Attachment 12 - Draft EIR — Visalia City Council, March 17, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
City of Visalia, Tulare County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658
Prepared for:

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

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

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents

iii
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.3 - City of Visalia Consultants .............................................................................................. 7-2

List of Appendices
Appendix A: EIR Public Involvement (NOP , EIR Public Scoping Comments) Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Appendix C: Biological Resources Supporting Information C.1 - Biological Resources Assessment
C.2 - Jurisdictional Delineation
Appendix D: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information Appendix E: Geology and Soils Supporting Information
E.1 - Geotechnical Evaluation
E.2 - Paleontological Records Search
Appendix F: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information F.1 - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
F.2 - Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G: Agricultural Resources and Forestry Supporting Information G.1 - Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
G.2 - Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
Appendix H: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix I: Transportation Supporting Information
Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix K: Aesthetics Supporting Information

List of Tables
Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix .............................................................................................. ES-8 Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letters ........................................................................................................ 1-3 Table 2-1: Development Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-2: Required and Proposed Parking ......................................................................................... 2-8 Table 3-1: Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................................ 3-5 Table 3.3-1: Description of Toxic Air Contaminants of National and California Concern ................. 3.3-5 Table 3.3-2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status ......................................................... 3.3-13 Table 3.3-3: Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................... 3.3-14 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents

v
Table 3.3-4: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone ....................................................... 3.3-15 Table 3.3-5: Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution ..................................... 3.3-17 Table 3.3-6: Conceptual Construction Schedule ............................................................................. 3.3-31 Table 3.3-7: Project Construction Equipment Assumptions ........................................................... 3.3-32 Table 3.3-8: Construction Off-site Trips .......................................................................................... 3.3-33 Table 3.3-9: Vehicle Trip Generation During Operations ................................................................ 3.3-35 Table 3.3-10: Vehicle Type Classification–Individual Project Runs ................................................. 3.3-36 Table 3.3-11: Summary of Operational Diesel Emission Source Configurations ............................ 3.3-38 Table 3.3-12: Categories of Emissions at Retail Gasoline Service Stations .................................... 3.3-39 Table 3.3-13: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) ................................................ 3.3-45 Table 3.3-14: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) ..................................................... 3.3-48 Table 3.3-15: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) .................................................. 3.3-50 Table 3.3-16: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Unmitigated) .............................................................................................................. 3.3-54 Table 3.3-17: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Mitigated) .................................................................................................................. 3.3-55 Table 3.3-18: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operations (Unmitigated) .............................................................................................................. 3.3-56 Table 3.3-19: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)–Reasonable Scenario ............................................................................... 3.3-66 Table 3.3-20: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)–Worst-Case/Concurrent Construction Scenario ...................................... 3.3-66 Table 3.3-21: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR ............................................................................................ 3.3-67 Table 3.3-22: Cumulative Health Risks and Hazards During Reasonable Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR ................................................. 3.3-68 Table 3.3-23: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ............................................................ 3.3-69 Table 3.4-1: Soil Types Present within Project Site ........................................................................... 3.4-2 Table 3.5-1: Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site ................................................. 3.5-6 Table 3.5-2: Previous Investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project Site .......................................... 3.5-7 Table 3.6-1: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption ......................................................... 3.6-10 Table 3.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................ 3.8-2 Table 3.8-2: City of Visalia 2005 Community GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory by Sector ............ 3.8-6 Table 3.8-3: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigation Included) ................................ 3.8-32 Table 3.8-4: Summary of Applicable Greenhouse Gas Regulations ................................................ 3.8-34 Table 3.8-5: Consistency with City of Visalia’s CAP ......................................................................... 3.8-36 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR

vi
Table 3.8-6: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update .................................................... 3.8-44 Table 3.8-7: Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Update ............................................................. 3.8-48 Table 3.9-1: Project Site Hazardous Materials Search Results ......................................................... 3.9-4 Table 3.9-2: Summary of Off-site Facilities of Potential Concern ..................................................... 3.9-5 Table 3.10-1: Public Water Systems ............................................................................................. 3.10-15 Table 3.10-2: Operational Project Water Demands ..................................................................... 3.10-15 Table 3.10-3: Cal Water Visalia District Retail Water Supplies ..................................................... 3.10-18 Table 3.10-4: Total Project Demands by Year ............................................................................... 3.10-19 Table 3.11-1: LAFCo Consistency Analysis (Government Code § 56668) ..................................... 3.11-17 Table 3.11-2: General Plan Consistency Analysis ......................................................................... 3.11-24 Table 3.12-1: Sound Terminology ................................................................................................... 3.12-2 Table 3.12-2: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels ........................................ 3.12-4 Table 3.12-3: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment ............................................................ 3.12-6 Table 3.12-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ...................................................................................... 3.12-9 Table 3.12-5: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria ................. 3.12-11 Table 3.12-6: Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels–Grading ................................................... 3.12-20 Table 3.12-7: Traffic Noise Increase Summary–Existing Conditions ............................................ 3.12-22 Table 3.12-8 Traffic Noise Increase Summary–Future Conditions ............................................... 3.12-23 Table 3.12-9: Parking Lot Activities Noise Levels ......................................................................... 3.12-25 Table 3.12-10: Drive-through Car Wash Noise Levels .................................................................. 3.12-27 Table 3.14-1: Study Intersections ................................................................................................... 3.14-3 Table 3.14-2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ............................................. 3.14-4 Table 3.14-3: Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................. 3.14-7 Table 3.14-4: Trip Generation Summary ...................................................................................... 3.14-25 Table 3.15-1: Groundwater Volume Pumped ................................................................................ 3.15-3 Table 3.15-2: Use for Potable and Nonpotable Water–Projected .................................................. 3.15-4 Table 3.15-3: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................................ 3.15-5 Table 3.15-4: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison .................................................... 3.15-5 Table 3.15-5: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison .............................................. 3.15-5 Table 3.15-6: Disposal Site Capacity ............................................................................................... 3.15-8 Table 3.15-7: Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011–2021 ............................................. 3.15-9 Table 3.15-8: Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2011–2021 ........................................ 3.15-10 Table 6-1: Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 6-28

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents

vii
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1: Regional Location Map ................................................................................................... 2-13 Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................... 2-15 Exhibit 2-3: City of Visalia Urban Growth Boundary ......................................................................... 2-17 Exhibit 2-4: Existing Setting ............................................................................................................... 2-19 Exhibit 2-5a: Site Photographs .......................................................................................................... 2-21 Exhibit 2-6: County of Tulare Zoning Designation ............................................................................. 2-25 Exhibit 2-7: City of Visalia General Plan Designations ....................................................................... 2-27 Exhibit 2-8: Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 2-29 Exhibit 2-9: Project Simulation .......................................................................................................... 2-31 Exhibit 2-10a: Industrial Building Elevation Plans ............................................................................. 2-33 Exhibit 2-11: Street Dedication .......................................................................................................... 2-37 Exhibit 2-12: Site Photometric Plan ................................................................................................... 2-39 Exhibit 2-13: Proposed Water Lines .................................................................................................. 2-41 Exhibit 2-14: Proposed Sewer Lines .................................................................................................. 2-43 Exhibit 2-15: Proposed Storm Drainage System ................................................................................ 2-45 Exhibit 2-16: Project Phasing ............................................................................................................. 2-47 Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Projects Map ................................................................................................. 3-7 Exhibit 3.2-1: Important Farmland Map ......................................................................................... 3.2-19 Exhibit 3.4-1: Land Cover and Vegetation ...................................................................................... 3.4-37 Exhibit 3.4-2: Impacts on Biological Resources .............................................................................. 3.4-39 Exhibit 3.7-1: Regional Earthquake Fault Map ............................................................................... 3.7-23 Exhibit 6-1: Project Alternatives–Site Boundary ............................................................................... 6-31

List of Figures
Figure 1: San Joaquin Valley NOx Emissions Forecast ..................................................................... 3.3-24 Figure 3.8-1: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors (1990-2020) ............ 3.8-5 Figure 3.8-2: 2020 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector ................................................ 3.8-6 Figure 3.8-3: California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target .......................................................... 3.8-43 Figure 3.12-1: Visalia General Plan–Transportation Noise Sources .............................................. 3.12-14 Figure 3.12-2: Visalia General Plan–Stationary Noise Sources ..................................................... 3.12-15 Figure 3.12-3: Section 8.36.040 Exterior Noise Standards for Fixed Noise Sources ..................... 3.12-15 Figure 3.12-4: Section 8.36.060 Residential Interior Noise Standards ......................................... 3.12-16

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACEP Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACM asbestos-containing material
ACP Alternative Compliance Plan
ACS American Community Survey
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFY acre-feet per year
AIA Airport Influence Area
AIC Archaeological Information Center
AICUZ Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMSL above mean seal level
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ARB California Air Resources Board
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
AST aboveground storage tank
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAU business-as-usual
BCF billion cubic feet
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR

BCF/year billion cubic feet per year
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BGS below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
BP Before Present
BTU British Thermal Unit
BVOC biogenic volatile organic compound
C2ES Center for Climate and Energy Solution
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalGEM California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Cal/OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal Water California Water Service
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CBC California Building Standards Code
CCAP Climate Change Action Plan
CCCC California Climate Change Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Census Designated Places
CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFL Compact Fluorescent Light
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations

CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRA Cultural Resources Assessment
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBH diameter at breast height
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
du dwelling unit
du/acre dwelling unit per acre
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
EVA Emergency Vehicle Access
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR

xii

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FRA Federal Responsibility Area
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
ETo evapotranspiration
GAMAQI Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
GMP Groundwater Management Plan
GPD gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
GPS Global Positioning System
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWh/y gigawatt-hours per year
GWP global warming potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HOV/HOT High Occupancy Vehicle/High Occupancy Toll
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRI California Historic Resources Inventory
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
KDWCD Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
kW kilowatts
kWh kilowatt-hour
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day/night average sound level
LED light-emitting diode
Leq equivalent sound level
LEV low-emission vehicle
LOS Level of Service
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations

xiii

LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSE load-serving entities
M&I Municipal and Industrial
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MJLHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MKGSS Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSR Municipal Services Review
MTS Metropolitan Transportation System
MW megawatt
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
MXD mixed-use development
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NHM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR

xiv

NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 ozone
OAL Office of Administrative Law
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHWM ordinary high water mark
ONAC Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PACE Property Assessed Clean Energy
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PEV plug-in electric vehicle
PFC perfluorocarbon
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PMx particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Recology Integrated Resource Recovery Company
RecycleSmart Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority REL Reference Exposure Level
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMP Risk Management Plan
rms root mean square
RNG renewable natural gas
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sacramento Metro AQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations

SB Senate Bill
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEI Strategic Energy Innovation
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SNAP California Significant New Alternatives Policy
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOI Sphere of Influence
South Coast AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
TCM transportation control measures
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDS total dissolved solids
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Tg teragram
therms/y therms per year
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TID Tulare Irrigation District
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TMA Transportation Management Association
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOD Transit Oriented Development
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR

xvi

TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
UAB Urban Area Boundary
UBC Uniform Building Code
UDB Urban Development Boundary
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
UPS United Parcel Service
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UV ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C volume to capacity ratio
Valley Air District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
VECC Visalia Emergency Communication Center
VERA Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements
VFD Visalia Fire Department
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VPD Visalia Police Department
VUSD Visalia Unified School District
WCP Water Conservation Plant
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WUI wildland urban interface
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-1

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

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

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

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

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

Project Description
The project applicant proposes to convert existing agricultural lands and develop the approximately 284-acre project site into an industrial park, consisting of eight industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution, and light manufacturing; six flex industrial buildings; two drive-through restaurants; a convenience store; a recreational vehicle (RV) and self storage facility; gas station; and a car wash. The total building footprint is approximately 3,720,149 square feet. The project site would include sufficient amounts of trailer stalls and car parking stalls to serve the proposed uses in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project would also involve necessary infrastructure and improvements sufficient to serve the proposed uses. These would include detention basins on the east, west, and central portions of the project site and other necessary stormwater facilities to be sized and installed in accordance with all applicable requirements and standards. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the

1 Planning area refers to the land area addressed by a General Plan, including land within the city limits and land outside the city limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. This area is not all intended for development; the Urban Growth Boundary shows the future development area.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Executive Summary Draft EIR

ES-2
site. On-site orchards would need to be removed, and that appropriate landscaping and lighting would be incorporated into the overall site design consistent with applicable City requirements and guidelines.

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

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

Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the proposed project is to accomplish the orderly development of the project site as proposed, consistent with the General Plan’s industrial land use designation, which would provide economic benefits to the City, among others. As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, the objectives of the proposed project are to:
• Ensure that development of the project site is accomplished in an economically viable manner consistent with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the City’s General Plan, including the land use vision set forth therein that contemplates light industrial and industrial uses, taking into account necessary site plan considerations including efficient access and loading. • Maximize development of the existing underutilized project site and generate increased revenue and economic development for the City in order to support the City’s ongoing City operations.
• Develop a mixed-use industrial park, with light manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, and/or flex industrial uses, in the City that is designed to meet market demand and contemporary industry standards, including building size and clear height requirements, modern façades, articulated concrete panels, a natural color palette, and expansive glass entry features.
• Create employment-generating businesses in the City to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment and to improve the jobs-to- housing balance.
• Maximize placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system (SR-99) and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths, as feasible, on other roadways and to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses or other sensitive receptors.
• Develop innovative industrial uses providing a range of building sizes with cross dock and rear load capability that have ready access to available infrastructure, including major transportation corridors and utilities to be used as part of the Central Valley supply chain and goods movement network.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-3
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
As required under CEQA, the proposed project was analyzed for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental topic areas discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.16. The results of the analysis indicate that the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Project-level conversion of prime farmland: Although the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation and conversion of the project site to industrial use has long been envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan, the proposed project would result in the loss of agricultural land and conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses.

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

Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with Criterion 1 of the AQP even after the incorporation of feasible mitigation. The impact would be significant and unavoidable.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Executive Summary Draft EIR

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

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

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

Summary of Project Alternatives
Below is a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project considered in Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-5
No Project Alternative
Under this alternative, development of the project site would not occur, and the project site would remain in its current existing condition.

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

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

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

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on August 30, 2022. The NOP describing the original concept for the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period extending from August 30, 2022, through September 28, 2022. The NOP identified the potential for significant impacts on the environment related to the following topical areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Executive Summary Draft EIR

ES-6
Disagreement Among Experts
This Draft EIR contains substantial evidence to support all the conclusions presented herein. It is possible that there will be disagreement among various parties regarding these conclusions, although the City of Visalia is not aware of any disputed conclusions at the time of this writing. Both the CEQA Guidelines and case law clearly provide the standards for treating disagreement among experts. Where evidence and opinions conflict on an issue concerning the environment, and the lead agency knows of these controversies in advance, the EIR must acknowledge the controversies, summarize the conflicting opinions of the experts, and include sufficient information to allow the public and decision-makers to make an informed judgment about the environmental consequences of the proposed project.

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

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

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

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

Public Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Visalia filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (PRC § 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City’s Planning Department. The address is provided below:

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-7
Visalia City Hall
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
The Draft EIR is also available for review at the following website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

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

Executive Summary Matrix
Table ES-1 below summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting level of significance after mitigation for the relevant environmental issue areas evaluated for the proposed project. The table is intended to provide an overview; narrative discussions for the issue areas are included in the corresponding section of this EIR. Table ES-1 is included in the EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-8
Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

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

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

Impact AES-3: The proposed project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

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

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

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

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

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

No feasible mitigation measures available. Significant and unavoidable impact.

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

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact AG-3: The proposed project would not conflict
with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-9
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).

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

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

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

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

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

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

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

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

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

MM AIR-2a: Use of Tier IV or Tier IV Equivalent Construction Off-Road Equipment
Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed project, the project sponsors shall submit construction emissions minimization plans to the City of Visalia for review and approval. The construction emissions minimization plans shall detail compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Subject to same being commercially available, all off-road equipment utilized in connection with the subject individual development proposal shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission standards. Provided, however, if engines that comply with Tier IV Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier IV Interim) Significant and unavoidable impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-10
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the availability of Tier IV Interim engines taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; (ii) costs of utilizing same are commercially practicable; and (iii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment. The relevant contractor’s provision to the City letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that reasonably documents the lack of commercially available off-road equipment shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of complying with this mitigation measure. The project applicant and contractor shall consider the use of near zero-emission or electric construction equipment if that type of equipment is commercially available at the time of grading permit submittal.
(2) Post signage on the project site stating that construction equipment idling times shall not exceed five minutes.

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

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

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-11
MM AIR-2c: Electric or Zero-Emission On-site Off-Road and On-Road Service Equipment
Prior to issuance of the construction grading permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to demonstrate to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment will utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. Additionally, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all proposed buildings in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal that would use on-site service equipment will be designed to include electric outlets to equipment support the use of all-electric or zero-emission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially practicable.

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

5.106.5.3.

In addition, the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the project applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-12
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

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

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

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

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

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

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

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-13
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to air quality.

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

Section 3.4—Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

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

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

2. March 20–April 5: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.

3. April 5–April 20: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:30 p.m. to sunset.

4. April 21–June 10: Initiating surveys are not recommended. Monitoring of known nest sites only.

5. June 10–July 30: (post-fledging) Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.

Pre-construction surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to the subject ground-disturbing activities being initiated, with the latest survey no more than 10 days prior to the start of the subject ground-disturbing A copy of the survey results shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-14
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM BIO-1b: Swainson’s Hawk Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring
If nests are located and determined to be occupied, minimization measures must be implemented by the relevant applicant in connection with a specific individual development application, and construction monitoring conducted as follows:

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

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

3. No tree containing an active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be removed.

If (i) no nests are located or (ii) if nests are located and determined not to be occupied, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1b shall be required.

MM BIO-1c: Pre-Construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl (includes avoidance and passive relocation if found)
To determine whether burrowing owl have occupied the project site prior to its development, a qualified Biologist shall perform a pre-construction burrowing owl survey to determine burrow locations within 30 days prior to construction activities using California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Guidelines. If construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the area shall be resurveyed. Surveys for occupied burrows shall be completed within all construction areas and within 300 feet of the proposed project impact area (where possible and appropriate based on locations of barren or ruderal habitats). At least 15 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-15
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation days prior to the expected start, or restart, of any project-related ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall provide a burrowing owl survey report with mapping exhibits to the CDFW. If no burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, no further action is necessary.

If burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, the following actions shall be taken to offset impacts during construction (as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Guidelines):
• During the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), no disturbance shall occur within an approximately 160-foot radius of an occupied burrow. During the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed within a 300-foot radius unless a qualified Biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through non- invasive methods that either (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
• If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques (as outlined by the CDFW [i.e., use of one-way doors]) should be used rather than trapping. At least one or more weeks will be necessary to accomplish this and to allow the owls to acclimate to alternate burrows.
• If unpaired owls or paired owls are present in or within 300 feet of areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation (e.g., grading) and nesting is not occurring, owls are to be removed per CDFW-approved passive relocation protocols. Passive relocation requires the use of one-way exclusion doors, which must remain in place at least 48 hours prior to site disturbance to ensure owls have left the burrow prior to construction. A CDFW-approved exclusion plan would be required to implement this measure.
• If paired owls are nesting in areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation, nest(s) shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31 by a minimum 300-foot buffer or until fledging has occurred. Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-16
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM BIO-1d: Pre-construction Special-status Species Wildlife Surveys and Protective Measures if Found, Including Standard Avoidance Measures for San Joaquin Kit Fox.

Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue. Copies of all reports and communication with the appropriate wildlife agencies shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

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

1. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20- mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Nighttime construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.

2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-17
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation

3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the Biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.

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

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

7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.

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

9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species.

The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-18
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.

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

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

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

13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.

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

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-19
MM BIO-1e: Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).

1. Removal of trees shall occur in compliance with and as required by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

2. If project development requires trees to be removed during the nesting season, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted 7 days prior to tree removal to determine whether active nests are present.

3. If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on species and anticipated disturbance level. The buffer shall be 250 feet for migratory bird species and 500 feet for raptors. That no- disturbance buffer can be reduced if it is determined whether a qualified on-site monitor determines through monitoring the effects of activities on the nest that the buffer can be reduced without nest abandonment or otherwise affecting nest success.

4. The relevant applicant of the proposed development at issue shall physically mark the nest protection zone with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow caution tape. The nest protection zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the nest protection zones until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist.

5. The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest(s) periodically during construction activities to prevent any significant impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project, until the young have fledged. Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

If no active nests are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1e shall be required.

MM BIO-1f: Protection of Roosting Bats (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).

If tree removal or demolition of existing structures is proposed in connection with project development, trees and/or structures with City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-20
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation features capable of supporting roosting bats shall be surveyed by a qualified Biologist for bat roosts or evidence of bat roosting (guano, urine staining and scent, dead bats) not more than 14 days before the start of ground disturbance, including vegetation removal. If active roosts are discovered, a protection zone of no less than 50 feet around the active roost shall be established by the qualified Biologist. Disturbance may occur within the buffer once active roosting ceases, as determined by the qualified Biologist.

If roosts are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats shall be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or structure is removed.

A bat Exclusion Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to implementation.

Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave, but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts shall be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance. If no active roosts are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1f shall be required.

Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

MM BIO-3: The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-21
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation If Modoc Ditch is considered jurisdictional by the regulating agencies, the relevant project developer shall, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, obtain the relevant permit applications based on coordination with the appropriate regulating agencies, if required prior to impacting any waters.

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

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

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

Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely and in a feasible manner. In the event of any such spillage, the contaminated area shall be cleaned by the party responsible for the spillage, and any City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-22
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.

Impact BIO-4: The proposed project could interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

Implement MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact BIO-6: The proposed project would not conflict
with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources with mitigation incorporated.

MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f and MM BIO-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.5—Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

MM CUL-1: Archaeological Spot-Monitoring and Halt of Construction Upon Encountering Historical or Archaeological Materials Prior to any ground disturbance in connection with project development, a surface inspection of the relevant portion(s) of the project site shall be conducted by a qualified Archaeologist; a Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff from a culturally affiliated Native American tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be permitted to observe, subject to an executed agreement between the Tribe and the relevant applicant (as noted below). The Archaeologist (and Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff, subject to an executed agreement with the relevant applicant) shall monitor the relevant portion(s) of the project site during initial ground disturbance activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-23
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation The relevant applicant shall offer, in good faith and based on commercially reasonable terms, a culturally affiliated Native American tribe identified by the NAHC the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe as well as the parties being able to reach mutually acceptable terms.

In addition, the relevant applicant shall with diligence and good faith coordinate with the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff to enter into an agreement on commercially reasonable terms wherein the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide pre- project-related activities training to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which shall include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are found.

Subject to such an executed agreement, the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide the foregoing activities prior to any ground disturbance in connection with an individual specific development proposal.

In the event that TCRs are discovered during project-related subsurface construction activities, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. In consultation with the City of Visalia and consulting tribes, the qualified Archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related subsurface construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified Archaeologist.

Impact CUL-2: The proposed project could cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
Implement MM CUL-1.

MM CUL-2: Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities for project development, the relevant developer shall ensure that all Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-24
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.
construction personnel conducting ground disturbance at the project site in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall be provided a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological resources, types of resources that may be found within the project site, and procedures to be followed in the event such resources are encountered. The training shall be conducted by an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Any Native American Monitors or representatives consulting on the proposed project shall be invited to attend and participate in the training session.

MM CUL-3: In the event that prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during construction in connection with an individual specific development proposal, all construction activities associated therewith within 100 feet of the find shall halt and the City of Visalia and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be notified by the relevant applicant. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic- period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and commercially practicable. If it is determined that the construction associated with the subject individual specific development proposal could significantly damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and the relevant applicant City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-25
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation shall implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Visalia. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb
human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

MM CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains during ground disturbance activities in connection with an individual specific development proposal, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 shall be followed by the relevant applicant. Specifically, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.

2. Where any of the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity, either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-26
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD.
• The identified MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
• The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the identified MLD and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Each relevant applicant in connection with its individual specific development proposal may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.

Impact CUL-4: The proposed project may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact CUL-5: The proposed project may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-27
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project could have a
significant cumulative impact related to cultural
resources.

Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.6—Energy
Impact ENER-1: The proposed project would not result
in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact ENER-2: The proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact related to energy.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.7—Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1a: The proposed project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-1b: The proposed project could directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

MM GEO-1: Prior to issuance of the grading permit for each project development, the final grading, foundation, and construction plans for the subject proposal shall incorporate all the site-specific earthwork, Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-28
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. foundation, floor slab, lateral earth pressure, and pavement design recommendations, as detailed in a Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. The final grading and construction plans for the subject individual specific development shall be reviewed by the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure. Grading operations performed in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall satisfy all applicable recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation.

During construction performed in connection with the specific development, the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor this construction to ensure the earthwork operations are properly performed in accordance with the foregoing requirements.

Impact GEO-1c: The proposed project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-1d: The proposed project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iv) Landslides.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

MM GEO-2: In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods by a registered civil engineer or certified professional. The erosion control plan shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The erosion component of the plan must at least meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If earth-disturbing activities are proposed between October 15 and April 15, these activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to minimize potential erosion-related impacts. Additional erosion control measures may be implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia.

Prior to the issuance of any permit, the project proponent shall submit detailed plans to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. The components of Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-29
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right- of-way of designated access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion control measures.

Impact GEO-3: The proposed project could be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Implement MM GEO-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact GEO-4: The proposed project could be located
on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Implement MM GEO-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact GEO-5: The proposed project would not have
soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater.

No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

MM GEO-3: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction performed in connection with project development, the relevant project developer/contractor shall cease ground-disturbing activities within 15 feet of the find. The qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures which Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-30
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation shall be implemented by the relevant applicant. In addition, all recovered fossils should be deposited in an appropriate repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, located on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, where they will be properly curated and made accessible for future study.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a significant cumulative impact with mitigation
incorporated.

MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, and MM GEO-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.8—Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would not
generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-2: The proposed project could conflict with
any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

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

MM GHG-2b: Warehouse usage shall be limited to dry storage. If the warehouse is used for cold storage, then prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of Visalia shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the project site be plug-in capable.

Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-31
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impact: The proposed project could have a
significant cumulative impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Implement MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.9—Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project could create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project could create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment.

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

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not be
located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-32
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Impact HAZ-5: For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-6: The proposed would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-7: The proposed project would not expose
people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact related to hazards and
hazardous materials with mitigation incorporated.

Implement MM HAZ-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.10—Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: The proposed project would not violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Implement MM GEO-2. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact HYD-2: The proposed project would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HYD-3: The proposed project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
Implement MM GEO-2. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-33
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact HYD-4: The proposed project would not be
located in a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact HYD-5: The proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact related to hydrology and
water quality.

Implement MM GEO-2. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.11—Land Use and Planning
Impact LAND-1: The proposed project would not
physically divide an established community.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact LAND-2: The proposed project would not cause a
significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a cumulative impact related to land use and
planning.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-34
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.12—Noise
Impact NOI-1: The proposed project would generate a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

MM NOI-1:
(a) Prior to the issuance of building permit for a drive-through car wash, an in-depth acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustic professional shall be submitted for review and approval to the City Community Development Department that demonstrates that the design and operations of a proposed drive-through car wash would not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits for residential land uses. The study shall evaluate factors such as:
• The location and orientation of noise-generating equipment, such as dryer blowers and vacuums.
• The location and orientation of the drive-through car wash tunnel. • The hours of operation.
• The location of the drive-through car wash on the project site.

(b) Based on the results of the acoustical study, the project applicant shall be required to incorporate, at a minimum, design features or reduction measures to reduce any identified operational noise impact to meet applicable noise performance criteria. These reduction measures shall be included on all relevant plans, specifications, and other permitting documents. Measures and design features may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Locating the car wash facility further away from sensitive receptors, therefore reducing its noise impacts at nearby residential land uses. • Orienting the facility so that the carwash exit (where the drying blowers would be located) is located facing away from nearby residential land uses.
• Providing sound blankets to hang around the edge of the carwash exit tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Locating the dryer blowers further inside the car wash tunnel to help shield the dryer blower noise.
• Providing screening, such as a structure or sound wall, to shield the carwash exit where the dryer blowers would be located from nearby residential land uses.

Significant and unavoidable impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-35
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM NOI-2:
(a) When specific uses within the project area are proposed that could result in a noise-related conflict between an industrial or other stationary noise source and existing or future noise-sensitive receptors, an acoustical analysis shall be required by the City that quantifies the proposed use’s operational noise levels and recommends appropriate reduction measures, as necessary, to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. The analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustic professional. All recommended design features or reduction measures shall be noted on plans, specifications, and other relevant permitting documents prior to the issuance of building permits.
(b) Based on the results of the acoustical study, the project applicant shall be required to incorporate, at a minimum, design features or reduction measures to reduce any identified operational noise impact to meet applicable noise performance criteria. Reduction measures and design features may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Locating the warehouse facility further away from sensitive receptors, therefore reducing its noise impacts at nearby residential land uses.
• Orienting the facility so that the warehouse truck loading/unloading areas are located facing away from nearby residential land uses. • Providing gasket loading dock doors to help shield truck loading and unloading noise.
• Providing screening, such as a structure or sound wall, to shield truck loading and unloading areas from nearby residential land uses.

Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not result in
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact NOI-3: The proposed project would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport.

None required. No impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-36
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have a
significant and unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic noise impacts.

None available. Significant and unavoidable impact.

Section 3.13—Public Services
Impact PUB-1: The proposed project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for fire protection and
emergency medical services.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact PUB-2: The proposed project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for police protection.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact PUB-4: The proposed project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental park facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for parks or other
recreational facilities.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact PUB-5: The proposed project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
library facilities, need for new or physically altered
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-37
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for other public facilities, such as libraries.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
result in cumulative impacts related to public services.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project could conflict
with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the
circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

MM TRANS-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall comply with the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and dedicate 28 feet for a pedestrian trail along the south side of Modoc Ditch.

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

MM TRANS-3: Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue: Prior to the issuance of grading permits the proposed project shall provide site plans that show modification of the raised median to extend the existing westbound left- turn pocket by 100 feet, to provide a 400-foot left-turn pocket. The existing northbound right-turn stripe shall be extended to 300 feet. These improvements shall occur in the year 2026. The project proponent shall be financially responsible for these improvements. “Financially responsible” shall equate to implementing the project as well as paying for the project.

MM TRANS-4: Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue: The proposed project shall provide dual northbound left-turn pockets (300-foot minimum) and a 300- foot minimum southbound left-turn pocket. Since a 300-foot eastbound right-turn pocket would already be installed by the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project, additional recommendations are not proposed. These improvements shall occur in the year 2025. The project’s contribution into the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) will assist in paying for these improvements.

MM TRANS-5: Shirk Street and Ferguson Avenue: Prior to the issuance of final occupancy of any project area, the proposed project shall signalize the intersection, subject to pro rata cost sharing with the adjacent Carlton Acres Specific Plan project. This improvement would allow the intersection Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-38
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for the deficient scenarios, while reducing the vehicles queues for all intersection turn pockets below the storage capacity. Costs of implementing MM TRANS-5 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) and the proposed project as it provides access to both sites.

MM TRANS-6: Roeben Street and Ferguson Avenue: Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 3, the proposed project shall make a

26.2 percent fair share contribution toward signalizing this intersection.

Based on the estimated signalization and interconnect cost of $500,000, the proposed project shall contribute up to $131,000 for these future improvements.

MM TRANS-7: Akers Street and Riggin Avenue: The proposed project shall provide an additional northbound left-turn pocket and through lane and provide an additional eastbound/westbound through lane. Costs of implementing MM TRANS-7 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP), the proposed project, and others as it provides access to multiple sites under development.

MM TRANS-8: Akers Street and Ferguson Avenue: The proposed project shall provide an additional northbound/southbound through lane and right-turn pocket (150-foot minimum) and provide an eastbound right-turn pocket (150-foot minimum). Costs of implementing MM TRANS-8 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) and the proposed project as it provides access to both sites.

MM TRANS-9: Akers Street and Goshen Avenue: The proposed project shall modify the raised median to extend the existing southbound left-turn pocket to 400 feet. It is not recommended to exceed this length further in order to maintain access to the existing driveway north of the intersection.

The existing southbound right-turn stripe shall be extended to 400 feet minimum. Costs of implementing MM TRANS-9 are expected to be shared by Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) and the proposed project as it provides access to both sites.

Impact TRANS-2: The proposed project could conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).

MM TRANS-10a: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the site plan shall include the location of up to six secured bicycle storage lockers near each of the buildings entrances and the future transit stop. Up to 10 Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-39
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation potential locations shall be included, for a total of up to 60 lockers throughout the site.

Lockers shall be provided for approximately 1.5 percent of the 4,178 site’s daily employees with flexibility to add future lockers based on demand.

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

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

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

Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project could
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

MM TRANS-11: Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the project developer shall prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to the City of Visalia for approval and implement the approved Construction Traffic Control Plan during construction. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following issues:
a. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials; b. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
c. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;
d. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project site; e. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery, transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility connections;
f. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and,
g. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the AM and PM Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-40
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation peak-hour, distributing construction traffic flow across alternative routes to access the project sites, and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

Impact TRANS-4: The proposed project could result in
inadequate emergency access.

Implement MM TRANS-11. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impact: Impacts related to transportation
would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Implement MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-11. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.15—Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1: The proposed project would not require
or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact UTIL-2: The proposed project would have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact UTIL-3: The proposed project would result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Impact UTIL-4: The proposed project could generate
solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
MM UTIL 1: Debris and waste generated shall be recycled to the extent feasible.

The provisions listed below shall apply to the project during construction activities in connection with project development.
a. An on-site Recycling Coordinator shall be designated by the project proponent/contractor to facilitate recycling.

Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-41
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation b. The Recycling Coordinator shall facilitate recycling of all construction waste through coordination with contractors, local waste haulers, and/or other facilities that recycle construction/demolition wastes. c. The on-site Recycling Coordinator shall also be responsible for ensuring wastes requiring special disposal are handled according to State and County regulations that are in effect at the time of disposal. d. Contact information of the coordinator shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.
e. The project proponent/operator shall provide a storage area for recyclable materials within the fenced project area that is clearly identified for recycling. This area shall be maintained on the site during construction and operations. A site plan showing the recycling storage area shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the site.

Impact UTIL-5: The proposed project would comply with
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

None required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: Impacts related to utilities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Implement MM UTIL-1. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.

Section 3.16—Wildfire
Impact WILD-1: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ and would not substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact WILD-2: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ, and would not due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Impact WILD-3: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ and would not require the installation or maintenance of No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Executive Summary

ES-42
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Impact WILD-4: The proposed project would not be
located in or near an SRA or lands classified as a VHFHSZ, and would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not
have a significant cumulative impact related to wildfire.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction

1-1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022080658) This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC], § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000, et seq.). In accordance with Sections 21067, 15367, and 15050–15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Visalia (City) is the lead agency under whose authority this document has been prepared. As an informational document, this Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision-makers and the public regarding the proposed project.

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

The total building footprint is approximately 3,720,149 square feet. The project site would include sufficient amounts of trailer stalls and car parking stalls to serve the proposed uses in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project would also involve necessary infrastructure and improvements sufficient to serve the proposed uses. These would include detention basins on the east, west, and central portions of the project site and other necessary stormwater facilities to be sized and installed in accordance with all applicable requirements and standards. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site. On-site orchards would need to be removed, and appropriate landscaping and lighting, consistent with applicable City requirements and guidelines, would be incorporated into the overall site design.

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

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

1.1.2 - Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR provides a project-level analysis of the environmental effects of the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in the EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. This document City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR

1-2

addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the project. It also identifies appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts.

CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements are contained in this Draft EIR and include:
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Executive Summary
• Project Description
• Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cumulative Impacts
• Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Alternatives to the Proposed Project
• Growth-Inducing Impacts
• Effects Found not to be Significant
• Areas of Known Controversy

1.1.3 - Lead Agency Determination
The City of Visalia is designated as the lead agency for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as “. . . the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Other public agencies may use this Draft EIR in the decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.

This Draft EIR was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), an environmental consultant. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of Visalia. This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Visalia as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel is provided in Section 7 of this Draft EIR.

1.2 - Scope of the EIR
This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The City of Visalia issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project on August 30, 2022, which circulated between August 30, 2022, and September 28, 2022, for the statutory 30-day public review period. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP. The NOP is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Pursuant to Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, the NOP provided notice that the City would hold a public scoping meeting on September 13, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) at the City Hall East Conference Room and via a videoconference platform. At this meeting, attendees were City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction

1-3

given an opportunity to provide comments and express concerns about the potential effects of the proposed project; however, no public comments were received during the scoping meeting.

One comment letter was received in response to the NOP during the 30-day public review period.

Two comment letters were received after the close of the 30-day public review period but were considered, nonetheless. The three letters are listed in Table 1-1 and provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letters
Agency/Organization Author Date Comment Summary
Coverage in the
Draft EIR
Public Agencies
Native American
Heritage
Commission
Cameron
Vela, Cultural
Resources
Analyst

9.8.2022 Compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52
and Senate Bill (SB) 18 regarding the
requirements of tribal consultation as
a result of an EIR and NOP. Author
provides examples of appropriate
mitigation measures if applicable. The
author provides recommendations for
cultural resource assessments and the
necessary steps to follow in order to
fully determine the existence and
significance of tribal cultural resources
on or near the project site.

Section 3.5,
Cultural
Resources and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution
Control District
Brian
Clements,
Director of
Permit
Services

9.30.2022 The commenter provides comments
related to criteria air pollutant
emissions, construction emissions,
operational emissions, recommended
using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Truck
Routing, cleanest available trucks,
reduce idling of heavy-duty trucks, use
of on-site electric road equipment,
voluntary emission reduction
agreement, health risk assessment, a
health impact discussion, ambient air
quality analysis, and cumulative air
impacts.

Section 3.3, Air
Quality, and
Section 3.8,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife
Julie Vance,
Regional
Manager

10.17.2022 The commenter provides comments
related to Swainson’s hawk (Buteo
swainsoni), the Crotch’s bumblebee
(Bombus crotchii), and the northern
legless lizard (Anniella pulchra). The
commenter recommends a qualified
Biologist conduct a habitat assessment
as part of the biological technical
study.

Section 3.4,
Biological
Resources
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR

1-4

1.2.1 - Environmental Issues Determined not to be Significant The NOP identified topical areas that were determined not to be significant. An explanation of why each area is determined not to be significant is provided in Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant. These topical areas are as follows:
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Parks and Recreation

1.2.2 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
The NOP found that the following topical areas may contain potentially significant environmental issues that will require further analysis in the Draft EIR. These sections are as follows:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

1.3 - Organization of the Draft EIR
This Draft EIR is organized into the following main sections:
• Chapter ES: Executive Summary. This chapter includes a summary of the proposed project and alternatives to be addressed in the Draft EIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and overview of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), in addition to a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation, are also included in this section. • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of this Draft EIR, its scope and components, and its review and certification process.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction

1-5

• Chapter 2: Project Description. This chapter includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, site, and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives, intended uses of the Draft EIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed for the proposed project is also provided.
• Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis. This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, methodology, significance criteria, impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topics that are addressed within Chapter 3 are as follows:

Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light, and Glare: Addresses the potential visual impacts of development intensification and the overall increase in illumination produced by the proposed project.

Section 3.2—Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Addresses the potential for conversion of Important Farmland to nonagricultural use and forest land to non-forest use.

Section 3.3—Air Quality: Addresses potential air quality impacts associated with project implementation and emissions of criteria pollutants. The section also evaluates project emissions of toxic air contaminants.

Section 3.4—Biological Resources: Addresses potential impacts on special-status habitat, vegetation, and wildlife; potential degradation or elimination of important habitat for special-status species; and impacts on listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species.

Section 3.5—Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources: Addresses potential impacts on historical resources, archaeological resources, burial sites, and tribal cultural resources.

Section 3.6—Energy: Addresses potential project impacts related to energy usage.

Section 3.7—Geology and Soils: Addresses potential impacts related to soils and assesses effects of project-related development in relation to geologic and seismic conditions. Also addresses potential impacts related to paleontological or unique geologic resources.

Section 3.8—Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Addresses potential project emissions of greenhouse gases.

Section 3.9—Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Addresses potential for presence of hazardous materials or conditions on the project site and in the project area that may have potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Section 3.10—Hydrology and Water Quality: Addresses potential impacts related to local hydrological conditions, including drainage areas and changes in flow rates, as well as the proposed project’s potential impacts to water quality, erosion, and groundwater supplies.

Section 3.11—Land Use and Planning: Addresses the potential land use impacts associated with division of an established community and consistency with relevant land use plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.

Section 3.12—Noise: Addresses potential noise impacts during construction and at project buildout from mobile and stationary sources on sensitive receptors. The section also addresses potential impact related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR

1-6

Section 3.13—Public Services: Addresses potential impacts of the proposed project upon public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, recreational facilities, and library facilities in terms of the need to provide new or physical alter facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic: Addresses potential impacts related to the local and regional roadway system with respect to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Also includes a non-CEQA operational analysis for informational purposes.

Section 3.15—Utilities and Services Systems: Addresses potential impacts related to service providers, including water supply, stormwater, wastewater, solid waste, and energy (electric and natural gas) providers and telecommunications, with respect to the proposed project’s potential to require or result in the construction of new or expanded infrastructure.

Section 3-16—Wildfire: Addresses potential impacts related to wildfire including lands within State Responsibility Areas and lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. • Chapter 4: Effects Found not to be Significant. This chapter contains analysis of the topical sections not addressed in Chapter 3.
• Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations. This chapter provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts, as well as significant irreversible environmental changes.
• Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This chapter compares the impacts of the proposed project with three land-use project alternatives: the No Project Alternative, Reduced Footprint Alternative, and the Alternative Location. An environmentally superior alternative is identified. In addition, alternatives initially considered but rejected from further consideration are discussed.
• Chapter 7: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers. This chapter also contains a full list of persons and organizations that were consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR. This chapter also contains a full list of the authors who assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by name and affiliation.
• Appendices. The Draft EIR appendices include notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft EIR, as well as supporting technical materials. The following supporting materials and technical studies and analyses were prepared for the proposed project in support of preparation of this Draft EIR:

Appendix A: EIR Public Involvement (NOP , EIR Public Scoping Comments) Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Appendix C: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix D: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information Appendix E: Geology and Soils Supporting Information
Appendix F: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information Appendix G: Agricultural Resources and Forestry Supporting Information Appendix H: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix I: Transportation Supporting Information
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Introduction

1-7

Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix K: Aesthetics

1.4 - Documents Incorporated by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. Information from the documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has also been described. The documents and other sources that have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to:
• Visalia General Plan Update. Dyett & Bhatia, October 2014. • Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-38 (Certifying the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, June 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, March 2014.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-37 (Certifying the EIR for the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance). • CEQA Guidelines.
• City of Visalia, California, Climate Action Plan, Draft Final. Strategic Energy Innovations, December 2013.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-36 (Certifying the Visalia Climate Action Plan), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• City of Visalia Storm Water Master Plan. Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 1994. • City of Visalia Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. City of Visalia, 1994. • 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Visalia District. California Water Service Company, June 2021.
• City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Update. City of Visalia, March 2017.

The City of Visalia General Plan, City of Visalia General Plan EIR, City of Visalia Zoning Code, and the referenced documents and other sources used in preparation of the EIR can be viewed here:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. The above-referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR will also be available to the public for inspection at the addresses shown in Section 1.5 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b).

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Introduction Draft EIR

1-8

1.5 - Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (PRC § 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City’s Planning Department. The address is provided below:

Visalia City Hall
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

The Draft EIR is also available for review at the following website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp.

Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
559.713.4636
[email protected]

Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies, organizations and public at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Visalia City Council on the proposed project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered prior to the Council taking action on the proposed project. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision-makers for the proposed project.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description

2-1
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance and in compliance with the applicable criteria, standards, and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (California Public Resources Code [PRC], § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000, et seq.) (collectively, CEQA). This Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (proposed project), located in unincorporated Tulare County (County), adjacent to the City of Visalia (City). This section includes all contents required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 including a detailed project site map as well as regional map, a statement of project objectives, a description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, a list of responsible and trustee agencies, a list of approvals and permits required to implement the proposed project, and a summary of review and consultation requirements.

2.1 - Overview
Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc. (applicant) is proposing to develop a mixed-use industrial park and related improvements and infrastructure (proposed project) on an approximately 284-acre site that is currently within unincorporated Tulare County, adjacent to the northern municipal boundary of the City of Visalia, California.

2.2 - Project Location and Setting

2.2.1 - Regional Setting
The City of Visalia, located in the Central Valley, covers an area of approximately 36 square miles (Exhibit 2-1).1 The City is situated in northwestern Tulare County, north of the City of Tulare and west of the City of Farmersville. The City of Hanford, in Kings County, lies 12 miles to the west. Most of the remaining land uses surrounding the City are agricultural in nature. Major roadway networks include Highway 198, which passes east–west through the center of the City; Highway 99, which runs north– south along the western edge of the City; and Highway 63, which passes north–south through the center of the City.

2.2.2 - Local Setting
The project site is generally bound by Riggin Avenue to the south, Shirk Street to the east, Kelsey Street to the west, and Modoc Ditch to the north (Exhibit 2-2). A private road intersects the project site from south to north. The project site consists of three existing parcels: APNs 077-840-004, 077-840-005, and 077-840-006 (formerly APNs 077-840-001, 077-840-002, and 077-840-003). 2 The project site is

1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30490. Accessed August 17, 2022. 2 The combined area of the three APNs is 279.73, rounded to 280; the project site area referred to in this Draft EIR is 284.58, rounded to 284, and includes the 4.72 acres of street dedication along the eastern and western project site boundaries. The difference between 279.56 (284.58 acres minus 4.72 acres of street dedication) and 279.73 can be attributed to multiple-digit rounding.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR

2-2
within the City’s Planning Area,3 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 1 of the City (Exhibit 2-3), and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

2.3 - Environmental Setting

2.3.1 - Historical and Existing Uses
Agricultural uses have existed on the project site since 1937, and several structures previously existed in the central, northern, and southeastern portions of the site to support these agricultural uses. Several of the structures in the northern and southeastern portion were demolished by 1969, and the central portion of the site was graded. The graded land in the central portion of the site was redeveloped for agricultural use by 1984. The remaining structures were demolished, and the project site was developed in its current configuration by 1984. The project site currently consists of an actively managed almond orchard, established around 2018. A pump house and small structures are adjacent to the detention basin.

2.3.2 - Site Characteristics
Currently, all orchard areas on the project site are actively managed, with sparse herbaceous understory plant cover that consists of managed ruderal non-native grasses and forbs. In addition to the orchard, there are non-native planted ornamental trees, including a double row of 35 olive trees and a cluster of two tall elm trees, and one cedar along a private road that runs south to north along the project site.

Although not rooted within the project site, a substantial portion of the canopy of a mature valley oak overlaps onto the project site on the northern boundary. The oak tree is rooted on the neighboring property, at the northern bank of Modoc Ditch. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat with potential to support birds of prey, including Swainson’s hawk.

Modoc Ditch is a man-made, actively managed irrigation canal aligned along the northern boundary of the project site. It is approximately 15 feet wide and carried approximately a foot of water at the time of the survey; water levels are expected to fluctuate based on agricultural activity. Flows of the canal are sustained by water that is pumped in through the regional irrigation infrastructure, and the flows are typically disconnected from St. John’s River to the east but can likely be connected to St.

John’s River under flooding conditions.

The project site contains a man-made and actively managed detention basin for irrigation purposes, located at the northern portion of the site. Water levels likely fluctuate depending on agriculture activities and needs. Water is actively pumped into the detention basin from Modoc Ditch. The detention basin was constructed during establishment of the almond orchard in 2018.

In addition, there are access roads that traverse the project site, which are currently dirt with small amounts of managed, non-native invasive grasses and forbs on edges.

3 Planning area refers to the land area addressed by a General Plan, including land within the city limits and land outside the city limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. This area is not all intended for development; the Urban Growth Boundary shows the future development area.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description

2-3
See Exhibit 2-4 for an aerial image depicting the on-site features discussed above, and Exhibit 2-5a and Exhibit 2-5b for site photos.

The project site is gently sloping toward the east with a ground surface elevation of approximately 300 to 305 feet above mean sea level. The entire project site is considered Prime Farmland as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Prime Farmland is land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods.4 The project site is encumbered by a Williamson Act contract.

The landowner submitted a Notice of Non-renewal application to Tulare County in July 2021, beginning a nine-year process to formally expire the contract. Based on the date of the Notice of Non-renewal, the contract would have expired on December 31, 2030. However, given the anticipated timing to commence construction of the proposed project, rather than waiting for the contract to expire automatically by operation of law pursuant to the Notice of Non-renewal, the landowner moved forward with cancellation proceedings under State law. To that end, the landowner obtained approval, subject to compliance with certain conditions, from the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County to remove 280 acres from the subject County Agricultural Preserve No. 0293 and to tentatively cancel the contract (WAC No. 2880) pursuant to Government Code Sections 51281 and 51282 on November 29, 2022 (see Tulare County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2022-1005, attached as Appendix G2). The Final Certificate of Cancellation will be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of the conditions enumerated in the Certificate of Partial Tentative Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract (recorded as Document No. 2022-0073141 on December 1, 2022) (attached as Appendix G2).”
Most of the project site is located within Zone X: 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, and the southeast corner of the site is located within Zone X: Minimal Flood Hazard. 5 2.3.3 - Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
County of Tulare
The County has adopted various City Plans for all eight incorporated cities in the County to guide County land use decisions outside of city limits but within the County’s Urban Development Boundaries and Urban Area Boundaries surrounding each City. The project site is within the General Plan’s “County Adopted City Plan” for Visalia.

The project site is zoned AE-40 on the County’s Zoning Map. The AE-40 Zone is intended for intensive and extensive agricultural uses and for those uses which are a necessary and integral part of intensive and extensive agricultural operations.

Exhibit 2-6 depicts the County’s zoning designation for the project site.

4 Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Mapping Categories and Soil Taxonomy Terms. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/soil_criteria.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2022. 5 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. August 18. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=8029%20W%20Riggin%20Ave%2C%20Visalia%2C%20CA%2093291#searchresul tsanchor. Accessed August 18, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR

2-4
City of Visalia
The project site has City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan) land use designations of Industrial and Light Industrial.6
The General Plan Land Use Element presents a framework to guide future land use decisions and development in the City while also enhancing community character and improving the City’s look and feel. The Light Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, distribution, research and development enterprises, and secondary office (limited customer access) uses. This designation also conditionally permits uses like convenience store and drive-through restaurants. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for this designation is 0.5. The Industrial designation allows uses such as primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities including those with outdoor facilities. It also accommodates warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services and office space. Retail uses are not permitted. The maximum FAR for this designation is 0.6.

Exhibit 2-7 depicts the City’s General Plan land use designation of the project site. Upon completion of the annexation process to the City, the project site would be zoned Industrial and Light Industrial.

The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes but as noted above, has been planned by the City for light industrial and industrial uses pursuant to the identified General Plan land use designations.

2.3.4 - Surrounding Uses: Land Use and Zoning
The area surrounding the project site has both an agricultural and industrial character. Land uses east and north of the project site (east of Shirk Street and north of Modoc Ditch) consist of agricultural uses. Land uses west of the project site (west of Kelsey Street) consist of the Amazon distribution center and United Parcel Service (UPS) distribution hub. Land uses south of the project site (south of Riggin Avenue) consist of various industrial uses, four trailer homes, and agricultural uses (including a dairy farm). The nearest sensitive receptors are the trailer homes and multi-family residences immediately south and southeast of Riggin Avenue, respectively.

2.4 - Project Objectives
Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR project description to include a description of project objectives. In addition to addressing the underlying project purpose(s), the objectives are relevant to the development of the alternatives considered in the EIR and in the preparation of findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary, in support of the decision-making action by the City.

The fundamental purpose and goal of the proposed project is to accomplish the orderly development of the project site as proposed, consistent with the General Plan’s industrial land use

6 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Land Use Element. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474. Accessed August 17, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description

2-5
designation, which would provide economic benefits to the City, among others. The applicant’s objectives of the proposed project consist of the following:

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

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

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

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

5. Maximize placement of industrial warehouse uses in close proximity to the State Highway system (State Route [SR] 99) and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths, as feasible, on other roadways and to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses or other sensitive receptors.

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

2.5 - Project Description

2.5.1 - Development Summary
The proposed project would discontinue the existing agricultural uses, demolish remaining on-site structures that serve agricultural uses, and develop a mixed-use industrial park totaling approximately 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial and flex industrial uses along with car/trailer parking areas and related on- and off-site improvements (Exhibit 2-8 and Exhibit 2-9). Parking and loading areas to serve the industrial uses would be provided around the project site pursuant to the City’s applicable parking and loading standards. The proposed project would include eight stormwater detention basins that would surround the parking/loading areas. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and three access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site. There would also be other compatible non-industrial uses, consisting of self-storage/RV parking, a convenience store, a City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR

2-6
car wash, a gas station, and two drive-through restaurants. The proposed buildings would comply with the development standards for industrial districts set forth in Visalia Municipal Code Chapter

17.22, Industrial Zones, related to, but not limited to minimum lot area and width, setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR, maximum building height and landscape area.

The industrial park would involve both flex industrial and light industrial uses. Flex industrial uses would consist of small incubator space available for small manufacturing, storage, limited warehouse space, while the light industrial uses would consist of warehouse, distribution, storage, and light manufacturing. The proposed project would include the following buildings:

Table 2-1: Development Summary
Building Square Footage
Light Industrial Building No. 1 +/- 786,240 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 2 +/- 1,078,440 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 3 +/- 144,300 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 4 +/- 173,160 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 5 +/- 156,140 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 6 +/- 109,890 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 7 +/- 513,240 square feet Light Industrial Building No. 8 +/- 513,240 square feet Flex Industrial Buildings +/- 84,480 square feet
Self-Storage/Recreation Vehicle (RV)
Buildings
+/- 144,800 square feet
Convenience Store and Gas Station +/- 6,922 square feet Drive-through Restaurant No. 1 +/- 2,368 square feet
Drive-through Restaurant No. 2 +/- 2,368 square feet
Car Wash +/- 4,560 square feet
Water Quality Management Basins +/- 31.3 acres
Landscaping +/- 30.68 acres

Operation
The proposed project would have a total of approximately 4,177 employees at buildout.7 The proposed industrial and flex industrial buildings are assumed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and typically consist of both day and night shifts. The proposed RV and self-storage, car wash, drive through restaurants, and convenience store would have operation hours that adhere to any

7 Consistent with the project traffic study, the employee amount at buildout is based on the conversion of ITE trip generation for building size and employee.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description

2-7
requirements set forth in the City’s zoning ordinance and conditional use permit, and otherwise consistent with industry standard practice.

Building and Design
As shown in Exhibit 2-10a and Exhibit 2-10b, the industrial buildings would have light gray walls with white, gray, and blue accents and gray and white aluminum composite metal panels. Minimally reflective materials, such as dark bronze colored glass, would be used for the windows. Design and height of the flex industrial, car wash, drive-through restaurants, and convenience store would be consistent with applicable City design standards. The proposed project is designed to meet contemporary industry standards including modern façades, articulated concrete panels, natural color palette, and expansive glass entry features. Project design features would reduce energy usage and water usage including native plants and vegetation for landscaped areas to reduce water use, low-water-usage plumbing fixtures, clerestory windows, recycling collection and storage areas inside each building for all types of recyclables, and low-emitting finish materials. The proposed industrial buildings would have a maximum height of 45 feet. The final design would be submitted as part of the design review submittal to the City to ensure a desirable environment for its occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors through the appropriate use of materials, texture, and color, and would remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained.

Vehicle Access and Circulation
Regional access to the project site is available from SR-99 via the Betty Drive interchange. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Clancy Street south of the project site would be extended to replace the existing private road and would traverse south to north of the site. An internal network of driveways and drive aisles would connect the overall project. A series of pedestrian sidewalks would be provided throughout the project site.

The applicant would dedicate easements along the east side of Kelsey Street, west side of Shirk Street, and Clancy Street to the City after construction of the road improvements to be completed as part of the project, consisting of sidewalk improvements, curb and gutter, and signing and striping (Exhibit 2-11).

Parking
Parking would be provided pursuant to applicable parking requirements of Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.34.020. Manufacturing plants and other industrial uses are required to have one parking space for each employee during shift of maximum employment, plus one parking space per vehicle used in conjunction with the use.8 Restaurants are required to have one parking space per 150 square feet of building area, and convenience stores are required to have one parking space per 500 square feet of building area. Parking for self-storage facilities is not defined in City code. It is generally accepted that parking will be provided for any on-site manager and as needed based on the project concept. Table 2-2 below summarizes the required parking calculations.

8 City of Visalia. 2022. Municipal Code Section 17.34.020 Schedule of Off-Street Parking Space Requirements. Website:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/visalia/latest/visalia_ca/0-0-0-35278. Accessed August 23, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR

2-8
Page PK-5 of the City of Visalia Engineering Design and Improvement Standards provides the requirements for the minimum number of accessible stalls required based on the total number of stalls proposed.9 For projects proposing greater than 1,001 parking stalls, the minimum number of disabled accessible parking spaces is 20 plus one for each 100 or fraction thereof over 1,000.

Therefore, the proposed project would require approximately 47 accessible parking spaces based on the proposed 3,750 total spaces. Page PK-3 of the City of Visalia Engineering Design and Improvement Standards states that one in every six accessible parking stalls shall be van accessible.

Therefore, of the 47 accessible spaces, at least eight must be van accessible.

Table 2-2: Required and Proposed Parking
Land Use
Building
Area
(SF)
(approx.)
Parking Requirements
Parking Required
(Number of Spaces)
(approx.)
Parking Proposed
(Number of Spaces)
(approx.)
Spaces/
Employees
(approx.)
Spaces/
Building Area
(approx.)
Flex
Industrial
84,480 800 – 244 269
Light
Industrial
3,474,650 1 space/
employee
during shift
of maximum
employment,
plus one
parking
space per
vehicle used
in
conjunction
with the use
– 2,316 employee parking 3,331
Self-Storage 144,800 – – – 35
C-Store 6,922 – 1 space/
500 SF
14 24
Drive-
through
Restaurants
4,736 – 1 space/
150 SF
32 74
Car Wash 4,560 – 1 space/
500 SF
9 17
Total 3,720,149 – – Standard ADA Total Standard ADA Total 2,579 36 2,616 3,750 47 3,750
Notes:

SF = square feet
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act

9 City of Visalia. 2016. Parking Standards. September. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34593. Accessed August 23, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description

2-9
Landscaping
Landscaping would be provided in accordance with the City’s Landscape Standard Specifications.10 The proposed project contains approximately 31.3 acres of water quality management basins to retain stormwater on-site. The detention basins would be planted with species including the Berkeley sedge, Canyon Prince wild rye, Hummingbird sage, and California goldenrod.

Outside of the building footprints, roads, parking lots, and stormwater basins, approximately 30.68 acres remain for landscaping within the project boundary. Trees to be used for parking area landscaping would include species with very low to medium water needs, including but not limited to coast live oak, autumn gold ginkgo, London plane tree, zelkova, Arizona cypress, and southern magnolia. Shrubs and groundcovers would feature species with low water needs, such as buffalo grass, Bermuda grass, feather reed grass, blue fescue, pink muhly grasses, and heavenly bamboo.

Lighting
Exterior lighting is designed to maximize employee safety and security while complying with applicable Visalia Municipal Code standards, the CALGreen Code, and the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, as applicable. New sources of light that would be located on-site and primarily include parking lot pole-mounted lights, and building-mounted outdoor security lighting. The lighting would be directed away from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way. Exhibit 2-12 depicts the photometric plan for the project; the proposed lighting would be confined within developed areas of the site and a small portion of Riggin Avenue.

2.5.2 - Utilities
The proposed project would require connection to various City-operated utility and infrastructure systems. These include City-provided services such as water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities.

Non-City provided infrastructure includes natural gas (to be provided by Southern California Gas Company) and electrical services (to be provided by Southern California Edison [SCE]). The proposed project would be responsible for construction of the necessary connection points to the City’s existing infrastructure. Proposed infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, and stormwater facilities are described below. The proposed project would remove or modify the existing detention basin and would potentially require two new culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch and extension of one existing culvert crossing.

Water Demand and Supply
Potable water is anticipated to be supplied to the proposed project by California Water Service (Cal Water), which is a wholesale provider to the City. Service laterals would be extended from an existing water line located within Kelsey Street. As shown in Exhibit 2-13, the proposed project would be served by a series of new 8-inch and 12-inch water lines throughout the project site.

It is estimated that the proposed project would have an average potable usage of approximately 124.1 acre-feet per year at project buildout.11

10 City of Visalia. 2013. Landscape Standard Specifications. August 5. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15472. Accessed August 23, 2022. 11 4Creeks, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Technical Memorandum Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. September.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR

2-10
As discussed in the Cal Water Visalia District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, future water demands are expected to be comprised only of potable water use. The City of Visalia has entered into agreements with Tulare Irrigation District to supply recycled water from its wastewater treatment facilities for groundwater recharge uses. None of the recycled water supplied to Tulare Irrigation District is expected to be used to meet the future water demands of District customers.

Wastewater
Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated by the City’s Water Conservation Plant. The proposed project would install and extend all City master planned sewer lines to the extent determined by the City Engineer pursuant to the applicant’s development phasing plans and in accordance with legal nexus requirements. Service laterals would be extended from an existing sewer line located within Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. As shown in Exhibit 2-14, the proposed project would be served by a series of new 8-inch and 12-inch sewer lines throughout the project site.

Storm Drainage
The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of inlets, underground piping, and basins. Approximately 31.3 acres of water quality management basins would be installed. Runoff would drain to drainage system located throughout the project site (Exhibit 2-15). The system would be designed to meet all applicable standards and requirements including accommodating a 100-year storm event and detaining runoff and release it at a rate no greater than the pre-development condition of the project site. The proposed project would be required to retain the stormwater per the City’s drainage requirements and all other applicable standards.

2.5.3 - Phasing and Construction
For the purposes of the environmental analysis in this EIR and in accordance with the applicant’s project development goals, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in March 2024 and completed in March 2028, with operations commencing upon the completion of construction of the proposed project.12
As described above, given its size and nature, it is reasonable to assume the proposed project would be constructed in phases over time. However, because various market, economic and other considerations would ultimately determine how construction phasing would occur in connection with individual specific development proposal(s), this Draft EIR utilizes the following assumptions based on reasonably available information for purposes of a conservative analysis. As shown in Exhibit 2-16, “Phase 1” of project construction is defined herein to consist of approximately 1,864,700 square feet of light industrial space, occurring generally in the locations shown on Exhibit 2-16. Construction of Phase 1 is assumed to begin in March 2024 and end in March 2025. “Phase 2” of project construction is defined herein to consist of approximately 830,700 square feet of light industrial space as well as the car wash, the convenience store with gasoline pumps, and

12 Because vehicle fuel use becomes more efficient through time in compliance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations, these dates support a conservative evaluation of potential impacts. If the actual dates of construction are delayed, associated effects would be reduced accordingly.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Project Description

2-11
both drive-through, quick serve/fast food restaurants. Construction of Phase 2 is assumed to begin in September 2025 and end in September 2026.
“Phase 3” of project construction is defined herein to consist of the remaining approximately 779,270 square feet of light industrial space as well as approximately 84,480 square feet of flex industrial space and the self-storage facility. Construction of Phase 3 is assumed to begin in March 2027 and end in March 2028.

The necessary landscaped areas, parking areas, and the water quality management basins would be included in each of the three Phases, in amounts sufficient to serve each relevant Phase.

While the above-described preliminary construction schedule for the proposed project assumes that Phases 1 through 3 would be built sequentially (i.e., none of the three Phases would overlap), the potential remains for project Phases to be constructed concurrently. Therefore, for the purpose of analyzing the reasonable worst-case scenario and fully disclosing all potential impacts, this Draft EIR also evaluates impacts that could occur if there were concurrent (rather than sequential) phasing for the proposed project, as detailed more fully in Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.12 Noise, and Section 3.14 Transportation. Accordingly, impact discussions and mitigation measures related to each construction Phase would be applicable to an individual specific development proposal taking place within the development area covered by the relevant Phase.

Construction equipment to be used for the proposed project includes, but is not limited to air compressors, concrete industrial saws, cranes, excavators, forklifts, generator sets, graders, pavers, paving equipment, rollers, rubber-tired bulldozers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, and welders.

Construction hours would be in accordance with City of Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C), which prohibits operation of construction equipment between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.

Cut and Fill
The proposed project includes approximately 130,000 cubic yards of material to be cut, approximately 260,000 cubic yards of fill material, and a net import of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of new material.

2.6 - Required Actions and Approvals
The proposed project would require the certification of the EIR and the following discretionary approvals from the City:
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of Resolution Initiating Annexation Proceedings • Approval of the Site Plan
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Map
• Conditional Use Permit for the conditionally permitted uses proposed (convenience store, drive-through restaurants), some of the proposed lot sizes in the light industrial zoning, and lots without public street frontage.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Project Description Draft EIR

2-12
In addition to the above discretionary approvals from the City, the proposed project would also require approvals of various ministerial permits including a parcel map, demolition permit(s), grading permit(s), building permit(s), certificate(s) of occupancy, right-of-way dedications, and encroachment permit(s).

Other Public Agencies Approval and Consultation
The proposed project would require various permits, approvals and/or entitlements from other public agencies that have jurisdiction over aspects of the proposed project. These may include, but not be limited to the following:
• Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) • Tulare County Board of Supervisors
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

!
·|}þ201
·|}þ137
·|}þ198
KingsCounty
Tulare
County
Fresno County
Tulare County
·|}þ99
·|}þ63
·|}þ43
Farmersville
Exeter
Sanger
Reedley
Selma
Dinuba
VisaliaHanford
Tulare
Corcoran
Orosi
Elderwood
Auckland
Orange Cove
Traver
Sequoia
Goshen
Fowler
Exhibit 2-1
Regional Location Map
5 0 52.5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL).

I
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
41150039 " 08/2022 | 2-1_Regional_Location.mxd Project Site
Legend
City of Visalia

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit 2-2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery; City of Visalia, March 2024. CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Unincorporated Tulare County
41150039 " 03/2024 | 2-2_Local_Vicinity.mxd

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit 2-3
City of Visalia
Urban Growth Boundary
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Visalia, March 2024. CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Unincorporated Tulare County
City of Visalia Urban Growth Boundary
Tiers
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
41150039 " 03/2024 | 2-3_Urban_Growth_Boundary.mxd

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 " 03/2024 | 2-4_Exisitng_Setting.mxd Exhibit 2-4
Existing Setting
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. 500 0 500250
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Land Cover and Vegetation
Access Road (dirt)
Almond orchards
Irrigation Cannal
Ornamental Trees
Retention PondValley Oak
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-5a_Site_Photos.cdr
Exhibit 2-5a
Site Photos

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Photograph 1: View from the southeast corner of the project site at Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue; facing northwest.

Photograph 2: View from southwest corner of the project site at Kelsey Street and Riggin Avenue, looking northeast.

Photograph 3: View of northeast corner of the project site and the water pump on site.

Photograph 4: View from road 89 looking south.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-5b_Site_Photos.cdr
Exhibit 2-5b
Site Photos

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Photograph 5: Bird's eye view of the northeastern portion of the project site and the adjacent oak tree.

Photograph 6: Bird's eye view of the northern portion of the project site and modoc ditch.

Photograph 7: Bird's eye view of the retention basin,
southwest of road 89 and modoc ditch.

Photograph 8: Pump house at northern boundary of project site.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit 2-6
County of Tulare
Zoning Designation
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Visalia, March 2024. County of Tulare. CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
41150039 " 03/2024 | 2-6_Zoning.mxd Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Zoning
AE-40
AE-20
M-1
M-1 AE-20
AE-20
AE-20

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit 2-7
City of Visalia
General Plan Land Use Designations Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Visalia, March 2024. CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
41150039 " 03/2024 | 2-7_General_Plan_Land_Use.mxd Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
General Plan Land Use
Agricultural
Commercial Mixed Use
Commercial Service
Conservation
Industrial
Light Industrial
Parks/Recreation
Public/Institutional
Residential High Density
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Very Low Density

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-8_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 2-8
Site Plan

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-9_project_simulation.cdr
Exhibit 2-9
Project Simulation
Feet
0 0 0 0
I
Site Aerial View
Cross-Dock Perspective View - SW

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-10a
Industrial Building Elevation Plans
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-10a_elevation_plans.cdr
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022.

Cross-Dock Exterior Elevations

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-10b
Industrial Building Elevation Plans
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-10b_elevation_plans.cdr
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties; Ware Malcomb, 09/15/2022.

Rear-Load Exterior Elevations

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 " 10/2022 | 2-11_street_dedication.mxd Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. 4-Creeks, September 2022. 350 0 350175
FeetI
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Street Dedication Areas 9.28 acres
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-11
Street Dedication

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
41150039 • 02/2023 | 2-12_site photometric plan.cdr
Source: Ware Malcomb, 2022.

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-12
Site Photometric Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-13
Proposed Water Lines
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-13_water_lines
Source: 4Creeks, Inc.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-14
Proposed Sewer Lines
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-14_sewer_lines
Source: 4Creeks, Inc.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-15
Proposed Storm Drainage System
41150039 • 03/2023 | 2-15_storm_drainage_system
Source: 4Creeks, Inc.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF VISALIA

SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-16
Project Phasing
41150039 • 05/2023 | 2-16_project_phasing.cdr
Source: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc. 2022.
*The necessary landscaped areas, parking areas, and the water quality management basins could be constructed with any phase as needed (e.g. Phase 1/2/3)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis

3-1

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Organization of Issue Areas
This chapter sets forth the physical and regulatory environmental setting and addresses the organization of the discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to 17 environmental resource areas. The discussions of the environmental setting describe present physical conditions, or baseline conditions, on the project site and in the vicinity. For purposes of this analysis, the baseline used for the evaluation of environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reflects the conditions present at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was published. To determine the proposed project’s individual impacts, potential impacts of the proposed project are compared against the existing baseline conditions for each environmental resource. For purposes of the cumulative analysis, the impacts of the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are analyzed to determine whether overall long- term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant, and to determine whether the proposed project itself would cause a “cumulatively considerable” incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts.

Issues Addressed in this Draft EIR
The following environmental issues are addressed in Chapter 3:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
• Agriculture Resources and Forest Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

Level of Significance
Determining the severity of project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decision-makers mitigate, as completely as is feasible, the significant impacts identified in the EIR. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decision-makers in approving a project to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR.

The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft EIR was determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR

3-2

using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and checklist; State, federal, and local regulatory schemes; local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions.

Format of the Environmental Analysis
Each resource area analyzed in this Draft EIR includes the subsections summarized below.

Introduction
This subsection summarizes what is discussed in the respective environmental topic section, states what informational documents are used as the basis for the section, and indicates what related comments, if any, were received during the Draft EIR public scoping period.

Environmental Setting
This subsection describes existing, baseline physical conditions of the project site and the surroundings (e.g., existing land uses, transportation conditions, noise environment) with respect to each resource topic at the time the NOP was issued. Conditions are described in sufficient detail and breadth to allow a general understanding of environmental impacts of the proposed project based on reasonably available information.

Regulatory Framework
This subsection describes relevant federal, State, regional (if applicable), and local regulatory requirements that are directly applicable to the environmental topic being analyzed.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This subsection evaluates potential for the proposed project to result in direct and indirect adverse impacts on the existing physical environment, with consideration of both short-term and long-term impacts. The analysis covers construction and operation of the proposed project. The City is utilizing Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as thresholds of significance for this project. The significance thresholds for environmental impacts are defined at the beginning of this subsection, and the discussion of the approach to the analysis explains how significance thresholds have been applied to evaluate impacts of the proposed project.

Indirect impacts are discussed only for those resources for which they have potential to occur (e.g., cultural resources, air quality, and biological resources). Both individual-level and cumulative impacts are analyzed. Individual-level impacts could result from actions related to implementation of the proposed project as compared to the existing, baseline conditions. Cumulative impacts could result from implementation of the proposed project in combination with other cumulative projects in the relevant study area. As discussed in “Cumulative Impacts,” below, the projects listed in Table 3-1, in conjunction with the proposed project, are considered the cumulative scenario for analysis of cumulative impacts.

Impacts are analyzed and the respective assessment and findings are included in this Draft EIR, applying the following levels of significance:

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis

3-3

• No Impact. A conclusion of No Impact is reached if no potential exists for impacts or if the environmental resource does not occur in the project site or the relevant study area of potential impacts.
• Less than significant impact. This determination applies if the impact does not exceed the defined significance criteria or would be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing local, State, and federal laws and regulations. No mitigation is required for impacts determined to be less than significant. • Less than significant impact with mitigation. This determination applies if the proposed project would result in a significant impact, exceeding the established significance criteria, but feasible mitigation is available that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. • Significant and unavoidable impact. This determination applies if the proposed project would result in an adverse impact that exceeds the established significance criteria, and no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the residual impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Impacts are defined in terms of their context and intensity. Context is related to the uniqueness of a resource; intensity refers to severity of the impact. Where applicable, Best Management Practices (BMPs), project improvement measures (otherwise referred to as project design features), or both, are incorporated into the proposed project to limit potential for a significant impact. Where necessary, feasible mitigation measures are identified for significant impacts to limit the degree or lower the magnitude of the impact; rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; or compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. These impacts conclude with a finding of Less than significant impact with mitigation. Where no mitigation measures are necessary, relevant impacts are concluded to be Less than significant or to have No impact.

As part of the impact analysis, mitigation measures are identified, where feasible, for impacts considered significant or potentially significant consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, which states that an EIR “shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts.” CEQA requires that mitigation measures have an essential nexus and be roughly proportional to the significant impact identified in the EIR. The project sponsor may be required to implement all identified mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR, as reflected in an adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the lead agency (in this case, the City of Visalia) is responsible for overseeing the project sponsor’s implementation of mitigation measures, which occurs through the imposition of the MMRP as enforceable conditions of approval. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, mitigation measures are not required for environmental impacts that are found not to be significant.

Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type. The corresponding mitigation measures, where identified, are numbered, indented, and follow the impact statements. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topic and include an abbreviated reference to the impact section (e.g., “LAND” for Land Use and Planning). The following abbreviations are used for individual topics:

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR

3-4

• Aesthetics (AES)
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources (AG)
• Air Quality (AIR)
• Biological Resources (BIO)
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (CUL) • Energy (ENER)
• Geology and Soils (GEO)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)
• Land Use and Planning (LAND)
• Noise (NOI)
• Public Services (PUB)
• Transportation (TRANS)
• Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)
• Wildfire (WILD)

Cumulative Impacts
The discussion of cumulative impacts in this subsection analyzes cumulative impacts of the proposed project, taken together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects producing related impacts. The goal of this analysis is to determine whether overall long-term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant, and to determine whether the proposed project itself would cause a “cumulatively considerable” incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts. To determine whether the overall long-term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant, the analysis generally considers the following:
• The area in which impacts of the proposed project would be experienced; • The impacts of the proposed project that are expected in the area; • Other past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable projects that have had or are expected to have impacts in the same area;
• The impacts or expected impacts of these other projects; and • The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts from each project are allowed to accumulate.

“Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable, or that compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts taking place over time (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 1508.7). This analysis will determine whether the potential exists for the proposed project, taken together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant or adverse cumulative impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis

3-5

The cumulative impact analysis for each individual resource topic is presented in each resource section of this chapter immediately after the description of direct project impacts and identified mitigation measures. The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is described for each type of resource. This analysis evaluates whether the impacts of the proposed project, together with the impacts of cumulative development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. This analysis would then determine whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to any significant cumulative impact is itself significant (i.e., “cumulatively considerable”). Both conditions must apply for the project’s cumulative effects to rise to the level of significance.

In addition to relevant past and present cumulative projects, Table 3-1 lists relevant cumulative projects considered for the environmental analysis and Exhibit 3-1, Cumulative Projects Map, shows the locations of the cumulative projects. The cumulative projects list includes past, present, and future projects. Future projects include pipeline projects that are considered reasonably foreseeable.

Table 3-1: Cumulative Projects
No. Project Characteristics
Project Development
Units
Square
Footage Location Status
City of Visalia
1 YS Industrial
Park Phase 2
Warehouse and
Distribution
– 354,000 Southwest Corner of
Riggin Avenue and
Clancy Street
Under
Construction
2 Sandridge
Partners, LP–
Visalia
Industrial
Industrial
Warehouse–
Interior Offices
– 100,000 Southeast Corner of
Kelsey Street and
Riggin Avenue
Under
Construction
3 Central Point
III
Warehouse and
Distribution
– 2,680,000 3807 North Plaza Drive Under
Review
4 YS Industrial
Park Phase I
Warehouse and
Distribution
– 1,112,000 Southwest Corner of
Kelsey Street and
Avenue 320
Under
Review
5 Pheasant
Ridge Unit No.
7 Phase 1
Single-family
Residential
22 – Northeast Corner of
Shirk Street and West
Ferguson Avenue
Under
Construction
6 Costco at
Carleton Acres
Commercial – 161,000 Northeast Corner of
Shirk Street and Riggin
Avenue
Under
Review
7 Carleton Acres Mix Use
Development
Specific Plan
3,368
residential
units

14.7 acres of
commercial
development
Northeast Corner of
Riggin Avenue and
Shirk Street
Under
Review
8 Shirk and Doe
Apartment
Complex
Multi-Family
Residential
200 – North Shirk Street and
West Doe Avenue
Under
Construction
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR

3-6

No. Project Characteristics
Project Development
Units
Square
Footage Location Status
Sources:

City of Visalia. 2021. Site Plan Review Agenda. August 25.

City of Visalia. 2021. Site Plan Review Agenda. October 13.

City of Visalia. 2022. Site Plan Review Agenda. July 13.

City of Visalia. 2022. Site Plan Review Agenda. April 20.

City of Visalia. 2022. Site Plan Review Agenda. May 4.

Exhibit 3-1
Cumulative Projects Map
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Visalia, March 2024. County of Tulare. CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Visalia
Unincorporated Tulare County
Cumulative Projects
City of Visalia Urban Growth Boundary
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
41150039 " 03/2024 | 3-1_Cumulative Projects Map.mxd

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-1

3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing aesthetics, light, and glare conditions on the project site and vicinity, well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the potential impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare that could result from implementation of the proposed project, as well as identifies feasible mitigation measures that would reduce any significant impacts, if and to the extent required. The descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on-site reconnaissance, as well as review of relevant portions of the City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan) and City of Visalia Municipal Code (Municipal Code).

No comments were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period related to aesthetics, light, and glare.

3.1.2 - Environmental Setting
Visual Character
Visual character in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) context is an impartial description of defining physical features, landscape patterns, and distinctive physical qualities within a landscape. Visual character is informed by the composition of land, vegetation, water, and structures and their relationship (or dominance) to one another, and by prominent elements of form, line, color, and texture that combine to define the composition of views. Visual character- defining resources and features within a landscape may derive from notable landforms, vegetation, land uses, building design and façade treatments, transportation facilities, overhead utility structures and lighting, historic structures or districts, or panoramic open space.

City of Visalia
The City of Visalia (City) is located on the generally flat, agricultural plain of the San Joaquin Valley, about 10 miles west of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The high mountain peaks, about 40 miles distant, create a dramatic backdrop on clear days. The City has grown concentrically around its historic core and is surrounded by productive agricultural land.

Project Site
The project site is generally flat with a gentle upward slope to the east and is currently used as an almond orchard, with associated infrastructure and an irrigation canal (Modoc Ditch) along its northern edge. The canopy of a mature valley oak overhangs the project site’s northern boundary.

The majority of the project site is currently covered with a cultivated orchard. There is also a pump house, retention basin, ditch, and water pump on the site. No other structures or residences are located within the project site. In addition to the orchard areas, there are non-native planted ornamental trees, including a double row of 35 olive trees with a cluster of two tall elm trees and one cedar along a private road that runs south to north along the project site.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-2

Scenic Resources and Views
Scenic resources typically involve prominent, unique, and identifiable natural features in the environment (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, islands, ridgelines, channels of water, and aesthetically appealing open space) and/or cultural features or resources, such as regional or architecturally distinctive buildings or structures that serve as a focal point of interest.

Views may be generally described as panoramic views of a large geographic area for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance and are identified or known for high scenic quality.

Associated vantage points provide an orientation from publicly accessible locations. Examples of distinctive views include urban skylines, valleys, mountain ranges, or large bodies of water.

City of Visalia
Visalia is surrounded by agricultural lands and natural open space. While some edges of the City are well defined by physical features like State Route (SR) 99, the St. Johns River, and the airport, development transitions into more predominantly agricultural areas.1 Noted visual vistas include views of the Sierra Nevada range to the east and agricultural lands beyond the edges of the City. The Sierra Nevada range, rising to an elevation of nearly 14,494 feet, is the most prominent topographical feature in the area. The Sierra Nevada range and its foothills stretch along the east area of Tulare County (County) and are a valuable aesthetic resource.

Valley oak trees, both individually and in groves, also provide an important scenic feature and link to the natural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. Some groves are protected as part of regional parkland, while others are on agricultural land or within the City itself. Visalia’s regular urban grid overlays the natural forms of the Kaweah Delta. While the St. Johns River plays an important role in defining the City’s edge to the northeast, smaller creeks and ditches generally have little visibility in the urbanized environment today.

Project Site
The area surrounding the project site has a mixture of agricultural, industrial, and residential uses and characteristics, including agricultural lands, residential development, and industrial warehouses (Exhibits 2-5a and 2-5b). Views from the project site include agricultural lands to the north and east and industrial/urban development to the south and west. The Sierra Nevada range is visible from the project site on clear days; Sequoia National Park and waterways such as the St. Johns River are not visible from the project site.

Light and Glare
Light is defined as nighttime illumination that stimulates sight and makes things visible; glare is defined as difficulty seeing in the presence of bright light, such as direct or reflected sunlight.

The primary sources of nighttime light in the project vicinity are from vehicle headlights traveling along Riggin Avenue, Shirk Street, and Kelsey Street, as well as other surrounding roadways. There are also intermittent streetlights along the roadways and residential development. There are also

1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-3

industrial buildings with outdoor security lighting in the project vicinity and some large reflective surfaces associated with buildings in the project vicinity that contribute to daytime glare.

The one agricultural structure on-site may include exterior nighttime lighting; however, such lighting is minimal. There are streetlights on the southern corners of the project site at the intersection of Riggin Avenue with Kelsey Street and Shirk Street; there are no streetlights at the northern corners of the project site. No other features on the project site produce light or glare.

3.1.3 - Regulatory Framework
State
California Scenic Highway Program
The State Legislature created the California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in 1963. The purpose of the State Scenic Highway Program is to preserve and protect the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of highway lands through special conservation treatment. The State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been officially designated. A scenic corridor is land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway and is identified using a motorist’s line of vision.

The status of a proposed State Scenic Highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated a Scenic Highway. The Corridor Protection Program seeks to encourage quality development that does not degrade scenic value of corridors. Minimum requirements for scenic corridor protection include:
• Regulation of land use and density of development
• Detailed land and site planning
• Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on billboards) • Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping • Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Building Energy Efficiency Standards The California Building Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24)—including Title 24, Part 6—includes Section 132 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which regulates lighting characteristics, such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on population figures of the 2000 Census. Areas can be designated as LZ1 (dark), LZ2 (rural), or LZ3 (urban). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter, to protect the areas from the introduction of new sources of light pollution and light trespass.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-4

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The General Plan establishes the following goals and policies related to aesthetics, light, and glare that are relevant to this analysis:

Land Use Element
Objectives
LU-O-14 Create an overall urban form centered on a vital downtown and a higher-density core, surrounded by viable residential neighborhoods with walkable, mixed-use neighborhood centers.

LU-O-15 Maintain and enhance Visalia’s physical diversity, visual qualities and small-town characteristics.

LU-O-16 Create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for current and future generations of residents.

Policies
LU-P-37 Adopt specific development standards for scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City, including special setback and landscape standards, open space and park development, and/or land use designations.

These standards will apply to the west and east entries into Visalia along Highway 198 and to the “gateway boulevards” identified in the Transportation Element:

Caldwell and Riggin Avenues; Shirk Road; and Lovers Lane.

LU-P-38 Develop a Citywide street tree and landscape master plan that enhances the City’s overall identity and lends distinct character to specific streets and districts.

LU-P-39 Improve tree planting, landscaping and site design standards to minimize the visual impact of large parking lots and buildings, to enhance and promote natural characteristics compatible with urban form, to minimize heat gain and promote energy conservation, and to improve stormwater infiltration.

Standards should establish tree spacing and size requirements, and shading requirements for parking lots and usable open space. Standards should be integrated with requirements for stormwater infiltration and the use of native, drought-tolerant plants.

LU-P-40 Where possible, through the Site Plan Review process, retain native trees as landscape elements and for shading.

LU-P-42 Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-5

City of Visalia Municipal Code
Chapter 12.24 Oak Tree Preservation
Articles 1–5 describe the City restrictions related to oak trees during development planning and implementation, including (see Code for more details):

Article 1 Purpose and Definitions–Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata) and “Landmark” trees Article 2 Destruction Prohibition–Removal Permit Requirements • Willful destruction of oak trees prohibited
• Oak tree removal permit required
• Removal standards
• Mitigation requirements

Article 3 Pruning Standards and Requirements–Pruning notice required Article 4 Development Proposals; Protection of Oak Trees–Encroachment into canopy dripline of oak trees during construction
Article 5 Enforcement–Enforcement proceedings and penalties Chapter 17.22 Industrial Zones: 17.22.040 Required Conditions A. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be employed which is determined by the planning commission to be injurious to persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property located in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinder, refuse, noise, vibration, illumination, glare or heavy truck traffic or to involve any hazard of fire or explosion or to emit electrical disturbances that adversely affect commercial or electronic equipment outside the boundaries of the site.

Chapter 17.02 Article 1. General Provisions: 17.02.100 Addition of Permitted/Conditional Uses The following portions of the Municipal Code are relevant to aesthetics, light, and glare for purposes of this analysis:

A. Upon application or on its own initiative, the City Planning Commission may add to the list of permitted or conditional uses, if the commission makes the following findings:

5. That the use will not create more odor, dust, dirt, smoke, noise, vibration, illumination, glare, unsightliness or be more objectionable than the uses permitted in the zone.

Chapter 17.22 Industrial Zones: 17.22.010 Purposes
A. The two types of industrial zones included in this chapter are designed to achieve the following:

8. Protect residential and commercial properties and nuisance-free nonhazardous industrial uses from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, fire, explosion, noxious fumes, radiation and other hazards and objectionable influence incidental to certain industrial uses;
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-6

Chapter 17.28 Site Plan Review Permit: 17.28.010 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the site plan review permit is to assure that developments, new and remodeled buildings and structures, and improvements to land are reviewed to ensure substantial compliance with the general plan, municipal code, policies, and improvement standards of the City. (Ord. 2017- 01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7422)
Chapter 17.28 Site Plan Review Permit: 17.28.030 Application Procedure A. Information. The community development department shall make available a site plan review application form. The site plan shall be drawn to a scale that clearly indicates all dimensions and includes the following information as well as information identified in the site plan review application form:

19. Lighting, including the location and height of all exterior fixtures;

Chapter 17.28 Site Plan Review Permit: 17.28.040 Issuance and re-submittal B. Within 30 working days after submission, the site plan review committee shall provide, in writing to the applicant, either to proceed with applying for necessary City permits, either with or without required revisions, or require resubmittal of the site plan review and identify required revisions. The site plan review committee shall consider each project's consistency with current City ordinances and whether it will affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. In issuing direction to proceed, the committee shall consider the following:

3. That proposed lighting is so arranged as to deflect the light away from adjoining properties and will not cause a traffic hazard;

Chapter 17.30 Development Standards: 17.30.015 Development Standards A. Site Area. The minimum parcel size varies according to the zone district in which the parcel is located. However, this title shall not preclude parcels of less than the required minimum, which exist at the time of adoption of this title, from securing site plan review permits and building permits. Parcels of less than the required minimum size may be created upon approval of an acceptable master plan by the site plan review committee.

B. Setback. The minimum building setbacks in each zone district shall be conformed to the requirements set forth in that zone district. However, the site plan review committee may grant an exception to the required standards based on the uniqueness of the property or the specific design needs of the project. The average setback and landscaping under such exception shall be equal to the required standard.

C. Landscaping. The City will review and approve all landscaping for developments approved or reviewed through the site plan review permit process in order to maintain high quality developments in Visalia. If landscaping is required as a result of request for building permit, the landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted as a part of the building plans. The minimum landscaping areas shall conform to the requirements set forth in applicable zone district development standards and also the following standards:

1. General
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-7

a. All areas within a required setback to contain living ground covering or nonliving ground coverings. All plants within required setbacks to be of species suited to valley conditions, using Sunset Western Garden Book Zones 8 and 9 as a guide. The use of low water-using varieties, grouped by similar water usage is strongly recommended.

All landscape areas shall meet the requirements of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, or if applicable, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance of the City of Visalia.
b. Islands of a minimum area of 80 square feet shall be established at a maximum separation of 10 continuous parking stalls. The islands shall be landscaped with ground covers and with a minimum of one 15 gallon tree planted in each island.

Actual numbers of trees will be based on size of project as determined by the planning division.
c. All landscaping as required within section shall be reviewed by the Planning Department as to the type, density of planting and size of plants intended for use.

All landscaped areas shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. d. All landscaped areas shall be surrounded with six-inch high concrete curbing, unless waived by the site plan review committee.
e. All landscaping on public property and parks shall conform to standards adopted by the park and recreation commission.
f. Exceptions to landscaping requirements may be granted by the historic preservation advisory board for sites located within a historic district or for sites listed on the local register.

H. Lighting. No on-site lighting shall directly or indirectly illuminate adjacent properties or the public street that provides access. The lights and standard to be used shall be approved by the site plan review committee.

Chapter 17.34: Off-street Parking and Loading Facilities : 17.34.030 Standards for Off-street Parking Facilities
J. If the parking area is illuminated, lighting shall be deflected away from abutting residential sites so as to cause no annoying glare.

Chapter 17.34: Off-street Parking and Loading Facilities: 17.34.080 Standards for Off-street Loading Facilities
B. If the loading area is illuminated, lighting shall be deflected away from abutting residential sites to prevent annoying glare.

Chapter 17.48 Signs: 17.48.080 General Sign Standard

1. Light Intensity. Sign lighting must not be of an intensity or brightness that will create a nuisance for residential buildings in a direct line of sight to the sign.

4. Light Sources Adjacent to Residential Areas. Illuminated signs located adjacent to any residential area shall be controlled by a rheostat or other acceptable method to reduce glare that will create a nuisance for residential buildings in a direct line of sight to the sign.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-8

Chapter 15.08 California Building Code: 15.08.010 Adoption of the 2019 California Building Code A. That certain building code, in book form known and designated as the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, and published by The International Code Council, is adopted as the Building Code of the City, to all intents and purposes and to the same effect as if each and every section, paragraph, subparagraph, word, phrase or clause contained therein were fully set forth herein, except for those deletions, modifications, and amendments set forth below. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the chapter.

The 2019 edition of the CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council. The code is updated triennially, and the 2019 edition of the CBC was published by the California Building Standards Commission in 2019 and took effect starting January 1, 2020. The new 2022 edition of the CBC became effective January 1, 2023.

3.1.4 - Methodology
Potential project impacts with respect to aesthetics, light, and glare through site reconnaissance and review of applicable plans and policies was evaluated. A site visit and survey of the project site was conducted in August 2022 to document existing site conditions and relationships to surrounding land uses with photographs. A review of aerial photographs, topographical maps, and street maps, to identify surrounding land uses, and of project plans and elevations was made in order to evaluate potential impacts. The General Plan and Municipal Code were reviewed to determine applicable policies, requirements, development standards, and design guidelines relevant to this analysis. A photometric plan was prepared as well (see Exhibit 2-12).

This analysis provides a discussion of the impacts to aesthetic resources associated with the proposed project and its potential impact upon the project site and the vicinity. Several variables affect the degree of visibility, visual contrast, and ultimately the determination as to project impacts:
(1) scale and size of facilities, (2) viewer types and activities, (3) distance and viewing angle, and (4) influences of adjacent scenery or land uses. Key Observation Points are along Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street since these roads would be the key locations from which the viewers can see the project site. Viewer response and sensitivity vary depending on viewer attitudes and expectations. Viewer sensitivity is distinguished among project viewers in identified scenic corridors and from publicly accessible recreational areas and public vantage points. Recreational areas and scenic corridors are considered to have relatively high sensitivity. Drivers along Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street are considered to have relatively low sensitivity because these roadways are not scenic corridors and do not contain scenic resources, as described below. There are few sensitive receptors in the project vicinity as the area is generally developed with industrial and commercial operations or ongoing agriculture. Viewers from public parks, recreational trails, and/or culturally important sites have high visual sensitivities; therefore, such locations are considered sensitive viewpoints. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are not typically focused on the views and the areas do not promote enjoyment of views; therefore, viewers in these locations are assumed to have low sensitivity. There are no nearby parks or recreational trails in the project vicinity. The analysis of light and glare impacts in this section focuses on the nature and magnitude of changes in light and glare City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-9

conditions of the project site and surrounding area. If light and glare conditions of the proposed project and the existing environment are similar, then the visual compatibility would be high and any resulting impacts would be less than significant. If light and glare conditions of the proposed project would strongly contrast with existing light and glare or applicable General Plan policies and guidelines and/or any applicable Municipal Code requirements, then light and glare compatibility would be low and significant impacts may result. Relevant urban design policies, requirements and guidelines are used to provide conclusions regarding the significance of individual- and cumulative- level light and glare impacts.

3.1.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The City, as lead agency, has elected in its discretion, to utilize the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether aesthetics, light, and glare impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant.

Specifically, except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 20199, it would be a significant impact if the proposed project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). Alternatively, if the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

3.1.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required.

Scenic Vistas
Impact AES-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact Analysis
Scenic vistas are areas that are considered to be a viewpoint, or identified or known for high scenic quality, either naturally occurring or man-made, that would be pleasing to the general public and as a result provide a benefit to the area. The General Plan does not expressly designate any specific scenic vistas within the City. Within the Visalia area, there are views of the Sierra Nevada range to the east and views of agricultural lands beyond the edge of the City. The City also has views of City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-10

waterways, including the St. Johns River, ponds, and irrigation canals.2 Valley oak trees, both individually and in groves, are also identified as an important scenic feature.3 In addition, the St.

Johns River is noted as a defining feature,4 although the smaller creeks and ditches generally have little visibility in the City. Further, the City identifies SR-198, Mooney Boulevard, and Dinuba Boulevard as entry corridors to the City that provide scenic value. Within the City, these entry corridors are highly commercial, and do not have a strong streetscape character. Some corridors have been landscaped or planted with trees, providing a more scenic quality to the urban environment.

The Sierra Nevada range is approximately 18 miles east of the project site and is visible from the project site on clear days. There are also no scenic vistas of waterways, such as St. Johns River, which are visible from the project site. Also, the project site is more than 2 miles north of SR-198, more than 5 miles northwest of Mooney Boulevard, and more than 4 miles from Dinuba Boulevard.

Because of the distance from these corridors, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the views available from these entry corridors.

However, the General Plan identifies the vast agricultural lands beyond the edge of the City as one of the City’s scenic resources. The project site currently consists of cultivated agricultural lands and allows views of other agricultural lands in the vicinity. These views can be seen from the northern boundary of the project site, Shirk Street, and the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street.

Construction-Related Impacts
Project construction would include demolition, site preparation, and grading. However, while construction vehicles would be on-site, those vehicles would not be tall enough to obstruct the views of adjacent agricultural lands. Dust caused by construction would be kicked up intermittently but would not significantly obstruct these views; any minor obstruction as a result of dust would be temporary in nature and thus would not occur for extended periods of time. In addition, as described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the proposed project would be required to incorporate dust control measures as stipulated by District Rule 8021, which would help to further reduce any such impacts, which would be less than significant.

Operational-Related Impacts
With respect to potential impacts to scenic vistas that could occur as a result of project operations, while the proposed project would remove existing agricultural land, the proposed industrial use (including the buildings and related improvements) would be consistent with the long-term land use vision for the project site as reflected in the existing Industrial and Light Industrial General Plan land use designations.
5 The proposed project would involve new buildings and related facilities that would be urban in nature. Operation of the proposed project would impact views of expansive

2 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Chapter 3.13, Visual Resources. 3 Ibid.
4 City of Visalia. 2024. Visalia General Plan. Open Space and Conservation Element. 5 For example, the General Plan EIR determined that public views of panoramic vistas or significant landscape features or landforms would not be significantly altered or blocked by the buildout of the General Plan, which would include the contemplated industrial land use for the project site as envisioned by the Industrial and Light Industrial land use designations. Although some views may be obstructed in localized areas due to proposed new development, public views would not be impacted on an area-wide basis, and the General Plan determined that it, “is expected that overall, new views will compensate for any lost views.” City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-11

agricultural lands on and adjacent to the project site from publicly accessible roadways. However, this type of change was envisioned by the City in the General Plan and is in keeping with the General Plan goals, objectives policies described above as well as other surrounding urbanized uses in the general vicinity.

Moreover, the proposed project would be required to incorporate new landscaping in accordance with the City’s Landscape Standard Specifications, including native plants and vegetation. On-site detention basins would be planted with species including the Berkeley sedge, Canyon Prince wild rye, hummingbird sage, and California goldenrod. Trees to be used for parking area landscaping would include native species such as coast live oak. The planting of these types of landscaping species will further soften the industrial character of the project and reduce its overall visual impact.

There is a mature valley oak, adjacent to the project site’s northern boundary, with a substantial portion of its canopy overlapping onto the project site. Oak tree species, specifically the valley oak tree (Quercus lobata), and any tree recognized by City Council resolution as a Landmark Tree are protected under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including against “Encroachment into canopy dripline of oak trees during construction.” The proposed project does not include vertical structures, soil disturbance, or access road construction at the location of the tree, and therefore the proposed project would not result in encroachment into the canopy dripline of the tree (see Exhibit

3.4-2 for on-site limits of disturbance).

Furthermore, the proposed project is bound by Riggin Avenue to the south and Shirk Street to the east, and therefore, consistent with the General Plan, the proposed project would provide street trees, plantings, and lighting in accordance with applicable requirements and standards.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Scenic Highways
Impact AES-2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
Impact Analysis
There are no Officially Designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Visalia. The 44-mile stretch of SR-198 between SR-99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as an eligible Scenic Highway. However, the proposed project is more than 2 miles from SR-198 and is not visible to travelers along this potentially eligible scenic highway. Therefore, there would be no impact in this regard.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-12

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
No impact.

Visual Character
Impact AES-3: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point)?
Impact Analysis
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21071, in relevant part, an “urbanized area” in an unincorporated area is defined as: (A) land that is either (1) completely surrounded by one or more incorporated cities (with the population of the unincorporated area and the surrounding cities equaling not less than 100,000 persons, and the population density of the unincorporated area at least equaling the population density of the surrounding cities), or (2) located within an urban growth boundary and has an existing residential population of at least 5,000 persons per square mile; and (B) the relevant Board of Supervisors has taken certain actions that reflect principles to encourage compact development.
6 While the project site is in unincorporated area partially surrounded by the City of Visalia, and is within the City’s Planning Area, 7 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 1 of the City (Exhibit 2-3), and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), it does not have an existing residential population of at least 5,000 persons or otherwise meet the criteria to be considered as an “urbanized area.” Therefore, the proposed project is not considered an urbanized area, and thus this analysis utilizes the threshold for non-urbanized areas for purposes of this impact evaluation.

The project site is located in an area that has both an agricultural and industrial character. The area surrounding the project site has agricultural, industrial, and residential characteristics, with neighboring properties to all four sides of the project site consisting of predominately agricultural lands and industrial warehouses. Public views from the project site include agricultural lands to the north and east (Exhibits 2-5a and 2-5b). The Sierra Nevada range and waterways such as the St.

Johns River are not visible from the project site.

SR-198, Mooney Boulevard, and Dinuba Boulevard are noted as entry corridors to the City that provide scenic value. Within the City, these major corridors are highly commercial and do not have a strong streetscape character. Some corridors have been landscaped or planted with trees, providing a more scenic quality to the urban environment. The General Plan Circulation Element recommends six-lane arterials that could Include Caldwell Avenue and Riggin Avenue, Shirk Street, and Lovers

6 See Public Resources Code Section 21071(b)(2)(A), (B) (“. . . (A)(i) Promotes efficient transportation systems, economic growth, affordable housing, energy efficiency, and an appropriate balance of jobs and housing. (ii) Protects the environment, open space, and agricultural areas. (B) Submitted a draft finding to the Office of Planning and Research at least 30 days prior to issuing a final finding, and allowed the office 30 days to submit comments on the draft findings to the board of supervisors.”) 7 Planning Area refers to the land area addressed by the General Plan, including land within the city limits and land outside the city limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. This area is not all intended for development; the Urban Growth Boundary shows the future development area.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-13

Lane, to be designed as “Gateway Boulevards,” and recommends streetscape improvements such as double rows of trees, enhanced plantings, and lighting elements for these Gateway Boulevards.

Construction-Related Impacts
Construction-related activities would influence the character of the project site and associated off- site project areas, as viewed from surrounding uses by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Graded surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment, and truck traffic would be visible throughout the estimated 4 years of construction. Additionally, soil would be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations throughout the proposed project site. The duration and intensity of project construction would vary with each stage. Equipment used for construction would vary day-to-day depending on the activity, but would include scrapers/earthmovers, wheeled dozers, water trucks, forklifts, wheeled loaders, and/or motor graders. As part of the project design features discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, all stationary construction equipment would be placed away or screened from nearby residential uses southeast of the site. This would reduce some impacts to visual character during construction.

Nonetheless, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the Municipal Code and standard conditions of approval, and grading plans would be required to be submitted to the Planning Department concurrently with the development plans. All grading and earth work activities would be conducted in accordance with an approved construction grading plan and grading permit issued by the City Engineer.

Operational-Related Impacts
As is evident in Exhibit 2-7, there are existing industrial uses immediately west and southwest of the project site. The proposed industrial buildings and related improvements would be consistent with the existing visual characteristics of the adjacent industrial uses in terms of height and design.

Moreover, the proposed project would provide ample landscaping in accordance with the City’s Landscape Standard Specifications. For example, outside of the building footprints, roads, parking lots, and stormwater basins, approximately 30.68 acres remain for landscaping within the project boundary. Numerous trees would be planted and maintained for parking area landscaping, including but not limited to coast live oak, autumn gold ginkgo, London plane tree, zelkova, Arizona cypress, and southern magnolia. Shrubs and groundcovers such as buffalo grass, Bermuda grass, feather reed grass, blue fescue, pink muhly grasses, and heavenly bamboo would also be planted pursuant to applicable requirements and standards. The addition of landscaping with native plants such as coast live oak would help to further ensure the visual character and quality of public views of the project site and vicinity would not be substantially degraded. Additionally, the project is sited to screen the view of the loading and parking areas from adjacent properties to ensure a cohesive aesthetic view from the ground and adjacent buildings (Exhibit 2-9).

Furthermore, as shown in the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project and included in Appendix K, the proposed project would include landscaping, such as trees and shrubs, and appropriate setbacks to screen the view of the proposed buildings and parking areas from adjacent properties and reduce impacts related to aesthetics. The visual simulation from Key Observation Point (KOP) 1, shows a viewpoint from West Riggin Avenue near the southwestern corner of the project site. From this viewpoint, the proposed buildings would only be slightly visible because they City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-14

would be screened by trees, shrubs, and other existing development. The visual simulation from KOP 2 shows a viewpoint from West Riggin Avenue near the southeastern corner of the project site. The view from this point would be changed from agricultural fields to buildings and parking areas screened by trees. Additionally, the intersection at West Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street would be improved, including crosswalks and a signalized intersection. Overall, the proposed project would be mostly obscured from public view from West Riggin Avenue due to additional landscaping, creating a cohesive aesthetic view from the ground.

Consistent with the development envisioned in the General Plan, the proposed project is in an increasingly urbanized area that is currently planned for further urbanization, as reflected in the project site’s existing Industrial and Light Industrial General Plan land use designations. The Light Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, distribution, research and development enterprises, and secondary office (limited customer access) uses. This designation also conditionally permits uses like convenience store and drive-thru restaurants. The Industrial designation allows uses such as primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities including those with outdoor facilities. It also accommodates warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services and office space. Proposed improvements would be required to be constructed in accordance with applicable City development standards, including, among others, those relating to height, floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, setbacks, undergrounding of utilities, loading/parking requirements, and landscaping.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Light and Glare
Impact AES-4: W ould the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis
Since the project site is currently in agricultural operation, there are minimal sources of light and glare being generated. Existing sources of light and glare on the project site include minimal exterior lighting on the project site, lighting from adjacent industrial buildings that spill onto the project site, and streetlights at the intersection of Riggin Avenue with Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, as well as vehicles traveling along adjacent roadways.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-15

Construction
The proposed construction activities would occur during daylight hours given the applicable restrictions for construction hours. Construction hours would be in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C), which prohibits construction equipment from operating between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. There would be increased truck traffic and the transport of construction materials and equipment to the project site, which would temporarily increase light and glare conditions during construction.

However, any such increase in light and glare would be minimal and temporary in nature. In addition, as part of the project design features discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, all stationary construction equipment would be placed away or screened from nearby residential uses southeast of the site. This would reduce some of the light and glare generated from stationary construction equipment. Construction would not occur at night, in the event that some nighttime lighting is needed for security purposes, security lighting would comply with Section 17.30.015.H of the Zoning Ordinance that prohibits on-site lighting from directly or indirectly illuminating adjacent properties or public right-of-way. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Proposed improvements include approximately 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial uses, flex industrial uses, self-storage/RV parking, a convenience store, a car wash, and two drive-through restaurants, as well as driveways and parking lots and related on- and off-site improvements and infrastructure. These new uses would include sources of light and glare similar to those in the surrounding industrial areas, including street lighting, illuminated signage, building-mounted lighting, and freestanding exterior lighting. Many of these uses would be illuminated during the nighttime and early morning hours for safety and security purposes.

The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable development standards, which are designed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. For example, the light fixtures used for the proposed project would be required to be consistent with applicable provisions of the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to meet all applicable safety standards pursuant to the CBC. For purposes of the nighttime lighting that would be necessary to provide and maintain a safe, secure, and attractive environment, the proposed project would be required to incorporate down casting light fixtures to reduce the amount of spillover, in accordance with applicable City standards. Exhibit 2-12 presents the project photometric plan; as shown, proposed lighting would be confined within developed areas of the project site and a small portion of Riggin Avenue and would not result in light trespass to adjacent properties.

Sources of daytime glare typically include direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other reflective surfaces. The proposed buildings would be constructed primarily with non-reflective materials (such as concrete). Although the proposed industrial buildings would contain some glass elements, the glass areas are broken up by aluminum and concrete panels and would not contribute to a substantial amount of glare. This glare would be City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-16

partially obscured by landscaping, depending on the time of day and the location of the reflecting light source.

Therefore, impacts resulting from lighting and glare would be minimized through compliance with all applicable development standards and requirement, which would be confirmed during the site plan review process for each individual specific development proposal for the proposed project to ensure the proposed lighting is so arranged as to deflect the light away from adjoining properties, not cause a significant traffic hazard, or otherwise create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

3.1.7 - Cumulative Impacts
Visual Character and Views
For purposes of evaluating the proposed project’s cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources such as scenic vistas, visual character and views, the relevant geographic scope of review is the land within the immediate vicinity surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the proposed project and therefore, the area most likely to experience changes in visual character or impacts to views. The cumulative setting includes relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, including existing agricultural and industrial uses located in the above-referenced geographic scope. There are several cumulative projects located near the project site, including those shown in Exhibit 3-1. Because of distance and intervening development, Cumulative Project 8 and Cumulative Project 3 are not within view of the project site; all other projects (Cumulative Projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) are within view of the project site.

As described above, the project site and vicinity have long been planned for urban development, and already reflect an area transitioning from agricultural to more urbanized uses, including primarily industrial uses similar to the proposed project. Moreover, cumulative development would be subject to applicable City General Plan and Municipal Code provisions, development standards and design policies and guidelines including, among others, those related to building heights, setbacks, undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, signage, and permitted and conditionally land uses as described above, which would serve to further reduce impacts to aesthetic resources. Because the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would be consistent with the types of projects envisioned in the General Plan and reflect the increasingly urbanized nature of this area, and would adhere to all applicable regulations and policies, the cumulative impact of these projects is less than significant.

Furthermore, as shown in the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K), the proposed project would include landscaping, such as trees and shrubs, and appropriate setbacks to City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1-17

screen the view of the proposed buildings and parking areas from adjacent properties and reduce impacts related to aesthetics. Overall, the proposed project would be mostly obscured from public view from West Riggen Avenue due to additional landscaping, creating a cohesive aesthetic view from the ground. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to aesthetics.

As described above, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to scenic highways.

With respect to impacts to scenic vistas, views, and visual character, the proposed project would be consistent with long-planned urbanizing vision for this area, would be compatible with existing, nearby industrial projects, would incorporate high-quality building and site design features as well as ample landscaping, and would otherwise ensure there would not be significant impacts. Based on the foregoing reasons, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact with respect to scenic vistas, visual character, and views.

Light and Glare
For the purpose of evaluating the cumulative impacts on light and glare, the relevant geographic scope of review is the land within the immediate vicinity surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the proposed project and therefore, the area most likely to experience changes in light and glare. The cumulative setting includes relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, including existing agricultural and industrial uses located in the above- referenced geographic scope. Cumulative Projects 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are located adjacent to the project site, as shown in Exhibit 3-1. Existing and new buildings associated with the cumulative projects would result in an increase in light and glare impacts on surrounding uses, particularly for those areas that have not yet urbanized, which would result due to on-site improvements as well as mobile sources. However, the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to the above-described applicable development standards and design guidelines provided in the General Plan and Municipal Code intended to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting; moreover, the City would confirm consistency with these requirements as part of the site plan review process, as outlined in Section

17.28.040 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact to light and glare.

As discussed above, the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare on the project site and vicinity. For example, it would include sources of daytime glare such as direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other reflective surfaces.

Nighttime illumination would include stationary sources such as structure lighting and decorative landscaping, lighted signs, solar panels, and streetlights. Mobile nighttime sources would primarily be from headlights from motor vehicles. However, for the reasons described above, the proposed project, similar to cumulative projects, would be required to adhere to all applicable requirements and standards provided in the General Plan and Municipal Code intended to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting, and would not result in significant impacts with respect to light and glare. As such, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact with respect to light and glare.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-18

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Cumulative Significance
Less than significant impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-1

3.2 - Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2.1 - Introduction
This section describes existing agricultural resources on the project site and its surrounding area and potential environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. Descriptions and analyses in this section are based, in part, on information contained in the City of Visalia General Plan (General Plan), the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the project site (Appendix G), and California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maps. No public comments were received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources.

3.2.2 - Environmental Setting
Project Site
Farmland Classifications
The City’s Planning Area comprises approximately 66,640 acres, consisting of all of the land within the City as well as neighboring unincorporated land, including the community of Goshen.1 According to the General Plan, farmland comprises approximately 44,374 acres, approximately 67 percent of its Planning Area. Land within the city limits contains approximately 33,991 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 7,353 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, approximately 181 acres of Unique Farmland, and approximately 1,630 acres of Farmland of Local Importance.2 Additionally, approximately 1,218 acres of the Planning Area is Other Land used for Confined Animal Agriculture.

As shown in Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-3, the project site is located within Tier 1 of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB).

Within the State of California, there are approximately 24.5 million acres of farmland as classified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).3 According to the most recent California Farmland Conversion Report, irrigated farmland in the State of California decreased by 11,165 net acres between 2014 and 2016. The highest quality farmland, known as Prime Farmland, decreased by 18,312 net acres, coupled with a Farmland of Statewide Importance decrease of 26,557 net acres.

Partially offsetting these losses was the addition of 33,704 net acres of irrigated crops on lesser quality soils, mapped as Unique Farmland. Additionally, during the 16 biennial reporting cycles since FMMP was established, nearly 1.5 million acres of agricultural land in California were converted to nonagricultural purposes.
4 1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Introduction. October. 2 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element, Table 6-1: Farmland Classification in the Study Area.

October.
3 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017. 2017 Census Volume 1, Chapter 1:

State Level Data: California, Table 1: Historical Highlights: 2017 and Earlier Census Years. Website:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/California/st06_1_0001_ 0001.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2023.
4 California Department of Conservation. 2023. 2014-2026 Farmland Conversion Report. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014-2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx. Accessed May 4, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-2

As of 2016, there was a total of 858,119 acres of Important Farmland5 in Tulare County, including 366,136 acres of Prime Farmland; 322,355 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance; 11,691 acres of Unique Farmland; and 157,937 acres of Farmland of Local Importance. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a net loss of 1,052 acres of Important Farmland within Tulare County. A total of 11,495 acres of Important Farmland in Tulare County was converted to another use between 2014 and 2016.6
Soils
The City’s Planning Area is in a basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada foothills and mountains to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west and is filled with deep layers of sediment from the Sierra Nevada. The St. Johns River flows through the northeastern portion of the Planning Area, along with smaller streams and canals; these form alluvial fans.7
The Planning Area is basically flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 330 feet above sea level.

Surface soils exhibit various characteristics dependent on location, slope, parent rock, climate, and drainage. The most prevalent soils in the Planning Area are Nord fine sandy loam (19,200 acres); Grangeville sandy loam, drained (15,700 acres); Tagus loam (12,500 acres); and Akers-Akers, saline- sodic, complex (8,100 acres). These are generally very deep, well-drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources, with slopes of 0 to 2 percent.

The project site soils consist of Akers-Akers, saline-sodic complex (0-2% slope) and Grangeville sandy loam (0-2% slope).

Williamson Act Contract
In 2010, 511 parcels totaling 25,724 acres were under Williamson Act Contracts. Of these, 65 parcels totaling 2,417 acres were in nonrenewal, meaning that the contracts will not be renewed when they expire at the end of their 10-year period.

Timber Land and Forest Land
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 4526, timberland is defined as “ . . . land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees . . . .” Timberland zoned as Timberland Production, as defined by California Government Code Section 51104(g) is an area “ . . . devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses . . . .” As mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), there are no private timberlands or public lands with forests within the City’s Planning Area. 8 5 “Important Farmland” includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance.
6 California Department of Conservation. 2014-2026 Farmland Conversion Report, Appendix A – County Conversion Tables. 7 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element. October. 8 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Forests and Timberlands. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109917&inline. Accessed October 12, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-3

Agricultural Economy
According to the General Plan, the primary drivers of the region’s economy are agriculture and food processing; manufacturing; warehousing and distribution; government; and to a smaller extent, health care and professional services.9 Within the City’s Planning Area, farmland is the most prominent land use, covering 44,374 acres. Over 90 percent of the agricultural lands are outside of the city limits, with 2,800 acres located within the City’s incorporated area.10 Soils
A full discussion of soil types and characteristics can be found in Section 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity.

3.2.3 - Existing Conditions
Project Site
Farmland Classifications
According to the FMMP, almost all of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland except for a small, approximately 0.31-acre portion, which is designated in the Other Land category of Confined Animal Agriculture (Exhibit 3.2-1).11
As shown in Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-3, the project site is located within Tier 1 and does not contain any lands identified as Tier II or Tier III. General Plan Policy LU-P-34 identifies specific requirements for properties located in Tiers II and III but specifically exempts lands located in Tier I from these requirements.

Soils
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the project site is underlain by silty sand, sandy silt, and alluvium/alluvial fan deposits at depths below 2 feet.12 A full discussion of soil types and characteristics can be found in Section 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity.

Williamson Act Contract
According to the FMMP , the project site is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The site owner filed a cancellation petition with Tulare County. A partial Nonrenewal of the Williamson Act Contract was (WAC No. 2880) approved by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors on May 3, 2022, as Resolution No., 2022-0677. Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract was approved by the Board of Supervisors per Resolution No. 2022-1005 on November 29, 2022 (see Tulare County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2022-1005, attached as Appendix G2). Accordingly, the final cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract will be executed and recorded upon payment of cancellation fees and satisfaction of the other identified conditions.

9 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Land Use Element. October. 10 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element, Table 6-1: Farmland Classification in the Study Area.

October.
11 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element. October. 12 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-4

Timber Land and Forest Land
Most of the project site is occupied by row crops and is used as almond orchard. The project site does not contain any forest land or timberland as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor does it contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g).

3.2.4 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps soils and farmland uses to provide comprehensive information necessary for understanding, managing, conserving, and sustaining the nation’s limited soil resources. In addition to many other natural resource conservation programs, the NRCS manages the Farmland Protection Program, which provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA joins with state, tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation easements or other interests from landowners. The NRCS also classifies soils according to their suitability for agricultural use. The categories of the NRCS Soil Capability Classification System are as follows:

Class I Soils have few limitations that restrict their use.

Class II Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices.

Class III Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.

Class IV Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.

Class V Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use.

Class VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation.

Class VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-5

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
The NRCS oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 United States Code [USC] § 4201 et seq.; see also 7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national legislation designed to protect farmland. The FPPA states its purpose is to “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.” The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the federal government. The FPPA does not apply to private construction projects subject to federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed without assistance from a federal agency, federal projects related to national defense during a national emergency, or projects proposed on land already committed to urban development. The FPPA spells out requirements to ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to aid in analysis. Because the City of Visalia may ultimately seek some federal funding for transportation or other capital improvements, the FPPA is considered in this document.

State
Farmland Classifications
The California Department of Conservation FMMP classifies cultivated agricultural land into four categories, listed below:
• Prime Farmland: Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain the long-term production of agricultural crops. These lands have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance: Land similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to hold and store moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
• Unique Farmland: Land of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some climactic zones in California. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance in the local agricultural economy, as determined by each County’s Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Other Land: Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-6

Williamson Act Contract
Williamson Act Contracts are formed between a county or city and a landowner to restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. Private lands within locally designated agricultural preserve areas are also eligible for enrollment under a contract. The minimum term for contracts is 10 years; however, since the contract term automatically renews annually, the actual term may continue indefinitely. Williamson Act Contracts are described in more detail in Section 3.2.4, Regulatory Framework.

California Department of Conservation Classification
The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection developed the FMMP in 1984 to analyze impacts to California’s agricultural resources. In the FMMP , land ratings are based on a land capability classification system, and land use.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels of land to maintain agricultural or related open space use. As an incentive, landowners receive lower property tax assessments based on agricultural or open space land uses, as opposed to real estate value of the land for urban uses.

California Farmland Conservancy Program
The California Farmland Conservancy Program (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 10200 et seq.) supports the voluntary granting of agricultural conservation easements from landowners to qualified nonprofit organizations, such as land trusts, as well as local governments. Conservation easements are voluntarily established restrictions that are permanently attached to property deeds, with the general purpose of retaining land in its natural, open space, agricultural, or other condition while preventing uses that are deemed inconsistent with the specific conservation purposes expressed in the easements. Agricultural conservation easements define conservation purposes that are tied to keeping land available for continued use as farmland. Such farmlands remain in private ownership and the landowner retains all farmland use authority, but the farmland is restricted in its ability to be subdivided or used for nonagricultural purposes, such as urban uses.

Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 The purpose of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCo] Law) is to encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the State. In enacting LAFCo Law, the Legislature recognized that the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is an important factor in promoting orderly development and in balancing that development with sometimes competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending government services (Government Code § 56001). These boundary decisions are made by LAFCo that are situated in each county throughout California (each, an LAFCo).

Among other things, an LAFCo has the power to review and approve, conditionally approve, modify, or disapprove proposals for changes of organization or reorganization, consistent with adopted City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-7

written policies, procedures, and guidelines (Government Code § 56375(a)(1)). Factors to be considered include, among others, the present and planned land uses including agricultural and open space lands, the present and probable need for public facilities and services, the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area, and the present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere (See Government Code § 56668).

Pursuant to Government Code Section 56377, in reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals that could reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate, or lead to the conversion of existing open space lands to uses other than open space uses, LAFCo shall consider all of the following policies and priorities:
a) Development or use of land for other than open space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.
b) Development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within the sphere of influence of a local agency should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open space lands for non-open space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency.”

Under LAFCo law, "prime agricultural land" means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003.
d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than 5 years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre.
e) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for 3 of the previous 5 calendar years.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-8

Local
Tulare County General Plan Environmental Resource Element The Tulare County General Plan Environmental Resource Element includes measures to preserve agriculture, as well as an agricultural resources section. The purpose of the agricultural resources section is to evaluate the County’s farmland preservation programs and Williamson Act policies in order to preserve agricultural resources, as they are a vital component of the County’s economy. The policies included in the agriculture section of the General Plan aim to achieve the following:
• Promote the long-term preservation of productive and potentially productive agricultural lands and to accommodate agricultural-support services and agriculturally related activities that support the viability of agriculture and further the County’s economic development goals. • Support increased viability of agriculture production and promote high-value, employment- intensive, and diverse agricultural production and processing in Tulare County; and • Support the reasonable development and economic viability of animal confinement facilities.
13 Tulare County Code Agricultural Land Policies
Chapter 29 of the Tulare County Code contains the County’s Agricultural Land Policies. As the value of agricultural land and production is an important asset to Tulare County, it is the County’s responsibility to prevent the loss of agricultural resources. Article 3 of this code clearly defines the “Right to Farm” and its purposes: Where nonagricultural land uses, especially residential development, extend into agricultural areas, or locate in the vicinity of agricultural land, agricultural operations may be the subject of nuisance complaints.
14 City of Visalia General Plan
Chapter 2: Land Use Element
LU-P-19 Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.

13 Tulare County. 2012. 2030 Update Tulare County General Plan. August. 14 Tulare County. 2022. Tulare County Code. January 11.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-9

LU-P-20 Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.

LU-O-12 Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses.

LU-P-32 Continue to maintain a 20-acre minimum for parcel map proposals in areas designated for Agriculture to encourage viable agricultural operations in the Planning Area.

LU-P-34 Work with Tulare County and other state and regional agencies, neighboring cities, and private land trust entities to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the use of agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development and preservation of farming operations within Tulare County. Conduct additional investigation of the efficacy of agricultural conservation easements by engaging local, regional, and state agencies and stakeholders in order to further analyze their ongoing efforts and programs that attempt to mitigate impacts from the conversion of agricultural lands through the use of agricultural conservation easements. Support regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, specifically at the county level.

Tulare County’s General Plan 2030 Update Policy contains two policies (AG-1.6 Conservation Easements and AG-1.18 Farmland Trust and Funding Sources) that discuss establishing and implementing an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The City supports the implementation of these measures by the County, in which the City may then participate. Such a regional program could include a fee to assist and support agricultural uses, and would be most feasibly and strategically developed on a countywide or other regional basis.

In addition to supporting regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, the City shall create and adopt a mitigation program to address conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tiers II and III. This mitigation program shall require a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted and require agricultural land preserved to be equivalent to agricultural land converted. The mitigation program shall also require that the agricultural land preserved demonstrate adequate water supply and agricultural zoning, and shall be located outside the City UDB, and within the southern San Joaquin Valley. The mitigation program shall, to the extent feasible and practicable, be integrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by the County and nearby cities. The City’s mitigation program shall allow mitigation to be provided by purchase of conservation easement or payment of fee, but shall indicate a preference for purchase of easements. The mitigation program shall require easements to be held by a qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of annual monitoring reports to the City. The mitigation program shall specifically allow exemptions for conversion of agricultural lands in Tier I, or City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-10

conversion of agricultural lands for agricultural processing uses, agricultural buffers, public facilities, and roadways.

LU-P-35 Adopt the County’s Right to Farm ordinance to support continued agricultural operations at appropriate locations within the city limits, with no new provisions.

This ordinance should not limit urban development contemplated by the General Plan.

Pursuant to LU-P-34, the City, together with a consultant, began working in September 2022 on the development of an Agriculture Preservation Ordinance (APO) in order to implement the contemplated Agricultural Mitigation Program. This effort was preceded in late 2020/early 2021 by the development of a Feasibility Study that identifies an APO's impact on the cost of development, potential benefits and challenges, and how the changes in state law would impact APO. After public hearings and community input, the City Council passed and adopted the APO on May 15, 2023. 15 3.2.5 - Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Criteria
The City, as the lead agency, has elected in its discretion to utilize the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, to determine whether impacts to agriculture and forestry resources are significant environmental effects. Would the proposed project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Approach to Analysis
Potential impacts on agricultural resources are based on a review of FMMP and Williamson Act land use maps, site plans, and applicable local and State plans and policies.

15 City of Visalia. Agriculture Preservation Ordinance. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/agricultural_preservation_ordinance.asp. Accessed March 23, 2024.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-11

Impact Evaluation
Convert Farmland to Nonagricultural Use
Impact AG-1: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
The project site contains approximately 284 acres of Prime Farmland pursuant to the current FMMP mapping (Exhibit 3.2-1).16 The project site is in current agricultural cultivation that would cease with the development of the proposed project.

The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and intensity of development established by the General Plan; thus, conversion to industrial use was envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan and was evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan EIR. According to the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would result in the conversion of 14,265 acres (or 33 percent) of the existing Important Farmland within the Planning Area to urban uses, which may include park and open space designations. Of this land, 12,490 acres is classified as Prime Farmland, representing 37 percent of the existing Prime Farmland within the Planning Area. The General Plan EIR determined that, aside from preventing development altogether, conversion of farmland could not be directly mitigated to a less than significant level.

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

Although previously addressed in the certified General Plan EIR, for purposes of a comprehensive and conservative analysis, this Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of the construction of the proposed urban uses. Furthermore, despite the fact this conversion was already evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR conservatively concludes that the proposed project would result in significant and

16 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder (FMMP). Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/: Accessed September 16, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-12

unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Farmland. Because, however, Policy LU-P-34 does not apply to Tier 1 lands and further because there is no adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance, there is no feasible method to mitigate the loss of this Important Farmland. However, as noted above, the project site has long been identified for conversion to urban uses. This reflects the City’s overall land use strategy that ensure the areas identified for growth are contiguous to existing development and to each other, and policies clearly require sequencing of growth so that minimal fragmentation of agricultural land will occur. The General Plan’s three-tier growth management system reinforces Visalia’s compact form, minimizing the interface between farming and urban uses.

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

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures available.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.

Conflict with Existing Zoning or Williamson Act Contract Impact AG-2: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
Agricultural Zoning
The project site is zoned AE-40 under the County’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-6).17 The AE-40 Zone is intended for agricultural uses. However, the applicant is requesting pre-zoning to Industrial and Light Industrial, which would take effect upon annexation into the City.

This zoning district would be consistent with the existing Industrial and Light Industrial General Plan designations under the General Plan that currently apply to the project site. Because the pre-zoning allows for industrial and light industrial use, the change in zoning from AE-40 under the County’s Zoning Ordinance to the City’s Industrial and Light Industrial zones would ensure there is no conflict with existing zoning. Impacts would be less than significant.

Williamson Act Contracts
All three parcels comprising the project site are subject to a Williamson Act Contract.18 Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Government Code, the landowner initiated a Notice of

17 Tulare County Public Parcel Zoning Lookup. Website:
https://tularecounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e7d7da648dab43e1a9eb0233889b7c32. Accessed August 17, 2022.
18 See Chapter 2 Project Description for clarification regarding the project site area and the area subject to the Williamson Act contract.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-13

Nonrenewal in July 2021 for the contract, beginning a 9-year process to formally expire the contract.

Based on the date of the Notice of Nonrenewal, the contract would have expired in December 2030.

However, in order for the project to be developed, State law provides a detailed procedure to cancel a Williamson Act Contract. The landowner filed a cancellation petition with Tulare County in November 2022, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 51282(a). The lead agency notes that a Williamson Act Contract cancellation is an option under the limited circumstances and conditions set forth in Government Code Section 51280, et seq. In such cases, landowners may petition a board/council for Williamson Act Contract cancellation. The board/council may grant tentative cancellation only if it makes the required statutory findings.

To determine that the cancellation is valid, the board/council must find the following:

1. The cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non-Renewal has been filed.

2. Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use.

3. Cancellation is for an alternate use that is consistent with the adopted General Plan.

4. Cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development.

5. That there is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land.

Because the Board of Supervisors determined these findings can be, and were, made and thus approved the cancellation on November 29, 2022 (see Appendix G2), contingent upon payment of cancellation fees and satisfaction of the other identified conditions, there would be no conflict with the existing agricultural zoning or adjacent Williamson Act contracted land. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

Conflict with Existing Forest Land Zoning
Impact AG-3: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
The project site does not contain any forest land or timberland, as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor does it contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production, as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). Additionally, according to the CDFW, there are no private timberlands or public lands with forests within the project site. 19 This condition precludes the

19 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Forests and Timberlands. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109917&inline. Accessed October 12, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-14

possibility of the proposed project conflicting with forest zoning of forest land or timberland. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
No impact.

Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use
Impact AG-4: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As explained more fully above, the project site is adjacent to urbanized, industrial land uses (with these surrounding uses also not containing any forest land) and does not contain any forest land.

This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
No impact.

Other Changes to Convert Farmland to Nonagricultural Use or Forest Land to Non-forest Use Impact AG-5: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Tulare County classifies the areas north, east, and south of the project site (outside City limits) as within the AG-20 and AG-40, Exclusive Agricultural zone districts.20 The land to the west and some of the land to the south of the project site is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is designated Industrial and Light Industrial by the General Plan.

Chief causes for the loss of Farmland include development of low-density rural residences and ecological restoration projects, such as wetlands and wildlife habitat. The proposed project does not fall in either of these categories. It would be speculative to determine that the project would promote growth and result in the conversion of adjacent lands to non-agricultural uses.

Additionally, these lands would need to be annexed into the City of Visalia 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

20 Tulare County Public Parcel Zoning Lookup. Website:
https://tularecounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e7d7da648dab43e1a9eb0233889b7c32. Accessed August 17, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-15

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.

With respect to the conversion of forest land, as explained more fully above, the project site is adjacent to urbanized, industrial land uses; these adjacent lands do not contain any forest land. As explained above, neither the project site nor the Planning Area contains timberlands or forestlands.21 This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting forest land to non-forest use.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

3.2.6 - Cumulative Impacts
Given the nature of agricultural resources, the geographic scope of this cumulative analysis includes past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects on lands within the City’s Planning Area. As shown in Exhibit 3-1, the relevant Cumulative Projects 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are industrial uses; the relevant Cumulative Projects 5 and 8 are residential projects; and the relevant Cumulative Project 7 is a Mixed-Use Development Specific Plan. The General Plan EIR addressed this issue at length in considering the impacts associated with its planned growth, including that being pursued by these relevant other projects, and already disclosed impacts to agricultural resources due to conversion as a significant and unavoidable impact.

The General Plan identifies the need for the conversion of agricultural land to urban development.

The City has set aside three-tiered areas planned for development that contain land designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The proposed project is within Tier 1, which has been deemed as land to be converted from agricultural land to urban development. Much of the Tier I area that is identified for development of various Cumulative Developments consists of Important Farmland that would be converted to nonagricultural uses with implementation of same, consistent with development already envisioned by the General Plan Land Use Element.22 Development within Tier II and III of the UDB that would convert Prime Farmland is subject to the 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preservation elsewhere outside of the City’s UDB. Cumulative Projects 1–5 and Cumulative Project 8 are in Tier I of the UDB, and Cumulative Projects 6 and 7 are in Tier II.

According to the General Plan, all of the foregoing development is planned growth occurring within areas designated or otherwise planned for industrial and residential development. The certified General Plan EIR specifies that, while the growth of the City will incur unavoidable losses of farmland, the severity of the losses can be minimized to the extent feasible through adherence to the compact, concentric development plan outlined in the General Plan and long contemplated for

21 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service, National Forest Type Groups. No date. Website:
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/forest_type/index.php. Accessed October 7, 2022. 22 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Land Use Element. October.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR

3.2-16

development by both the City and County.23 Development in this fashion will help to maintain the maximum amount of contiguous Important Farmland, avoiding “patchwork” easements and dispersed development in a manner that cannot be guaranteed through the requirement of purchasing agricultural easements.24
All cumulative development would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the General Plan, implement application mitigation required by the General Plan EIR, and adhere to other applicable laws and regulations addressing loss of agricultural resources (i.e., Agricultural Preservation Ordinance when adopted and Right to Farm provisions when adopted). However, even with adherence to the foregoing and General Plan’s overall land use vision and strategy, development of the Cumulative Projects would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact.

The development of the proposed project would further contribute to this already significant cumulative impact, due to the loss of approximately 284 acres of Prime Farmland, which has been identified as an individual significant and unavoidable impact due to lack of feasible mitigation.

Moreover, the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative effect to agricultural resources would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Impacts associated with the Williamson Act Contract were less than significant; however, the proposed project would result in the loss of Williamson Act lands, which is cumulatively considerable. The proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative effect to Williamson Act lands would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Forestry Resources
Similar to the relevant geographic scope for agricultural resources described above, the geographic scope of this cumulative analysis with respect to forestry resources is lands within the City of Visalia Planning Area. As mapped by the USDA Forest Service, there are no National Forest lands within the City or the City’s Planning Area.
25 The project site and the other sites upon which the Cumulative Developments would be developed do not contain forest land or timberland, as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor do they contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production, as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). Therefore, the Cumulative Projects would not conflict with forest zoning or converting forest land to non-forest use, and thus there would be no significant cumulative impact in this regard. Furthermore, because there is no forest land or timberland on the project site, there are no cumulative impacts to forestry resources.

Likewise, the proposed project, in conjunction with the cumulative projects, would not conflict with forest zoning or converting forest land to non-forest use since there is no forest land or timberland on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to this less than significant impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and the proposed project would not have a cumulatively

23 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan EIR 2030. Agricultural Resources. Octob er. 24 Ibid.
25 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service, National Forest Type Groups. No date. Website:
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/forest_type/index.php. Accessed October 7, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources

3.2-17

considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact to forestry resources.

Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures are available.

Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable with respect to the loss of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 " 11/2022 | 3.2-1_important_farmland.mxd Exhibit 3.2-1
Important Farmland Map
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. CA Department of Conservation Tulare County 2018. CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK AND RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
I
1,500 0 1,500750
Feet
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Important Farmland Categories
Cl - Confined Animal Agriculture 0.31 acre
P - Prime Farmland 284.27

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-1

3.3 - Air Quality
This section describes existing air quality conditions regionally and locally as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the possible impacts related to air quality that could result from implementation of the project. Information included in this section is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B). The project-specific air quality modeling results included in this report utilized California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 and the American Meteorological Society/United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Version 22112, which is approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) for air dispersion assessments. Complete modeling output files are provided in Appendix B.

One public comment was received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to air quality.
• Valley Air District dated September 28, 2022, related to project construction and operational emissions, Health Risk Assessment (HRA) criteria, and recommended air pollutant reduction strategies.

3.3.1 - Environmental Setting
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin) is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).

Climate
Climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, creating adverse air quality, or to rapidly disperse pollutants over a wide area, preventing high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions.

The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.

Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley and Tulare County, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winte r.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-2
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are land uses or people considered to be more sensitive than others to air pollutants. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Residences, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and parks are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the site include the following:
• Single-family residential homes located directly to the southeast across the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street, with the closest home approximately 160 feet to the southwest.
• Denton Elementary School located approximately 2,200 feet to the southwest. The City of Visalia General Plan Land Use Element1 designates an area as Multi-Family Residential approximately 2,700 feet to the east of the project site, which could result in new sensitive receptors.
• The Carleton Acres Specific Plan area located to the east of the North Shirk Avenue and West Riggin Avenue intersection, which could result in up to 3,368 residential units to the east of the project site.

Air Pollutant Types, Sources, and Effects
Criteria Air Pollutants
Concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used as indicators of air quality conditions. Air pollutants are termed criteria air pollutants if they are regulated by developing specific public health- and welfare-based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), criteria air pollutants are ozone, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of the types, sources, and effects of criteria air pollutants.

Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. There are no ambient air quality standards for TAC emissions.

TACs are regulated in terms of health risks to individuals and populations exposed to the pollutants.

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly expanded the EPA’s authority to regulate

1 City of Visalia. General Plan Land Use Interactive Map. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-3
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lists 187 HAPs to be regulated by source category. Authority to regulate these pollutants was delegated to individual states. The ARB and local air districts regulate TACs and HAPs in California.

The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition presents the relevant concentration and cancer risk data for the 10 TACs that pose the most substantial health risk in California based on available data.2 The 10 TACs are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1.3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

Diesel Particulate Matter
Some studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10- year research program demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems.

DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although DPM is emitted by diesel-fueled, internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. However, no ambient monitoring data are available for DPM because no routine measurement method currently exists. The ARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a DPM exposure method.

This method uses the ARB emissions inventory’s PM
10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and
the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of DPM.

Benzene
Benzene, naphthalene, and ethylbenzene are the only TACs with cancer toxicity values from gasoline dispensing facilities, with benzene accounting for nearly 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline.

According to CAPCOA, not until the benzene emissions are three orders of magnitude above the rate of an increase of 10 per million cancer risk, do the emissions of xylene begin to cause acute adverse health effects.

Benzene is found in the air from emissions from burning coal and oil, gasoline service stations, and motor vehicle exhaust. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in occupational settings.

2 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2013 Edition. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/almanac-emissions-air-quality. Accessed June 1, 2023 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-4
Reproductive effects have been reported for women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the developing fetus have been observed in animal tests. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) have been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene. EPA has classified benzene as known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure.3 Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of the types, sources, and effects of TACs.

3 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992, with updates in 2000 and 2012. Benzene. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/benzene.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-5
Table 3.3-1: Description of Toxic Air Contaminants of National and California Concern Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm — Irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; breathing pattern
changes; reduction of breathing
capacity; inflame and damage cells
that line the lungs; make lungs more
susceptible to infection; aggravate
asthma; aggravate other chronic
lung diseases; cause permanent lung
damage; some immunological
changes; increased mortality risk;
vegetation and property damage.

Ozone is a photochemical pollutant
as it is not emitted directly into the
atmosphere but is formed by a
complex series of chemical reactions
between volatile organic compounds
(VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and
sunlight. Ozone is a regional
pollutant that is generated over a
large area and is transported and
spread by the wind. Hot, sunny, and
calm weather conditions are
favorable to ozone formation.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant;
thus, it is not emitted directly into
the lower level of the atmosphere.

The primary sources of ozone
precursors (VOC and NOX) are
mobile sources (on-road and off-
road vehicle exhaust).
8 Hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppmf
CO 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Ranges depend on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of
angina pectoris (chest pain) and
other aspects of coronary heart
disease; decreased exercise
tolerance in persons with peripheral
vascular disease and lung disease;
impairment of central nervous
system functions; possible increased
risk to fetuses; death.

CO is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas.

CO is somewhat soluble in water;
therefore, rainfall and fog can
suppress CO conditions. CO enters
the body through the lungs,
dissolves in the blood, replaces
oxygen as an attachment to
hemoglobin, and reduces available
oxygen in the blood.

CO is produced by incomplete
combustion of carbon-containing
fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and
biomass). Sources include motor
vehicle exhaust, industrial processes
(metals processing and chemical
manufacturing), residential wood-
burning, and natural sources.
8 Hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
NO2b 1 Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory
symptoms in sensitive groups; risk to
public health implied by pulmonary
and extra-pulmonary biochemical
and cellular changes and pulmonary
structural changes; contribution to
atmospheric discoloration;
increased visits to hospital for
respiratory illnesses.

During combustion of fossil fuels,
oxygen reacts with nitrogen to
produce nitrogen oxides—NOX (NO,
NO2, NO3, N2O, N2O3, N2O4, and
N2O5). NOX is a precursor to ozone,
PM10, and PM2.5 formation. NOX can
react with compounds to form nitric
acid and related small particles and
result in PM-related health effects.

NOX is produced in motor vehicle
internal combustion engines and
fossil fuel-fired electric utility and
industrial boilers. NO2 forms quickly
from NOX emissions. NO2
concentrations near major roads
can be 30 to 100 percent higher
than those at monitoring stations.

Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-6
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
SO2c 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include
wheezing, shortness of breath and
chest tightness, during exercise or
physical activity in persons with
asthma. Some population-based
studies indicate that the mortality and
morbidity effects associated with fine
particles show a similar association
with ambient SO
2 levels. It is not clear
whether the two pollutants act
synergistically, or one pollutant alone
is the predominant factor.

SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas. At
levels greater than 0.5 ppm, the gas
has a strong odor like rotten eggs.

Sulfur oxides (SOX) include SO2 and
sulfur trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed
from SO
2, which can lead to acid
deposition and can harm natural
resources and materials. Although
SO
2 concentrations have been
reduced to levels well below State
and federal standards, further
reductions are desirable because SO
2 is a precursor to sulfate and PM10.

Human caused sources include fossil
fuel combustion, mineral ore
processing, and chemical
manufacturing. Volcanic emissions
are a natural source of SO2. The gas
can also be produced in the air by
dimethyl sulfide and hydrogen
sulfide. SO
2 is removed from the air
by dissolution in water, chemical
reactions, and transfer to soils and
ice caps. The SO
2 levels in the State
are well below the maximum
standards.
3 Hours — 0.5 ppm
24 Hours 0.04 ppm 0.14
(for certain
areas)
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)
Particulate
matter
(PM10)
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 • Short-term exposure (hours/days):
irritation of the eyes, nose, throat;
coughing; phlegm; chest
tightness; shortness of breath;
aggravate existing lung disease,
causing asthma attacks and acute
bronchitis; those with heart
disease can suffer heart attacks
and arrhythmias.
• Long-term exposure: reduced lung
function; chronic bronchitis;
changes in lung morphology;
death.

Suspended particulate matter is a
mixture of small particles that
consist of dry solid fragments,
droplets of water, or solid cores with
liquid coatings. The particles vary in
shape, size, and composition. PM10
refers to particulate matter that is
between 2.5 and 10 microns in
diameter, (1 micron is one-millionth
of a meter). PM

2.5 refers to
particulate matter that is 2.5
microns or less in diameter, about
one-thirtieth the size of the average
human hair.

Stationary sources include fuel or
wood combustion for electrical
utilities, residential space heating,
and industrial processes;
construction and demolition;
metals, minerals, and
petrochemicals; wood products
processing; mills and elevators used
in agriculture; erosion from tilled
lands; waste disposal, and recycling.

Mobile or transportation-related
sources are from vehicle exhaust
and road dust. Secondary particles
form from reactions in the
atmosphere.

Mean 20 µg/m3 —
Particulate
matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hours — 35 µg/m3
Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Visibility-
reducing
particles
8 Hours See note belowd
Sulfates 24 Hours 25 µg/m3 — Decrease in ventilatory function; aggravation of asthmatic symptoms;
aggravation of cardiopulmonary
disease; vegetation damage;
degradation of visibility; and
property damage.

The sulfate ion is a polyatomic anion
with the empirical formula SO42−.

Sulfates occur in combination with
metal and/or hydrogen ions. Many
sulfates are soluble in water.

Sulfates are particulates formed
through the photochemical oxidation
of SO

2. In California, the main source
of sulfur compounds is combustion
of gasoline and diesel fuel.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-7
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Leade 30 days 1.5 µg/m3 — Lead accumulates in bones, soft tissue, and blood and can affect the
kidneys, liver, and nervous system. It
can cause impairment of blood
formation and nerve conduction,
behavior disorders, mental
retardation, neurological impairment,
learning deficiencies, and low IQs.

Lead is a solid heavy metal that can
exist in air pollution as an aerosol
particle component. Leaded gasoline
was used in motor vehicles until
around 1970. Lead concentrations
have not exceeded State or federal
standards at any monitoring station
since 1982.

Lead ore crushing, lead ore smelting,
and battery manufacturing are
currently the largest sources of lead
in the atmosphere in the United
States. Other sources include dust
from soils contaminated with lead-
based paint, solid waste disposal, and
crustal physical weathering.

Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-
month
average
— 0.15 µg/m3
Vinyl
chloridee
24 Hours 0.01 ppm — Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in the air causes central
nervous system effects, such as
dizziness, drowsiness, and
headaches. Epidemiological studies
of occupationally exposed workers
have linked vinyl chloride exposure to
development of a rare cancer, liver
angiosarcoma, and have suggested a
relationship between exposure and
lung and brain cancers.

Vinyl chloride, or chloroethene, is a
chlorinated hydrocarbon and a
colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor.

In 1990, the ARB identified vinyl
chloride as a TAC and estimated a
cancer unit risk factor.

Most vinyl chloride is used to make
polyvinyl chloride plastic and vinyl
products, including pipes, wire and
cable coatings, and packaging
materials. It can be formed when
plastics containing these substances
are left to decompose in solid waste
landfills. Vinyl chloride has been
detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites.

Hydrogen
sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm — High levels of hydrogen sulfide can
cause immediate respiratory arrest. It
can irritate the eyes and respiratory
tract and cause headache, nausea,
vomiting, and cough. Long exposure
can cause pulmonary edema.

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a
flammable, colorless, poisonous gas
that smells like rotten eggs.

Manure, storage tanks, ponds,
anaerobic lagoons, and land
application-sites are the primary
sources of hydrogen sulfide.

Anthropogenic sources include the
combustion of sulfur containing fuels
(oil and coal).

VOC There are no State or
federal standards for VOCs
because they are not
classified as criteria
pollutants.

Although health-based standards
have not been established for VOCs,
health effects can occur from
exposures to high concentrations
because of interference with oxygen
uptake. In general, concentrations of
VOCs are suspected to cause eye,
nose, and throat irritation;
Reactive organic gases (ROGs), or
VOCs, are defined as any compound
of carbon—excluding CO, carbon
dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate—that
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. Although
Indoor sources of VOCs include
paints, solvents, aerosol sprays,
cleansers, tobacco smoke, etc.

Outdoor sources of VOCs are from
combustion and fuel evaporation. A
reduction in VOC emissions reduces
certain chemical reactions that
contribute to the formulation of
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-8
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
headaches; loss of coordination;
nausea and damage to the liver, the
kidneys, and the central nervous
system. Many VOCs have been
classified TACs.
there are slight differences in the
definition of ROG and VOCs, the two
terms are often used
interchangeably.
ozone. VOCs are transformed into
organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
which contribute to higher PM10 and
lower visibility.

Diesel particulate matter
(DPM)
There are no ambient air
quality standards for DPM.

Some short-term (acute) effects of
DPM exposure include eye, nose,
throat, and lung irritation, coughs,
headaches, lightheadedness, and
nausea. Studies have linked elevated
particle levels in the air to increased
hospital admissions, emergency room
visits, asthma attacks, and premature
deaths among those suffering from
respiratory problems. Human studies
on the carcinogenicity of DPM
demonstrate an increased risk of lung
cancer, although the increased risk
cannot be clearly attributed to diesel
exhaust exposure.

DPM is a source of PM2.5—diesel
particles are typically 2.5 microns
and smaller. Diesel exhaust is a
complex mixture of thousands of
particles and gases that is produced
when an engine burns diesel fuel.

Organic compounds account for 80
percent of the total particulate
matter mass, which consists of
compounds such as hydrocarbons
and their derivatives, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and their
derivatives. Fifteen polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons are
confirmed carcinogens, several
which are found in diesel exhaust.

Diesel exhaust is a major source of
ambient particulate matter
pollution in urban environments.

Typically, the main source of DPM is
from combustion of diesel fuel in
diesel-powered engines. Such
engines are in on-road vehicles such
as diesel trucks, off-road
construction vehicles, diesel
electrical generators, and various
pieces of stationary construction
equipment.

Asbestos — — Inhalation
exposures
not exceed
100,000
fibers with
lengths
greater than
or equal to 5
µm per m
3 of
air (0.1
fibers/mL).

Exposure to asbestos is a health
threat; exposure to asbestos fibers
may result in health issues such as
lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare
cancer of the thin membranes lining
the lungs, chest, and abdominal
cavity), and asbestosis (a non-
cancerous lung disease that causes
scarring of the lungs).

Asbestos is the name given to
several naturally occurring fibrous
silicate minerals that have been
mined for their useful properties,
such as thermal insulation, chemical
and thermal stability, and high
tensile strength. The three most
common types of asbestos are
chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite.

Chrysotile, also known as white
asbestos, is the most common type
of asbestos found in buildings.

Chrysotile makes up approximately
Asbestos fibers can come from
naturally occurring sources of
asbestos or from the wearing down
or disturbance of manufactured
products including insulation,
automotive brakes and clutches,
ceiling and floor tiles, dry wall, roof
shingles, and cement. However,
these products do not always
contain asbestos.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-9
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
90 to 95 percent of all asbestos
contained in buildings in the United
States. Asbestos fibers do not
evaporate into air or dissolve in
water. However, pieces of fibers can
enter the air and water from the
weathering of natural deposits and
the wearing down of manufactured
asbestos products. Small diameter
fibers and fiber-containing particles
may remain suspended in the air for
a long time and be carried long
distances by wind or water currents
before settling. Larger diameter
fibers and particles tend to settle
more quickly. Asbestos fibers are
not able to move through soil. They
are generally not broken down to
other compounds in the
environment and will remain
virtually unchanged over long
periods.

Notes:
ppm=parts per million (concentration) µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter Annual=Annual Arithmetic Mean Quarter=Calendar quarter a Federal standard refers to the primary NAAQS, or the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. All standards listed are primary standards except for 3-Hour SO2, which is a secondary standard. A secondary standard is the level of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
b To attain the 1-hour NO2 national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb) (0.100 ppm).
c On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. d Visibility-reducing particles: In 1989, the ARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-10
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
e The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as TACs with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. f The EPA Administrator approved a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppb on October 1, 2015. The new standard went into effect 60 days after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, and became effective on December 28, 2015. g The official level of the 1-hour NO2 standard is 100 ppb, equal to 0.100 ppm, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the other standards.

Source of effects, properties, and sources: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2016. Public Health Statement for Asbestos. Website: Asbestos | Public Health Statement | ATSDR (cdc.gov), Accessed January 22, 2024.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Particle Pollution and your Health. EPA-452/F-03-001. September. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-and- your-health/partical-pollution-and-your-health/. Accessed June 1, 2023.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Ozone and your Health EPA-456/F-09-001. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-and-your-health/ozone-and- your-health/. Accessed August 9, 2022.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Fact Sheet, Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide. July. Website:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-15/pdf/E9-15944.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Page updated December 21, 2018. Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants. December. Website: https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-effects-notebook-hazardous-air-pollutants. Accessed June 1, 2023.

National Toxicology Program. 2011. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. June 10. Benzene. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

National Toxicology Program. 2016. Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. Website:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/dieselexhaustparticulates.pdf. Accessed June 1, 20232.

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2002. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2009. Vinyl Chloride. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/vinyl-chloride-and-health. Accessed June 1, 2023.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Indoor Air Quality. Sources of Indoor Air Pollution—Organic Gases (Volatile Organic Compounds—VOCs). November. Website:
www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html. Accessed June 1, 2023.

National Toxicology Program. 2011. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/crnr/comments/12throc-complete.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

Source of standards: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2018. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February. Website http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-11
Several pollutants listed in Table 3.3-1 are not addressed in this analysis. An analysis of lead is not included in this report because the proposed project would not generate a new, significant source of lead emissions. According to aerial imagery in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), all on-site improvements, including structures and outbuildings, were constructed after 2016 and would not contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos-containing material. Visibility- reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed under the analysis for PM10 and PM2.5. Given the nature of the proposed project, no components of the proposed project would result in vinyl chloride or hydrogen sulfide emissions in any substantial quantity; therefore, these compounds are not further evaluated in this report.

Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to several naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties, such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos is a health threat; exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings that were constructed prior to the 1977 ban on asbestos for use in buildings. Although construction activity would result in the demolition of several small outbuildings associated with agricultural use on the project site, these structures would not contain asbestos. According to aerial imagery in the Phase I ESA, all on-site improvements, including structures, were constructed after 2016, and would not contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos-containing material. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present. No naturally occurring asbestos is located near the project site. 4 Valley Fever
Valley Fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). Spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust, including dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities, contribute to greater exposure.

Much of California is considered an endemic area for Valley Fever and a total of 9,004 new Valley Fever cases were reported in 2019.5 According to the most readily-available, the California Department of Public Health, in 2020, there were 309 cases of Valley Fever in Tulare County with 64.3 per 100,000 case patients and in 2021, 170 cases of Valley Fever with 61.0 per 100,000 case patients.6 Nearly 75 percent of people who get Valley Fever miss work or school for an average of two weeks. More than 40 percent of people who get Valley Fever need to be hospitalized. The number of Valley Fever cases

4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation. 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California—Areas More likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2022. 5 California Department of Public Health. 2019. Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever in California. 6 California Department of Health. 2022. Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccoidiomycosis) in California, 2020-2021.

Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSummary2020-2021.pdf.

Accessed April 27, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-12
reported nationally has more than quadrupled in the past decade. There were over 11,000 reported cases in 2015, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that an additional 150,000 cases go undiagnosed each year. About 28 percent of all cases occur in California. There have been several outbreaks of Valley Fever in California in recent years.

The distribution of C. immitis is not uniform, and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common, suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:

1. Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface).

2. Old (prehistoric) Native American campsites near fire pits.

3. Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils.

4. Areas with high salinity soils.

5. Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available).

6. Packrat middens.

7. Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils.

8. Sandy well aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities.

Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:

1. Cultivated fields.

2. Heavily vegetated areas (e.g., grassy lawns).

3. Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet.)

4. Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g., ammonium sulfate) have been applied.

5. Areas that are continually wet.

6. Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas.

7. Soils containing abundant microorganisms.

8. Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil. 7 The project site currently contains several small outbuildings associated with agricultural use and is used for agricultural purposes. Exposure to C. immitis could occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present; however, because most of the project site and immediately surrounding vicinity consists of cultivated fields, areas where fertilizers are used, and urbanized development, the

7 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Operational Guidelines (Version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever), 2000, Open-File Report 2000-348. Website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0348/pdf/of00- 348.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-13
project site would have low probability of C. immitis growth sites or exposure from disturbed soil. No further analysis is necessary.

Air Quality
Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effect on air quality.

Regional Air Quality
Air Pollutant Standards and Attainment Designations
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.

Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM

2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.

The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 3.3-2. The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 3.3-2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone, 1-hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone, 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-14
Local Air Quality
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project site. Table 3.3-3 summarizes 2018 through 2020 published monitoring data. The table displays data from the Visalia North Church Street Station (located approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site), which is the closest monitoring station to the project site with data available. The data shows that during the past few years, the project site and vicinity have exceeded the standards for ozone (State and national), PM10 (State and national), and PM2.5 (national). The data in the table reflects the concentration of the pollutants in the air, measured using air monitoring equipment. This differs from emissions, which are calculations of a pollutant being emitted over a certain period. No recent monitoring data for Tulare County or the Air Basin was available for CO or SO2. Generally, no monitoring is conducted for pollutants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.

Table 3.3-3: Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item 2018 2019 2020
Ozone1 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.112 0.093 0.127
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 8 0 7
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.094 0.082 0.102
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 53 22 36
Days > National Standard (0.075 ppm) 27 5 21
Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2)1
Annual Annual Average (ppm) 0.010 0.009 0.009
1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.069 0.070 0.053
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Inhalable
coarse particles
(PM10)1
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 52.0 46.3 60.5
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 159.6 418.5 305.7
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 162 115 151
Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) 0 5 19
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)1
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3)2 17.4 12.0 ND
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 86.8 47.2 127.1
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 12 6 20
Notes:
> = exceed
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Bold = exceedance
max = maximum
National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard ND = no data
ppm = parts per million
State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard 1 Visalia North Church Street
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-15
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item 2018 2019 2020
2 The State PM2.5 standard is the average of the year's quarterly averages. The California annual standard is exceeded when the State Annual Average is greater than 12 micrograms per cubic meter and is violated when the State Annual Standard Designation Value (the highest State annual average for three consecutive years) is greater than 12 micrograms per cubic meter.

Sources: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Trends Summary. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php. Accessed June 1, 2023.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. Top Four Summary. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed June 1, 2023.

The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways.

The clearest in comparison is to the State and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded and the relative location of sensitive receptors. The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy- to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air. Table 3.3-4 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.

Table 3.3-4: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 75 ppb Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 95 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 115 ppb Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-16
Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 210—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 139 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

Source: Air Now. 2022. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculator/.

Accessed June 1, 2023.

Based on the AQI scale for the 8-hour ozone standard, the City of Visalia experienced no days in the last three years that would be categorized as Very Unhealthy (AQI 210) or unhealthful (AQI 200), and as many as 27 days that were moderate (AQI 100) as measured at the Visalia North Church Street monitoring station. The highest reading was 102 parts per billion (ppb) in 2020 compared with the 95-ppb cutoff point for unhealthful for sensitive groups (AQI 150), but lower than the 115-ppb cutoff point for unhealthy (AQI 200).

The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM

2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered
moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 35.4 µg/m3, which is considered an exceedance of the federal PM2.5 standard. The monitoring station nearest the project site exceeded the standard by approximately 38 days in the 3-year period spanning from 2018 to 2020. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.

Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. The AQI of 150 is classified as unhealthful for sensitive groups with a PM2.5 concentration of 55.4 µg/m3. At this concentration, there is increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and in the elderly. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should limit prolonged exertion. The highest concentration recorded in Visalia was 121 µg/m 3 in 2020. At
this concentration, increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly, and increased respiratory effects in general population would occur. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should limit prolonged exertion when the AQI exceeds this level. The relationship of the AQI to health effects in shown Table 3.3-5.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-17
Table 3.3-5: Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution Air Quality Index/24-hour Average
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 51–100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 12.1-35.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier.

AQI 100–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 35.5-55.4 µg/m2 Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should limit prolonged exertion.

AQI 151–200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Everyone
Concentration 55.5-150.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling. Everyone else: Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. Take more breaks during outdoor activities.

AQI 201-300—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 150.5-250.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Significant aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; significant increase in respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children should avoid any outdoor activity; everyone else should avoid prolonged exertion.

Source: EPA. 2014. Air Quality Index for Particle Pollution. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/using-air- quality-index/. Accessed August 9, 2022.

EPA. 2014. AQI Calculator. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculator/. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-18

3.3.2 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970, and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA. These are particulate matter, ground-level ozone, CO, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA calls these pollutants criteria air pollutants, because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards.

Another set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards.8 The federal standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards.

The criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide

The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.

The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies.

State
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, State, and air basin or county level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The EPA regulates at the national level. The ARB regulates at the State level. The Valley Air District regulates at the air basin level.

The EPA is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans (SIPs), provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets the NAAQS.

8 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Clean Air Act Requirements and History. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-requirements-and-history. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-19
A SIP is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal air standards. The SIP for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for Statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts—an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to the ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California SIP . Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms.

Areas designated nonattainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources are adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional State and local regulation is required to achieve the standards. Regulations adopted by California are described below.

Low Emission Vehicle Program
The ARB first adopted Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represented continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 SIP . In 2012, ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Cars Program, include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for both criteria pollutants and GHGs for new passenger vehicles. 9 California Air Resources Board Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos In July 2001, the ARB approved an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than 1 acre. These projects require the submittal of a “Dust Mitigation Plan” and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.

Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs; the project site includes several small outbuildings associated with agricultural use which would be demolished as part of the proposed project. In addition, asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally

9 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2012. Low Emission Vehicle Program. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levprog.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-20
contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present. However, as noted above, no naturally occurring asbestos is located near the project site.
10 Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the Air Pollution Control Officer or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or naturally occurring asbestos on the site. The measure also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity. Review of the Department of Conservation maps indicates that no ultramafic rock has been found near the project site.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of new State regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020. 11 California Air Resources Board Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than 5 consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NO X
emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).

The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation became effective on December 31, 2014.

The amended regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses met particulate matter (PM) filter

10 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation. 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California—Areas More likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 11 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/diesel-risk-reduction-plan. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-21
requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Mandatory replacement of lighter and older heavier trucks began January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks.

On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. The ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others.12 Regulations for Heavy-Duty Vehicles/Trucks
California Air Resources Board Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
This ATCM adopted Section 2485 within Chapter 10, Article 1, Division 3, title 13 in the California Code of Regulations. The measure limits the idling of diesel vehicles (i.e., commercial trucks over 10,000 pounds) to reduce emissions of toxics and criteria pollutants. The driver of any vehicle subject to this section: (1) shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location; and (2) shall not idle a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for more than 5 minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools).

California Air Resources Board Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks.

Amendments were made to Title 13 in California Code of Regulations in Sections 1956.8, 2404, 2424, 2425, and 2485. Among other things, the amendments state: “All new 2008 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines shall be equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to ‘neutral’ or ‘park,’ and the parking brake is engaged. If the parking brake is not engaged, then the engine shutdown system shall shut down the engine after 900 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped and the transmission is set to ‘neutral’ or ‘park.’” There are a few conditions where the engine shutdown system can be overridden to prevent engine damage. Any trucks involved in the operation of the proposed project that are manufactured after 2008 would be consistent with this rule, which would ultimately reduce air emissions.

12 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. The California Almanac of Air Quality and Emissions—2013 Edition. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/technical-assistance/air-quality-and-emissions-data/almanac.

Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-22
Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation
(Regulation to Reduce Emissions of DPM, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In- Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2025). On December 12, 2008, the ARB approved this regulation (Regulation to Reduce Emissions of DPM, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2025) to reduce emissions from existing on-road diesel trucks and buses operating in California. This regulation applies to all on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds, agricultural yard trucks with off-road certified engines, and certain diesel-fueled shuttle vehicles of any gross vehicle weight rating. Out-of-state trucks and buses that operate in California are also subject to the regulation. Under the regulation, older, heavier trucks (i.e., those with pre-2000 year engines and a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds), are required to have installed a PM filter and must be replaced with a 2010 engine between 2015 and 2020, depending on the model year.

Air Toxics Contaminant Measure for Transportation Refrigeration Units and Transportation Refrigeration Generator Sets
This measure was adopted by the ARB to reduce emissions of TAC emissions from in-use Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) and TRU generator sets used to power electrically driven refrigerated shipping.

3.3.3 - San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The Valley Air District is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The Valley Air District, in coordination with the eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality attainment plans for the Air Basin. It also has roles under CEQA.

Ozone Plans
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment of State and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone. To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard, the Valley Air District adopted an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in 2004, with an attainment date of 2010. Although the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2005, and replaced it with an 8-hour standard, the requirement to submit a plan for that standard remained in effect for the San Joaquin Valley.

The planning requirements for the 1-hour plan remain in effect until replaced by a federal 8-hour ozone attainment plan. The EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, including revisions to the plan, on March 8, 2010, effective April 7, 2010. However, the Air Basin failed to attain the standard in 2010 and was subject to a $29 million Clean Air Act penalty. The penalty is being collected through an additional $12 motor vehicle registration surcharge for each passenger vehicle registered in the Air Basin that will be applied to pollution reduction programs in the region. The Valley Air District also instituted a more robust ozone episodic program to reduce emissions on days with the potential to exceed the ozone standards. On July 18, 2016, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-23
1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. This determination was based on the most recent 3-year period (2012–2014) of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data available at that time.13 The Valley Air District’s most recent 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard addresses the federal mandates related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.14 The Valley Air District adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-hour Ozone Standard on December 15, 2022, which satisfies the Clean Air Act requirements to meet the 70 ppb 8-hour ozone standard. 15 As described in the Plan, the
reductions that would be achieved by the Valley Air District and the ARB strategy (72 percent reduction in NOx emissions by 2037) would ensure expeditious attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard by the 2037 attainment deadline.

The EPA originally classified the Air Basin as serious nonattainment for the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of 2013. On April 30, 2007, the Valley Air District’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan, which contained analysis showing a 2013 attainment target to be infeasible. The 2007 Ozone Plan details the plan for achieving attainment on schedule with an “extreme nonattainment” deadline of 2024. At its adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the Valley Air District also requested a reclassification to extreme nonattainment. The ARB approved the plan in June 2007, and the EPA approved the request for reclassification to extreme nonattainment on April 15, 2010.

The 2007 Ozone Plan contains measures to reduce ozone and particulate matter precursor emissions to bring the Air Basin into attainment with the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The 2007 Ozone Plan calls for a 75 percent reduction of NO
x and a 25 percent reduction of reactive organic gases (ROG).

Figure 1 displays the anticipated NOx reductions attributed in the 2007 Ozone Plan.16 The plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard for all Air Basin residents. The Valley Air District Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. The ARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. The 2007 Ozone Plan requires yet to be determined “Advanced Technology” to achieve additional reductions after 2021, in order to attain the standard at all monitoring stations in the Air Basin by 2024 as allowed for areas designated extreme nonattainment by the federal Clean Air Act.

The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The plan to address this standard was developed for the region to attain EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2031.

13 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Federal Register. Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in California. Website:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/18/2016-16792/determination-of-attainment-of-the-1-hour-ozone-national- ambient-air-quality-standard-in-the-san. Accessed June 1, 2023. 14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. June 16.

Website: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 15 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2022. 2022 Plan for the 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Website:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air-quality-plans/ozone-plans/2022-ozone-plan-for-the-san-joaquin-valley/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
16 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2007. 2007 Ozone Plan. Website:
www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-24
The San Joaquin Valley is classified as an “extreme” nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone standard.17 This nonattainment classification sets forth a requirement to adopt a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) demonstration as a revision to the SIP no later than August 3, 2020. Pursuant to Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA, or “the Act”), areas classified as moderate or above for ozone nonattainment are required to implement RACT requirements for sources that are subject to EPA Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) and for “major sources” of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NO x, which are ozone precursors. These
RACT requirements ensure that significant sources of emissions in nonattainment areas are controlled to a “reasonable” extent, but not necessarily to the more stringent control levels expected of new or modified major stationary sources. Preparation of the 2020 RACT Demonstration, which was adopted, included a comprehensive evaluation of all NOx and VOC District rules to ensure that each rule meets or exceeds RACT. The 2020 RACT Demonstration fulfills CAA requirements and demonstrates that all federal RACT requirements continue to be satisfied in the Valley.

State ozone standards do not have an attainment deadline but require implementation of all feasible measures to achieve attainment at the earliest date possible. This is achieved through compliance with the federal deadlines and control measure requirements.

Figure 1: San Joaquin Valley NOx Emissions Forecast
Particulate Matter Plans
The Air Basin was designated nonattainment of State and federal health-based air quality standards for PM10. The Air Basin is also designated nonattainment of State and federal standards for PM2.5.

To meet CAA requirements for the PM10 standard, the Valley Air District adopted a PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan (amended 2003 PM10 Plan and 2006 PM10 Plan), which had an attainment date of 2010. The Valley Air District adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007 to

17 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2020. 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. May 19. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2020/06-18- 20_RACT/Final-2020-RACT-Demonstration-for-the-2015-8-Hour-Ozone-Standard.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-25
assure the San Joaquin Valley’s continued attainment of the EPA’s PM10 standard. The EPA designated the valley as an attainment/maintenance area for PM10 on September 25, 2008.

The Valley Air District’s most recent 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards develops a strategy to attain the federal health-based 1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS for PM2.5 as expeditiously as practicable.18 The Valley Air District’s attainment strategy builds upon comprehensive strategies already in place from previously adopted District attainment plans and measures. This plan includes aggressive incentive-based control measures that achieve the massive emissions reductions needed to bring the Valley into attainment.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations The Valley Air District rules and regulations that are relevant to this analysis consist of the following:

Rule 4101 Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever, any air contaminant, other than uncombined water vapor, for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 1 hour, which is (SJVPACD, 2005):
• As darker or darker in shade as that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
• Of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a dress equal to or greater than the smoke described in Section 5.1 of this rule.

Rule 4102 Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and it applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.

Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling.

Rule 4641 Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving, and Maintenance Operations.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641.

Rule 4901 Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Heaters. The purposes of this rule are to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood-burning fireplaces, wood-burning heaters, and outdoor wood-burning devices, and to establish a public education program to reduce wood-burning emissions. All development that includes wood-burning devices are subject to this rule.

18 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards.

November 15. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and- 2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-26
Regulation VIII Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.

Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOx and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two.

California Environmental Quality Act
The Valley Air District has three potential roles under CEQA:

1. Lead Agency: Responsible for preparing environmental analyses for its own projects (adoption of rules, regulations, or plans) or permit projects filed with the Valley Air District where it has primary approval authority over the project.

2. Responsible Agency: The discretionary authority of a Responsible Agency is more limited than a Lead Agency; i.e., having responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the environmental effects of those parts of the project over which the Responsible Agency has jurisdiction.

When the Valley Air District serves as a Responsible Agency, it defers to and relies on the Lead Agency for preparation of environmental documents for land use projects that also have discretionary air quality permits, unless no document is prepared by the Lead Agency and potentially significant impacts related to the permit are possible. The Valley District regularly submits comments on documents prepared by Lead Agencies to ensure that District concerns are addressed.

3. Commenting Agency: The Valley Air District reviews and comments on air quality analyses prepared by other public agencies.

The Valley Air District also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality and GHG analyses for purposes of Lead Agency review and use to the extent each Lead Agency elects, in its discretion, to do so. The result of this guidance, as well as State regulations to control air pollution, is an overall improvement in the Air Basin. In particular, the Valley Air District’s 2015 GAMAQI states the following:

1. The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. The general plan is the primary long-range planning document used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals. Section 65302.1 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appropriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing element revisions.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-27

2. The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1.

When adopted in a general plan and implemented, the suggestions in the AQGGP can reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The specific suggestions in the AQGGP are voluntary. The District strongly encourages cities and counties to use their land use and transportation planning authority to help achieve air quality goals by adopting the suggested policies and programs.

3.3.4 - Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia (City) is the local government with the authority over land use decisions for purposes of the proposed project. The City adopted an updated General Plan on October 14, 2014.19 The relevant air quality goals, objectives, and policies from the City’s General Plan for purposes of this analysis are listed below.

Chapter 7: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Objectives
AQ-O-1 Coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies.

AQ-O-2 Strive to improve air quality by implementing emissions reduction efforts targeting mobile sources, stationary sources and construction- related sources.

Policies
AQ-P-1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit locating new “sensitive receptor” uses— hospitals, residential care facilities and child care facilities—within 500 feet of a limited access State Highway (SR-99 and SR-198), except as provided by approved master plans.

AQ-P-2 Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive.

AQ-P-3 Support implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regulations on the use of wood-burning fireplaces, as well as their regulations for the installation of EPA-certified wood heaters or approved wood-burning appliances in new residential development and a “No Burn” policy on days when the air quality is poor.

19 City of Visalia. 2014. City of Visalia General Plan. October. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-28
AQ-P-4 Support the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s “change-out” program, which provides incentives to help homeowners replace old word-burning fireplaces with EPA-certified non-wood-burning appliances.

AQ-P-5 When asbestos has been identified in the preliminary soils report, require all new development and public works projects to comply with all provisions of State and regional ATCM regulations for control of airborne asbestos emissions relating to construction, road maintenance, and grading activities.

AQ-P-6 Amend the Street Tree Ordinance to promote use of plants and trees that are efficient pollutant absorbers.

AQ-P-7 Be an active partner with the Air District in its “Spare the Air” program. Encourage businesses and residents to avoid pollution-producing activities such as the use of fireplaces and wood stoves, charcoal lighter fluid, pesticides, aerosol products, oil- based paints, and automobiles and other gasoline engines on days when high ozone levels are expected, and promote low emission vehicles and alternatives to driving.

AQ-P-8 Update the Zoning Ordinance to strictly limit the development of drive-through facilities, only allowing them in auto-oriented areas and prohibiting them in Downtown and East Downtown.

AQ-P-9 Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.

BMPs include transportation demand management strategies for large development projects such as:
• Providing bicycle access and parking facilities;
• Providing preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, carpools, or alternative fuels vehicles;
• Establishing telecommuting programs or satellite work centers; • Allowing alternative work schedules;
• Subsidizing public transit costs for employee;
• Scheduling Deliveries at off-peak traffic periods; and • Providing recharge stations for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs).

AQ-P-10 Develop public information regarding high- and low-pollen producing landscape species, to be made available at City Hall and other relevant locations throughout the City. Work with Chamber of Commerce, local landscape architects, nursery contractors, and arborists to promote landscaping with low-pollen plants.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-29
AQ-P-11 Continue to work in conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and others to put in place additional Transportation Control Measures that will reduce vehicle travel and improve air quality and to implement Air Quality Plans.

3.3.5 - Methodology
Regional air pollutant emissions are composed of those on-site and off-site construction and operational emissions generated from all components of the proposed project. Air pollutant emissions can be estimated by using emission factors and a level of activity. Emission factors represent the emission rate of a pollutant over a given time or activity for example, grams of NOX per vehicle mile traveled or grams of NOX per horsepower hour of equipment operation. The activity factor is a measure of how active a piece of equipment is and can be represented as the amount of material processed, elapsed time that a piece of equipment is in operation, horsepower of a piece of equipment used, the amount of fuel consumed in a given amount of time, or VMT per day. The ARB has published emission factors for on-road mobile vehicles/trucks in the Emission Factor (EMFAC) mobile source emissions model and emission factors for off-road equipment and vehicles in the OFFROAD emissions model. An air emissions model (or calculator) combines the emission factors and the levels of activity and outputs the emissions for the various pieces of equipment.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was developed in cooperation with the SCAQMD, the Valley Air District, and other air districts throughout the State. CalEEMod is designed as a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses. The current version of CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.20 was in soft release by the time of the analysis and had experienced several issues. Therefore, CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, which is still accepted by the Valley Air District at the time of the analysis, was utilized for the Air Quality, GHG, and energy analyses.

3.3.6 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether impacts to air quality are significant environmental effects. Would the project:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-30
Approach to Analysis
Construction-related Criteria Pollutants
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from on- site and off-site activities. On-site emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Additionally, paving operations and application of architectural coatings would release VOC emissions. Off-site emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, hauling truck trips associated with grading activity, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5).

Construction activities would consist of site preparation, grading, demolition, building construction, paving, and architectural coating of the inside and outside of the buildings. In addition, construction activity would include off-site improvements to adjacent roadways improve curbs, gutters, sidewalks that would include paving and architectural coating activities. Demolition activity would occur on- site to remove the existing small outbuildings used for agricultural purposes. 20 For each construction
activity, the construction equipment operating hours and numbers represent the average equipment activity over the duration of the activity. A conceptual construction schedule is provided in Table

3.3-6 that presents the duration for each construction activity. Table 3.3-7 presents the number of assumed construction equipment along with assumed hours of operation per day, horsepower, and load factor. Where project-specific information was not available or unknown, CalEEMod default assumptions were used to complete emissions modeling. The activity for construction equipment is based on the horsepower and load factors of the equipment. In general, the horsepower is the power of an engine—the greater the horsepower, the greater the power. The load factor is the average power of a given piece of equipment while in operation compared with its maximum rated horsepower. A load factor of 1.0 indicates that a piece of equipment continually operates at its maximum operating capacity. This analysis uses the CalEEMod default load factors for off-road equipment.

The anticipated construction schedule, as shown in Table3.3-6, reflects the construction start date and construction phase durations estimated by the project applicant. The start date of the construction schedule used in the analysis represents a reasonable “worst-case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and compliance with more stringent regulatory requirements.

Therefore, construction emissions would decrease if the construction schedule moved to later years.

In order to evaluate a reasonable “worst-case” scenario, CalEEMod default phase lengths and construction equipment were used for the site preparation and grading activities. In addition, the site preparation and grading phases were assumed to start at the beginning of construction and occur across the entire approximately 284-acre project site during other phase(s) of activity. The

20 Note: Demolition activity would result in approximately 49 cubic yards of debris that would result in hauling truck trips. As shown in Appendix B, specifically the demolition debris calculation, the associated emissions from demolition has been accounted for in the modeling.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-31
duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA.

Schedule
Table 3.3-6: Conceptual Construction Schedule
Construction Activity
Conceptual Construction Schedule
Working Days
per Week Working Days
Start Date
(approx.)
End Date
(approx.)
On-Site Construction
Site Preparation and Grading for the Entire Project Site Demolition 3/14/2024 4/24/2024 5 30
Site Preparation 3/14/2024 11/20/2024 5 180
Grading 11/21/2024 9/2/2026 5 465
Phase 1
Building Construction 3/14/2024 3/14/2025 5 262
Paving 3/14/2024 1/15/2025 5 220
Architectural Coating 5/10/2024 3/13/2025 5 220
Phase 2
Building Construction 9/12/2025 9/12/2026 5 261
Paving 9/12/2025 12/25/2025 5 75
Architectural Coating 6/1/2026 9/11/2026 5 75
Phase 3
Building Construction 3/12/2027 3/12/2028 5 261
Paving 3/12/2027 8/12/2027 5 110
Architectural Coating 10/1/2027 3/10/2028 5 110
Off-Site Improvements
Paving 3/14/2024 4/10/2024 5 20
Architectural Coating 4/11/2024 5/8/2024 5 20
Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

On-site Off-road Equipment
A summary of the on-site, off-road construction equipment usage assumptions used to estimate emissions is presented below.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-32
Table 3.3-7: Project Construction Equipment Assumptions Construction Activity Equipment
Equipment
Amount
Average
Hours per
day Horsepower
Load
Factor
Site Preparation and Grading for the Entire Project Site Demolition Concrete Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Excavators 3 8 158 0.38
Rubber Tired Bulldozers 2 8 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Bulldozers 3 8 247 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8 158 0.38
Graders 1 8 187 0.41
Rubber Tired Bulldozers 1 8 247 0.40
Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37
Phase 1
Off-Site Improvements
(Paving)
Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Off-Site Improvements
(Architectural Coating)
Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Building Construction 1,2 Cranes 12 6.9 231 0.29
Forklifts 32 8.9 89 0.20
Generator Sets 12 7.9 84 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 32 7.8 97 0.37
Welders 12 7.9 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Phase 2
Building Construction 1,2 Cranes 4 7.4 231 0.29
Forklifts 12 8.5 89 0.20
Generator Sets 4 8.5 84 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 12 7.4 97 0.37
Welders 4 8.5 46 0.45
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-33
Construction Activity Equipment
Equipment
Amount
Average
Hours per
day Horsepower
Load
Factor
Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Phase 3
Building Construction1,2 Cranes 6 6.9 231 0.29
Forklifts 18 7.9 89 0.20
Generator Sets 6 7.9 84 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 16 7.8 97 0.37
Welders 6 7.9 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Notes:
1 Default values for construction equipment usage hours were adjusted to match the CalEEMod default total grading horsepower hours. When the default schedule is changed in CalEEMod, the usage hours do not adjust accordingly.

Therefore, because the default construction schedule was adjusted to match the project-specific anticipated construction schedule, the construction equipment was adjusted to retain the CalEEMod default totals. 2 Default values for construction equipment usage hours were adjusted to match the CalEEMod default total building construction horsepower hours.

Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

Demolition, Site Preparation, and Grading
A summary of the construction-related vehicle trips is shown in Table 3.3-8. During demolition, approximately 1,065 square feet of existing outbuildings and foundations would be removed. During project grading, it is expected that approximately 130,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the project site; the remaining cut and fill is expected to balance on-site. CalEEMod default values for trip lengths and vehicle fleets were used. Note that the total number of off-site construction vehicle trips would not necessarily occur on the same day, since construction activities would vary each day during the construction period.

Off-site On-road Vehicle Trips
Table 3.3-8: Construction Off-site Trips
Construction Activity
Worker
(Approx. trips per day)
Vendor
(Approx. trips per day)
Haul
(Approx. total trips)
Demolition, Site Preparation, and Grading for the Entire Project Site Demolition 15 0 5
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-34
Construction Activity
Worker
(Approx. trips per day)
Vendor
(Approx. trips per day)
Haul
(Approx. total trips)
Site Preparation 18 0 0
Grading 20 0 16,250
Phase 1
Building Construction 2,159 842 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 432 0 0
Phase 2
Building Construction 1,207 471 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 241 0 0
Phase 3
Building Construction 1,518 592 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 304 0 0
Off-site Improvements Only
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 50 0 0
Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

Fugitive Dust
Airborne dust is a substantial component of the elevated PM10 concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. Excavation, demolition, grading, unvegetated surfaces exposed to wind, material handling, material storage piles, and vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces all can be sources of substantial fugitive dust emissions if not properly managed or maintained.

Dust would be generated within the entire project site and at off-site locations along the areas proposed for project-related infrastructure improvements. To avoid increased adverse health effects from new construction-related PM10 and to address significant nuisance concerns (if any), such as visible clouds of dust and soiling of exposed surfaces, the Valley Air District oversees an extensive set of rules in Regulation VIII. All aspects of the proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable Valley Air District rules. The CalEEMod construction modeling runs include fugitive dust control measures as limiting on-site speed limits to 15 miles per hour (mph) and watering the project site twice per day, consistent with the foregoing rules.

Operation-related Criteria Pollutants
The major sources of operational emissions that would occur over the long-term operations of the proposed project are summarized below.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-35
On-road Motor Vehicles
Motor vehicle emissions refer to exhaust and road dust emissions from the motor vehicles that would travel to and from and within the project site. The regional emissions from the proposed project’s mobile sources were estimated using CalEEMod. The proposed project would primarily generate passenger vehicle trips from employees and visitors traveling to and from the project site; however, the proposed project would also be served with daily truck deliveries. An estimate of the number of vehicle trips that the proposed project would generate was presented in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Trip Generation tables prepared by Kimley-Horn for the proposed project, as shown in
Table 3.3-9.

Table 3.3-9: Vehicle Trip Generation During Operations
Vehicle Type
Actual passenger vehicles/trucks
(trips per day)
PCE1
(trips per day)
Passenger Vehicles 19,375 19,375
Trucks 2,034 4,068
Total Project Trips 21,409 23,443
Note:

PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
1 PCE = 2.0 per City of Visalia Guidance
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Transportation Impact Analysis for Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. September 2023.

The trip summary shown above includes trips from both passenger vehicles and trucks. The trip generation prepared for the proposed project estimates that trips from passenger vehicles would account for approximately 19,375 of the approximately 21,409 total daily actual trips generated by the proposed project, while trucks would account for approximately 2,034 of the total daily actual trips generated by the proposed project.

Light industrial land use projects, including warehouse, storage, and distribution projects such as the one at hand, can be expected to have longer than average truck trip lengths compared to the default trip lengths in CalEEMod (7.3 miles to 9.5 miles for urban areas of Tulare County). This is because the goods that the warehouses would store and distribute often come from major ports, such as the Port of Long Beach or Oakland. Therefore, to ensure an appropriately conservative analysis, to estimate mobile source emissions from trucks during project operations, a one-way truck trip length of 50 miles was assumed based on recommendations from the Valley Air District for industrial projects.

To apply a longer trip length for trucks and to show a clear breakdown of emissions, modeling of the proposed project’s operations was split into two separate CalEEMod runs: (1) area-source emissions, energy-source emissions, and passenger vehicle mobile source emissions, and (2) truck mobile source emissions. The vehicle types in the first operational run were adjusted so that only passenger vehicles were represented. Since there are various types of passenger vehicles included in CalEEMod, the CalEEMod default fleet mix for Tulare County was used as the basis for the determining the passenger car fleet mix used in the first operational year. The number of daily operational vehicle trips used to City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-36
estimate emissions were the actual daily trip presented in Table 3.3-9, consistent with those presented in the project-specific trip generation estimate.

Emission factors were assigned to the expected vehicle mix as a function of vehicle age, vehicle class, speed, and fuel type. The operational fleet mix applied in each operational run are noted in Table

3.3-10.

Table 3.3-10: Vehicle Type Classification–Individual Project Runs CalEEMod Run Classification Fleet Mix Applied in Modeling Passenger Vehicles (employee trips) LDA 57.2%
LDT1 5.7%
LDT2 18.5%
MDV 18.6%
Passenger Vehicle Mix Total 100%
Trucks HHDT 100%
Notes:

HHDT = Heavy Heavy-Duty Truck
LDA = Light-Duty Auto
LDT = Light-Duty Truck
MDV = Medium-Duty Vehicle
Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

Other Emission Sources
Area Sources
In addition to typical mobile- and energy-source emissions, long-term operational emissions also include area-source emissions. Area-source emissions include occasional architectural coating activities for repainting and maintenance of the buildings associated with the proposed project.

CalEEMod assumes that repainting occurs at a rate of 10 percent of the buildings per year. Therefore, on average, it is assumed that the buildings would be fully repainted every 10 years.

Other area-source emissions include consumer products that involve solvents that emit VOCs during use. CalEEMod includes default consumer product use rates based on building square footage. In addition, CalEEMod default emission factors for landscape maintenance equipment were used in this analysis.

Indirect Emissions
For GHG emissions, CalEEMod contains calculations to estimate indirect GHG emissions. Indirect emissions are emissions where the location of consumption or activity is different from where actual emissions are generated. For example, electricity would be consumed at the project site as a result of the proposed project; however, emissions associated with producing that electricity to serve the proposed project are generated off-site at a power plant.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-37
CalEEMod includes calculations for indirect GHG emissions for electricity consumption, water consumption, and solid waste disposal. For water consumption, CalEEMod calculates embedded energy (e.g., treatment, conveyance, distribution) associated with providing each gallon of potable water to the proposed project. For solid waste disposal, CalEEMod calculates GHG emissions generated as solid waste generated by the proposed project decomposes in a landfill.

For electricity-related emissions, CalEEMod contains default electricity intensity factors for various utilities throughout California. The CalEEMod default emissions factors were used for SCE for purposes of this analysis.

Refrigerants
During project operation, it is reasonable to assume there may be leakages of refrigerants (hydrofluorocarbons) from air conditioners and any refrigeration systems. Hydrofluorocarbons are typically used for refrigerants, which are long-lived GHGs. The proposed project does not include a cold storage facility. Therefore, any leakage of refrigerants associated with an unrefrigerated industrial building is expected to be minor; thus, because they would be nominal (at most) and would otherwise be speculative to approximate, they were not included in this analysis.

Vegetation
The project site contains mature trees, and therefore there is currently some carbon sequestration occurring on-site. The proposed project would involve some tree removal, but would also involve the planting of trees and integration of ample landscaping into the project design as described in Project Description, which would also provide carbon sequestration. However, the number of trees to be planted is unknown and data are insufficient to accurately determine the impact that the existing landscaping has on carbon sequestration. For this analysis, it was assumed that the loss and addition of carbon sequestration that are due to the proposed project would be balanced given the number of trees to be removed as compared to the number of trees and other landscaping to be incorporated into the proposed project pursuant to the City’s applicable tree preservation policies; therefore, emissions due to carbon sequestration were not calculated.

An air dispersion model is a mathematical formulation used to estimate air quality impacts at specific locations (receptors) surrounding a source of emissions given the rate of emissions and prevailing meteorological conditions. The air dispersion model applied in this assessment was the EPA American Meteorological Society Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Version 22112, which is approved by the Valley Air District for air dispersion assessments. The AERMOD model provides a refined methodology for estimating localized construction and operational impacts by utilizing long- term, measured representative meteorological data for the project site and representative construction and operational schedules.

Terrain elevations were obtained for the project site using the AERMAP model, the AERMOD terrain data pre-processor. The urban dispersion option was used to describe air dispersion in the local vicinity of the project site. The air dispersion model assessment was performed using meteorological data from the Visalia Station (Station 93144), which is located approximately 2.95 miles southwest of the project site.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-38

3.3.7 - Air Dispersion Modeling–Construction
The AERMOD model was used to estimate levels of air emissions at sensitive receptor locations from project construction PM10 exhaust emissions. Receptor locations within the AERMOD model were placed at locations of existing residences surrounding the project site because these would be the closest sensitive receptors near the project site. Although Denton Elementary School would be located 2,300 feet to the southeast, receptor locations were not included at this elementary school because residential receptors located much closer to the project site would present a conservative analysis. To evaluate the proposed project’s localized construction impacts, sensitive receptor height were considered at the point of maximum impact. All sensitive receptors were placed within the breathing zone at zero meters above ground level.

The on-site construction area sources were assumed to cover the entire project site. Emissions from the on-site construction exhaust source were assumed to be emitted at 5 meters above ground to account for the top of equipment exhaust stacks where emissions are released to the atmosphere and the increase in emission height due to its heated exhaust. The on-road construction vehicle emissions were represented in the AERMOD model as line volume sources with a release height of

10.2 feet (3.1 meters) for diesel vehicles.

3.3.8 - Air Dispersion Modeling–Operation
Each operational emission source to be evaluated requires geometrical and emission release specifications for use in the air dispersion model. The emission source configurations applied in this assessment are shown in Table 3.3-11. Note, most passenger vehicles are gasoline powered and would not be a significant source of DPM emissions.

Table 3.3-11: Summary of Operational Diesel Emission Source Configurations Emission Source
Type Configuration Relevant Assumptions
On-site Truck
Traffic
Area Source
(Sitewide)
• Area Source with vertical height accounting for exhaust from trucks over various roadway paths to buildings across entire facility • Vehicle Speed: 0-15 mph
• Vehicle types: Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHDT) delivery trucks • Emission factors: EMFAC2021
On-site Truck
Idling
Line Volume and
Point Sources
• Stack release height: 3.8 meters
• Idle Instances: 20 minutes total
–Truck/Docking and Parking Areas: 50 percent of idling time –Entrance Gate Areas: 50 percent of idling time
–Vehicle type: HHDT delivery trucks
• Idle Emission rates (g/idle-hour)
• Emission factors: EMFAC2021-PL
Off-site Truck
Traffic
Line Volume Sources • Truck travel was estimated for project-generated off-site travel within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site.
• Three travel links from the project to outlying areas were identified based on the truck travel distribution provided in the project- specific traffic report, and emissions were estimated along each travel link.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-39
Emission Source
Type Configuration Relevant Assumptions
• Vehicle speeds: 0 mph to 25 mph aggregated
• Emission factors: EMFAC2021.

Facility
Operations
Project • Trucking operations: 24 hours per day/365 days per year Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report.

Given the proposed gas station, the analysis took into account specific emissions associated with this type of use. The primary routine emission sources at gasoline service stations are classified into five categories of loading, breathing, fueling, spillage, and hose permeation and are described in Table

3.3-12.

Table 3.3-12: Categories of Emissions at Retail Gasoline Service Stations Emission Source Description Controls
Loading Loading losses occur when Fuel Tanker Trucks makes delivery to gas stations. Gasoline vapor emissions occur as gas enters the underground storage tanks.

Phase I Enhanced Vapor
Recovery (EVR)
Breathing Breathing emissions occur during periods of low activity or inactivity. Temperature changes inside the underground storage tank can cause gasoline vapor pressures to increase above pressure limit for the tank and excess pressure is released via a gas station vent pipe in the form of gasoline vapor emissions.

Phase II EVR
Fueling Fueling emissions occur at the gas pump during vehicle fueling– gasoline vapors are emitted from the space due to a poor seal between the nozzle and the vehicle.

On-Board Refueling
Vapor Recovery (ORVR)
systems
Phase II EVR Nozzles
Spillage Generated from dispensing nozzle spillage of liquid gasoline during the act of vehicle fueling, including pre-fueling, fueling and post-fueling spillage. While emissions from all other mechanisms are in the form of vapors, spillage losses are in liquid form.

Phase II EVR “Dripless”
Nozzles
Hose
Permeation
Emissions occur from the fueling hoses at the gas pumps.

Gasoline vapors can pass through (or permeate) the fuel delivery hoses.

Low Permeation Hoses

Factors influencing emissions include annual and hourly throughput and the type of tank (above or underground) and the vapor controls on the underground gasoline storage tanks and during vehicle fueling. Emissions also depend on the percentage of vehicles fueling at the station that are equipped with On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) systems. Modern retail gas stations, such as the proposed project, almost exclusively use underground storage tank designs with ARB certified Phase I and Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) Systems. The percentage of ORVR is not a feature of gas stations but of the vehicle fleet in California. ORVR systems were required in automobiles City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-40
manufactured in model year 2000 and after and represent the majority, but not all, of vehicles at retail service stations. It has been projected for year 2018 that 83 percent of gasoline was dispensed to vehicles with ORVR installed, and the remaining 17 percent gasoline was dispensed to cars without ORVR and with fueling losses controlled by Phase II EVR Nozzles.21 Odors
The proposed project would generate odors during construction from the operation of heavy equipment, the burning of diesel fuels, the generation of dust, and from other construction activities. During operation, the proposed project would generate odors from the operation of fossil- fuel powered vehicles, such as trucks and passenger vehicles, as well as from the fast food land uses.

Specific Thresholds of Significance
CEQA defines, generally, a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine whether a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the proposed project must be evaluated pursuant to the applicable specific thresholds identified by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (see below).

While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Valley Air District recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. The City, as the Lead Agency, has elected in its discretion to utilize the foregoing thresholds, as detailed further below.

This analysis uses the air quality significance thresholds contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, effective December 28, 2018. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

As noted above, the City has elected to utilize the applicable Valley Air District thresholds and methodologies, which are contained under each impact statement below.

3.3.9 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. The following analyses are based on the Air

21 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Attachment 1–Revised Emission Factors for Phase II Vehicle Fueling at California Gas Dispensing Facilities. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/gasoline-dispensing-facility-emission-factors. Accessed January 6, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-41
Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (reference as Air Quality Report herein), which is included in Appendix B.

Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan
Impact AIR-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact Analysis
In accordance with relevant Valley Air District thresholds and methodologies, this evaluation utilizes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current Air Quality Plan (AQP):

1. Will the proposed project support the primary goals of the AQP?

2. Will the proposed project comply with applicable control measures in the AQP?

3. Will the proposed project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures?

The use of the criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the Valley Air District’s jurisdiction, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:
• Significant contribution to existing or new exceedances of the air quality standards would be inconsistent with the goal of attaining the air quality standards. • AQP emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the Valley Air District’s jurisdiction.
• AQPs rely on a set of air district initiated control measures as well as implementation of federal and State measures to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions, with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.

AQPs are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine whether the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. In order to show attainment of the standards, the Valley Air District analyzes the growth projections in the valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The Valley Air District then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and District regulations and other local programs and measures.

Criterion 1
A method for determining consistency with the AQP’s assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan’s growth projections to ensure that the proposed project’s population density, intensity, and land uses are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQP for the Air Basin.

The development of emission burdens used in the AQP to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards is based, in part, on land use patterns established within local general plans.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if a project is consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation(s), and the general plan was adopted prior to the applicable AQP , then the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-42
growth of VMT and/or population generated by said project would be consistent with the growth in VMT and population assumed within the AQP . The applicable General Plan in this case is the City of Visalia General Plan.

The project site is designated as Industrial and Light Industrial22 according to the City of Visalia General Plan and zoned County Area according to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance. The Light Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, distribution, research and development enterprises, and secondary office (limited customer access) uses. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for this designation is 0.5. The Industrial designation allows uses such as primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities, including those with outdoor facilities. It also accommodates warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services (such as drive-thru restaurants, gas stations, self storage, and car washes) and office space. General retail uses such as clothing shops are not permitted.
23 The maximum FAR for this designation is 0.6.

The project site is currently adjacent to but outside of City limits; accordingly, as part of the initial project entitlements, the applicant is seeking pre-zoning of the project site from the City to “Industrial” and “Light Industrial.” Upon annexation into the City, the project site’s Industrial and Light Industrial pre-zoning would become the effective zoning for the project site. The proposed project would result in a total FAR of 0.30.24 As a result, the proposed project would involve the type of land uses contemplated by the City’s General Plan and would be within the allowable FAR ratio required under and assumed by the City General Plan’s relevant land use designations. In addition, according to the Visalia Zoning Ordinance, Table 17.25.030 the proposed project’s objective of providing an automated car wash and fast food restaurant with a drive through would be allowed with a conditional use permit and the self storage and fueling station uses would be permitted by right as part of the Zoning Designation.

Furthermore, with approval of the requested Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for the convenience store, drive-thru lanes, and certain lot sizes set forth in the proposed development plan, the proposed project would not have the potential to conflict with the contemplated land use vision and thus assumed growth projections for the project site.

As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the growth projections assumed in the City’s General Plan and thus the relevant AQP , and thus would not result in any unplanned growth and associated emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts would not be found significant regarding this criterion.

Criterion 2
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A detailed description of rules and regulations that would apply to the proposed project is provided in Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Framework. For example, the proposed project would be subject to Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510—Indirect

22 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Land Use Element. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474. Accessed June 1, 2023. 23 City of Visalia. Zoning Code, Table 17.25.030. Website: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/visalia/latest/visalia_ca/0-0-0- 34305#JD_Chapter17.22. Accessed April 6, 2023.
24 Calculation: (total building area/total site area) = 83.14 acres of building area/280 acres = 0.296 or 0.30.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-43
Source Review. In order to comply with Regulation VIII, the proposed project would be required to control fugitive dust by watering actively disturbed areas with water twice per day and covering all transport and hauling vehicles to reduce dust emissions. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations through the issuance of applicable permits and applications and otherwise would be subject to District oversight pursuant to the applicable regulatory framework. Furthermore, consistency with the City of Visalia General Plan Policy AQ-P-2 would require the proposed project to implement applicable measures outlined in Regulation VIII.

Therefore, the proposed project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan for this criterion.

Criterion 3
A measure of determining whether the proposed project is consistent with the AQP is as follows: if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQP, then the impact would be less than significant.

However, because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM

2.5, and PM10, if project-
generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and/or NOx), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the Valley Air District’s applicable significance thresholds, then the proposed project would be considered to disrupt or hinder implementation of the relevant AQP control measures designed to attain the relevant air quality standards and thus would be in conflict with the attainment plans.

As discussed in Impact AIR-2 below, annual emissions of ROG, PM 10, and PM2.5 associated with the
construction of the proposed project would not exceed the Valley Air District’s applicable significance thresholds after incorporation of mitigation. However, emissions of NOX would exceed the Valley Air District’s localized significance thresholds even after implementation of identified feasible mitigation.

Also as discussed in Impact AIR-2, operation of the proposed project would have the potential to exceed regional significance thresholds for ROG, PM10, and NOX, and would have the potential to result in a violation of localized standards, even after incorporation of feasible mitigation. In addition, as shown in Impact AIR-2, the proposed project could result in maximum daily CO emissions that would violate applicable CO standards. However, the proposed project would not result in a CO hotspot as determined in Impact AIR-2.

Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to exceed applicable Valley Air District significance thresholds during construction and operation even after incorporation of the identified feasible mitigation. Thus, project impacts in this regard would remain significant and unavoidable.

Accordingly, the proposed project would not comply with this criterion and therefore would be considered to disrupt or hinder implementation of AQP control measures designed to attain relevant air quality standards.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-44
Impact Summary
The proposed project is consistent with the applicable growth assumptions within the AQP; therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact based on this criterion.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable AQP control measures; therefore, the proposed project would be less than significant for this criterion. However, given that the Air Basin is in nonattainment for certain criteria pollutants, the proposed project would be considered to conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of AQP because certain construction and operational emissions would exceed applicable thresholds even after implementation of feasible mitigation, thereby disrupting or hindering implementation of the AQP control measures designed to attain relevant air quality standards; therefore, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for this criterion.

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g (see Impact AIR-2).

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts
Impact AIR-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Impact Analysis
Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This portion of the analysis assesses the regional effects of the proposed project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to applicable Valley Air District thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.

The primary pollutants of concern during project construction and operation are ROG, NO x, PM10,
and PM2.5. The Valley Air District GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, which are being utilized here to assess the significance of the proposed project’s impacts in this regard.25
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the State and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the proposed project would emit a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, it may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM 10, and
PM2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants

25 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-45
as well. The Valley Air District’s annual emission significance thresholds used for this analysis define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
• 100 tons per year CO
• 10 tons per year NOx
• 10 tons per year ROG
• 27 tons per year SOx
• 15 tons per year PM10
• 15 tons per year PM2.5

Construction Emissions
The proposed project’s unmitigated construction emissions are shown for all years of construction, the years 2024 through 2028 in Table 3.3-13, which represent a reasonable construction scenario. It should be noted that unmitigated construction emissions incorporate the basic dust control measures required under District Rule 8021, which requires that vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces be reduced to no more than 15 miles per hour and exposed construction areas are watered at a minimum twice per day during earthmoving activities. The CalEEMod considers these basic dust control measures as “mitigation measures”; however, they are required for all construction activity in the Valley Air District and thus are considered as a project design requirement for the proposed project. For further information regarding the assumptions used in estimating these emissions, please refer to Section 3.3.3, Methodology and the Air Quality Report.

Table 3.3-13: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) Year
Emissions (approximate tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
2024 Construction
On-site
Demolition 0.03 0.31 0.30 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Site Preparation 0.24 2.45 1.69 <0.01 0.11 0.10
Grading 0.05 0.53 0.42 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Building Construction 2.64 21.11 26.84 0.07 0.79 0.75
Paving 0.20 1.00 1.57 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Architectural Coating 3.95 0.18 1.06 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Off-site Improvements
Paving 0.03 0.10 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.13 0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2024 Construction Subtotal 7.28 25.69 32.06 0.08 1.00 0.94 2025 Construction
Grading 0.40 4.22 3.62 0.01 0.15 0.14
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-46
Year
Emissions (approximate tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Building Construction 1.01 8.04 10.69 0.03 0.27 0.25
Paving 0.11 0.37 0.64 0.01 0.02 0.01
Architectural Coating 1.22 0.05 0.31 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2025 Construction Subtotal 2.74 12.68 15.25 0.04 0.44 0.41 2026 Construction
Grading 0.27 2.83 2.42 0.01 0.10 0.09
Building Construction 0.87 6.90 9.10 0.03 0.22 0.21
Architectural Coating 2.41 0.06 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2026 Construction Subtotal 3.55 9.78 11.78 0.04 0.32 0.30 2027 Construction
Building Construction 1.33 10.80 14.05 0.04 0.35 0.33
Paving 0.05 0.47 0.82 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating 1.47 0.05 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2027 Construction Subtotal 2.85 11.33 15.13 0.04 0.38 0.36 2028 Construction
Building Construction 0.31 2.55 3.28 0.01 0.08 0.08
Architectural Coating 1.11 0.04 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2028 Construction Subtotal 1.42 2.59 3.47 0.01 0.09 0.09 Entire Construction Duration (2024-2028)
Maximum Annual Construction
Emissions2 7.28 25.69 32.06 0.08 1.00 0.94
Valley Air District Significance
threshold (tons/year)
10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No Yes No No No No
Notes:

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

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-47
Year
Emissions (approximate tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI- 2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.

As shown in Table 3.3-13, the unmitigated construction emissions assuming the sequential implementation of phases would exceed the significance thresholds for NOX. In addition, if there were concurrent implementation of construction phases this level of activity would exceed the significance threshold for ROG and NOX, which reflects the reasonable worst-case scenario maximum annual emissions. Therefore, construction emissions would be potentially significant. As a result, the proposed project would need to include the following construction mitigation measures (MM):
• MM AIR-2a–Use and Operation of Tier IV or Equivalent Construction Equipment • MM AIR-2b–Use of Low VOC Architectural Coating Materials

MM AIR-2a would require the construction contractors to use Tier IV or equivalent construction equipment, which is the most energy efficient class of construction equipment available, for all construction equipment above 50 horsepower. In addition, the use of Tier IV construction equipment would support California’s clean air goals by reducing construction emissions of NO X and
PM10 and PM2.5. Also, MM AIR-2a would allow for the project applicant to consider using near zero- emission or electric construction equipment if that type of equipment is commercially available at the time of construction activity. If near zero-emission or electric construction equipment is utilized emissions would be further reduced, but for the purposes of presenting a conservative analysis only the use of Tier IV construction equipment was considered. Furthermore, MM AIR-2a would limit idling of construction equipment to a maximum of five minutes. In addition, MM AIR-2b–Use of Low VOC Architectural Coating Materials would be included to prevent potential impacts related to construction ROG emissions and would require that all paint or architectural coating materials used on building structures during construction not exceed 10 grams of VOC per liter of coating. MM AIR- 2b would reduce ROG emissions because the architectural coating phase of construction emits the most ROG (also called VOCs). As shown in Table 3.3-14, with implementation of MM AIR-2a and -2b, assuming the sequential implementation of phases, ROG and NO X emissions would be reduced
below the Valley Air District 10 tons per year threshold. However, if construction Phases 1, 2, and 3 were to overlap (i.e., concurrent phasing), the proposed project would still exceed Valley Air District thresholds of 10 tons per year for NO
X even with implementation of this mitigation, as shown in the reasonable worse-case scenario. Moreover, no other feasible mitigation measures exist that could reduce NOX emissions further because the majority of emissions would be due to the amount of construction equipment in use. Even with MM AIR-2a, the concurrent schedule would result in such a large amount of construction activity occurring at the same time that it would not be possible to reduce the resulting NO
X emissions. Therefore, construction emission impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-48
Table 3.3-14: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) Year
Emissions (tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
2024 Construction
On-site
Demolition 0.01 0.03 0.35 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Site Preparation 0.05 0.19 1.92 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Grading 0.01 0.11 0.50 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Building Construction 1.46 7.68 28.65 0.07 0.14 0.14
Paving 0.13 0.13 1.85 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 1.30 0.09 1.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Off-site Improvements
Paving 0.02 0.01 0.18 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.13 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2024 Construction Subtotal 3.11 8.25 34.54 0.08 0.15 0.15 2025 Construction
Grading 0.12 1.01 4.49 0.01 0.02 0.02
Building Construction 0.59 3.27 11.42 0.03 0.05 0.05
Paving 0.08 0.06 0.76 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.40 0.02 0.31 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2025 Construction Subtotal 1.19 4.36 16.98 0.04 0.07 0.07 2026 Construction
Grading 0.08 0.67 3.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Building Construction 0.54 3.08 9.69 0.03 0.05 0.05
Architectural Coating 0.84 0.02 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2026 Construction Subtotal 1.46 3.77 12.96 0.03 0.06 0.06 2027 Construction
Building Construction 0.79 4.61 15.01 0.04 0.07 0.07
Paving 0.02 0.07 0.97 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.45 0.02 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2027 Construction Subtotal 1.25 4.70 16.24 0.04 0.07 0.07 2028 Construction
Building Construction 0.18 1.08 3.51 0.01 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating 0.34 0.01 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-49
Year
Emissions (tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
2028 Construction Subtotal 0.52 1.10 3.70 0.01 0.02 0.02 Entire Construction Duration (2024-2028)
Maximum Annual Construction
Emissions2

3.10 8.22 34.18 0.08 0.15 0.15
Significance threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No No No No No No
Notes:

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

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

Worst-case Concurrent Construction Scenario
For the purpose of providing a conservative analysis in the event that construction sequence occurs earlier than anticipated, a worst-case scenario where all construction activity would overlap (i.e., construction of Phases 1, 2, and 3 occurs concurrently from March 2024 to March 2025) is modeled to account for the maximum criteria pollutant emissions. The scenario incorporates MM AIR-2a that all construction equipment meets Tier IV final off-road emission standards, if commercially available.

The annual emissions and maximum emissions are summarized in the Air Quality Report as Appendix B. To note that due to the size of the proposed project (284 acres), it is highly unlikely that the three phases would occur at the same time and the overall construction can be completed in 30 months. However, if construction Phases 1, 2, and 3 were to overlap (i.e., concurrent phasing), the proposed project would exceed Valley Air District thresholds for NOX and ROG even with implementation of MM AIR-2a. Moreover, no other feasible mitigation measures exist that could reduce NOX emissions further because the majority of emissions would be due to the amount of construction equipment in use. Even with MM AIR-2a, the concurrent schedule would result in such a large amount of construction activity occurring at the same time that it would not reduce the resulting NO
X emissions to below thresholds. Therefore, construction emission impacts of the concurrent worst-case scenario would be significant and unavoidable.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-50
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the proposed project are from two main sources:
area sources and motor vehicles(i.e., mobile sources). Construction is scheduled to be completed in several phases starting with Phase 1, which would be completed in 2025, Phase 2 in 2026, and Phase 3 in 2028, although for purposes of a conservative analysis, this assessment also evaluates impacts associated with concurrent phasing. The Valley Air District considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations.

For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Section 3.3.3 Methodology and the Air Quality Report. The emissions modeling results for project operation are summarized in Table 3.3-15.

Table 3.3-15: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) Source
Emissions (approx. tons per year)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Area 8.00 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.13 1.18 0.99 0.01 0.09 0.09
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 3.09 2.20 25.91 0.06 5.60 1.43 Mobile (Trucks) 0.50 40.28 7.81 0.32 9.24 2.90
Phase 1 Subtotal 11.72 43.66 34.73 0.39 14.93 4.42
Phase 2
Area 3.66 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.07 0.66 0.55 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 4.45 2.06 24.07 0.04 3.83 0.98 Mobile (Trucks) 0.21 17.25 3.41 0.14 4.11 1.29
Phase 2 Subtotal 8.39 19.97 28.04 0.18 7.99 2.32
Phase 3
Area 3.91 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.07 0.61 0.51 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 1.31 0.82 10.59 0.03 2.78 0.71 Mobile (Trucks) 0.21 16.94 3.43 0.14 4.33 1.36
Phase 3 Subtotal 5.5 18.37 14.54 0.17 7.16 2.12
Project Buildout (Phases 1–3)
Total 25.79 83.1 91.58 0.79 35.13 10.15
Significance threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact?
Yes Yes No No Yes No
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-51
Source
Emissions (approx. tons per year)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Notes:

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

As shown in Table 3.3-15, regional operational emissions would exceed the Valley Air District’s threshold of significance for ROG, NOX, and PM10; a potentially significant impact. The proposed project would not exceed thresholds for CO, SOX, or PM2.5.

As a result, this analysis has identified mitigation to help reduce emissions in this regard. Mitigation Measures (MM) AIR-2c, -2d, -2e, -2f, and -2g would contribute toward NOX emissions reductions.

During operation of the proposed project, it is likely that on-site off-road and on-road service equipment, such as forklifts, pallet jacks, and flat trucks could be used to move goods throughout the project site. These sets of equipment typically include internal combustion engines that would emit NO
X during use. MM AIR-2c would require 1) that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment be zero-emission or all-electric, and 2) that all project buildings would be designed to support the use of zero-emission or 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.

As shown in Table 3.3-15, another contribution of NOX emissions would be from passenger vehicles due to employees traveling to and from the project site. 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 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 AIR-2d would require the design of the buildings’ electrical room to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on-site. 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 electric vehicles and incentivize employees to use electric vehicles.

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, City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-52
minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel, and reduce vehicle idling, which would otherwise result in excessive NOX and PM10 emissions. As stated previously, the majority of operational NOX and PM10 emissions would be from mobile sources and any reduction in operational vehicle travel would reduce the greatest share of the proposed project’s operational emissions.

MM AIR-2f would require the proposed project to include a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries. As stated in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter from the Valley Air District dated September 28, 2022, vegetative barriers can reduce exposure of gaseous pollutants on sensitive receptors. 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 Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the Valley Air District in order to reduce ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions. 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 Valley Air District serving as the administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. For example, funds generated by a VERA can be used to provide grants to municipalities, such as the City of Visalia, to replace diesel-powered transit vehicles with zero- emission vehicles. In addition, a VERA would give priority to emissions reduction projects near the project site to reduce emissions near the source. However, it should be noted a VERA is an entirely voluntary measure and is not required by the Valley Air 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.

Moreover, the proposed project would be subject to Valley Air District Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review, because the proposed project would exceed the 25,000-square-foot light industrial District applicability threshold for this rule. This rule aims to reduce the impact of NO x and PM10 emissions
from growth within the Air Basin. As a result, compliance with the Indirect Source Review application would result in further reductions in NOx and PM10.

However, at the time of this report, there is not sufficient information to guarantee that the proposed project could feasibly implement the reduction measures associated with these mitigation measures. Moreover, the project applicant would not have ownership over the operational truck fleets because they would be owned and operated by third party vendors, and as such, the proposed project applicant could not mitigate the impacts of the primary source of operational emissions.

Therefore, 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 NO
X during construction and ROG, NOX, PM10 during operation of the proposed project.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-53
CO Hotspot Analysis
A CO hotspot represents a condition wherein high concentrations of CO may be produced by motor vehicles accessing a congested traffic intersection under heavy traffic volume conditions. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Accordingly, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent to help remedy this impact.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) by the SCAQMD has been used to assist in evaluating potential for CO exceedances in other air basins. Although the SoCAB and the SCAQMD would not be the applicable air basin or air district for the proposed project, utilizing this guidance is appropriate here because CO exceedances are caused by idling vehicles and regardless of air district the same causes of CO exceedances would occur throughout the State and at the project site. For example, any project-generated vehicles trips would result in idling of passenger vehicles or trucks at the project site and on adjacent roadways that could lead to a CO exceedance. The CO hotspot analysis contained in the SCAQMD 1992 CO Plan is used to determine potential CO hotspot impacts from the proposed project, because by using the 1992 CO Plan as a worst-case scenario, the proposed project can measure CO impacts against intersections that experienced significantly more vehicle traffic than adjacent to the proposed project. The 1992 CO Plan is used a worst-case scenario because it included a CO hot spot analysis for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Subsequently the CO Plan determined that no CO hotspot would occur even with 100,000 vehicles per day at this one intersection.

As described in Table 3.3-9, the proposed project would generate up to 21,409 daily vehicle trips.

According to the Visalia General Plan EIR, Chapter 3.2 Transportation, Table 3.2-6, Shirk Avenue would experience at most 24,900 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). 26 As a result, the addition of
the proposed project’s anticipated actual trips would result in up to 46,000 daily vehicle trips, which is not close to what was analyzed in the 1992 CO Plan. Therefore, none of the intersections near the project site would have peak-hour traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 1992 CO Plan, nor would there be any reason unique to the local meteorology to conclude that this intersection would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail because the project site is not located in an area where air flow would be severely restricted, such as a tunnel or canyon. In conclusion, the addition of the proposed project’s daily trips would not generate a CO hotspot at local intersections and operational CO impact would be less than significant.

26 City of Visalia. General Plan EIR, Chapter 3.2 Transportation.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-54
Construction Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Valley Air District Rule 2201 requires that an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) be conducted for a project when that project’s maximum daily emissions exceed 100 pounds for any single criteria or precursor pollutant after incorporation of all mitigation.

Emissions occurring at or near the project site have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an “air pollutant hotspot.” Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. In locations that already exceed standards for these pollutants, the focus of the significance conclusion is based on whether a project’s individual significant impact level, when combined with other cumulative development, would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing violation of an air quality standard.

The Valley Air District’s 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 Ambient Air Quality Analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM
10, PM2.5, NOX, and 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. The results of the analysis are presented below.

Table 3.3-16: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Unmitigated) Year
On-site Emissions (approx. pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2024 235.24 276.62 22.03 14.82
2025 273.78 360.14 19.42 12.86
2026 92.02 112.46 9.38 5.36
2027 93.78 126.70 5.50 3.89
2028 86.40 115.38 5.38 3.62
Maximum Daily Emissions 273.78 360.14 22.03 14.82
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? Yes Yes No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-55
Year
On-site Emissions (approx. pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI- 2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.

The construction schedule is based on Table 8 and represents a conservative estimate.

As noted in Table 3.3-16, emissions of NOX and CO would exceed the applicable screening threshold prior to the application of mitigation. Implementation of MM AIR-2a would require each applicant, in connection with an individual specific development proposal, to provide documentation to the City of Visalia demonstrating that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards, to the extent commercially available. An analysis of maximum daily emissions during construction after incorporation of MM AIR-2a was conducted to determine whether emissions would exceed the 100 pounds per day screening threshold for any pollutant of concern. As shown in the summarized results presented in Table 3.3-17, with incorporation of identified mitigation, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed the appliable daily emission threshold for NO X but would
continue to exceed the applicable daily emission threshold for CO. It should be noted that if project construction moves to later years, resulting emissions are anticipated to reduce because equipment efficiency and fuel content standards generally improve with each year and construction fleet operators periodically replace old equipment with new, more efficient equipment. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the applicable screening threshold for CO after inclusion of MM AIR- 2a. However, no additional, feasible mitigation would be applicable to further reduce construction CO emissions because the primary source of CO emissions is due to the operation of fossil fuel powered construction equipment. Despite the implementation of MM AIR-2a requiring all construction equipment meet Tier IV or equivalent standards, all construction equipment would still emit CO and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Electric construction equipment can be used in lieu of Tier IV equipment and would reduce CO emissions. However, because the availability of electric offroad equipment is limited compared to other clean equipment alternatives (such as Tier IV), it cannot be assumed that the project could replace enough offroad equipment with electric offroad equipment to reduce impacts to a less than significant level during construction.

Table 3.3-17: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Mitigated) Year
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2024 53.52 302.72 13.21 6.64
2025 74.08 391.72 10.36 4.46
2026 21.03 96.09 6.40 5.04
2027 27.75 138.48 2.67 1.10
2028 26.71 124.47 2.67 1.10
Maximum Daily Emissions 74.08 391.72 13.21 6.64
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-56
Year
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No Yes No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

Operational Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Operational emissions include emissions generated on-site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, and on-site travel from motor vehicles accessing the project. The maximum on-site mobile emissions include vehicle ignition start up, idling, and travel across the project site internal roadways. As described in the CalEEMod Notes in the Air Quality Report, the operational localized significance threshold modeling analysis analyzed the maximum possible distance that a vehicle could travel on-site during operation, which is approximately 2.8 miles. This distance was determined by measuring from the northwest corner of the project site to the southeast corner of the project site along proposed roadways, which would be the longest, most direct route a vehicle would travel. Maximum daily on-site emissions during project operations are shown below.

Table 3.3-18: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operations (Unmitigated) Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area <0.01 0.39 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 12.99 10.91 0.99 0.99
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 10.22 129.75 22.15 5.96
Mobile (Trucks) 66.98 35.88 5.20 1.65
Total 90.19 176.94 28.34 8.6
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No Yes No No
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-57
Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.

The proposed project would exceed the Valley Air District screening thresholds for CO but would not exceed other operational screening thresholds. As shown in Table 3.3-18, the majority of CO emissions would be from mobile sources, such as passenger vehicles driven by employees to access the project site and trucks delivering and receiving goods. For example, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of employees would drive personal vehicles to the project site, which in order to reduce emissions, would require zero-emission vehicles. However, implementing such a measure would not be enforceable, due to a lack of realistic and legally available enforcement mechanisms the City could reasonably rely upon to enforce such a measure for the life of the proposed project.

As presented previously, if MM AIR-2c through -2f were implemented, this would reduce operational emissions, but would not reduce emissions below the applicable thresholds. As a result, since feasible mitigation would not reduce project operational emissions below the applicable thresholds, the proposed project’s operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Summary
Regional emissions generated by the proposed project would exceed applicable thresholds despite compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, and mitigation measures during construction and operation. Localized operational emissions would also present a potentially significant impact after incorporation of identified mitigation. Both of these impacts would be significant and unavoidable given the lack of certainty with respect to implementation of feasible mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-2a Use of Tier IV or Tier IV Equivalent Construction Off-Road Equipment Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed project, the project sponsors shall submit construction emissions minimization plans to the City of Visalia for review and approval. The construction emissions minimization plans shall detail compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Subject to same being commercially available, all off-road equipment utilized in connection with the subject individual development proposal shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission standards. Provided, however, if engines that comply with Tier IV Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-58
next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier IV Interim) available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the availability of Tier IV Interim engines taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; (ii) costs of utilizing same are commercially practicable; and (iii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment. The relevant contractor’s provision to the City letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that reasonably documents the lack of commercially available off-road equipment shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of complying with this mitigation measure. The project applicant and contractor shall consider the use of near zero-emission or electric construction equipment if that type of equipment is commercially available at the time of grading permit submittal.
(2) Post signage on the project site stating that construction equipment idling times shall not exceed five minutes.

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

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

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

3.3-59
equipment support the use of all-electric or zero-emission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially practicable.

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

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

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

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

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-60
MM AIR-2g Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall consult with the City of Visalia Planning Division about the feasibility of entering into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the Valley Air District.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.

Sensitive Receptors Exposure to Pollutant Concentrations Impact AIR-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptors
• Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The Valley Air District considers a sensitive receptor to be a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The closest existing and planned sensitive receptors located near the project site include:
• Single-family residential homes located directly to the southeast across the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street, with the closest home approximately 160 feet to the southwest.
• Denton Elementary School located approximately 2,200 feet to the southwest. The City of Visalia General Plan Land Use Element
27 designates an area as Multi-Family Residential
approximately 2,700 feet to the east of the project site, which could result in new sensitive receptors.
• The Carleton Acres Specific Plan area located to the east of the North Shirk Avenue and West Riggin Avenue intersection, which could result in up to 3,368 residential units to the east of the project site.

Construction: ROG
During construction, ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern because of the rapid dispersion of ROGs into the atmosphere when applied outdoors.

Whereas indoors the enclosed spaces prevent the gases from escaping into the atmosphere and can accumulate in high concentrations. Furthermore, no sensitive receptors would be located on-site

27 City of Visalia. General Plan Land Use Interactive Map. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 1, 2023.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-61
during construction that could be exposed to high levels of ROGs such that they would present a health risk concern. Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact.

There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, Valley Air District Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than 0.5 percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500°F or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume, that evaporate at 500°F or lower. An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.

The acute (short-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes. The studies were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes because asphalt paving activity would be temporary and only occur on the project site and in areas where roadway improvements would occur as part of construction activity. Consequently, exposure to asphalt fumes could only occur during the paving phase of construction which would only occur during permissible construction hours and would end once construction is complete; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley by the Valley Air District reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure because they reduce odor and fumes from burning of asphalt material. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction is less than significant.

Operation: ROG
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles and the use of consumer products. Direct exposure to ROG from project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be distributed across miles of roadway and disperse rapidly into the air. In order for a significant impact to occur motor vehicles would need to be operating within an enclosed area, such as a tunnel or freeway overpass, adjacent to sensitive receptors, where ROGs would be highly concentrated. As a result, nearby residents would not be at risk from ROGs emitted by motor vehicles because they are separated by existing roadways and located in neighborhoods with no enclosed spaces where motor vehicles would operate and ROGs. In addition, ROG emissions generated by the use of consumer products 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. 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.

Construction: NOX, PM10, PM2.5
As discussed in Impact AIR-2, localized unmitigated concentrations of PM10, and PM2.5 generated during project construction would not exceed the ambient air quality standards, while localized City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-62
concentrations of NOX would not exceed ambient standards after incorporation of MM AIR-2a.

However, localized concentrations of CO would exceed the 100 pounds per day ambient air quality standard set by the Valley Air District, even after the incorporation of mitigation. Therefore, CO emissions during construction would exceed the significance thresholds after incorporation of mitigation and would be expected to result in concentrations that would exceed ambient standards or contribute substantially to an existing exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. As a result, because these impacts could not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level for the reasons discussed above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation: NOX, PM10, PM2.5,
As discussed in Impact AIR-2, localized concentrations of NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the ambient air quality standards. However, localized concentrations of CO during operations would exceed the 100 pounds per day ambient air quality standard set by the Valley Air District. Therefore, CO emissions during construction would exceed the significance thresholds even after incorporation of mitigation, and would be expected to result in concentrations that would exceed ambient standards or contribute substantially to an existing exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. As a result, because these impacts could not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level for the reasons discussed above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The Valley Air District’s applicable threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The Valley Air District’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.

Toxic Air Pollutants—On-site Workers
A variety of State and national programs, laws and regulations protect workers from safety hazards, including high air pollutant concentrations.
28,29
On-site workers are not required to be addressed through this Health Risk Assessment (HRA) process, consistent with guidance published by CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, indicates that on-site receptors are included in risk assessments if they are persons not employed by the proposed project.30 This makes sense since persons not employed by the proposed project would not remain on-site for any significant period. Therefore, an HRA for on-site receptors consisting of on-site workers is not required or recommended. No further discussion is necessary.

Health Risk Assessment
During construction and operation, the proposed project would result in emissions of several TACs that could potentially impact nearby sensitive receptors. The Valley Air District has defined health

28 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2003. United States Department of Labor. Safety and Health Topics:

Methane. Website: www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling /data/CH_250700.html. Accessed April 6, 2023. 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. Construction—website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/construction/. Indoor Environmental Quality—website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indoorenv/constructionieq.html. Accessed April 6, 2023. 30 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-63
risk significance thresholds. These thresholds are represented as a cancer risk to the public and a non-cancer hazard from exposures to TACs. Cancer risk represents the probability (in terms of risk per million individuals) that an individual would contract cancer resulting from exposure to TACs continuously over a period of several years. The Valley Air District’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The principal TAC emission analyzed in this assessment was DPM from operation of off-road equipment and diesel-powered delivery and worker vehicles during construction and operation. DPM has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM10. DPM represented as exhaust PM10 adequately addresses impacts from PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, as PM2.5 comprises a component of PM10. Fugitive dust components of PM10 and PM2.5 would be controlled through the use of required dust control practices during project construction and therefore fugitive dust would not be considered as part of this HRA.

Given the proposed gas station, the analysis considers specific emissions associated with this type of land use. The primary routine emission activities at gasoline service stations are classified into five categories of loading, breathing, fueling, spillage, and hose permeation. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, naphthalene, hexane and propylene are the TACs of concern with cancer toxicity values from gasoline dispensing facilities, with benzene accounting for nearly 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline. In this analysis, health risks associate with exposure to benzene from gasoline service stations are assessed as part of the operational HRA.

Two drive-through restaurants would operate in the southeast corner of the project site. The restaurants would emit cooking TACs, depending on the type of restaurants, for instance, charbroiler, fryer, griddle, etc. However, it is speculative to estimate such emissions at time of this analysis. The restaurant emissions would be subjected to Valley Air District permit review before the operation.

Therefore, the restaurant cooking TACs are not considered in the operational HRA.

Exposures to TACs can result in both short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) non-cancer health impacts. Such impacts could include illnesses related to reproductive effects, respiratory effects, eye sensitivity, immune effects, kidney effects, blood effects, central nervous system, birth defects, or other adverse environmental effects.

Estimation of Cancer Risks
Cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens over a specified exposure duration. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF). A risk level of 20 in a million implies a likelihood (or risk) that up to 20 persons, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of TACs over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer risk that is in addition to any environmental cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed guidance for estimating cancer risks that considers the increased sensitivity of infants and adults to TAC City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-64
emissions, different breathing rates, and time spent at home. This guidance was applied in estimating cancer risks from the construction and operation of the proposed project.

The recommended method for the estimation of cancer risk is shown in the equations.

Cancer Risk = CDPM x Inhalation Exposure Factor (EQ-1)
Where:

Cancer Risk = Total individual excess cancer risk defined as the cancer risk a hypothetical individual faces if exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular source for specified exposure durations; this risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the background cancer risk to the population; cancer risk is expressed in terms of risk per million exposed individuals.

C
DPM = Period average DPM air concentration calculated from the air dispersion model in µg/m3
Inhalation is the most important exposure pathway to impact human health from DPM and the inhalation exposure factor is defined as follows:

Inhalation Exposure Factor=CPF x EF x ED x DBR x AAF/AT (EQ-2) Where:

CPF = Inhalation cancer potency factor for the TAC: 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 for DPM EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years of construction)
AAF = set of age-specific adjustment factors that include age sensitivity factors (ASF), daily breathing rates (DBR), and time at home factors (TAH)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged (days) Estimation of Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards
An evaluation of potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted.

Adverse health effects were evaluated by comparing the annual receptor concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate Reference Exposure Level (REL). Available RELs promulgated by OEHHA were considered in the assessment.

Risk characterization for non-cancer health hazards from TACs is expressed as an HI. The HI is a ratio of the predicted concentration of the project’s emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals, termed the REL.

To quantify non-carcinogenic impacts, the HI approach was used.

HI = Cann/REL (EQ-3)
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-65
Where:

HI = chronic hazard index
Cann = annual average concentration of TAC as derived from the air dispersion model (µg/m3) REL = reference exposure level above which a significant impact is assumed to occur (µg/m3) The HI assumes that chronic exposures to TACs adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint) of the body. For each discrete chemical exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used. To calculate the HI, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity REL. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds 1, a health hazard is presumed to exist. OEHHA has defined a REL for DPM of 5 µg/m

3. The principal toxicological endpoint assumed in this assessment was through inhalation.

Toxic Air Contaminant Construction Analysis
Major sources of DPM during construction include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck activities. The results of the HRA prepared for project construction for cancer risk and long-term chronic non-cancer risk are summarized below. Air dispersion modeling was utilized to assess the proposed project’s potential health risks using AERMOD Version 22112, which is an air dispersion model accepted by the EPA and the Valley Air District for preparing HRAs. Exhaust emissions of DPM (as PM
10 exhaust) were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Construction emissions were estimated assuming adherence to all applicable rules, regulations, and the incorporation of identified project design features. The construction emissions were assumed to be distributed over the project site with a working schedule of eight hours per day and five days per week. Emissions were adjusted by a factor of 4.2 to convert for use with a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day- per-year averaging period. Detailed parameters, a description of methodology, and complete calculations are contained in Appendix B.

The estimated health and hazard impacts at the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) from the proposed project’s construction emissions are provided below. Under both unmitigated reasonable and worst-case scenario, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold at the MIR. Although not required to reduce construction health risk impacts, the implementation of MM AIR-2a to reduce criteria pollutant emissions (as required by Impact AIR-2) would further reduce estimated health risks and hazards during project construction for reasonable (Table 3.3-19) and worst-case scenario (Table 3.3-20). The estimated health risks and hazards during project construction, after application of MM AIR-2a is presented below for informational purposes. The MIR is a unit located at the northwest corner within a single-family duplex complex located at 6714 W Oriole Drive, Visalia, CA 93291. The MIR’s coordinates are 36.356176, -119.367478.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-66
Table 3.3-19: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)– Reasonable Scenario
Source and Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI1
Acute
Non-Cancer HI2
Construction–Reasonable Scenario 1.95 0.00093 –
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:

HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
1 Chronic non-cancer HI was estimated by dividing the maximum annual DPM concentration (as PM10 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3.
2 The acute health effect of DPM is not significant and acute HI of DPM is not available in HARP .

Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.

Table 3.3-20: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)–Worst- Case/Concurrent Construction Scenario
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI1
Acute
Non-Cancer HI2
Construction–Worst-case Scenario 2.69 0.0015 –
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:

Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.

Toxic Air Contaminant Operation Analysis
DPM and Gasoline TAC Emissions
Major sources of DPM during operation potentially include passenger vehicles from employees, HHD trucks, on-site off-road and on-road service equipment, such as forklifts and pallet jacks, because these vehicles use diesel as the fuel source. Although the gas station, drive-through restaurant, RV parking area, and self storage facilities would result in idling vehicles, which could result in small amounts of TAC emissions, the majority of these vehicles would be gasoline powered which do not run on diesel fuel or emit significant amounts of DPM emissions. Material handling equipment at the facility (pallet jacks and forklifts) would be electric and would not emit DPM.

The results of the HRA prepared for project operation for cancer risk and long-term chronic non- cancer risk are summarized below. Air dispersion modeling was utilized to assess the proposed project’s potential health risks using AERMOD Version 22112, which is an air dispersion model City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-67
accepted by the EPA and the Valley Air 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.

Emissions of DPM (as PM10 exhaust) for running exhaust at speeds of 0–25 miles per hour as well as idling exhaust emissions of DPM were estimated using EMFAC 2021 using project-level inputs and the EMFAC-PL31 (project level) web tool. On-Site idling was estimated at 20 minutes per truck visit to account for idling at several locations within the site including during entering and exiting, at the docks and at the truck parking areas. On-site truck travel at speeds of 0-15 mile per hour were accounted for in the on-site emissions. Off-site truck emissions at speeds ranging from 0-25 mph were modeled on the roadways adjacent to the site (Riggins Avene and Shirk Road). Truck distributions along each of these roadways were derived from the traffic study distribution data.

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, naphthalene, hexane and propylene are the TACs of concern with cancer toxicity values from gasoline dispensing facilities, with benzene accounting for nearly 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline.

As stated in the Project Description, the proposed project would include approximately 6,900 square feet of gas station and convenience store space, and as a result, the proposed project would generate TACs associated with gasoline loading and dispensing emissions during emissions.

Accordingly, the proposed project’s operational gas station TAC emission impacts on sensitive receptors were evaluated in the HRA. Emissions were calculated based on a project-specific throughput of 900,000 gallons per years and methodologies developed by the ARB and CAPCOA for Gasoline Service Stations.
32 Operational emissions were estimated assuming adherence to all applicable rules, regulations, and incorporation of identified project design features. Detailed parameters, a description of methodology, and complete calculations are contained in Appendix B.

The estimated health and hazard impacts at the MIR from the proposed project’s operation is provided in Table 3.3-21. Because the same MIR is exposed to both project construction and operation, the cumulative risks are provided in Table 3.3-22.

Table 3.3-21: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Gasoline Fueling Activities 0.1 <0.0001 0.06
Operational DPM (On-Site) 0.69 0.0002 –
Operational DPM (Off-Site Trucks) 2.56 0.0007 –
Total Risk from Project Operations 3.35 0.001 0.06

31 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2021 Project-Level Analysis Web Tool, Website: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/project-analysis, Accessed on October 23, 2023.
32 California Air Resources Board and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance February 18, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/gasoline-service-station- industrywide-risk-assessment-guidance
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-68
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source
Threshold?
No No No
Notes:

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

Table 3.3-22: Cumulative Health Risks and Hazards During Reasonable Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Reasonable Construction + Operation 5.30 0.002 0.06
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Cumulative Threshold? No No No
Notes:

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

As noted in Table 3.3-21, the proposed project’s operational DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold or non-cancer hazard index significance threshold at the MIR. As shown in Table 3.3-22 and 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 -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.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-69
Objectionable Odors Exposure
Impact AIR-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis
In general, two situations typically create a potential for other emissions, such as those leading to odors, which can occur. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor.

For purposes of review under CEQA, only the first circumstance typically involves a CEQA issue since the second involves an impact of the existing environment on the project (i.e., “CEQA in reverse”).

Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

The Valley Air District has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 3.3-23.

Table 3.3-23: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed October 21, 2022.

As summarized above, and as according to the Valley Air District GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-70
• Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and • Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.

Because the proposed project would not introduce new sensitive receptors to an area near existing odor sources, this analysis implements the following methodology to evaluate potential impacts in this regard: Would the project generate significant amounts of odors during construction or operation?
Project Analysis
Project Construction
Diesel exhaust and ROGs would be emitted during construction of the proposed project as a result of the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site, which would create localized odors. The proposed project would develop a total of approximately 284 acres over time, which would require the operation of construction equipment and vehicles throughout the project site.

However, as the proposed buildings would be located within the interior of the project site and set back from the project boundaries and surrounding land uses, the operation of construction equipment and vehicles would predominantly occur in the interior of the project site and not along the project boundaries or near sensitive receptors located to the southeast. Moreover, emissions would disperse relatively rapidly from the project site given the nature of the emissions. Thus, these odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project’s site boundaries. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant.

Project Operation
Odor Generator
As noted above, land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The proposed project would be occupied by multiple tenants/occupants in the light industrial buildings, a convenience store and gas station, a car wash, and two drive-thru restaurants. None of the proposed uses would be considered sources of significant odors; see, e.g., the types of uses identified in Table 3.3-23.

Although the gas station use would emit some odors due to the re-fueling of gasoline and diesel, this land use would not include refining of fossil fuels and odors would disperse into the atmosphere relatively rapidly, similar to construction emissions, and the closest sensitive receptor would be located across the West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Street intersection, such that odors would not be significant. As a result, the proposed project would not place an odor source within the screening distance to sensitive receptors.

Odor Source
For information purposes, the following is noted. The proposed project would not include residential, daycare, or other types of sensitive receptor land uses on the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not place new sensitive receptors within the screening distance of a significant source of odors.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality

3.3-71
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

3.3.10 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope considered for cumulative impacts to air quality is the Air Basin. In developing mass emission thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and ozone precursors, the Valley Air District considers the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, if a project would exceed the identified construction or operational significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM
10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards and a cumulative air quality impact currently exists for the region. Therefore, if a project exceeds the Valley Air District significance thresholds for ozone precursor emissions or emissions of PM 10 or PM2.5, that project
would be considered to contribute to an existing cumulative air quality impact. As discussed in Impact AIR-2, MMs AIR-1a through AIR-1g would reduce the proposed project’s potentially significant air quality impacts related to ozone precursor emissions during construction; however, as discussed in Impact AIR-2, project construction emissions for NOX would remain potentially significant after implementation of identified mitigation should all three project phases be constructed concurrently. In addition, because the full implementation of MM AIR-1g cannot be guaranteed during project operation, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impact related to regional emissions significance threshold for ROGs, NO X, and PM10 during project
operation. Moreover, because full implementation of MM AIR-1g cannot be guaranteed, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant localized violation during construction and operation from CO emissions.

As discussed in Impact AIR-2, District Rule 8021 would be required, which would further ensure that air quality impacts related to fugitive particulate matter during construction activities are less than significant. Nonetheless, after incorporation of identified mitigation and implementation of the required rules and regulations, the proposed project could result in construction and operational emissions which are greater than the respective Valley Air District significance thresholds and could therefore have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact. The proposed project would therefore result in significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. With regard to impacts on sensitive receptors, the DPM emissions from construction of the proposed project could result in significant health impacts if all three project phases are constructed concurrently. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact could be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the operational DPM emissions and benzene emissions from the gasoline station land use of the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts. Nonetheless, the cumulative impact associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR

3.3-72
Cumulative Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g.

Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-1

3.4 - Biological Resources

3.4.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing biological resources conditions on the project site and in the vicinity, as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the potential impacts related to biological resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project and feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Information in this section is based, in part, on on-site reconnaissance surveys of the project site that included a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). The BRA can be found in Appendix C.

The purpose of the BRA is to (1) document existing and potentially occurring biological resources on the project site and adjacent areas; (2) analyze potential project-related impacts on identified biological resources; (3) summarize relevant local, State, and federal laws and regulations; and (4) recommend feasible measures to mitigate potential impacts on biological resources to less than significant levels.

Public comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) were received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to biological resources. • CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine whether the project site contains suitable habitat for Swainson’s hawk. • If suitable foraging or nesting habitat is present for the Swainson’s hawk, CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk following the entire survey methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee1 during analysis.
• If ground-disturbing activities take place during Swainson’s hawk nesting season, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 0.5 mile until breeding season has ended or until a qualified Biologist has determined that birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parent care for survival.
• CDFW recommends that the City of Visalia assesses Crotch’s bumblebee habitat areas near the project site for potential Crotch’s bumblebee nesting sites. • If suitable Crotch’s bumblebee habitat exists in the project area or vicinity, CDFW advises that those areas would have to be avoided.
• CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine whether project areas contain potential habitat for the northern legless lizard. • If suitable northern legless lizard habitat is present, CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct a focused survey for the northern legless lizard to evaluate potential impacts resulting from ground and vegetation disturbance.

1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee – Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83990. Accessed November 9, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-2

3.4.2 - Environmental Setting
The project site lies within the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley which, together with the Sacramento Valley, makes up California’s larger Central Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east and Coast Ranges to the west. The project site is surrounded by mixed agriculture to the north and east and industrial complexes to the west and south, plus a dairy farm to the south. Urbanized areas in the City are located primarily to the southeast.

Elevation and Drainage
The topography of the project site and surrounding area is relatively flat, which is typical of the San Joaquin Valley. The topography of the eastern San Joaquin Valley rises gradually to the east toward the Sierra Nevada Mountains, while the topography of the western portion of the valley rises to the west toward the Coast Ranges.

Soil
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) depicts two soil types within the project site.
2 These soil types and their primary characteristics are summarized in Table

3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1: Soil Types Present within Project Site
Soil Name Slope Description
Percent of
Site
Akers-Akers,
saline-sodic,
complex
0–2% The Akers series consists of very deep, well-drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock. Akers soils are on terraces. Saline-sodic soils are high in soluble salts and exchangeable sodium.
32 Grangeville
sandy loam
0–2% The Grangeville series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse
textured alluvium dominantly from granitic rock sources.

Grangeville soils are on alluvial fans and floodplains. 68 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
The following section describes vegetation communities and land cover types on the project site.

The location and spatial extent of these types are shown on Exhibit 3.4-1.

Almond Orchard
An orchard is defined as an intentional plantation of trees or shrubs that is maintained for food production. Orchards comprise fruit or nut-producing trees which are generally grown for commercial production. Such trees are often arranged in rows. The project site currently consists of

2 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey (WSS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 16, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-3

an actively managed orchard of almond (Prunus dulcis) that is approximately 275 acres in size and was established around 2018. All orchard areas on the project site are actively managed, with sparse herbaceous understory plant cover that consists of managed ruderal non-native grasses and forbs.

Access Roads/Barren
Barren areas on the project site consist of access roads, which are currently dirt with small amounts of managed, non-native invasive grasses and forbs on edges.

Planted Ornamental Trees
An existing non-native planted ornamental tree cover includes a double row of 35 olives (Olea europaea; between approximately 1 and 2 feet diameter at breast height [DBH]) along the southern portion of the private access road bisecting the project site south to north; a cluster of two tall elm (Ulmus sp.) trees (approximately 3 feet DBH each); and one approximately 3-foot-DBH cedar (Cedrus sp.).

Valley Oak
A substantial portion of the canopy of a mature valley oak (Quercus lobata) overlaps the northern boundary of the project site. The trunk of this oak is estimated to be over 3 feet DBH and is rooted on the neighboring property, at the northern bank of Modoc Ditch.

Retention Basin and Modoc Irrigation Canal
Modoc Ditch is an artificial, actively managed irrigation canal aligned along the northern boundary of the project site. It is approximately 15 feet wide and carried approximately a foot of water at the time of the survey, though water levels are expected to fluctuate based on agricultural activity.

Modoc Ditch flows from west to east through a dirt-bottom channel, but the channel is highly disturbed with broken pavement, boulders, and debris found throughout the bed and banks. Flows of the canal are sustained by water that is pumped in through the regional irrigation infrastructure, and the flows are typically disconnected from St. John’s River to the east but can likely be connected to St. John’s River under flooding conditions.

The project site contains a man-made and actively managed retention basin for irrigation purposes.

Water levels likely fluctuate depending on agriculture activities and needs. Water is actively pumped into the retention basin from Modoc Canal. The retention basin was constructed during the establishment of the almond orchard in 2018.

Off-site Trees
Several tall trees, predominantly of the genus Eucalyptus, are present on neighboring parcels south of the project site, as close as approximately 70 feet to the project site boundary. While these trees are not proposed to be impacted directly, they have the potential to provide nesting habitat for protected species, including Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), as detailed below.

Common Wildlife Species
The vegetation community and land cover types discussed above provide habitat for a few local wildlife species adapted to agricultural land use. Wildlife activity was low during the field survey and City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-4

consisted primarily of avian species. The following discussions regarding the wildlife species observed or that have a potential to occur within the project site are organized by taxonomic group.

Each discussion contains representative examples of a particular taxonomic group either observed or expected to occur on-site.

Amphibians
Amphibian species observed on-site during the field survey include abundant bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) tadpoles in the retention basin. It is possible that other disturbance-resistant common amphibian species such as Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) or the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) may be present at times in the retention basin and Modoc Ditch; however, presence of bullfrog significantly limits presence of other amphibians due to predation pressure. Therefore, and because of the artificial hydrological regime and regular maintenance, these features would likely act as population sinks for amphibians and would not be considered suitable habitat for self-sustaining native amphibian populations.

Birds
Bird species observed on-site included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), a resident pair of red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), common sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and a robust population of killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). A nesting cavity in a large elm tree points to potential site use of woodpecker or northern flicker (Colaptes auratus).

Almost all trees on-site showed signs of previous nesting activities, including small nests built of grass and at least one larger stick nest.

Bird species not observed but potentially present within the orchards on-site include common and disturbance-resistant passerines and corvids, such as northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and others.

Swainson’s hawk is known to occur near the project site. While almond orchards are not considered Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, this species is known to forage in alfalfa fields and open low crop and grasslands, and these habitat types are present adjacent to the project site.

Mammals
Because of the project site’s agricultural land use, mammal presence would likely be limited to small rodents, and potentially vagrant dispersing individuals of common mammal species, including potentially coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).

Reptiles
Because of the agricultural land use, reptile presence would likely be limited to common reptile populations, potentially including gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), which are common in disturbed and developed areas and were observed near the pump house during the field survey.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-5

State or Federally Protected Waters and Wetlands
The Modoc Ditch and the artificial retention basin (described above) are not expected to be regulated as State- or federally protected waters or wetlands under Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 404/401, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or Fish and Game Code Section 1602 et seq. because the irrigation canal and associated retention basin have all been excavated within upland habitat for the purpose of on-site agricultural irrigation and drainage. However, 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, as discussed further below.

On February 22, 2023, a preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) of Visalia-Kelsey Street Industrial Complex Project in Unincorporated, California was completed by South Environmental for the proposed project and can be found in its entirety in Appendix C.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
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, and 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.

Sensitive Natural Communities
None of the vegetation communities (described above) are considered sensitive natural communities. No sensitive natural communities are present on-site.

Special-status Plant Species Evaluated
An evaluation of the 17 special-status plant species and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) sensitive species that have been recorded within the Goshen, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) was completed (Appendix C.2, Table 1).3,4 The evaluation includes the species’ status, required habitat, and potential to occur within the project site. As detailed in Appendix C, 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.

Valley Oak
As discussed above, although rooted on adjacent property, a substantial portion of the canopy of a valley oak is overhanging onto the project site (discussed above and shown in Exhibit 3.4-1). The valley oak can be considered a sensitive biological resource due to its local rarity, the locally unique

3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special- Status Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed October 20, 2022. 4 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed October 20, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-6

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.

Special-status Wildlife Species Evaluated
FCS evaluated 15 federal and State listed threatened and/or endangered wildlife species and State Species of Special Concern that have been recorded in the CNDDB as potentially occurring within the Goshen, California topographic quadrangle and its eight neighboring quadrangles (Appendix C.2, Table 2). The evaluation includes the species’ status, required habitat types and features, and potential to occur within the project site and supporting analysis and rationale. Based on the field survey and background research, the only special-status species with a realistic potential to occur on-site is Swainson’s hawk. This species, as well as other relevant special-status species, are discussed in more detail below.

Birds
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk is listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).5 Swainson’s hawk is a medium-sized bird of prey with relatively long, pointed wings that curve up somewhat in a slight dihedral while the bird is in flight. Adult females weigh between 900 and 1,100 grams (32 to 39 ounces) and males from 800 to 1,000 grams (28 to 35 ounces). The most marked identifying features of an adult Swainson’s hawk are its dark head and breast band that is distinctive from the lighter colored belly and the lighter linings on the underside of the wing that are lighter than the dark gray flight feathers.

Swainson’s hawk breeds in the western United States and Canada and winters in South America as far south as Argentina. The breeding season for Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley typically lasts from March to the end of July.
6 Swainson’s hawk typically forages in open grasslands and has become increasingly dependent on agriculture, especially alfalfa crops, as native communities are converted to agricultural lands. The diet of the Swainson’s hawk in California consists of small rodents such as voles; however, other small mammals, birds, and insects are also preyed upon.

Swainson’s hawk often nest near riparian woodlands. They will also use lone trees in agricultural fields or pastures, and roadside trees that are adjacent to suitable foraging habitat. 7 CNDDB records indicate several Swainson’s hawk nesting occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (Appendix C.1). Given these recent sightings and the existence of suitable nesting habitat in the form of several large trees near suitable foraging habitat present on adjacent properties, there is a moderate potential for this species to occur on-site.

5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Special Animals List.

Sacramento, CA. Updated July 2022.
6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Sacramento, California. May 31, 2000. 7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Swainson's Hawks in California. Website:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Swainson-Hawks. Accessed October 20, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-7

Western Burrowing Owl
The western burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Western burrowing owls are year-round residents throughout much of California, especially in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay region, Carrizo Plain, and Imperial Valley. Migrants from other parts of western North America can augment local populations in lowland areas in the winter. The breeding season in California is February 1 to August 31. Western burrowing owls prefer open, dry, short grassland habitats with few trees and often are associated with burrowing mammals such as California ground squirrels. They occupy burrows, typically abandoned by ground squirrels or other burrowing mammals, but also use artificial burrows such as abandoned pipes, culverts, and debris piles.

The project site does not contain the above-mentioned habitat requirements for western burrowing owl. No suitable burrows or signs of western burrowing owl were observed on-site. However, directly adjacent fields may provide marginal or temporary western burrowing owl habitat, and presence of western burrowing owl on an adjacent suitable property cannot be ruled out.

Mammals
San Joaquin Kit Fox
The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and is State listed as threatened. Federal critical habitat for this species has not been designated. The historical range of San Joaquin kit fox included most of the San Joaquin Valley as well as low elevation basins and ranges along the eastern side of the central Coast Ranges.

By 1930, this range had been reduced by more than half, with the largest populations occurring in the southern and western portions of the San Joaquin Valley. Today, the San Joaquin kit fox occurs in the remaining native valley and foothill grasslands and chenopod scrub communities of the valley floor and surrounding foothills, from southern Kern County north to Los Banos, Merced County.

Smaller, less dense populations may be found farther north and in the narrow corridor between Interstate 5 (I-5) and the Interior Coast Ranges from Los Banos to Contra Costa County. The San Joaquin kit fox’s range also includes portions of Monterey, Santa Clara, and San Benito Counties. The San Joaquin kit fox inhabits a variety of habitats, including grasslands; scrublands; vernal pool areas; alkali meadows and playas; and agricultural irrigated pastures, orchards, and vineyards. They prefer habitats with loose-textured soils and are found primarily in arid grasslands and open scrublands that are suitable for digging, but they occur on virtually every soil type. Dens generally are in open areas with grass or grass and scattered brush, and seldom occur in areas with thick brush. Preferred sites are relatively flat, well-drained terrain. They are seldom found in areas with shallow soils resulting from high water tables or impenetrable bedrock or hardpan layers.

No dens suitable for kit fox or other signs of kit fox presence were observed on-site. The project site is an actively managed orchard and may therefore provide only temporary dispersal habitat. As such, temporary presence of a transient individual on-site cannot be ruled out.

American Badger
The American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California Species of Special Concern. The species is found throughout the State except in the north coast region. Badgers are most abundant in drier areas with friable soils and sparse vegetation. This species was last documented in the vicinity of Visalia in 1994, City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-8

consisting of one individual seen in a fallow field with abundant ground squirrel as a prey base.

Because of the lack of required habitat elements on the project site, this species is very unlikely to occur on-site. No dens or burrows suitable for this species were observed.

Insects
Crotch’s Bumblebee
CNDDB records indicate that Crotch’s bumblebee have been documented to occur within the City of Visalia. Suitable Crotch’s bumblebee habitat includes areas of grasslands and upland scrub that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. The project site consists of actively managed orchard, and no required habitat elements for this species are present. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on-site. However, if adjacent agriculture fields cease to be actively managed and provide suitable habitat, a transient dispersing Crotch’s bumblebee may traverse the site.

Reptiles
Northern California Legless Lizard
The Northern California legless lizard occurs in moist, warm, and loose soil with plant coverage.

Moisture is essential to this species. It often occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. It also prefers to dwell within leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine and mock heather. This species can often be found under surface objects such as rocks, boards, driftwood, and logs. The nearest CNDDB recorded occurrence of this species is from January 1934 and the next closest occurrence is over 11 miles away and was found within the Kaweah Oaks Preserve. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for this species due to heavy modification through extensive agriculture, unsuitable soils and vegetative communities, and high aridity. Because of these circumstances, the Northern California legless lizard does not have the potential to occur within the project site.

Protected Functional Groups
Nesting birds and roosting bats include groups of species that are protected under federal and State laws and regulations and are considered sensitive and protected under certain conditions (e.g., when nesting, breeding), and are therefore included in this section.

Nesting Birds
The active nests of most bird species are protected by federal and/or State law and regulations (Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA] and Fish and Game Code). Species that are protected pursuant to MBTA are identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).8 Nests are generally defined as being “active” if they contain eggs or altricial young. The project site contains trees, shrubs, and structures that provide suitable habitat for protected migratory or native resident nesting bird species relatively tolerant of human disturbance.

8 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Website: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/16/2020- 06779/general-provisions-revised-list-of-migratory-birds. Accessed October 20, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-9

Roosting Bats
The larger ornamental trees and the pump house next to the retention basin on-site are potentially capable of supporting protected bat roosts (e.g., maternity roosts) of non-listed bat species tolerant to agricultural settings, if active management ceases for more than approximately one month before demolition. Protection of bats is defined in the Regulatory Setting section, below.

3.4.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The USFWS has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act protects listed species from “take,” which is broadly defined as actions taken to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The Endangered Species Act protects threatened and endangered plants and animals and their critical habitat. Candidate species are those proposed for listing; during the environmental review process, these species are usually treated by resource agencies as if they were listed.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit.

All migratory birds and their nests are protected from take and other impacts under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC] § 703, et seq.).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act, amended in 1973 (16 USC § 669, et seq.) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §§ 668–668d).

Clean Water Act
Section 404
The USACE administers Section 404 of the federal CWA, which regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the United States. The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities in waters of the United States if a proposed activity can demonstrate compliance with standard conditions. Normally, USACE requires an individual permit for an activity that will affect an area equal to or in excess of 0.5 acre of waters of the United States.

Projects that result in impacts to less than 0.5 acre can normally be conducted pursuant to one of the nationwide permits, if consistent with the standard permit conditions. The USACE also has discretionary authority to require an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed projects that result in impacts to an area between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. Use of any nationwide permit is contingent on the activities having no impacts to endangered species.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-10

Section 401
As stated in Section 401 of the CWA, “any applicant for a federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to waters of the State, shall provide the federal permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge is proposed that states that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions under the federal Clean Water Act.” Therefore, before the USACE will issue a Section 404 permit, applicants must apply for and receive a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the applicable RWQCB.

State
California Endangered Species Act
The State of California enacted the CESA in 1984. CESA is similar to the federal Endangered Species Act but pertains to State listed endangered and threatened species. CESA requires lead agencies to consult with CDFW when preparing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. The purpose is to ensure that lead agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available (Fish and Game Code [FGC] § 2080). CESA directs agencies to consult with CDFW on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs CDFW to determine whether the project would jeopardize the continued existence of a species, and allows CDFW to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with conserving the species. CESA allows CDFW to authorize exceptions to the State’s prohibition against take of a listed species if the “take” of a listed species is incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful project that has been approved under CEQA (FGC § 2081).

California Fish and Game Code
Under CESA, CDFW has the responsibility for maintaining a list of endangered and threatened species (FGC § 2070). Sections 2050 through 2098 of the Fish and Game Code outline the protection provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081 established an incidental take permit program for State listed species. The CDFW maintains a list of “Candidate species,” which it formally notices as being under review for addition to the list of endangered or threatened species.

In addition, the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA) (FGC § 1900, et seq.) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the State of any plants with a State designation of rare, threatened, or endangered (as defined by CDFW). An exception to this prohibition in the NPPA allows landowners to take listed plant species under specified circumstances, provided that the owners first notify CDFW and give the agency at least 10 days to come and retrieve (and presumably replant) the plants before they are plowed under or otherwise destroyed. Fish and Game Code Section 1913 exempts from “take” prohibition “the removal of endangered or rare native plants from a canal, lateral ditch, building site, or road, or other right-of-way.” Project impacts to these species are not considered significant unless the species are known to have a high potential to occur within the area of disturbance associated with construction of the development at issue.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-11

CDFW also maintains lists of “Species of Special Concern.” CDFW has identified many Species of Special Concern. Species with this status have limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that their populations may be threatened. Thus, their populations are monitored, and they may receive special attention during environmental review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA and thereby warrant specific protection measures.

Sensitive species that would qualify for listing but are not currently listed are afforded protection under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) requires that a substantial reduction in numbers of a Rare or Endangered species be considered a significant effect.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (Rare or Endangered Species) provides for the assessment of unlisted species as Rare or Endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the CNPS List ranked 1A, 1B, and 2 would typically be considered under CEQA.

Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code outline protection for fully protected species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Species that are fully protected by these sections may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW cannot issue permits or licenses that authorize the take of any fully protected species except under certain circumstances such as scientific research and live capture and relocation of such species pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock.

Under Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders of Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. To comply with the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed development within its jurisdiction must determine whether any State listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the relevant study area and determine whether the proposed development would have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, CDFW encourages informal consultation on any proposed development that may impact a candidate species.

Impacts to species on the CESA endangered or threatened list resulting from a proposed development would be considered significant. State listed species are fully protected under the mandates of CESA. “Take” of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under Fish and Game Code Section 206.591. Authorization from CDFW would be in the form of an Incidental Take Permit.

Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code requires any entity to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that “may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake” or “deposit debris, waste, or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.” “River, stream, or lake” includes waters that are episodic and perennial and ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required if CDFW City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-12

determines that project activities may substantially adversely affect fish or wildlife resources through alterations to a covered body of water.

Section 2000 and 4150 of the California Fish and Game Code state that it is unlawful to take or possess a number of species, including bats, without a license or permit as required by Section 3007.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey Guidelines For locating nesting Swainson’s hawk, CDFW recommends using the “Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley” dated May 31, 2000. This set of survey recommendations was developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee to maximize the potential for locating nesting Swainson’s hawks and thus reduce the potential for nest failures resulting from development activities/disturbances. In summary, surveys should be conducted in a manner that maximizes the potential to observe the adult Swainson’s hawk, as well as the nest/chicks. To meet CDFW recommendations for mitigation and protection of Swainson’s hawks, buffers should be established for a 0.5-mile radius around all development activities, and if active nesting is identified within the 0.5-mile radius, consultation with CDFW to determine nesting buffers is required under these guidelines. The guidelines provide specific recommendations regarding the number of surveys based on when the development at issue is scheduled to begin and the time of year the surveys are conducted.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB regulates actions that would involve “discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the State” (Water Code § 13260(a)), pursuant to provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. “Waters of the State” are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State” (Water Code § 13050I).

California State Water Resources Control Board/RWQCB Stormwater Management Permitting While federal CWA NPDES regulations allow two permitting options for construction-related stormwater discharges (individual permits and General Permits), the State Water Board has elected to adopt only one Statewide Construction General Permit at this time that will apply to all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity, except from those on Tribal Lands, in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, and those performed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

The Construction General Permit requires all dischargers where construction activity disturbs greater than 1 acre of land, or those sites less than 1 acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land surface to:

1. Develop and implement a SWPPP that specifies BMPs that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-13

2. Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. Achieve quantitatively defined (i.e., numeric) pollutant-specific discharge standards, and conduct much more rigorous monitoring based on the development’s projected risk level.

3. Perform inspections of all BMPs.

California Native Plant Society
The CNPS maintains a rank of plant species native to California that have low population numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-ranked plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the California Rare Plant Rank:
• Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere • Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere • Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere • Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere • Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed • Rank 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution

All plants appearing on the CNPS List ranked 1 or 2 are considered to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 criteria. While only some of the plants ranked 3 and 4 meet the definitions of threatened or endangered species, potential impacts to these species or their habitats should be analyzed during the preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA, as they may meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 criteria.

Regional and Local
Habitat Conservation Plan
The project site does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
The City Municipal Code contains the following provisions regarding the protection and preservation of biological resources:

Chapter 12.24 Oak Tree Preservation
Articles 1–5 describe the City restrictions related to potential destruction, removal, and other activities affecting oak trees during development planning and implementation, including (see Code for more details):

Article 1 Purpose and Definitions–Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata) and “Landmark” trees City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-14

Article 2 Destruction Prohibition–Removal Permit Requirements • Willful destruction of oak trees prohibited
• Oak tree removal permit required
• Removal standards
• Mitigation requirements

A street tree is defined as any tree that is located between the curb and sidewalk or within a tree well in the sidewalk within the public right-of-way, or any tree within a street tree easement in or adjacent to the public right-of-way.

3.4.4 - Methodology
Records Searches and Survey to Identify Existing Biological Resources The literature review provides a baseline from which to evaluate the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site, as well as the surrounding area (e.g., the Goshen, California USGS 7.5- minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles) area, in accordance with applicable requirements under CEQA. This section summarizes the results of the literature search, database review, and survey conducted on July 5, 2022.

Literature Review
Existing Documentation
As part of the literature review, an FCS Biologist examined existing environmental documentation for the project site and vicinity. This documentation included biological studies for the area; literature pertaining to habitat requirements of special-status species potentially occurring on the project site and vicinity; and federal register listings, protocols, and species data provided by USFWS and CDFW.

Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographs
A FCS Biologist reviewed current USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map(s) and aerial photographs as a preliminary analysis of the existing conditions within the project site and the remainder of the study area.9 Information obtained from the review of the topographic maps

9 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. National Geospatial Program. Website: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-15

included elevation range, general watershed information, and potential drainage feature locations using Google Earth in conjunction with the EPA Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results System (WATERS).10 Aerial photographs provide a perspective of the most current site conditions relative to on-site and off-site land use, plant community locations, and potential locations of wildlife movement corridors.

Soil Surveys
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published soil surveys that describe the soil series (i.e., group of soils with similar profiles) occurring within a particular area.11 These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics.

These series are further subdivided into soil mapping units that provide specific information regarding soil characteristics. Many special-status plant species have a limited distribution based exclusively on soil type. Therefore, pertinent USDA soil survey maps were reviewed to determine the existing soil mapping units within the project site and to establish if soil conditions on-site are suitable for any special-status plant species.

Special-status Species Database Search
An FCS Biologist compiled a list of threatened, endangered, and otherwise special-status species previously recorded on-site and the surrounding area. The list was based on a search of the CDFW CNDDB, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (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.12,13 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.
14 Trees
Prior to conducting the reconnaissance-level survey, a FCS Biologist reviewed applicable City and County ordinances pertaining to tree preservation and protective measures and their required tree replacement conditions or permits.

systems/national-geospatial-program/us-topo-maps-america?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt- science_support_page_related_con. Accessed November 3, 2022. 10 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System (WATERS). Website: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-watershed-assessment-tracking-environmental-results-system.

Accessed November 3, 2022.
11 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey (WSS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2022. 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special- Status Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2022. 13 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed November 3, 2022. 14 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5). Website:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed November 3, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.4-16

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Prior to conducting the reconnaissance-level survey, a FCS Biologist reviewed EPA WATERS and aerial photography to identify any potential natural drainage features and water bodies.15 In general, all surface drainage features identified as blue-line streams on USGS maps are expected to be potentially subject to State and federal regulatory authority as “waters of the United States and/or State.” A preliminary assessment was conducted to determine the location of any existing drainages relative to the proposed limits of project-related activities involving grading or other ground disturbance.

Field Survey
FCS Senior Biologist, Robert Carroll, conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site on July 5, 2022, between approximately 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 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 special-status 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.

Special attention was paid to sensitive habitats and areas potentially supporting special-status floral and faunal species.

Vegetation
Common plant species observed during the reconnaissance-level survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Uncommon and less familiar plants were identified with the use of taxonomical guides, including Jepson eFlora and Calflora.
16,17 Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California.18 Common plant names, when not available from The Jepson Manual, were taken from other regionally specific references. Vegetation types and boundaries were noted on aerial photos, verified through field observation, and digitized using ESRI ArcGIS software® ArcMap 10.0. By incorporating collected field data and interpreting aerial photography, a map of habitat types, land cover types, and other biological resources within the project site was prepared. Vegetation community and land cover types used to help classify habitat types are based on Manual of California Vegetation and cross-referenced with the CDFW Natural Communities List.19,20 Wildlife
All wildlife species that were detected during the on-site reconnaissance-level survey by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recorded, and notations were made regarding suitable habitat for

15 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System (WATERS). Website: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-watershed-assessment-tracking-environmental-results-system.

Accessed October 20, 2022.
16 Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2020. Jepson eFlora. Website: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed November 3, 2022. 17 Calflora. 2020. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research, and conservation. Website:
http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed July 2022.
18 Baldwin, B. et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. County of San Bernardino (Bernardino). 2007 (amended 2015).
19 Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.
20 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Natural Communities List, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#sensitive%20natural%20communities. Accessed November 3, 2022.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources

3.4-17

those special-status species determined to potentially occur within the project site.21 FCS staff used appropriate field guides to assist with species identification during surveys, such as Peterson, Reid, and Stebbins.22,23,24 Online resources such as eBird and California Herps were consulted, as necessary.25,26
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Urbanization and the resulting fragmentation of open space areas create isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat, forming separated populations. Corridors act as an effective link between populations.

The project site was evaluated for evidence of a wildlife movement corridor during the reconnaissance-level survey. The scope of the BRA did not include a formal wildlife movement corridor study utilizing track plates, camera stations, scent stations, or snares. Rather, the focus of this study was to determine whether the proposed project’s change of land use at the project site could have significant impacts on the regional movement of wildlife.

Visalia City CouncilMarch 17, 2025

Visalia City Council
March 17, 2025