Page 75 of 278 13 CONT
1931
LOCAL1109 Page 76 of 278 13 CONT
1932
LOCAL1109 Page 77 of 278 13 CONT
1933
LOCAL1109 Page 78 of 278 13 CONT
1934
LOCAL1109 Page 79 of 278 13 CONT
1935
LOCAL1109 Page 80 of 278 13 CONT
1936
LOCAL1109 Page 81 of 278 13 CONT
1937
LOCAL1109 Page 82 of 278 13 CONT
1938
LOCAL1109 Page 83 of 278 13 CONT
1939
LOCAL1109 Page 84 of 278 13 CONT
1940
LOCAL1109 Page 85 of 278 13 CONT
1941
LOCAL1109 Page 86 of 278 13 CONT
1942
LOCAL1109 Page 87 of 278 13 CONT
1943
LOCAL1109 Page 88 of 278 13 CONT
1944
LOCAL1109 Page 89 of 278 13 CONT
1945
LOCAL1109 Page 90 of 278 13 CONT
1946
LOCAL1109 Page 91 of 278 13 CONT
1947
LOCAL1109 Page 92 of 278 13 CONT
1948
LOCAL1109 Page 93 of 278 13 CONT
1949
LOCAL1109 Page 94 of 278 13 CONT
1950
LOCAL1109 Page 95 of 278 13 CONT
1951
LOCAL1109 Page 96 of 278 13 CONT
1952
LOCAL1109 Page 97 of 278 13 CONT
1953
LOCAL1109 Page 98 of 278 13 CONT
1954
LOCAL1109 Page 99 of 278 13 CONT
1955
LOCAL1109 Page 100 of 278 13 CONT
1956
LOCAL1109 Page 101 of 278 13 CONT
1957
LOCAL1109 Page 102 of 278 13 CONT
1958
LOCAL1109 Page 103 of 278 13 CONT
1959
LOCAL1109 Page 104 of 278 13 CONT 13 CONT
1960
LOCAL1109 Page 105 of 278 13 CONT
1961
LOCAL1109 Page 106 of 278 13 CONT
1962
LOCAL1109 Page 107 of 278 13 CONT
1963
LOCAL1109 Page 108 of 278 13 CONT
1964
LOCAL1109 Page 109 of 278 13 CONT
1965
LOCAL1109 Page 110 of 278 13 CONT
1966
LOCAL1109 Page 111 of 278 13 CONT
1967
LOCAL1109 Page 112 of 278 13 CONT
1968
LOCAL1109 Page 113 of 278 13 CONT
1969
LOCAL1109 Page 114 of 278 13 CONT
1970
LOCAL1109 Page 115 of 278 13 CONT
1971
LOCAL1109 Page 116 of 278 13 CONT
1972
LOCAL1109 Page 117 of 278 13 CONT
1973
LOCAL1109 Page 118 of 278 13 CONT
1974
LOCAL1109 Page 119 of 278 13 CONT
1975
LOCAL1109 Page 120 of 278 13 CONT
1976
LOCAL1109 Page 121 of 278 13 CONT
1977
LOCAL1109 Page 122 of 278 13 CONT
1978
LOCAL1109 Page 123 of 278 13 CONT
1979
LOCAL1109 Page 124 of 278 13 CONT
1980
LOCAL1109 Page 125 of 278 13 CONT
1981
LOCAL1109 Page 126 of 278 13 CONT
1982
LOCAL1109 Page 127 of 278 13 CONT
1983
LOCAL1109 Page 128 of 278 13 CONT
1984
LOCAL1109 Page 129 of 278 13 CONT
1985
LOCAL1109 Page 130 of 278 13 CONT
1986
LOCAL1109 Page 131 of 278 13 CONT
1987
LOCAL1109 Page 132 of 278 13 CONT
1988
LOCAL1109 Page 133 of 278 13 CONT
1989
LOCAL1109 Page 134 of 278 13 CONT
1990
LOCAL1109 Page 135 of 278 13 CONT
1991
LOCAL1109 Page 136 of 278 13 CONT
1992
LOCAL1109 Page 137 of 278 13 CONT
1993
LOCAL1109 Page 138 of 278 13 CONT
1994
LOCAL1109 Page 139 of 278 13 CONT
1995
LOCAL1109 Page 140 of 278 13 CONT
1996
LOCAL1109 Page 141 of 278 13 CONT
1997
LOCAL1109 Page 142 of 278 13 CONT
1998
LOCAL1109 Page 143 of 278 13 CONT
1999
LOCAL1109 Page 144 of 278 13 CONT
2000
LOCAL1109 Page 145 of 278 13 CONT
2001
LOCAL1109 Page 146 of 278 13 CONT
2002
LOCAL1109 Page 147 of 278 13 CONT
2003
LOCAL1109 Page 148 of 278 13 CONT
2004
LOCAL1109 Page 149 of 278 13 CONT
2005
LOCAL1109 Page 150 of 278 13 CONT
2006
LOCAL1109 Page 151 of 278 13 CONT
2007
LOCAL1109 Page 152 of 278 13 CONT
2008
LOCAL1109 Page 153 of 278 13 CONT
2009
LOCAL1109 Page 154 of 278 13 CONT
2010
LOCAL1109 Page 155 of 278 13 CONT
2011
LOCAL1109 Page 156 of 278 13 CONT
2012
LOCAL1109 Page 157 of 278 13 CONT
2013
LOCAL1109 Page 158 of 278 13 CONT
2014
LOCAL1109 Page 159 of 278 13 CONT
2015
LOCAL1109 Page 160 of 278 13 CONT
2016
LOCAL1109 Page 161 of 278 13 CONT
2017
LOCAL1109 Page 162 of 278 13 CONT
2018
LOCAL1109 Page 163 of 278 13 CONT
2019
LOCAL1109 Page 164 of 278 13 CONT
2020
LOCAL1109 Page 165 of 278 13 CONT
2021
LOCAL1109 Page 166 of 278 13 CONT
2022
LOCAL1109 Page 167 of 278 13 CONT
2023
LOCAL1109 Page 168 of 278 13 CONT
2024
LOCAL1109 Page 169 of 278 13 CONT
2025
LOCAL1109 Page 170 of 278 13 CONT
2026
LOCAL1109 Page 171 of 278 13 CONT
2027
LOCAL1109 Page 172 of 278 13 CONT
2028
LOCAL1109 Page 173 of 278 13 CONT
2029
LOCAL1109 Page 174 of 278 13 CONT
2030
LOCAL1109 Page 175 of 278 13 CONT
2031
LOCAL1109 Page 176 of 278 13 CONT
2032
LOCAL1109 Page 177 of 278 13 CONT
2033
LOCAL1109 Page 178 of 278 13 CONT
2034
LOCAL1109 Page 179 of 278 13 CONT
2035
LOCAL1109 Page 180 of 278 13 CONT
2036
LOCAL1109 Page 181 of 278 13 CONT
2037
LOCAL1109 Page 182 of 278 13 CONT
2038
LOCAL1109 Page 183 of 278 13 CONT
2039
LOCAL1109 Page 184 of 278 13 CONT
2040
LOCAL1109 Page 185 of 278 13 CONT
2041
LOCAL1109 Page 186 of 278 13 CONT 13 CONT
2042
LOCAL1109 Page 187 of 278 13 CONT
2043
LOCAL1109 Page 188 of 278 13 CONT
2044
LOCAL1109 Page 189 of 278 13 CONT
2045
LOCAL1109 Page 190 of 278 13 CONT
2046
LOCAL1109 Page 191 of 278 13 CONT
2047
LOCAL1109 Page 192 of 278 13 CONT
2048
LOCAL1109 Page 193 of 278 13 CONT
2049
LOCAL1109 Page 194 of 278 13 CONT
2050
LOCAL1109 Page 195 of 278 13 CONT
2051
LOCAL1109 Page 196 of 278 13 CONT
2052
LOCAL1109 Page 197 of 278 13 CONT
2053
LOCAL1109 Page 198 of 278 13 CONT
2054
LOCAL1109 Page 199 of 278 13 CONT
2055
LOCAL1109 Page 200 of 278 13 CONT
2056
LOCAL1109 Page 201 of 278 13 CONT
2057
LOCAL1109 Page 202 of 278 13 CONT
2058
LOCAL1109 Page 203 of 278 13 CONT
2059
LOCAL1109 Page 204 of 278 13 CONT
2060
LOCAL1109 Page 205 of 278 13 CONT
2061
LOCAL1109 Page 206 of 278 13 CONT
2062
LOCAL1109 Page 207 of 278 13 CONT
2063
LOCAL1109 Page 208 of 278 13 CONT
2064
LOCAL1109 Page 209 of 278 13 CONT
2065
LOCAL1109 Page 210 of 278 13 CONT
2066
LOCAL1109 Page 211 of 278 13 CONT
2067
LOCAL1109 Page 212 of 278 13 CONT
2068
LOCAL1109 Page 213 of 278 13 CONT
2069
LOCAL1109 Page 214 of 278 13 CONT
2070
LOCAL1109 Page 215 of 278 13 CONT
2071
LOCAL1109 Page 216 of 278 13 CONT
2072
LOCAL1109 Page 217 of 278 13 CONT
2073
LOCAL1109 Page 218 of 278 13 CONT
2074
LOCAL1109 Page 219 of 278 13 CONT
2075
LOCAL1109 Page 220 of 278 13 CONT
2076
LOCAL1109 Page 221 of 278 13 CONT
2077
LOCAL1109 Page 222 of 278 13 CONT
2078
LOCAL1109 Page 223 of 278 13 CONT
2079
LOCAL1109 Page 224 of 278 13 CONT
2080
LOCAL1109 Page 225 of 278 13 CONT
2081
LOCAL1109 Page 226 of 278 13 CONT
2082
LOCAL1109 Page 227 of 278 13 CONT
2083
LOCAL1109 Page 228 of 278 13 CONT
2084
LOCAL1109 Page 229 of 278 13 CONT
2085
LOCAL1109 Page 230 of 278 13 CONT
2086
LOCAL1109 Page 231 of 278 13 CONT
2087
LOCAL1109 Page 232 of 278 13 CONT
2088
LOCAL1109 Page 233 of 278 13 CONT
2089
LOCAL1109 Page 234 of 278 13 CONT
2090
LOCAL1109 Page 235 of 278 13 CONT
2091
LOCAL1109 Page 236 of 278 13 CONT
2092
LOCAL1109 Page 237 of 278 13 CONT
2093
LOCAL1109 Page 238 of 278 13 CONT
2094
LOCAL1109 Page 239 of 278 13 CONT
2095
LOCAL1109 Page 240 of 278 13 CONT
2096
LOCAL1109 Page 241 of 278 13 CONT
2097
LOCAL1109 Page 242 of 278 13 CONT
2098
LOCAL1109 Page 243 of 278 13 CONT
2099
LOCAL1109 Page 244 of 278 13 CONT
2100
LOCAL1109 Page 245 of 278 13 CONT
2101
LOCAL1109 Page 246 of 278 13 CONT
2102
LOCAL1109 Page 247 of 278 13 CONT
2103
LOCAL1109 Page 248 of 278 13 CONT
2104
LOCAL1109 Page 249 of 278 13 CONT
2105
LOCAL1109 Page 250 of 278 13 CONT
2106
LOCAL1109 Page 251 of 278 13 CONT
2107
LOCAL1109 Page 252 of 278 13 CONT
2108
LOCAL1109 Page 253 of 278 13 CONT
2109
LOCAL1109 Page 254 of 278 13 CONT
2110
LOCAL1109 Page 255 of 278 13 CONT
2111
LOCAL1109 Page 256 of 278 13 CONT
2112
LOCAL1109

Page 257 of 278 ends

13 CONT
2113
LOCAL1109

Page 258 of 278 ends

2114
LOCAL1109

Page 259 of 278 ends

14 2115
LOCAL1109

Page 260 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2116
LOCAL1109

Page 261 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2117
LOCAL1109

Page 262 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2118
LOCAL1109

Page 263 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2119
LOCAL1109

Page 264 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2120
LOCAL1109

Page 265 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2121
LOCAL1109

Page 266 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2122
LOCAL1109

Page 267 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2123
LOCAL1109

Page 268 of 278 ends

14 CONT
2124
LOCAL1109

Page 269 of 278 ends

2125
LOCAL1109

Page 270 of 278 ends

15 2126
LOCAL1109

Page 271 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2127
LOCAL1109

Page 272 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2128
LOCAL1109

Page 273 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2129
LOCAL1109

Page 274 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2130
LOCAL1109

Page 275 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2131
LOCAL1109

Page 276 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2132
LOCAL1109

Page 277 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2133
LOCAL1109

Page 278 of 278 ends

15 CONT
2134
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-497
Carpenters Union Local 1109 (LOCAL1109)
Comment LOCAL1109-1
The comment includes background information on the commenter as well as the consultants hired to assist in the preparation of the comment letter. It also states the commenter’s general position that the Draft EIR fails to comply with CEQA and summarizes the basis for this assertion and requests the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated to respond to its comments. The comment also notes that it is expressly reserving its right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the project and at any later hearing or proceeding related to the project. In addition, the comment requests that Local 1109 is added to the public distribution list for the proposed project.

Response to LOCAL1109-1
The comment is noted for the record. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required.

Pursuant to its request, the commenter has been added to the public distribution list for the proposed project. With respect to the commenter’s purported reservation of rights, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (PRC § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15088). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (PRC § 21091(d)(1); PRC § 21092.5(c)). Moreover, nothing in the comment would change the procedures that are required under applicable laws and regulations with respect to (1) the preparation and certification of the project’s administrative record, and/or (2) exhaustion mandates; accordingly, the City hereby expressly reserves any and all rights thereunder.

Comment LOCAL1109-2
The commenter states that the City should require the use of a local workforce in order to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The commenter also states that the City should require the proposed project to be built by contractors who participate in a Joint LaborManagement Apprenticeship Program approved by the State based on generalized assertions that local hiring can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce GHG emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. The comment then suggests that local hiring can improve an area’s job-housing balance and reduce air pollutants and VMT. It then cited a law recently adopted by the State legislature that purports to lend further credence to the comment’s position. The comment concludes with the general assertion that the City should consider local workforce policies and requirements based on the foregoing reasons.

Response to LOCAL1109-2
The comment is noted for the record. Hiring decisions and the composition of a project’s workforce is an economic and social issue, not an environmental issue that is appropriately analyzed or mitigated under CEQA. The comment does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact. Therefore, no further response is necessary.

However, project objectives include, among others: maximizing development of the existing underutilized project site and generating increased revenue and economic development for the City in order to support the City’s ongoing City operations; as well as creating employment-generating businesses in the City to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside 2135
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-498
the area for employment and to improve the jobs-to-housing balance. Therefore, the project objectives are aligned generally with the comment’s goals in this regard.

Furthermore, as disclosed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not have a significant impact related to VMT with implementation of identified mitigation; given the nature of the project, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of construction workers and employees would likely come from the City and nearby unincorporated areas of the County. Moreover, the proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2h, MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-9, MM TRANS-10a, MM TRANS-2b, MM TRANS-11, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b to reduce impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation.

Finally, 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, the City has no legal authority to control the hiring practices of future tenants and developers of the project or otherwise impose this type of ad hoc condition, and therefore, imposing the requested local hire requirements would not be legally permissible or feasible.

No further response is required.

Please also see Responses to CDOC-2, GSEJA-24, GSEJA-25, and GSEJA 26.

Comment LOCAL1109-3
The comment purports to provide legal background and various legal principles regarding CEQA, the purpose of EIRs generally, impact significance determinations, and the standard of review, among others.

Response to LOCAL1109-3
The comment is noted for the record. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is required.

Comment LOCAL1109-4
The comment purports to provide legal background and various legal principles regarding impact significance determinations and mitigation measures. The comment further states that Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR excludes the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project, which is located across Riggin Avenue from the project site. The commenter suggests that the EIR must be revised to include this project within the cumulative analysis.
2136
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-499
Response to LOCAL1109-4
To the extent the comment involves general statements of law and does not raise any specific project-related issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary.

See Response to GSEJA-6 and LIUNA-12.

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

Comment LOCAL1109-5
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not discuss or analyze the proposed project’s compliance with the General Plan’s Land Use Buildout Scenario since the General Plan projected approximately 9,690,000 square feet of industrial building area between 2010 and 2030, as well as approximately 9,670 industrial jobs. The commenter purports that the “whole of the action” inclusive of the two other projects would account for approximately 54 percent of the City’s industrial buildout. The commenter suggests that the EIR has not provided adequate evidence that the growth generated by the proposed project was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, or AQMP. Additionally, the commenter discusses other industrial development projects in the City, which combined with projects proposed by Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., represent approximately 80.5 percent of the City’s industrial buildout through 2030. As such, the comment states that a revised EIR must be prepared to include a cumulative analysis on this topic.

Response to LOCAL1109-5
The comment is noted for the record. As a preliminary matter, it is not entirely clear if the comment is criticizing the cumulative impact analysis in general or the land use impact analysis specifically.

Furthermore, besides making general conclusory statements, the comment does not provide substantial evidence regarding any deficiency in the cumulative impact analysis or identify any significant environmental impact that was not properly disclosed and/or mitigated in the Draft EIR.

See Responses to GSEJA-9 and GSEJA-24.

The project site is currently designated Industrial and Light Industrial and would be developed with uses permitted under those designations and pursuant to applicable FAR and other development standards in accordance with the City’s land use vision as reflected in its General Plan. Thus, the project is consistent with the buildout scenario contemplated in the General Plan and is thus properly accounted for in the growth projections of the General Plan as well as the RTP/SCS and AQMP. The fact that the City may be considering requested entitlements for a range of other industrial projects consistent with the General Plan vision does not trigger any type of additional “consistency” analysis under CEQA, as alleged by the commenter, particularly where, as here, the City has prepared a ground-up environmental analysis. Thus, no further response or revision is warranted based on this comment.
2137
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-500
It is reasonable to assume, given the nature of the local employment population combined with the nature of the project, that employment needs generated by the proposed project would be able to be filled primarily by employees who live within the City and nearby unincorporated areas in the County. As such and as further addressed in the analysis in the Draft EIR, although increased industrial growth may occur, it would not result in unanticipated growth that would lead to the need for unplanned housing.

Regarding the specific comment about the scope of cumulative projects considered in the analysis, see Responses to GSEJA-6 and LOCAL1109-4.

No further response is required.

Comment LOCAL1109-6
The commenter states that the Draft EIR omits critical supporting information regarding the proposed project’s agricultural resources impacts and improperly finds that the proposed project’s Impact AG-5 would be less than significant. The commenter asserts that because the proposed project would promote additional growth in the City, the proposed project could lead to secondary impacts related to the conversion of agricultural lands to additional housing or public services. The comment concludes the EIR should be revised to include the foregoing analysis and recirculated.

Response to LOCAL1109-6
The comment is noted for the record.

See Responses to CDOC-2, GSEJA-24, and GSEJA-25.

Adjacent agricultural lands would need to be annexed into the City and would require the completion of CEQA analysis prior to the discretionary approval of any development. However, the proposed project does not include the annexation of these lands and, therefore, would not result in a change in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Though there is a possibility this land would be converted to nonagricultural uses in the future, the proposed project would not be the cause of that conversion, as explained further above and in the Draft EIR. As such, the Draft EIR accurately evaluates that the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of other Farmland to nonagricultural use such that a significant impact would occur.

The Lead Agency is of the opinion that this Draft EIR and the public review process has sufficiently complied with State CEQA Guidelines. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project and cumulative impacts have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required. 2138
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-501
Comment LOCA1109-7
The commenter purports to set forth various legal principles regarding alternatives and mitigation under CEQA. The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s analysis of agricultural resources impacts fails to consider and implement all feasible mitigation measures. The Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to converting Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses and that no feasible mitigation measures are available. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR lacks adequate evidence to support a finding that no feasible mitigation is available and suggests potential mitigation, including purchases of agricultural easements, payment of a mitigation fee, protection of part of the project site for agricultural uses, adequate buffering to protect neighboring agricultural areas, and the recordation of a Right to Farm certificate.

Response to LOCAL1109-7
To the extent the comment involves general statements of law and does not raise any specific project-related issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary, Regarding the comment’s specific concerns about mitigation, see Response to CDOC-3 (see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(4) (mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(5) (If lead agency determines that mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, measure need not be proposed or analyzed. Instead, EIR may simply reference that fact and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination).

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 LOCAL1109-8
The comment briefly summarizes some of the Draft EIR’s air quality impact conclusions and then asserts generally that the Draft EIR fails to include substantial evidence to support a finding that no other feasible mitigation exists to mitigate identified air quality impacts. The comment also frames MM AIR-2c as including language that treats the measures as “optional” or able to be “deferred.” It then concludes that mitigation should be revised to confirm that such service vehicles utilize zeroemission technology without qualification.

Response to LOCAL1109-8
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not identify any alternative mitigation measure that would demonstrate its claim that the Draft EIR has failed to consider and implement “all feasible mitigation measures,” or otherwise raise a specific environmental issue under CEQA, no further response is required.

Regarding the specific concern regarding the purported “optional language” of MM AIR-2c, this is not an accurate representation of the obligation set forth in the mitigation and the related Draft EIR discussion. The Draft EIR includes lengthy discussion surrounding MM AIR-2c and its benefits, but also its limitations from a feasibility standpoint. MM AIR-2c itself outlines an enforcement mechanism that “all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment will utilize zero-emission 2139
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-502
technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable,” and that “the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to. . . the City of Visalia Planning Division” for verification. The Draft EIR concluded that implementation of this measure would help to reduce the proposed project’s emissions. Nevertheless, the Draft EIR properly disclosed that implementation of MM AIR-2c (and other mitigation measures) could not be guaranteed because the commercial availability of such equipment may be limited (at least in the near-term). Accordingly, the Draft EIR identified the impact and properly disclosed the limitations of the measure; i.e., it would reduce but cannot be guaranteed to fully mitigate the proposed project’s emissions to below significance thresholds. In other words, the Draft EIR does not rely upon MM AIR-2c to reduce the proposed project’s emissions to below significance thresholds or downplay the proposed project’s impacts.

The Draft EIR explains that the emissions reductions provided by MM AIR-2c cannot be guaranteed or even reliably modeled and that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Thus, the Draft EIR disclosed the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, as it is required to do under CEQA.

The following considerations are also important in understanding MM AIR-2c. For purposes of a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR evaluated a “reasonable worst-case” analytical scenario in which the proposed project is fully implemented by 2028. Given the size and nature of the project, it would be entirely reasonable to conclude the that construction could potentially stretche to 2033 or beyond. Zero-emission vehicle technology is a rapidly developing field: it is unknown what conceptual technologies today may mature into commercially viable solutions over the course of the proposed project’s development timeline. Options that are not commercially viable today could be cost-leading in a matter of years. And though a wide array of zero-emission service equipment is available currently (e.g., forklifts, pallet jacks, flat trucks, etc.), and the Draft EIR reasonably anticipates their usage in accordance with MM AIR-2c and other regulatory and commercial considerations, future tenants and their service equipment needs—some of which may be specialized—are unknown at this time. These factors make it infeasible to require that all “service vehicles. . . utilize zero-emission technology without any qualification,” as the comment suggests.

Ultimately, MM AIR-2c represents the proposed project’s good faith attempt at installing the farthest-reaching, but still feasible, zero-emission equipment requirement to reduce emissions, subject to such equipment being commercially available, as confirmed by the City’s Planning Divisionat the time of individual tenant permitting.

The Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed, and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA; therefore, no further analysis or revisions are required.

See Responses to LIUNA-4 and LIUNA-20.

Comment LOCAL1109-9
The comment acknowledges that the Draft EIR disclosed that certain noise impacts were potentially significant. However, the comment states that the mitigation measures were deficient; in particular, the comment references MM NOI-1, which it characterizes as improperly deferring mitigation.

Rather than deferring implementation of this acoustical analysis, the comment asserts this analysis 2140
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-503
should be conducted as part of the Draft EIR so that decision-makers will have access to necessary information before project approval.

Response to LOCAL1109-9
The comment is noted. The comment is mistaken in its characterization of MM NOI-1 as constituting improper deferral of mitigation. While CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) clarifies that formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time, CEQA permits the specific details of a mitigation measure to be developed after project approval when “it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review provided that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.”
The Draft EIR’s car wash noise analysis and MM NOI-1 were carefully crafted to adhere to these requirements. As explained in the Draft EIR, given the nature and scope of the project, which is intended to be built in phases over time, there are currently no available details pertaining to the design of the car wash or its mechanical equipment. These details are critical for the evaluation and mitigation of car wash noise impacts because car wash noise impacts are highly correlated with specific design details (i.e., what is the orientation of the tunnel to receptors and the direction of the conveyance system?) and mechanical equipment selections (i.e., what type of blowers will the tunnel utilize and what is their manufacturer sound rating?).

Given this it is both impractical and infeasible to include these details in the Draft EIR (or related acoustical analysis) at this point, the analysis assumed typical “reasonable worst-case” noise levels for estimation of the car wash’s noise impacts in a good faith effort to consider and disclose the project’s potential impacts to the extent information is reasonably available, and MM NOI-1 adopted the requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B). The following is a summary of the requirements outlined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) and a discussion of how MM NOI-1 meets these requirements, contrary to the comment’s assertions:
• Commits itself to the mitigation
MM NOI-1 requires that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified acoustical professional and submitted to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Preservation Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for a drive-through car wash. The scope of the acoustical analysis is delineated, and the measure requires the study to demonstrate that the design and operations of the car wash would not result in any exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits (which are quantified and objective), and this compliance would ensure that impacts to surrounding residential land uses are less than significant. • Adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve 2141
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-504
As noted above, MM NOI-1 establishes that car wash noise levels shall not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits, which are codified, objective and quantitative in nature, thus facilitating implementation. • Identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will be considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure
MM NOI-1 includes a list of design features that individually or collectively would aid in satisfying the applicable performance criteria, which would be the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) also instructs that compliance with regulatory standards—in this case the Visalia Municipal Code’s daytime and nighttime noise limits— may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact. To this end, the Draft EIR explained that the City’s 50 dBA Leq daytime and 45 dBA Leq nighttime standards are well below existing ambient noise conditions surrounding the nearest receptors. Therefore, compliance with these standards, as mandated by MM NOI-1, would be highly protective of ambient noise conditions and would result in a less than significant impact.

The comment provides no competing explanation as to why MM NOI-1 allegedly fails the requirements established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B).

Based on the foregoing and as further discussed in the Draft EIR, no revisions are warranted.

Comment LOCAL1109-10
The comment provides concluding remarks to the comment letter, including a request to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR because the comment purports that the Draft EIR violates CEQA in multiple respects.

Response to LOCAL1109-10
The comment is noted. To the extent it does not include any project-specific environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

Please see Responses to LOCAL1109-2 through LOCAL1109-9 for responses to specific concerns that the commenter raises with regard to the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

Comment LOCAL1109-11
The comment introduces the purpose of the technical report being submitted. It does not identify any alleged specific deficiency in the Draft EIR but instead purports to summarize the methodologies utilized in CalEEMod modeling and the GHG reduction potential of local hire provisions for construction workers in general.

Response to LOCAL1109-11
The comment is noted. Because the comment does not raise any project-specific environmental issues, no further response is required.
2142
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-505
For informational purposes, the following is noted. The commenter is advocating for imposition of local hire requirements with respect to the carpenters union, which would apply only during the construction phase of the proposed project. The commenter states potential reductions of vendor trips (i.e., VMT associated with vendors) and GHG emissions that would result from such requirements. However, any environmental benefits that would be realized as a result of local hire requirements would apply only during the construction phase. As explained in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less than significant GHG-related construction and operation impacts after mitigation. Therefore, additional mitigation—such as a local hire provision for construction workers—is not necessary or required under CEQA.

See also Responses to CDOC-2, LIUNA-13, and LOCAL1109-2.

Comment LOCAL1109-12
The comment provides a disclaimer regarding the right to revise or amend this SWAPE report if additional information regarding the proposed project becomes available. The comment also states that the SWAPE report may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information provided by third parties.

Response to LOCAL1109-12
The comment is noted. Because no project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required.

For informational purposes, see also Response to LOCAL1109-1.

Comment LOCAL1109-13
The comment consists of data tables and modeling output documentation in support of Comment LOCAL1109-11.

Response to LOCAL1109-13
The comment is noted. No project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required. For informational purposes, see also Response to LOCAL1109-11.

Comment LOCAL1109-14
The comment provides a CV for Paul Rosenfeld, Principal Environmental Chemist, who prepared a review letter of the air quality analysis of the Draft EIR.

Response to LOCAL1109-14
The comment is noted. Because no project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required.

Comment LOCAL1109-15
The comment provides a CV for Matthew F. Hagemann who prepared a review letter of the air quality analysis of the Draft EIR.

Response to LOCAL1109-15
The comment is noted. Because no project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required.
2143

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2144
State of California Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
www.wildlife.ca.gov
June 04, 2024
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
(559) 713-4636
[email protected]
Subject: Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (Project)
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH: 2022080658
Dear Brandon Smith:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Visalia for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

While the comment period may have ended, CDFW respectfully requests that the City of Visalia still consider our comments.

CDFW ROLE
Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. 1 CEQA i
CDFW

Page 1 of 9 ends

Visalia City CouncilMarch 17, 2025

Visalia City Council
March 17, 2025