1 LOCAL1109
1 CONT
LOCAL1109
1 CONT
2 LOCAL1109
2 CONT
LOCAL1109
2 CONT
3 LOCAL1109
3 CONT
LOCAL1109
3 CONT
LOCAL1109
3 CONT
LOCAL1109
3 CONT
LOCAL1109
3 CONT
4 LOCAL1109
4 CONT
LOCAL1109
4 CONT
5 LOCAL1109
5 CONT
6 LOCAL1109
6 CONT
7 LOCAL1109
7 CONT
LOCAL1109
7 CONT
8 9
LOCAL1109
9 CONT
LOCAL1109
9 CONT
10 LOCAL1109
LOCAL1109
11 LOCAL1109
11 CONT
LOCAL1109
11 CONT
LOCAL1109
11 CONT
LOCAL1109
12 LOCAL1109
13 LOCAL1109
13 CONT
LOCAL1109
13 CONT
LOCAL1109
13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 29 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 30 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 31 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 32 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 33 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 34 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 35 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 36 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 37 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 38 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 39 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 40 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 41 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 42 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 43 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 44 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 45 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 46 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 47 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 48 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 49 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 50 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 51 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 52 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 53 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 54 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 55 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 56 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 57 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 58 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 59 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 60 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 61 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 62 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 63 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 64 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 65 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 66 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 67 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 68 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 69 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 70 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 71 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 72 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 73 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 74 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 75 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 76 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 77 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 78 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 79 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 80 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 81 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 82 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 83 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 84 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 85 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 86 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 87 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 88 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 89 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 90 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 91 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 92 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 93 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 94 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 95 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 96 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 97 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 98 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 99 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 100 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 101 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 102 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 103 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 104 of 278 13 CONT 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 105 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 106 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 107 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 108 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 109 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 110 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 111 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 112 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 113 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 114 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 115 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 116 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 117 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 118 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 119 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 120 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 121 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 122 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 123 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 124 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 125 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 126 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 127 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 128 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 129 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 130 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 131 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 132 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 133 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 134 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 135 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 136 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 137 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 138 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 139 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 140 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 141 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 142 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 143 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 144 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 145 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 146 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 147 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 148 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 149 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 150 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 151 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 152 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 153 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 154 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 155 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 156 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 157 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 158 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 159 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 160 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 161 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 162 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 163 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 164 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 165 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 166 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 167 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 168 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 169 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 170 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 171 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 172 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 173 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 174 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 175 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 176 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 177 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 178 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 179 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 180 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 181 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 182 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 183 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 184 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 185 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 186 of 278 13 CONT 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 187 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 188 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 189 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 190 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 191 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 192 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 193 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 194 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 195 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 196 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 197 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 198 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 199 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 200 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 201 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 202 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 203 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 204 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 205 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 206 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 207 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 208 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 209 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 210 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 211 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 212 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 213 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 214 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 215 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 216 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 217 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 218 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 219 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 220 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 221 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 222 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 223 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 224 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 225 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 226 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 227 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 228 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 229 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 230 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 231 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 232 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 233 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 234 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 235 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 236 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 237 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 238 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 239 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 240 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 241 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 242 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 243 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 244 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 245 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 246 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 247 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 248 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 249 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 250 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 251 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 252 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 253 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 254 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 255 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109 Page 256 of 278 13 CONT
LOCAL1109
13 CONT
LOCAL1109
LOCAL1109
14 LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
14 CONT
LOCAL1109
LOCAL1109
15 LOCAL1109
15 CONT
LOCAL1109
15 CONT
LOCAL1109
15 CONT
LOCAL1109
15 CONT
LOCAL1109
15 CONT
LOCAL1109
15 CONT
LOCAL1109
15 CONT
LOCAL1109
15 CONT
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-497
Carpenters Union Local 1109 (LOCAL1109)
Comment LOCAL1109-1
The comment includes background information on the commenter as well as the consultants hired to assist in the preparation of the comment letter. It also states the commenter’s general position that the Draft EIR fails to comply with CEQA and summarizes the basis for this assertion and requests the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated to respond to its comments. The comment also notes that it is expressly reserving its right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the project and at any later hearing or proceeding related to the project. In addition, the comment requests that Local 1109 is added to the public distribution list for the proposed project.
Response to LOCAL1109-1
The comment is noted for the record. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required.
Pursuant to its request, the commenter has been added to the public distribution list for the proposed project. With respect to the commenter’s purported reservation of rights, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (PRC § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15088). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (PRC § 21091(d)(1); PRC § 21092.5(c)). Moreover, nothing in the comment would change the procedures that are required under applicable laws and regulations with respect to (1) the preparation and certification of the project’s administrative record, and/or (2) exhaustion mandates; accordingly, the City hereby expressly reserves any and all rights thereunder.
Comment LOCAL1109-2
The commenter states that the City should require the use of a local workforce in order to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The commenter also states that the City should require the proposed project to be built by contractors who participate in a Joint LaborManagement Apprenticeship Program approved by the State based on generalized assertions that local hiring can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce GHG emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. The comment then suggests that local hiring can improve an area’s job-housing balance and reduce air pollutants and VMT. It then cited a law recently adopted by the State legislature that purports to lend further credence to the comment’s position. The comment concludes with the general assertion that the City should consider local workforce policies and requirements based on the foregoing reasons.
Response to LOCAL1109-2
The comment is noted for the record. Hiring decisions and the composition of a project’s workforce is an economic and social issue, not an environmental issue that is appropriately analyzed or mitigated under CEQA. The comment does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact. Therefore, no further response is necessary.
However, project objectives include, among others: maximizing development of the existing underutilized project site and generating increased revenue and economic development for the City in order to support the City’s ongoing City operations; as well as creating employment-generating businesses in the City to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-498
the area for employment and to improve the jobs-to-housing balance. Therefore, the project objectives are aligned generally with the comment’s goals in this regard.
Furthermore, as disclosed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not have a significant impact related to VMT with implementation of identified mitigation; given the nature of the project, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of construction workers and employees would likely come from the City and nearby unincorporated areas of the County. Moreover, the proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2h, MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-9, MM TRANS-10a, MM TRANS-2b, MM TRANS-11, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b to reduce impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation.
Finally, public agencies may use their discretionary powers granted by laws other than CEQA to mitigate environmental impacts. CEQA does not, however, expand the powers granted by other laws or otherwise confer an independent grant of authority to impose mitigation measures on a project.
When imposing mitigation for a project’s significant environmental effects, a public agency may only exercise those powers provided by legal authority independent of CEQA (PRC § 21004). The CEQA Guidelines specify that CEQA does not grant new or independent powers to public agencies. CEQA Guidelines § 15040. Accordingly, an agency’s exercise of discretionary powers must be within the scope of the power granted by laws and be consistent with express or implied limitations (CEQA Guidelines § 15040(d)(e)). Mitigation measures that are beyond the powers conferred by law on lead agencies are legally infeasible. Accordingly, here, the City has no legal authority to control the hiring practices of future tenants and developers of the project or otherwise impose this type of ad hoc condition, and therefore, imposing the requested local hire requirements would not be legally permissible or feasible.
No further response is required.
Please also see Responses to CDOC-2, GSEJA-24, GSEJA-25, and GSEJA 26.
Comment LOCAL1109-3
The comment purports to provide legal background and various legal principles regarding CEQA, the purpose of EIRs generally, impact significance determinations, and the standard of review, among others.
Response to LOCAL1109-3
The comment is noted for the record. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is required.
Comment LOCAL1109-4
The comment purports to provide legal background and various legal principles regarding impact significance determinations and mitigation measures. The comment further states that Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR excludes the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project, which is located across Riggin Avenue from the project site. The commenter suggests that the EIR must be revised to include this project within the cumulative analysis.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-499
Response to LOCAL1109-4
To the extent the comment involves general statements of law and does not raise any specific project-related issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary.
See Response to GSEJA-6 and LIUNA-12.
The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project and cumulative impacts have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required.
Comment LOCAL1109-5
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not discuss or analyze the proposed project’s compliance with the General Plan’s Land Use Buildout Scenario since the General Plan projected approximately 9,690,000 square feet of industrial building area between 2010 and 2030, as well as approximately 9,670 industrial jobs. The commenter purports that the “whole of the action” inclusive of the two other projects would account for approximately 54 percent of the City’s industrial buildout. The commenter suggests that the EIR has not provided adequate evidence that the growth generated by the proposed project was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, or AQMP. Additionally, the commenter discusses other industrial development projects in the City, which combined with projects proposed by Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., represent approximately 80.5 percent of the City’s industrial buildout through 2030. As such, the comment states that a revised EIR must be prepared to include a cumulative analysis on this topic.
Response to LOCAL1109-5
The comment is noted for the record. As a preliminary matter, it is not entirely clear if the comment is criticizing the cumulative impact analysis in general or the land use impact analysis specifically.
Furthermore, besides making general conclusory statements, the comment does not provide substantial evidence regarding any deficiency in the cumulative impact analysis or identify any significant environmental impact that was not properly disclosed and/or mitigated in the Draft EIR.
See Responses to GSEJA-9 and GSEJA-24.
The project site is currently designated Industrial and Light Industrial and would be developed with uses permitted under those designations and pursuant to applicable FAR and other development standards in accordance with the City’s land use vision as reflected in its General Plan. Thus, the project is consistent with the buildout scenario contemplated in the General Plan and is thus properly accounted for in the growth projections of the General Plan as well as the RTP/SCS and AQMP. The fact that the City may be considering requested entitlements for a range of other industrial projects consistent with the General Plan vision does not trigger any type of additional “consistency” analysis under CEQA, as alleged by the commenter, particularly where, as here, the City has prepared a ground-up environmental analysis. Thus, no further response or revision is warranted based on this comment.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-500
It is reasonable to assume, given the nature of the local employment population combined with the nature of the project, that employment needs generated by the proposed project would be able to be filled primarily by employees who live within the City and nearby unincorporated areas in the County. As such and as further addressed in the analysis in the Draft EIR, although increased industrial growth may occur, it would not result in unanticipated growth that would lead to the need for unplanned housing.
Regarding the specific comment about the scope of cumulative projects considered in the analysis, see Responses to GSEJA-6 and LOCAL1109-4.
Based on the foregoing and as further detailed in the Draft EIR, the CEQA evaluation adequately analyzed the project’s impacts (both individual and cumulative) as required under CEQA, and no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
No further response is required.
Comment LOCAL1109-6
The commenter states that the Draft EIR omits critical supporting information regarding the proposed project’s agricultural resources impacts and improperly finds that the proposed project’s Impact AG-5 would be less than significant. The commenter asserts that because the proposed project would promote additional growth in the City, the proposed project could lead to secondary impacts related to the conversion of agricultural lands to additional housing or public services. The comment concludes the EIR should be revised to include the foregoing analysis and recirculated.
Response to LOCAL1109-6
The comment is noted for the record.
See Responses to CDOC-2, GSEJA-24, and GSEJA-25.
Adjacent agricultural lands would need to be annexed into the City and would require the completion of CEQA analysis prior to the discretionary approval of any development. However, the proposed project does not include the annexation of these lands and, therefore, would not result in a change in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Though there is a possibility this land would be converted to nonagricultural uses in the future, the proposed project would not be the cause of that conversion, as explained further above and in the Draft EIR. As such, the Draft EIR accurately evaluates that the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of other Farmland to nonagricultural use such that a significant impact would occur.
The Lead Agency is of the opinion that this Draft EIR and the public review process has sufficiently complied with State CEQA Guidelines. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project and cumulative impacts have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-501
Comment LOCA1109-7
The commenter purports to set forth various legal principles regarding alternatives and mitigation under CEQA. The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s analysis of agricultural resources impacts fails to consider and implement all feasible mitigation measures. The Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to converting Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses and that no feasible mitigation measures are available. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR lacks adequate evidence to support a finding that no feasible mitigation is available and suggests potential mitigation, including purchases of agricultural easements, payment of a mitigation fee, protection of part of the project site for agricultural uses, adequate buffering to protect neighboring agricultural areas, and the recordation of a Right to Farm certificate.
Response to LOCAL1109-7
To the extent the comment involves general statements of law and does not raise any specific project-related issues under CEQA, no further response is necessary, Regarding the comment’s specific concerns about mitigation, see Response to CDOC-3 (see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(4) (mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(5) (If lead agency determines that mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, measure need not be proposed or analyzed. Instead, EIR may simply reference that fact and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination).
The Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required.
Comment LOCAL1109-8
The comment briefly summarizes some of the Draft EIR’s air quality impact conclusions and then asserts generally that the Draft EIR fails to include substantial evidence to support a finding that no other feasible mitigation exists to mitigate identified air quality impacts. The comment also frames MM AIR-2c as including language that treats the measures as “optional” or able to be “deferred.” It then concludes that mitigation should be revised to confirm that such service vehicles utilize zeroemission technology without qualification.
Response to LOCAL1109-8
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not identify any alternative mitigation measure that would demonstrate its claim that the Draft EIR has failed to consider and implement “all feasible mitigation measures,” or otherwise raise a specific environmental issue under CEQA, no further response is required.
Regarding the specific concern regarding the purported “optional language” of MM AIR-2c, this is not an accurate representation of the obligation set forth in the mitigation and the related Draft EIR discussion. The Draft EIR includes lengthy discussion surrounding MM AIR-2c and its benefits, but also its limitations from a feasibility standpoint. MM AIR-2c itself outlines an enforcement mechanism that “all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment will utilize zero-emission City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-502
technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable,” and that “the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to. . . the City of Visalia Planning Division” for verification. The Draft EIR concluded that implementation of this measure would help to reduce the proposed project’s emissions. Nevertheless, the Draft EIR properly disclosed that implementation of MM AIR-2c (and other mitigation measures) could not be guaranteed because the commercial availability of such equipment may be limited (at least in the near-term). Accordingly, the Draft EIR identified the impact and properly disclosed the limitations of the measure; i.e., it would reduce but cannot be guaranteed to fully mitigate the proposed project’s emissions to below significance thresholds. In other words, the Draft EIR does not rely upon MM AIR-2c to reduce the proposed project’s emissions to below significance thresholds or downplay the proposed project’s impacts.
The Draft EIR explains that the emissions reductions provided by MM AIR-2c cannot be guaranteed or even reliably modeled and that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Thus, the Draft EIR disclosed the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, as it is required to do under CEQA.
The following considerations are also important in understanding MM AIR-2c. For purposes of a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR evaluated a “reasonable worst-case” analytical scenario in which the proposed project is fully implemented by 2028. Given the size and nature of the project, it would be entirely reasonable to conclude the that construction could potentially stretche to 2033 or beyond. Zero-emission vehicle technology is a rapidly developing field: it is unknown what conceptual technologies today may mature into commercially viable solutions over the course of the proposed project’s development timeline. Options that are not commercially viable today could be cost-leading in a matter of years. And though a wide array of zero-emission service equipment is available currently (e.g., forklifts, pallet jacks, flat trucks, etc.), and the Draft EIR reasonably anticipates their usage in accordance with MM AIR-2c and other regulatory and commercial considerations, future tenants and their service equipment needs—some of which may be specialized—are unknown at this time. These factors make it infeasible to require that all “service vehicles. . . utilize zero-emission technology without any qualification,” as the comment suggests.
Ultimately, MM AIR-2c represents the proposed project’s good faith attempt at installing the farthest-reaching, but still feasible, zero-emission equipment requirement to reduce emissions, subject to such equipment being commercially available, as confirmed by the City’s Planning Divisionat the time of individual tenant permitting.
The Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed, and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA; therefore, no further analysis or revisions are required.
See Responses to LIUNA-4 and LIUNA-20.
Comment LOCAL1109-9
The comment acknowledges that the Draft EIR disclosed that certain noise impacts were potentially significant. However, the comment states that the mitigation measures were deficient; in particular, the comment references MM NOI-1, which it characterizes as improperly deferring mitigation.
Rather than deferring implementation of this acoustical analysis, the comment asserts this analysis City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-503
should be conducted as part of the Draft EIR so that decision-makers will have access to necessary information before project approval.
Response to LOCAL1109-9
The comment is noted. The comment is mistaken in its characterization of MM NOI-1 as constituting improper deferral of mitigation. While CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) clarifies that formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time, CEQA permits the specific details of a mitigation measure to be developed after project approval when “it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review provided that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.”
The Draft EIR’s car wash noise analysis and MM NOI-1 were carefully crafted to adhere to these requirements. As explained in the Draft EIR, given the nature and scope of the project, which is intended to be built in phases over time, there are currently no available details pertaining to the design of the car wash or its mechanical equipment. These details are critical for the evaluation and mitigation of car wash noise impacts because car wash noise impacts are highly correlated with specific design details (i.e., what is the orientation of the tunnel to receptors and the direction of the conveyance system?) and mechanical equipment selections (i.e., what type of blowers will the tunnel utilize and what is their manufacturer sound rating?).
Given this it is both impractical and infeasible to include these details in the Draft EIR (or related acoustical analysis) at this point, the analysis assumed typical “reasonable worst-case” noise levels for estimation of the car wash’s noise impacts in a good faith effort to consider and disclose the project’s potential impacts to the extent information is reasonably available, and MM NOI-1 adopted the requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B). The following is a summary of the requirements outlined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) and a discussion of how MM NOI-1 meets these requirements, contrary to the comment’s assertions:
• Commits itself to the mitigation
MM NOI-1 requires that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified acoustical professional and submitted to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Preservation Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for a drive-through car wash. The scope of the acoustical analysis is delineated, and the measure requires the study to demonstrate that the design and operations of the car wash would not result in any exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits (which are quantified and objective), and this compliance would ensure that impacts to surrounding residential land uses are less than significant. • Adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-504
As noted above, MM NOI-1 establishes that car wash noise levels shall not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits, which are codified, objective and quantitative in nature, thus facilitating implementation. • Identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will be considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure
MM NOI-1 includes a list of design features that individually or collectively would aid in satisfying the applicable performance criteria, which would be the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) also instructs that compliance with regulatory standards—in this case the Visalia Municipal Code’s daytime and nighttime noise limits— may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact. To this end, the Draft EIR explained that the City’s 50 dBA Leq daytime and 45 dBA Leq nighttime standards are well below existing ambient noise conditions surrounding the nearest receptors. Therefore, compliance with these standards, as mandated by MM NOI-1, would be highly protective of ambient noise conditions and would result in a less than significant impact.
The comment provides no competing explanation as to why MM NOI-1 allegedly fails the requirements established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B).
Based on the foregoing and as further discussed in the Draft EIR, no revisions are warranted.
Comment LOCAL1109-10
The comment provides concluding remarks to the comment letter, including a request to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR because the comment purports that the Draft EIR violates CEQA in multiple respects.
Response to LOCAL1109-10
The comment is noted. To the extent it does not include any project-specific environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
Please see Responses to LOCAL1109-2 through LOCAL1109-9 for responses to specific concerns that the commenter raises with regard to the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Comment LOCAL1109-11
The comment introduces the purpose of the technical report being submitted. It does not identify any alleged specific deficiency in the Draft EIR but instead purports to summarize the methodologies utilized in CalEEMod modeling and the GHG reduction potential of local hire provisions for construction workers in general.
Response to LOCAL1109-11
The comment is noted. Because the comment does not raise any project-specific environmental issues, no further response is required.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-505
For informational purposes, the following is noted. The commenter is advocating for imposition of local hire requirements with respect to the carpenters union, which would apply only during the construction phase of the proposed project. The commenter states potential reductions of vendor trips (i.e., VMT associated with vendors) and GHG emissions that would result from such requirements. However, any environmental benefits that would be realized as a result of local hire requirements would apply only during the construction phase. As explained in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less than significant GHG-related construction and operation impacts after mitigation. Therefore, additional mitigation—such as a local hire provision for construction workers—is not necessary or required under CEQA.
See also Responses to CDOC-2, LIUNA-13, and LOCAL1109-2.
Comment LOCAL1109-12
The comment provides a disclaimer regarding the right to revise or amend this SWAPE report if additional information regarding the proposed project becomes available. The comment also states that the SWAPE report may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information provided by third parties.
Response to LOCAL1109-12
The comment is noted. Because no project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required.
For informational purposes, see also Response to LOCAL1109-1.
Comment LOCAL1109-13
The comment consists of data tables and modeling output documentation in support of Comment LOCAL1109-11.
Response to LOCAL1109-13
The comment is noted. No project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required. For informational purposes, see also Response to LOCAL1109-11.
Comment LOCAL1109-14
The comment provides a CV for Paul Rosenfeld, Principal Environmental Chemist, who prepared a review letter of the air quality analysis of the Draft EIR.
Response to LOCAL1109-14
The comment is noted. Because no project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required.
Comment LOCAL1109-15
The comment provides a CV for Matthew F. Hagemann who prepared a review letter of the air quality analysis of the Draft EIR.
Response to LOCAL1109-15
The comment is noted. Because no project-specific environmental issues are raised, no further response is required.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
State of California Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
www.wildlife.ca.gov
June 04, 2024
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
(559) 713-4636
[email protected]
Subject: Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (Project)
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH: 2022080658
Dear Brandon Smith:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Visalia for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, CDFW appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
While the comment period may have ended, CDFW respectfully requests that the City of Visalia still consider our comments.
CDFW ROLE
Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. 1 CEQA i
CDFW
1 Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As p
alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened (E, R, or T) on any State or Federal list to be considered E, R, or T under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria for E, R, or T, as specified in the CEQA Guidelines section 15380, CDFW recommends it be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Project.
Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession, or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.
Objective: 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.
Location: The Project site is located in Tulare County, generally bound by Riggin Avenue to the south, Shirk Street to the east, Kelsey Street to the west, and Modoc Ditch to the north. The (APNs) associated with the Project site are 077-840- 004, 077-840-005, and 077-840-006 (formerly APNs 077-840-001, 077-840-002, and 077-840-003).
Timeframe: N/A
CDFW
2 3
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist Visalia City in significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.
Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the DEIR prepared for the Project.
Currently, the DEIR acknowledges that the Project area is within the geographic range of several special status animal species and proposes specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. CDFW has concerns about the ability of some the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and avoid unauthorized take for several special status animal species, including the State Buteo swainsoni) and the State candidate endangered
Crotch Bumble bee (Bombus crotchii).
Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1b
(SWHA) by requiring preconstruction surveys for nesting SWHA following the entire survey methodology developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC Methodology; SWHA TAC 2000). CDFW concurs with this portion of the measure as it follows CDFW guidance. This measure also states the following:
1. Construction activities shall be prohibited within 600 feet of an active and 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
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.
CDFW does not concur with this portion of the measure and implementation of the proposed 600-foot buffer (or smaller buffer based on MM BIO-1b 2.), as it is likely to result in the unauthorized take of SWHA. CDFW would also like to note that the SWHA TAC Methodology requires consultation with CDFW if an active nest is documented CDFW
4 5
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
within ½-mile of Project activities. CDFW would like to further reiterate that it does not concur with MM-BIO 1b, 1. and 2. and recommends the following:
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: SWHA Avoidance Buffer If Project-specific activities will take place during the SWHA nesting season (i.e., March 1 through September 15), and active SWHA nests are present, CDFW recommends a minimum ½-mile no-disturbance buffer be delineated and maintained around each nest, regardless of whether it was detected by surveys or observed incidentally. These buffers would remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, to prevent nest abandonment and other take of SWHA as a result of Project activities.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: SWHA Take Authorization CDFW also recommends that in the event an active SWHA nest is detected, and a ½-mile no-disturbance buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.
Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1d
(CBB) by requiring preconstruction surveys no more than 14 days prior to construction.
CDFW concurs with conducting surveys for CBB during the blooming period immediately prior to ground disturbing activities. CDFW recommends these surveys follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a CBB nest is detected within the Project, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends the Project obtain an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).
Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Lake and Streambed Alteration
Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-3 mitigates for potential impacts to streams subject to requiring the Project proponent to
CDFW
5 CONT
7 6
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
coordinate with te regulatory agencies, including CDFW. CDFW concurs with this measure and recommends the Project applicant submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials. CDFW would also like to note that Project activities that substantially change regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation): (c) deposit debris, waste perennial and may include those that are highly modified such as canals and retention basins.
CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA); therefore, if the CEQA document approved for the Project does not adequately describe the Project and its impacts to lakes or streams, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be necessary for LSAA issuance. For information on (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA) or contact CDFW staff in the Central Region Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593.
Cumulative Impacts: CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the Project, including those whose impacts are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the Project, even if those impacts are relatively small (i.e., less than significant). Cumulative impacts are recommended to be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the Project. An appropriate resource study area should also be identified and mapped for each resource being analyzed and utilized for this analysis. CDFW recommends closely evaluating the need for a cumulative impacts analysis for the following species as part of the DEIR due to these species being in poor or declining health or at risk: SWHA and CBB. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA.
California Natural Diversity Database
Please note that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is populated by voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in CDFW
7 CONT
9 8
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record, or lack of recent occurrence records, in the CNDDB does not mean that a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City of Visalia in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.
Please see the enclosed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) table which corresponds with recommended mitigation measures in this comment letter. More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols).
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to John Riedel, Environmental Scientist, at (559) 807-1453, or [email protected].
CDFW
9 CONT
10 11
12 Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey considerations for California Endangered Species Act candidate bumble bee species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.
Hawk Technical Advisory Committee.
CDFW
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
June 04, 2024
Attachment 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
PROJECT: Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
SCH No.: 2022080658
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION
MEASURE
STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
SWHA
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2:
SWHA take authorization
During Construction
SWHA
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1:
SWHA avoidance buffer
CDFW
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-517
Comments Received after the May 29, 2024 Close of Public Comment Period California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Comment CDFW-1
The commenter offers thanks for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding the proposed project and sets forth CDFW’s scope of regulatory authority with respect to its role as a Trustee Agency. The commenter also acknowledges that the comment letter was submitted after the Draft EIR comment period ended but requests that the City still consider its comments.
Response to CDFW-1
Thank you for your comments. The participation of the CDFW in the public review of this document is appreciated. The comments have been noted for the record.
A lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15088). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (PRC § 21091(d)(1); PRC § 21092.5(c)). Accordingly, although the City, as Lead Agency under CEQA, is not required to provide a written response to late comment letter(s), the City has elected to respond to the late letter submitted by CDFW, but without waiving its position that written responses to late comment letters are not required by law. The commenterdoes not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no response is required.
Comment CDFW-2
The commenter clarifies its role as a Responsible Agency regarding “take,” unlisted species, and nesting birds and provides a related summary.
Response to CDFW-2
The comment does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no response is required.
Comment CDFW-3
The commenter provides a summary regarding the project description.
Response to CDFW-3
The comment does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no response is required.
Comment CDFW-4
The commenter provides introductory remarks regarding the scope of CDFW’s comments. It also notes that CDFW has concerns about the ability of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to several special-status animal species to less than significant and to avoid unauthorized take.
Response to CDFW-4
Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-518
Comment CDFW-5
With respect to proposed mitigation related to impacts on Swainson’s hawk, the commenter states that it concurs with portions of MM BIO-1b, noting that it complies with CDFW guidance. However, the commenter states that it does not concur with those portions of MM BIO-1b (1)(2), regarding the proposed 600-foot buffer (or smaller buffer based on MM BIO-1b (2)), as the commenter believes it is likely to result in the unauthorized take of Swainson’s hawk. The commenter also notes that the TAC Methodology for Swainson’s hawk requires consultation with CDFW if an active nest is documented within 0.25 mile of project activities. Thus, the commenter recommends revised language.
Response to CDFW-5
The Draft EIR, Section 3.4, Biological Resources, provided a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, including disclosing the wildlife species observed or that have the potential to occur within the project site, including, among others, Swainson’s hawk. Specifically, the Draft EIR noted that Swainson’s hawk is known to occur near the project site, and while almond orchards are not considered Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, the analysis recognized that 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. Therefore, the analysis concluded there is a moderate potential for this species to occur on-site.
The Draft EIR’s regulatory setting described the statutory framework governing special-status wildlife species consistent with the commenter’s summary, including noting the relevance of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey Guidelines (TAC Methodology) and the recommended buffer and consultation requirements discussed by the commenter. The impact analysis evaluated potential project-related impacts on Swainson’s hawk and identified feasible avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential project-related impacts to less than significant levels.
The analysis explained that Swainson’s hawks readily habituate to a variety of human disturbances, including construction. Swainson’s hawk nests are often found along busy roadways and in a variety of settings where substantial noise and other disturbances occur, including in agricultural areas.
There are conditions, however, where the potential for nest abandonment is increased. This can occur when new disturbances are introduced to an otherwise open, rural setting. Under these conditions, the Draft EIR noted that no-disturbance buffers are important to avoid nest abandonment. No-disturbance buffers are intended to prevent all ground-disturbing activities and project-related entry of any sort into the buffer area. Although tolerant of human presence and activities, Swainson’s hawk are most sensitive to direct observation of the nest by people. Therefore, restrictions within buffers should prohibit all entry and direct observation of the nest.
The Draft EIR confirmed that the project developer(s) would be responsible for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations protecting Swainson’s hawk, including applicable provisions of CESA, MBTA, and the Fish and Game Code; thus, for example, such compliance with the comprehensive regulatory requirements would ensure that no unauthorized take would occur. The analysis also identified feasible mitigation, including a proposed 600-foot buffer from active nests and those City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-519
under construction. The basis for the proposed 600-foot buffer is further detailed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources.
The commenter also questions the Draft EIR concerning the argument for an insufficient buffer distance for occupied Swainson’s hawk nests. According to Jim Estep, a recognized expert on Swainson’s hawk, a 0.5-mile buffer is not supported by any data driven rationale. Estep argues that this distance was selected to maximally ensure that nesting behavior/success would not be influenced and is therefore a highly conservative buffer distance. Now, 30 years after these guidelines were created, much more is known of Swainson’s hawk, including their high degree of tolerance to noise and disturbances. Although no studies have been conducted to understand the most effective buffer distance, it is understood that a 0.5-mile buffer is unnecessarily large. Many successful nests have been documented in very close proximity to a multitude of disturbances with nest abandonment involving the direct impact to nest trees or disturbances next to active nests.
CDFW’s Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee guidelines identify a 600-foot buffer resulting from the work of Mike Bradbury, a former California Department of Water Resources (DWR) employee. Through monitoring of nesting activity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Bradbury determined that a 600-foot buffer was a reasonable distance in most cases. Ultimately Estep argues that this species is quite tolerant of disturbance events and a 0.5-mile buffer is not necessary in most cases. He supports a 600-foot buffer with the caveat that specific site conditions should be taken into consideration.6
Therefore, based on the data provided by the project’s biological experts, the Lead Agency does not agree that a 600-foot buffer is insufficient. Although Swainson’s hawk may forage within the project area, MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b would sufficiently mitigate for any Swainson’s hawk found within 600 feet of the project site.
The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA. No further analysis or revisions are required.
Comment CDFW-6
The commenter concurs with the portions of MM BIO-1d that require pre-construction surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) be constructed during the blooming period immediately prior to grounddisturbing activities. The commenter recommends that the methodology outlined in specified CDFW protocol be followed when conducting these surveys. The commenter also notes that in the event a CBB nest is detected within the project site, then consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, the commenter recommends the project obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). The commenter then recommends specific edits to MM BIO-1d (Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys). 6 Estep, Jim. Estep Environmental Consulting. Personal communication: email. August 22, 2024.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-520
Response to CDFW-6
This comment is noted for the record. The Draft EIR considered the potential for CBB to occur within the project site and determined, as explained more fully therein, this is unlikely because the entire project site consists of actively managed orchard and no required habitat elements for this species are present. Moreover, the Draft EIR explained that if it occurred, it would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site to find suitable habitat. Therefore, it was determined that the project site does not include suitable habitat. However, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR identified mitigation that requires a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the project site (MM BIO-1d). Should CBB be detected, MM BIO-1d requires that the qualified Biologist coordinate with the CDFW to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations and further requires that the relevant project developer(s) implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue.
Section 3.4, Biological Resources, MM BIO-1d in of the Draft EIR has been revised to include the changes recommended by the CDFW:
MM BIO-1d Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Surveys conducted for Crotch’s bumblebee shall follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a Crotch’s bumblebee nest is detected within the Project, CDFW shall be consulted to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine how best to implement Project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, an ITP shall be obtained to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081 subdivision (b).
Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, or American badger be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate and to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development 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.
See also Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR. The CEQA Guidelines require recirculation only when “significant new information” is added to an EIR after the Draft EIR is released for public review but before certification of the FEIR. (PRC § 21092.1; 14 CCR § 15088.5(a)). The foregoing reflects mere clarifications and amplifications; they would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-521
severity in a previously identified significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Comment CDFW-7
The commenter characterizes its remaining comments (i.e., CDFW Comments 7 through 12) as “editorial comments and/or suggestions.” With respect to Comment CDFW-7, the commenter requests revisions to MM BIO-3 and and recommends the project applicant submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials and then goes on to describe the regulatory requirements of the foregoing and related CEQA review.
Response to CDFW-7
This comment is noted for the record. MM BIO-3 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, has been revised to include the changes recommended by the CDFW:
MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602. Additionally, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, the project applicant shall submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials
See also Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR. The foregoing reflects mere clarifications and amplifications; they would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in severity in a previously identified significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Comment CDFW-8
The commenter recommends closely evaluating the need for a cumulative impacts analysis, particularly with respect to Swainson’s hawk and Crotch’s bumblebee, as part of the EIR due to these species being in poor or declining health or at risk. As part of this analysis, the commenter recommends that an acceptable methodology be utilized to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the project, and that an appropriate resource study area be identified and mapped for each resource being analyzed.
Response to CDFW-8
This comment is noted for the record. Cumulative impacts on biological resources are raised in Comment LIUNA-6. See Response to LIUNA-6. Based on the information previously presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-522
Comment CDFW-9
The commenter notes that because the CNDDB relies on voluntary submissions of species detection, as a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. The commenter goes on to suggest that, in order to adequately assess any potential project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified Biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present.
Response to CDFW-9
This comment is noted for the record.
See also Response to LIUNA-20.
Comment CDFW-10
The commenter states that CEQA requires that information developed in EIRs and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations, and requests that the City report any special-status species and natural communities detected during project surveys to the CNDDB.
Response to CDFW-10
This comment is noted for the record. Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
The City intends to adhere to any and all reporting requirements under CEQA, including those related to the detection of any special- status species and natural communities.
Comment CDFW-11
The commenter notes that because the proposed project would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, it would be required to pay the necessary filing fees due to the CDFW, and then goes on to explain the timing requirements and legal implications of filing these fees.
Response to CDFW-11
The comment is noted for the record. Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. It is reasonable to assume that the project applicant(s) would be required to pay all applicable fees necessary under the law to implement the proposed project.
Comment CDFW-12
The commenter states its appreciation for the ability to comment on the Draft EIR and provides contact information. The commenter also notes the attached MMRP table that corresponds with recommended mitigation measures in the comment letter.
Response to CDFW-12
The comment is noted for the record. Because the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
June 6, 2024
Brandon Smith
City of Visalia
Community Development Department
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project District CEQA Reference No: 20240472
Dear Mr. Smith:
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Visalia (City). Per the DEIR, the project consists of converting existing agricultural lands to develop approximately 3,720,149 square foot industrial park, consisting of eight industrial buildings used for warehouse, distribution and light manufacturing; six flex industrial buildings; two drivethrough restaurants; a convenience store; a recreational vehicle RV and self-storage facility; gas station and car wash on a 284-acre site (Project). The Project is located north of Riggin Avenue, west of Shirk Street, east of Kelsey Street, and south of Modoc Ditch in Visalia, CA.
The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:
Project Related Construction Emissions
The DEIR, specifically page 3.3-45, indicates construction of the Project is expected to occur between years 2024 and 2028. However, per Appendix A in the DEIR, the construction analyses indicate construction of the Project is expected to occur between years 2024 to 2033. There are inconsistencies with the timeframe of the construction. Therefore, the District recommends that the DEIR be clarified for consistency.
SJVAPCD
1 2
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
The DEIR, specifically Mitigation Measure (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 VERA with the Additionally, the DEIR concludes Project air quality emissions are expected to e . As such, the District
recommends MM AIR-2g be revised to consider requiring one VERA, for the entire Project as a whole.
A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-forpound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.
Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of agricultural equipment with the latest generation technologies.
In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated.
Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The District reviewed the Health Risk Assessment (HRA)/Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for the Project and has the following comments:
The DEIR states NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed ambient air quality standards. However, an AAQA was not performed to verify these determinations. The District recommends conducting an AAQA to support the conclusions presented in the DEIR.
SJVAPCD
3 4
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Variable emission rates were used for the construction activities in the HRA.
The District recommends using a worker adjustment factor (WAF) in HARP2 to prevent underestimating worker risk. HARP2 assumes all sources of emissions are continuous and reduces worker exposure accordingly.
Therefore, the WAF should be used for non-continuous sources.
The DEIR states that there will be two quick serve restaurants (QSR) as part of the Project. Although, the specifics on the type of QSR are unknown at this time, the District recommends that the DEIR evaluate the health risk from potential Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) from commercial cooking operations.
The operational health risk analysis assumed a 30-year residential exposure period for estimating of cancer risk. The District recommends estimating residential cancer risk using a 70-year exposure period.
Modifications to the HRA and/or AAQA based on the deficiencies listed above have the potential to cause the Project to exceed District health risk thresholds and/or cause or contribute to an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard.
Therefore, the District recommends the HRA be revised and an AAQA be conducted potential air quality impacts.
Industrial/Warehouse Emission Reduction Strategies
The District recommends the City incorporate emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts, such as those listed below:
Require cleanest available heavy-duty trucks and off-road equipment (see comment 6)
Require HHD truck routing patterns that limit exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions (see comment 5) Require minimization of heavy-duty truck idling (see comment 8) Orient loading docks away from sensitive receptors unless physically impossible
Require loading docks a minimum of 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptor unless dock is exclusively used for electric trucks Require truck entries be located on streets of a higher commercial classification
Ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the development project
SJVAPCD
5 6
7 8
9a
9g
9f
9e
9d
9c
9b
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Require power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have nged idling while loading and
unloading goods
Designate an area during construction to charge electric powered construction vehicles and equipment, if temporary power is available Prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction
Inform the project proponent of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program) offered to reduce air emissions from the Project
Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.
The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for the Project, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.
Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Accordingly, to ozone and particulate
matter attainment plans rely on a significant and rapid transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies.
The Project will include warehouse and distribution and is expected to generate a high volume of HHD truck trips traveling to-and-from Project location at longer distribution trip length distances. Therefore, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.
SJVAPCD
10 11
9k
9j
9i
9h
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Electric Infrastructure
The District recommends that the City require all nonresidential buildings be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support the use of on-road zero emissions vehicles, such as HHD trucks associated with an industrial development for warehouse and distribution.
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.
Please visit https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/charge-up for more information.
Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of HHD trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.
Since the Project will result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the DEIR be revised to include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3- minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.
Under-fired Charbroilers
The Project will include commercial development with the potential for restaurants with under-fired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors.
Since the cooking of meat can release carcinogenic PM2.5 species, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, controlling emissions from new under-fired charbroilers will have a substantial positive impact on public health. The air quality impacts on neighborhoods near restaurants with under-fired charbroilers can be significant on days when meteorological conditions are stable, when dispersion is
SJVAPCD
12 13
14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
limited and emissions are trapped near the surface within the surrounding neighborhoods. This potential for neighborhood-level concentration of emissions during evening or multi-day stagnation events raises air quality concerns.
Furthermore, reducing commercial charbroiling emissions is essential to achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards. Therefore, the District recommends that the DEIR include a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating under-fired charbroilers.
The District is available to assist the City and project proponents with this assessment. Additionally, the District is currently offering substantial incentive funding that covers the full cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the system during a demonstration period covering two years of operation. Please contact the District at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] for more information, or visit:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/restaurant-charbroiler-technology-partnership/ Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project will include commercial development, gas-powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment.
More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yard-machines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emission-landscaping-equipment-voucherprogram/.
District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic.
As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
SJVAPCD
14 CONT
15 16
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rulesand-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are
Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.
District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 25,000 square feet of industrial development space.
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.
Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As of the date of this letter, the District has not received an AIA application for this Project. Please inform the project proponent to immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510 so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into Project.
Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/formsand-applications/ District staff is available to provide assistance, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].
SJVAPCD
16 CONT
17 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project propone (559) 230-5888.
District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.
Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/rule-9410-employer-based-trip-reduction/.
For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures. To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.
SJVAPCD
18 19
20 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 9 District Reference No: 20240472
June 6, 2024
Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolition-renovation/.
Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
District Comment Letter
Project proponent.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Jacob Torrez by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-6558.
Sincerely,
Tom Jordan
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
SJVAPCD
20 CONT
21 22
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-533
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Comment SJVAPCD-1
This commenter provides introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed project.
Response to SJVAPCD-1
The commenter does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not required; no further response is required.
Comment SJVAPCD-2
The commenter notes a discrepancy in construction sequencing between the air quality appendix and the Draft EIR, wherein the air quality appendix references a construction end year of 2033 instead of 2028 as shown in the Draft EIR, and requests the inconsistencies be rectified.
Response to SJVAPCD-2
The comment is noted for the record. Appendix B of the Draft EIR included a California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output file for Phase 3 that erroneously showed construction through year 2033 instead of year 2028, which did not match the results and information that were contained in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report or the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR. That portion of the appendix was erroneously compiled using an outdated file. However, this inadvertent error in the output file of appendix material did not affect the air quality analysis and finding because the actual modeling, which was relied upon in the analysis in the Draft EIR, was prepared using the correct files. However, for purposes of clarity in the record and in response to the comment, Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Appendix B of the Draft EIR) has been updated; this updated Appendix is included in the Final EIR.
Similarly, although both sequential and concurrent phasing were considered for purposes of a conservative analysis, Tables 3.3-13 and 3.3-14 of the Draft EIR each had one erroneous footnote noting that the emissions represented concurrent phasing, when these tables actually present the calculations for sequential phasing which would last from year 2024 to 2028 as correctly shown in the tables. As noted above, the “Construction Phase 3–Mitigated” CalEEMod Output files on Pages 190-231 of Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Draft EIR Appendix B) were replaced with CalEEMod output files that matched the emissions and construction duration presented in the EIR. The Final EIR Section 3, Errata removes the erroneous footnote in each table for clarification purposes to reflect consistency, as requested by the comment.
The typographical error and subsequent revision do not affect the air quality modeling, analysis, and findings and no substantive revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary. The CEQA Guidelines require recirculation only when “significant new information” is added to an EIR after the Draft EIR is released for public review but before certification of the FEIR. (Public Resources Code § 21092.State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a)). Analysis that is provided only for informational purposes (and that is not legally required) does not qualify as significant new information and would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in severity in a previously identified significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-534
Comment SJVAPCD-3
The commenter recommends that Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2g in the Draft EIR be revised to include a requirement for the relevant project sponsor to enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for the project and describes that a VERA is a contractual agreement between the project proponent and the SJVAPCD that can properly be characterized as an enforceable mitigation measure to mitigate project-related emissions.
Response to SJVAPCD-3
See Response LIUNA-4.
Comment SJVAPCD-4
The commenter notes that it reviewed the Health Risk Assessment (HRA)/Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) and provides the following comments. The commenter recommends that an AAQA be performed to confirm the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the project would not exceed established ambient air quality standards for NOx, PM10, and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5).
Response to SJVAPCD-4
See Response to LIUNA-14.
The comment has been noted for the record. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Comment SJVAPCD-5
The commenter notes that variable emission rates were used in the HRA, and requests that a worker adjustment factor (WAF) in HARP27 be used for estimating worker risk to ensure such risk is not underestimated. The commenter notes that HARP2 assumes all emissions are continuous and reduces worker exposure accordingly. The commenter concludes that WAF should be used for noncontinuous sources.
Response to SJVAPCD-5
The commenter is specific to selecting a WAF to be used to prevent underestimating worker risk. It is unclear whether the commenter is referring to on-site or off-site workers. However, neither on-site nor off-site workers need to be specifically analyzed for the following reasons. As discussed in page
3.3-62 of Section 3.3, Air Quality, on-site workers are not required to be addressed through the HRA process, consistent with guidance published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, which indicates that on-site receptors are included in risk assessments if they are persons not employed by the proposed project. The only people who would be on-site for a significant period would be on-site workers.
Therefore, an HRA for on-site receptors consisting of on-site workers is not required.
See Response GSEJA-7.
Therefore, the Draft EIR and related technical appendices adequately disclosed all assumptions and methodologies utilized in the HRA, including, among others, the ASF and FAH, and accurately 7 HARP2 is the Hotspots Analysis Reporting Program, Health Risk Assessment Stand-alone Tool, Version 2.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-535
evaluated and disclosed the project’s potential health risk impacts. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarification as noted above.
Comment SJVAPCD-6
The commenter notes that the project description contemplates two QSRs and asserts that although the specifics regarding the type of QSR are unknown at this time, the Draft EIR should nonetheless evaluate the health risk from potential polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from commercial cooking operations.
Response to SJVAPCD-6
It would be speculative to attempt this evaluation. Speculation is not required by CEQA because an EIR need not speculate on impacts that are not foreseeable (CEQA Guidelines § 15144 and §15145.) A potential health risk is too speculative to evaluate without knowing the specifics on the type of QSR and CEQA does not require a “worst-case” analysis, but merely what is reasonably foreseeable.
While CEQA Guidelines §15144 acknowledges that some degree of forecasting is involved in preparing an EIR, and that an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can, CEQA also confirms that “foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible.” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15146, the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the Draft EIR. Thus, CEQA limits the requirement for forecasting to that which could be reasonably expected under the circumstances and is part of the effort to provide a general "rule of reason" for EIR contents.
See Response GSEJA-7.
This comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Comment SJVAPCD-7
The commenter states that Draft EIR’s operational health risk analysis assumed a 30-year residential exposure period for estimating cancer risk and that SJVAPCD recommends estimating residential cancer risk using a 70-year exposure period.
Response to SJVAPCD-7
See response to GSEJA-7.
Comment SJVAPCD-8
The commenter states that modifications to the HRA and/or AAQA based on the deficiencies listed by the comment have the potential to cause the project to exceed District health risk thresholds and/or cause or contribute to an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the comment recommends that the HRA be revised and/or AAQA be conducted to reflect the comments above.
Response to SJVAPCD-8
Responses to each comment are shown in Response to SJVAPCD-4 through SJVAPCD-7, above.
Warranted revisions were made to the HRA per Comment SJVAPCD-7. For the reasons set forth in the responses above and as otherwise documented in the EIR, the City, in its discretion as the Lead City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-536
Agency, has determined that the analysis reflected in the Draft EIR satisfies CEQA’s requirements.
Nonetheless, in order to be responsive to the commenter, the City has incorporated the abovedescribed clarifying revisions, none of which would result in any significant changes to the Draft EIR, including, without limitation, changes to the significance conclusions. These modifications add clarity to the EIR and do not reflect a new or substantially increased significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Comment SJVAPCD-9
The commenter recommends the City incorporate emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts and then lists 11 suggested measures.
Response to SJVAPCD-9
The list of suggested measures and responses to each measure are discussed below. As identified in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and in accordance with the requirements under CEQA, a series of feasible mitigation measures have been identified, which would be imposed on the proposed project to reduce emissions and health risk impacts to the extent practicable. As requested by the commenter, the City and its consultants have considered the feasibility of incorporating the suggested additional measures. As detailed below, many of the recommended measures are required to be implemented by existing laws and regulations and/or are already included as part of the identified mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. The suggested measures that are not included are either not applicable to the proposed project, not required as project impacts related to the recommended measure would not occur, or because the project applicant and the Lead Agency do not have the authority to require or enforce the suggested measure, thereby rendering the recommendation infeasible, as detailed below.
The following responses include discussion of new mitigation measures suggested by the District.
Under Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3)), when information added to the Final EIR consists of a suggested new mitigation measure, recirculation is only required if the mitigation measure meets each of the following criteria (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330):
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR;
• It would clearly lessen the project's significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.
For the reasons described herein, none of the above triggers has occurred with respect to the suggested measures, does not reflect a new or substantially increased significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
See response to GSEJA-3 and AFTE-5.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-537
Comment SJVAPCD-10
The commenter suggests that the City evaluate HDD truck routing patterns for the project with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. The comment then identifies the suggested components of such an evaluation, including consideration of the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck, trip destination/origin, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall VMT, associated exhaust emissions, and alternative truck routes.
Response to SJVAPCD-10
This suggested measure has been addressed in Response to SJVAPCD-9; the requested analysis is not warranted. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Comment SJVAPCD-11
The commenter generally summarizes the broad goal of making significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks in order that the San Joaquin Valley be able to attain stringent health-based air quality standards, and thus Air District attainment plans rely on a “significant and rapid transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies.” The comment then suggests that fleets associated with operational activities be required to utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.
Response to SJVAPCD-11
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
With respect to the specific suggested measure, this has been addressed in Response to SJVAPCD-9.
For the reasons set forth therein and in the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR are not warranted. The comment has been noted for the record.
Comment SJVAPCD-12
The commenter suggests that the City require all nonresidential buildings be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support the use of on-road zero emissions vehicles, such as HHD trucks associated with an industrial development for warehouse and distribution. The comment then summarizes generally the incentives offered by SJVAPCD to public agencies, business and property owners to support and accelerate the installation of EV charging equipment, as well as the purpose of SJVAPCD’s Charge Up! Incentive program. The commenter makes a general recommendation that the City and project proponents install EV chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.
Response to SJVAPCD-12
The comment is noted for the record. Since the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
For informational purposes, the following is noted. MM AIR-2d requires installation of infrastructure for EV charging stations for a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable CALGreen Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3).
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-538
Furthermore, MM AIR-2d requires the buildings’ electrical room to be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the site. Therefore, this suggested general measure is similar to identified measures already identified in the Draft EIR that would be imposed on the project. Given the foregoing, the commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR. Revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.
Comment SJVAPCD-13
The commenter provides a general summary of the goal of idling restrictions in terms of limiting the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts. It then suggests that the Draft EIR be revised to (1) include measures to ensure compliance of the State anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and (2) discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the commenter recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.
Response to SJVAPCD-13
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no revisions to the Draft EIR is required.
With respect to the specific suggested measure, State anti-idling regulations are discussed extensively in Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Framework, of Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations including the ones related to anti-idling. Therefore, this requested measure is similar to an existing regulation that would be applied to the proposed project, and thus no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
With respective to a more stringent three-minute idling limit, the commenter has not demonstrated how the recommended mitigation would clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts compared to the mitigation measure already evaluated in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.3-22, Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would have less than significant combined construction and operation health risk impacts with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Because the suggested measure would not reduce an environmental impact caused by the proposed project, there is no legal nexus of this measure to any identified impacts of the proposed project and thus the Lead Agency does not have the legal authority to impose such a restriction—which goes beyond the already-stringent requirements under State law—on the proposed project. Therefore, the suggested mitigation is not feasible, would not be necessary to reduce any significant impact from the proposed project, and is not required under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Comment SJVAPCD-14
The commenter notes that the proposed project would include commercial development with the potential for restaurants with underfired char broilers. The comment goes on to make a general statement that such features, if used, may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-539
when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors, given the potential for release of emissions of PM2.5 and PAH. The commenter then notes generally that controlling such emissions will have a positive impact on public health (and is essential for achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards) and provides a general summary of the foregoing issues with respect to neighborhood-level concentrations. Therefore, the commenter recommends a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating underfired char broilers; notes the District’s willingness to assist with this assessment; and confirms the availability of incentive funding to implement same.
Response to SJVAPCD-14
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
As a preliminary matter, as noted in Response to Comment SJVAPCD-6, any underfired and chain driven char broilers installed as part of the project would be subject to any and all applicable SJVAPCD rules (such as Rule 4692, commercial char broiling) and/or any ARB/Statewide control measures in place at the time of construction, and any such emissions would be captured and controlled by provisions under SJVAPCD Stationary Source Rules and permitting processes and risks would be addressed at such time. Furthermore, also as discussed in Response to Comment SJVAPCD9, the potential impacts of commercial cooking operations such as a char broiler, which may or may not be used in the proposed QSRs, are too speculative to analyze at this point as there are parameters currently unknown that are required to prepare a reasonable HRA of the proposed QSRs.
Additionally, the suggested measure is infeasible because there is a lack of evidence to support an essential nexus and rough proportionality between this requirement and the nature and extent of anticipated impacts associated with the project. Public agencies may use their discretionary powers granted by laws other than CEQA to mitigate environmental impacts. CEQA does not, however, expand the powers granted by other laws or otherwise confer an independent grant of authority to impose mitigation measures on a project. When imposing mitigation for a project’s significant environmental effects, a public agency may only exercise those powers provided by legal authority independent of CEQA (PRC § 21004). The CEQA Guidelines specify that CEQA does not grant new or independent powers to public agencies (CEQA Guidelines § 15040). Accordingly, an agency’s exercise of discretionary powers must be within the scope of the power granted by laws and be consistent with express or implied limitations (CEQA Guidelines § 15040(d), (e)). Mitigation measures that are beyond the powers conferred by law on lead agencies are legally infeasible. Here, the City, as Lead Agency, would have no legal authority to impose such a measure and thus it is infeasible.
Accordingly, because conducting such an analysis would require speculation, and any such mitigation would be infeasible in any event. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR. No change is warranted and no further response is required.
For informational purposes, the following is noted. Currently, in general, the lack of commercially available and feasibly demonstrated control technologies is the primary barrier for moving forward with control strategies for char broiler emissions, both within the SJVAPCD and other air districts in the State and country. Based on available information from the District, the City understands the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-540
following. The SJVAPCD has done extensive research and testing on controls for such char broilers, including incentive funding and demonstration programs, with limited participation from eligible food industry sources.8 The District has explored regulatory control requirements for these sources via an amendment to Rule 4692 but has not moved forward with any requirements requiring controls since the technology is not feasible or available. The District has, however, implemented a registration program for underfired char broilers that would meet or exceed a significance threshold based on the amount of meat that would be cooked on these units.
In December 2020, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted a comprehensive strategy to continue to address emissions from commercial underfired char broilers, focusing on continued research and education and Statewide partnership efforts.9 The District is working with the ARB as they consider developing a Statewide Suggested Control Measure, working with the ARB/EPA in making improvements to the emissions inventory for commercial underfired char broiling, and formalizing the restaurant workgroup to stay connected with current industry conditions and to continue to develop and deploy underfired char broiler emissions control technology.
As per the District’s own strategy report, 4,200 restaurants were contacted by the program, 15 restaurants evaluated the potential for control technology and ultimately none of these restaurants considered moving forward after this additional outreach. These evaluations consisted of a lengthy detailed analysis, where all businesses declined to move forward with controls due to feasibility issues related to the installation of the control devices and local permitting challenges, and concerns about the cost of maintenance after the funded 2-year demonstration period concluded under the Restaurant Char Broiler Technology Partnership (RCTP). The comments have been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above
Comment SJVAPCD-15
This comment notes that the proposed project would include commercial development, and then goes on to provide a general summary of how gas powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOX and PM2.5 emissions. It then notes generally that utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The comment suggests the project applicant participate in SJVAPCD’s Clean Green Yard Machines program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment.
8 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. Item Number 11: Adopt Proposed Commercial Underfired Charbroiling Emission Reduction Strategy. November. Website: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/cbyjeiz5/12-20-strategy.pdf.
Accessed July 1, 2024. 9 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. Item Number 11: Adopt Proposed Commercial Underfired Charbroiling Emission Reduction Strategy. November. Website: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/cbyjeiz5/12-20-strategy.pdf.
Accessed July 1, 2024.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-541
Response to SJVAPCD-15
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
With respect to the specific suggested measure, MM AIR-2c requires that all on-site off-road and onroad service equipment, including lawn and garden equipment, utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is similar to recommended measures already identified in the Draft EIR and thus no change is warranted. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Comment SJVAPCD-16
The commenter generally notes that the District issues permits for many different types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities that do not require permits. The comment then indicates that projects subject to District rules and regulations would reduce their air quality impacts through compliance with the regulatory framework. The comment goes on to provide a definition of a regulation and a general summary of the various regulations as examples, such as Regulation II, Rules 2010, 2201, and 2520.
Response to SJVAPCD-16
The commenter does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Comment SJVAPCD-17
This commenter states that the proposed project is submitted to District Rule 9510–Indirect Source Review (ISR) because it will receive a project-level discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceeds 25,000 square feet of light industrial space. This comment provides a general summary of the requirements of District Rule 9510. The commenter states that the ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOX and particulate matter (PM) emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the subject development’s clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emission reductions. The commenter also states that according to Section 5.0 of the ISR rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. The comment states that the District has not received an AIA application for the project, and requests immediate submittal of an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510.
Response to SJVAPCD-17
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable SJVAPCD rules, plans and regulations and, as such, the project proponent would coordinate with the SJVAPCD as necessary. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-542
Comment SJVAPCD-18
The commenter generally summarizes the definition of stationary source emissions, notes relevant District Rules 2010 and 2201, describes the nature of the mitigation that may be imposed generally under District Rule 2201; states that the proposed project may be subject to these rules; and the comment also recommends that the project applicant submit an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC) prior to construction.
Response to SJVAPCD-18
See Response to SJVAPCD-17, above. To the extent the commenter is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations (e.g., page 3.3-25; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1). For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the SJVAPCD’s Regulation II, Rules 2010 and 2201 have been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-25 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata. None of these clarifications and amplifications result in substantial changes to the EIR or any of the conclusions or would otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Comment SJVAPCD-19
The commenter states that the proposed project may be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9410, and then goes on to generally summarize how this rule imposes an obligation on specified employers to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP).
Response to SJVAPCD-19
See Response to SJVAPCD-17 and SJVAPCD-18, above. To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA. The comment is noted for the record and no further response is required.
Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations (e.g., page 3.3-25; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1). For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the SJVAPCD’s Rule 9410 has been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-26 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata. None of these clarifications result in substantial changes to the EIR or any of the conclusions regarding potential impacts or would otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Comment SJVAPCD-20
The commenter states that the proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD’s Rule 4002 since the proposed project would include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures. The comment then generally summarizes the requirements of this rule.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-543
Response to SJVAPCD-20
See Response to SJVAPCD-17 through SJVAPCD-19, above. To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.
Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. In particular, the analysis considers impacts associated with the proposed demolition (see the discussion for Impact AIR-1 and Impact AIR-2). For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the SJVAPCD’s Rule 4002 has been added to Section
3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-25 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata. None of these clarifications and amplifications result in substantial changes to the EIR or any of the conclusions or would otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Comment SJVAPCD-21
The commenter notes that the proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
Response to SJVAPCD-21
See Response to SJVAPCD-17 through SJVAPCD-20, above. Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the SJVAPCD’s authority to regulate air pollution sources and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations, including, among others, District Rule 4641 (e.g., pages 3.3-25 through -26 of the Draft EIR; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1). The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.
Comment SJVAPCD-22
The commenter states that the SJVAPCD recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the project proponent.
Response to SJVAPCD-22
SJVAPCD’s comments have been provided to the project applicants and are included in the Final EIR for review by decision-makers and have been noted for the record.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-1
ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the proposed Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project (proposed project). These revisions are minor modifications, amplifications, and clarifications to the document and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are in strikeout (strikeout).
As discussed below, these revisions are intended to clarify and amplify via the provision of additional information. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only requires recirculation of a Draft EIR when the lead agency adds “significant new information” to an EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR for public review but before EIR certification. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; see, e.g., South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330.)
Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).) When information added to the final EIR consists of revisions to mitigation measures and/or replaces mitigation measures, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure meets all of the following criteria:
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR;
• It would clearly lessen the project’s significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.
Recirculation is required only if each of the above tests is met. South County Citizens, 221 CA4th at 330. None of the clarifications or revisions identified below differ considerably from the analysis in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the clarifications and revisions identified below are all recommended for adoption. Accordingly, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
Changes in Response to Specific Comments
Executive Summary
Page ES-10–ES-12, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.3—Air Quality The following text has been updated:
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 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-2
subcontracts reasonably documenting that all architectural coating material utilized in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal would not exceed 10 grams of volatile organic compound (VOC) per liter of coating.
To satisfy the above, the relevant project sponsor shall include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts for the subject individual specific development proposal a requirement that all interior and exterior architectural coatings used in project construction meet the “supercompliant” coating VOC content standard of 10 grams or less of VOC per liter of coating. The relevant project sponsor shall also specify in the subject construction contracts and/or subcontracts the 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 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 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-3
tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the project applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.
MM AIR-2e On-Site Signage and Pavement Markings
In connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia 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 City of 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.
Page ES-16–ES-18, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.4—Biological Resources The following text has been updated:
MM BIO-1d Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Surveys conducted for Crotch’s bumblebee shall follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a Crotch’s bumblebee nest is detected within the project site, CDFW shall be consulted to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine how best to implement project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) shall be obtained to the extent required under City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-4
applicable laws and regulations, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081 subdivision (b).
Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, or American badger be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate and to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development 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 20throughout 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 and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below.
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.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-5
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 projectrelated restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.
8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.
9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project.
The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced 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, City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-6
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.
Page ES-20–ES-21, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, 3.4—Biological Resources The following text has been updated:
MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602. Additionally, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, the project applicant shall submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials.
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- City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-7
specific criteria as developed in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP).
Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.
Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely and in a feasible manner. In the event of any such spillage, the contaminated area shall be cleaned by the party responsible for the spillage, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.
Page ES-30, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.8—Greenhouse Gas Emissions The following text has been updated:
MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the City of Visalia shall confirm that the subject proposal has been designed to include the following: a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space. Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system pursuant to this MM GHG-2a must also have a battery storage system.
Page ES-31, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.9—Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following text has been updated:
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.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-8
(b) In the event that any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM), shall be contacted for requirements and approval; copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Preservation Planning 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.
Page ES-36, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.13—Public Services The following text has been added:
Impact PUB-3: 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 or other performance objectives for schools.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less than significant impact.
Page ES-34, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.12—Noise The following text has been revised:
MM NOI-1 (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a drive-through car wash, an indepth acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustic professional shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Visalia Community Development Preservation Department that demonstrates that the design and operations of a proposed drive-through car wash would not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits for residential land uses. The study shall evaluate factors such as:
• The location and orientation of 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 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-9
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.
Page ES-37, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic The following text has been revised:
MM TRANS-2 Prior to the issuance of 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 Prior to occupancy of Phae 2, the proposed project shall provide site plans that show modification of the raised median to extend the existing westbound left-turn pocket by 100 feet, to provide a 400-foot left-turn pocket. The existing northbound rightturn stripe shall be extended to 300 feet. These improvements shall occur in the year 2026. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 2 846,920 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-3. The project proponent shall be financially responsible for these improvements. “Financially responsible” shall equate to implementing the project as well as paying for the project.
Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-10
MM TRANS-4 Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the proposed project shall provide dual northbound left-turn pockets (300-foot minimum) and a 300-foot minimum southbound left-turn pocket. Since a 300-foot eastbound 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. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 1 1,864,680 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-4. The project’s contribution into the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) will assist in paying for these improvements.
Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)
Page ES-39, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, Section 3.14—Transportation and Traffic The following text has been revised:
MM TRANS-10b Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the developer shall construct a bike path along Modoc Ditch, between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street (approximately 1 mile).
The existing Class I bike path along Modoc ditch runs to the east of the proposed project, between Dinuba Boulevard and the St. John’s River Trail. The Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) project also proposed to construct a portion of the Class I path within the site. Therefore, the bike path shall connect to a new path proposed within the CASP site and future segments to the east and west. This mitigation is subject to contractability and approval by the Modoc Ditch CompanyCal Water.
Chapter 2, Project Description
The following text has been updated:
The proposed project would require the certification of the EIR and the following discretionary approvals from the City:
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-11
• 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.
In addition to the above required actions and approval, the applicant has elected to pursue a General Plan Amendment for minor adjustment of the Industrial and Light Industrial land use designation to conform with proposed parcel lines.
Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
The following text has been updated:
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 adopted the APO [Agriculture Preservation Ordinance] on May 15, 2023, is in the process of adopting an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance pursuant to Policy LU-P34 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 APO 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 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 or the APO exempt Tier I lands, there is no feasible method to mitigate the loss of this Important Farmland.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-12
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.
The following text has been updated:
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, which was adopted on May 15, 2023, 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.
Section 3.3 Air Quality
The following text has been updated:
The Valley Air District rules and regulations that are relevant to this analysis consist of the following:
Rule 2010—Permits Required. This rule requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the District.
Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review. This rule requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology, such as requiring a backup generator to meet Tier 4 emission standards.
Rule 2520—Federally Mandated Operating Permits. The purpose of this rule is to issue operating permits for new and modified sources of air contaminants pursuant to the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 70.
Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The purpose of this rule is to protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos by requiring a thorough inspection for asbestos before any demolition or renovation activities occur.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-13
The following text has been updated:
Rule 9410—Employer Based Trip Reduction. This rule applies to projects that result in the employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees and requires the employer to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips.
Pages 3.3-45–3.3-47, Table 3.3-13: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) The following table notes have been revised:
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.
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/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Pages 3.3-48–3.3-49, Table 3.3-14: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) The following table notes have been revised:
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.
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/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Pages 3.3-67–3.3-68, Table 3.3-21: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
The following table has been revised:
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-14
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Gasoline Fueling Activities 0.10.14 <0.0001 0.06
Operational DPM (On-site) 0.690.97 0.0002 –
Operational DPM (Off-site Trucks) 2.563.61 0.0007 –
Total Risk from Project Operations 3.354.73 0.001 0.06
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.
Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR The following table has been revised:
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Reasonable Construction + Operation 5.306.68 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.
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
The following mitigation measure has been updated:
MM BIO-1d Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Surveys conducted for Crotch’s bumblebee shall follow the survey methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol. In the event a Crotch’s bumblebee nest is detected within the project, CDFW shall be consulted to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine how best to implement project activities and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, to the extent City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-15
required under applicable laws and regulations, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) will be obtained, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081 subdivision (b).
Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, or American badger be detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate and to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development 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 mitigation measure has been updated:
MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602. Additionally, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, the project applicant shall submit a notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602 to assist with review of the submitted delineation materials.
Section 3.6, Energy
The following text has been updated:
Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 34,152,062 kWh of electricity and an estimated 49,385,262 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project’s buildings and related improvements and infrastructure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. As specified in Chapter 5, Part 11 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to incorporate electrical conduit to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. In addition, as specified in Subchapter 6, Part 6 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to either include rooftop solar systems or design the proposed buildings to structurally accommodate future installation of a rooftop solar system. a photovoltaic system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10. As such, the design of the proposed project would facilitate the future commitment City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-16
to renewable energy resources. Therefore, building energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
The following text has been updated:
While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, these policies would contribute toward less water demand, energyefficient operational uses, and reduce the unnecessary use of fuel. For example, the proposed project would be consistent with Climate Action Plan (CAP) actions related to Energy by including Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-2a, which would require rooftop solar panel systems, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10.
Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following table has been revised:
Solar PV installations. This action
emphasizes the benefit for
community members to install
solar photovoltaic systems.
Consistent. As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar photovoltaic panels on building rooftops. In addition, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter sent from the Valley Air District recommends that the proposed project include rooftop solar, or solar-ready rooftops, or light colored roofing material. MM GHG-2a would require that the proposed project includes one of the following measures:
rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than
78.a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10. Therefore, with implementation of MM GHG-2a, the proposed project would be consistent with this action.
The following text has been updated:
As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar panels or solar-ready rooftop infrastructure, resulting in a potentially significant impact due to inconsistency with the CAP. However, implementation of MM GHG-2a would require the proposed project to include rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 upon a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The following table has been revised:
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-17
Decarbonize buildings. All electric appliances
beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed
Statewide by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with
the AB197 commercial timeline. In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with
CALGreen measures for 2022 as part of MM GHG-2a,
which require rooftop PV solar panels with battery
storage for warehouses and heat pumps (in all
climate zones) for office space in warehouses
consistent with decarbonization strategies.
The following text has been updated:
Although not quantified in this analysis, the MM GHG-2a would be required to ensure the implementation of one of the following as feasible: rooftop photovoltaic solar system, solarready rooftop design, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.would require a PV system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code.
The following mitigation measure has been updated:
MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the Planning Department shall confirm that the subject proposal has been designed to include the following: a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space. Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system must also have a battery storage system.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-18
Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following mitigation measure has been revised.
MM HAZ-1 (a) Any known wells on the project site shall be delineated on an engineered site plan with a minimum 10-foot radius no build area.
(b) In the event that any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM), shall be contacted for requirements and approval; copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Development Planning Preservation Department. CalGEM may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required.
(c) The following note shall appear on all final maps and grading plans: “If during grading or construction, any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged, CalGEM will be contacted to inspect and approve any remediation required.
Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality
The following text has been revised:
The majority of the project site is located in Zone X, which is an area with an 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. The southeast corner of the project site is located in Zone X outside of the 0.2 with a 1 percent annual chance of flood hazard. Therefore, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone Special Flood Hazard Area.
Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning
The following table has been revised:
Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gases
Objective AQ-O-3 Reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases that
contribute to global climate
change in accord with federal
and State law.
Consistent: As demonstrated in
Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the proposed project
would be consistent with
applicable State climate laws
and regulations, which are more
stringent than federal laws.
Specifically, in addition to
various project design features
and compliance with the robust
regulatory framework detailed
in this Draft EIR, the proposed
project would be required to
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-19
implement MM AIR-2d and MM
GHG-2a which would contribute
to increase of renewable energy
use and decrease of fossil fuel
consumption, which are the
central themes of the State's
2017 and 2022 scoping plans.
Section 3.12, Noise
MM NOI-1: (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a drive-through car wash, an indepth acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustic professional shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Development Preservation Department that demonstrates that the design and operations of a proposed drive-through car wash would not result in exceedances of the Visalia Municipal Code’s applicable daytime and nighttime noise limits for residential land uses. The study shall evaluate factors such as:
• The location and orientation of 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.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-20
The following text has been corrected (note that this edit does not affect the cumulative impacts conclusion for Section 3.12 Noise):
As noted above, the geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis would be approximately 1,000 feet surrounding the project site. Cumulative development would be required to comply with all applicable construction hour restrictions and would also be anticipated to incorporate appropriate BMPs to help reduce construction noise. In addition, applicable design review regulations directing the siting, design, and insulation of new development and redevelopment and all applicable noise policies, standards and requirements in the General Plan and Municipal Code would ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. Because there is not a cumulative significant construction noise impact to existing or planned land uses in the project vicinity, the incremental contribution of project construction noise would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to construction noise. This cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact conclusion is consistent with the General Plan EIR, which analyzed full buildout of this area and its impact upon nearby noise sensitive land uses.
Section 3.14, Transportation
The following typo has been corrected:
Construction of the proposed project would not adversely affect or otherwise conflict with the existing LOS conditions. According to the LOS operational analysis, the proposed project would result in queueing deficiencies at several intersections and would require implementation of the improvements recommended in the TIA. These recommendations are incorporated as the following mitigation measures to reduce project impacts related to LOS.
With implementation of MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-8 MM TRANS-9, impacts would be less than significant.
The following mitigation measures have been updated:
MM TRANS-2 Prior to the issuance of 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 Prior to occupancy of Phase 2, the proposed project shall provide site plans that show modification of the raised median to extend the existing westbound left-turn pocket by 100 feet, to provide a 400-foot left-turn pocket. The existing northbound rightturn stripe shall be extended to 300 feet. These improvements shall occur in the year 2026. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 2, 846,920 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-3. The project proponent shall be financially responsible for these City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-21
improvements. “Financially responsible” shall equate to implementing the project as well as paying for the project.
Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)
MM TRANS-4 Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the proposed project shall provide dual northbound left-turn pockets (300-foot minimum) and a 300-foot minimum southbound left-turn pocket. Since a 300-foot eastbound 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. These improvements shall occur when construction of the proposed project’s Phase 1 1,864,680 square feet is complete, as shown in the table included in this MM TRANS-4. The project’s contribution to the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) will assist in paying for these improvements.
Project
Phase
Total Constructed
Square Feet per Phase Phase Detail
Phase 1 1,864,680 Light Industrial (Buildings 1 and 2)
Phase 2 846,920 Light Industrial (Buildings 3, 4, and 7) Gas Station/Convenience Market (with 12 Vehicle
Fueling Stations)
Fast-food Restaurant (with Drive-through)
Car Wash
Phase 3 230,800 Light Industrial (Buildings 5, 6, and 8) Flex Industrial
Mini-Storage (with RV parking)
This section has been revised to include the calculations regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reductions resulting from the implementation of MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b.
MM TRANS-10a and MM TRANS-10b would be implemented in order to reduce VMT impact.
Combining these two mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project’s VMT per employee by 1.75 1.61 percent, exceeding the proposed project’s 1.54 percent impact.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-22
Therefore, the proposed project’s VMT impact would be mitigated. The quantified calculation of the percent reduction resulting from these mitigation measures are included in Table 3.14-5 and Table 3.14-6, below.
Table 3.14-5: VMT Reduction from MM TRANS-10a: End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities ID Variable (Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults) Value Unit B Bike mode adjustment factor 4.86 Unitless
C Existing bicycle trip length for all trips in region 2.3 Miles D Existing vehicle trip length for all trips in region 10.3 Miles E Existing bicycle mode share for work trips in region 1.60 % F Existing vehicle mode share for work trips in region 90.1 % VMT Reduction -1.53%
Notes:
Sources:
Buehler, R. 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 525–531. Website:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/DeterminantsofBicycleCommuting.pdf Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Website: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA. Website: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.
All descriptions and methods from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. Default parameters for the calculations were derived using the average of Southern and Northern California regions provided in the handbook.
Table 3.14-6: VMT Reduction from MM TRANS-10b: Expand Bicycle Network ID Variable Value Unit
User Inputs
B Existing bikeway miles in plan/community 1.0 Miles
C Bikeway miles in plan/community with measure 3.0 Miles Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Bicycle mode share in plan/community 0.6 %
E Vehicle mode share in plan/community 95.0 %
F Average one-way bicycle trip length in plan/community 2.9 Miles G Average one-way vehicle trip length in plan/community 10.9 Miles H Elasticity of bike commuters with respect to bikeway miles per 10,000 population
0.25 Unitless
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-23
ID Variable Value Unit
User Inputs
VMT Reduction -0.08%
Notes:
Sources:
California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Website: https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionToolITHIM/#Home.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Website: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.
Pucher, J., and Buehler, R. 2011. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York. March. Website: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/analysis-bike-final_0.pdf.
All descriptions and methods from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.
The following mitigation measure has been updated:
MM TRANS-10b Prior to final occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the developer shall construct a bike path along Modoc Ditch, between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street (approximately 1-mile).
The existing Class I bike path along Modoc ditch runs to the east of the proposed project, between Dinuba Boulevard and the St. John’s River Trail.
The Carlton Acres Specific Plan (CASP) project also proposed to construct a portion of the Class I path within the site. Therefore, the bike path shall connect to a new path proposed within the CASP site and future segments to the east and west. This mitigation is subject to contractability and approval by the Modoc Ditch CompanyCal Water.
The following typo has been corrected:
During construction, the proposed project would require the delivery of heavy construction equipment using area roadways, some of which may require transport by oversize vehicles.
Heavy equipment associated with these components would not be hauled to/from the site daily, but rather would be hauled in and out on an as needed basis. Nevertheless, the use of oversize vehicles during construction could create a hazard to the public by limiting motorist views on roadways and by the obstruction of space, which is considered a potentially significant impact. In addition, the project construction activities may result in some temporary lane closures in the area. The proposed project would be required under existing regulations to obtain California Highway Patrol escorts, as well as coordinate the timing of City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-24
transport, in oversize load permits from Caltrans and Kings County Tulare County, as appropriate. Therefore, a reasonable worst-case concurrent construction of all phases would not worsen the LOS or impact traffic movement or create roadway hazards to a greater extent than the project as analyzed in the TIA.
This paragraph has been revised because the sight distance assessment was removed from the study per the City’s direction.
A sight distance analysis for each project driveway was conducted to determine whether outbound vehicles would have adequate sight distance to observe conflicting traffic along the intersecting public roadways. Intersection sight distance for the project driveways were evaluated following methodology outlined by the City of Visalia Design and Improvement Standard SD-3, which is based on guidance outlined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Street, 7th Edition. The proposed project would be required to satisfy the required sight lines and clear zone requirements for all project driveways, to ensure roadway hazards are minimized.
Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Page 8 The following mitigation measure has been updated:
MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the Planning Department shall confirm that the proposed project is designed to include the following: The building shall be designed to include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space.
Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system must also have a battery storage system.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-25
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Page 93 The following table has been revised:
Table 1: Worst-case Scenario Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) Year
Emissions (tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(ExhaustTot
al)
PM2.5
(ExhaustTo
tal)
Off-site Improvement 2024 0.15 0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.010.01 <0.01 Overall Site Preparation 2024-2026 0.26 2.01 10.27 0.010.02 0.0312.67 0.0310.96 Phase 1 2024-2025 3.65 9.85 39.10 0.09 0.1803.55 0.1771.09 Phase 2 2024-2025 7.247.79 4.6010.84 15.3814.4
6 0.030.04 0.0722.11 0.0710.82
Phase 3 2024-2025 7.818.58 6.02114.7
7 21.0219.7
3 0.040.05 0.09882.75 0.0961.09
Maximum Annual Construction
Emissions2
17.7918.88 16.8129.1
9 64.2964.4
9 0.15 0.2848.00 0.2802.93
Significance threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact?
Yes Yes No No No No
Entire Construction Duration with Overlapping of Phases 1, 2, and 3 Under the Worst-case Scenario (2024- 20262025)
Worst-case Scenario Total
Construction Emissions3
19.1220.43 22.4937.4
8 85.9783.7
7 0.170.20 0.38111.09 0.3763.96
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 (Appendix A).
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/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed September 13, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-26
Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Pages 110-111, Table 25: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
The following table has been revised:
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Gasoline Fueling Activities 0.10.14 <0.0001 0.06
Operational DPM (On-Site) 0.690.97 0.0002 –
Operational DPM (Off-Site Trucks) 2.563.61 0.0007 –
Total Risk from Project Operations 3.354.73 0.001 0.06
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.
Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (EIR Appendix B), Page 111, Table 26: Cumulative Health Risks and Hazards During Reasonable Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
The following table has been revised:
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Reasonable Construction + Operation 5.306.68 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 (Appendix B).
Draft EIR Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information
Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR The following table has been revised.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-27
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Worst-case Construction + Operation 6.0410.77 0.0025 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 (Appendix B).
The following text has been updated:
While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, these policies would contribute toward less water demand, energyefficient operational uses, and reduce the unnecessary use of fuel. For example, the proposed project would be consistent with CAP actions related to Energy by including Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-2a, which would require rooftop solar panel systems, solarready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10.
Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR Consistency with the City of Visalia’s CAP
The following table has been revised:
Solar PV installations. This action emphasizes the
benefit for community members to install solar
photovoltaic systems.
Consistent. As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar photovoltaic panels on building rooftops. In addition, the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
comment letter sent from the Valley Air District
recommends that the proposed project include rooftop
solar, or solar-ready rooftops, or light colored roofing material. MM GHG-2a would require that the proposed
project includes one of the following measures: rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar
reflective index greater than 78. a photovoltaic (PV)
system to be installed in accordance with the Energy
Code Section 140.10. Therefore, with implementation of
MM GHG-2a the proposed project would be consistent
with this action.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Errata Final EIR
3-28
The following text has been updated:
As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar panels or solar-ready rooftop infrastructure, resulting in a potentially significant impact due to inconsistency with the CAP. However, implementation of MM GHG-2a would require the proposed project to include rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 upon a photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code Section 140.10 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The following table has been revised:
Decarbonize buildings. All electric appliances
beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed
Statewide by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with
the AB197 commercial timeline. In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with
CALGreen measures for 2022 as part of MM GHG-2a,
which require rooftop PV solar panels with battery
storage for warehouses and heat pumps (in all
climate zones) for office space in warehouses a
consistent with decarbonization strategies.
The following text has been updated:
Although not quantified in this analysis, the MM GHG-2a would be required to ensure the implementation of one of the following as feasible: rooftop photovoltaic solar system, solarready rooftop design, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78. would require a PV system to be installed in accordance with the Energy Code.
The following mitigation measure has been updated:
MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar Solar Photovoltaic System
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Errata
3-29
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the Planning Department shall confirm that the project is designed to include the following: The building shall be designed to include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space.
Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system must also have a battery storage system.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK