Visalia City Council
March 17, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 - Response to Comments

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

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

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

These responses to comments include discussion providing clarification, amplification and/or minor modifications to specific environmental analyses. Neither the clarifications, amplifications, nor modifications constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director
State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation 715 P Street, MS 1904, Sacramento, CA 95814
conservation.ca.gov | T: (916) 324-0850 | F: (916) 327-3430 MAY 16, 2024
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CDOC

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 CONT
2 3

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Monique Wilber
Conservation Program Support Supervisor
CDOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The comment has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary. • Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.
- The Draft EIR, Section 3.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources, includes a discussion of cumulative impacts as required under CEQA. As a preliminary matter, the Draft EIR discusses the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR, which recognized that implementation of the General Plan vision, including the development of lands designated for Industrial and Light Industrial uses such as the project site, would result in significant and 1 The project site is encumbered by a Williamson Act Contract. The landowner moved forward with cancellation proceedings under State law. To that end, the landowner obtained approval, subject to compliance with certain conditions, from the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County to remove the project site from the subject County Agricultural Preserve No. 0293 and to tentatively cancel the contract (WAC No. 2880) pursuant to Government Code Sections 51281 and 51282 on November 29, 2022 (see Tulare County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2022-1005, attached as Appendix G2 to the Draft EIR).

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-9
unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of agricultural resources to urban uses for which there was no feasible mitigation. Accordingly, this impact has already been fully disclosed as set forth in the certified General Plan EIR. Nevertheless, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR addressed the proposed project’s individual and cumulative impacts with respect to the agricultural resources. In terms of cumulative impacts, this discussion acknowledged that the conversion of agricultural land associated with the project, combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the identified geographic scope (i.e., City’s Planning Area), would constitute a significant cumulative impact. The Draft EIR then concluded that the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant cumulative impact related to conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses. Finally, the Draft EIR, consistent with the General Plan EIR, determined there was no feasible mitigation to reduce this cumulative impact to less than significant (as discussed further below).

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

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

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

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

Given the competing interests of (1) the City’s goal to implement full buildout of its General Plan land use vision with a balance of uses, while (2) taking into appropriate consideration the importance of agricultural resources, General Plan Policy LU-P-34 requires the City to create and adopt a mitigation program via adoption of an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance to address the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tiers II and III of the UDB.

While this policy identifies specific requirements for properties located in Tiers II and III, it specifically exempts lands located in Tier I from these mitigation requirements. This makes sense because of the City’s concentric growth pattern strategy, which prioritizes conversion of agricultural lands that are closest to the City’s municipal boundaries. Development in this fashion will help to maintain the maximum amount of contiguous Important Farmland, avoiding “patchwork” easements and dispersed development in a manner that cannot be guaranteed through the requirement of purchasing agricultural easements.

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

Several factors must be considered in determining the feasibility of potential mitigation for the conversion of agricultural lands. First, an off-site conservation easement (or funding for same) does not create new farmland to replace the agricultural lands being converted and thus does not offset the loss of farmland resulting from the subject project (e.g., King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 875). While a 2018 amendment to CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(e) added language indicating permanent protection of resources “in the form of conservation easements” can provide compensatory mitigation, the amendment does not explain how and to what extent such a measure might be viewed as offsetting or reducing the loss of farmland that results when it is converted to another use. Thus, the legal propriety of a lead agency finding that requiring an off-site conservation easement (or funding in lieu thereof) as mitigation is sufficient to “avoid,” “minimize,” or “substantially lessen” the impact to farmland that results when it is developed remains potentially unclear, particularly to the extent such reliance is intended to reduce the impact to less than significant (PRC §§ 21002, 21100(b)(3), and 21081(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b)(2)).

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-11
As stated in the Draft EIR Section 3.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources page 3.2-10, the City adopted its Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) on May 15, 2023, in order to implement an Agricultural Mitigation Program (as outlined in General Plan Policy LU-P-34). As stated in the Draft EIR pages 3.2-10–3.2-12, Policy LU-P-34 [and the subsequently adopted APO] explicitly exempts conversions of agricultural lands located in UDB Tier I, such as the project site, from the mitigation program. Therefore, the mitigation program required in LU-P-34, and included in the APO, is not applicable to the proposed project. Although implementation of policies in the General Plan would reduce some agricultural impacts for General Plan buildout, over 14,000 acres of the existing Important Farmland would be lost. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that conversion of farmland from General Plan buildout would be significant and unavoidable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFTE

2 1
AFTE

2 CONT
3 4
5 AFTE

5 CONT
6 7
8 9
AFTE

9 CONT
10 11
AFTE

11 CONT
12 13
14 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to AFTE-4
The comment is noted for the record. To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-24
To the extent the commenter raises specific issues with respect to the nature of the GHG threshold utilized in the Draft EIR, CEQA does not require the City to utilize a quantitative net-zero significance threshold to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG impacts. To the contrary, lead agencies, such as the City, have discretion to formulate their own significance thresholds (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7). The determination by a lead agency of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment, based to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(b)(1) and 15064.4(a)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to AFTE-5
To the extent the comment is general in nature and does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-27
While that comment makes the general assertion that the Draft EIR failed to acknowledge and analyze all applicable plans for the reduction of GHGs, the commenter does not explicitly indicate any additional plans that should have been included in this portion of the comment. Response to AFTE-9 clarifies what the commenter purports should have been analyzed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed project is consistent with its existing General Plan land use designation of Industrial and Light Industrial; this reflects the long-planned urban development vision for the project site, which contemplates a variety of commercial, industrial and light industrial uses including, among others, warehousing and distribution. The proposed project has been designed to incorporate applicable development standards and design guidelines to help ensure it would be consistent with the urbanizing, industrial character of this portion of the City of Visalia. The proposed project would incorporate a number of design features and be required to comply with a robust regulatory framework, all of which would enhance its sustainability and help to reduce GHG emissions. For example, see Table 3.8-4 of the Draft EIR (Summary of Applicable Greenhouse Gas Regulations).

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-29
Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Section 3.14, Transportation, the proposed project would implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures including installation of up to 60 secure bicycle storage lockers (MM TRANS-10a) and installation of a bike path along Modoc Ditch, which would connect to other planned trail improvements (MM TRANS-10b). The foregoing would reduce GHG impacts associated with VMT.

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

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

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

MM AIR-2c requires that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. MM AIR-2d requires infrastructure for EV charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable CALGreen Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3).

Originally, MM GHG-2a required that the proposed project install one of the following: (i) rooftop PV solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop PV panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on August 30, 2022. These options were suggested by the SJVAPCD in their NOP comment letter dated September 2, 2022 (see Appendix A, of the Draft EIR). The latest 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBC) went into effect on January 1, 2023. The latest California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 140.10 now requires solar PV systems for the land uses such as warehouses, retail, and restaurants. The proposed project, which includes warehouse, self storage facility, drive-through restaurants, and convenience store would be subject to the solar PV requirements, unless otherwise exempt per Section 140.10. The required solar PV size is calculated based on the proposed project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage. The required solar PV system is intended to offset the annual electrical consumption of a mixed-fuel building such that it would self-utilize about 80 percent of the annual solar PV generation without battery storage, and about 90 percent with battery storage, over a year.2 In response to comments, the City agreed to modify MM GHG-2a to reflect the obligation under State law that the proposed project would be required to adhere to. This is an inadvertent omission of solar panel requirements, The subsequent modification of mitigation 2 California Energy Commission. 2022. Nonresidential Solar PV General Information. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programsand-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/2022-0. Accessed June 20, 2024.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-30
measure adds clarity to the EIR, it does not reflect a new or substantially increase significant impact or otherwise trigger recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 MM GHG-2b includes requirements that would limit GHG emissions from Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) in the event that any portion of the warehouse land use is used for cold storage uses. If any project warehouse(s) are used for cold storage, then prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for those building(s), the City of Visalia shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all TRUs entering the project site be plug-in capable.

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

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

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

MM GHG-2a has been revised as follows:

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

Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the City of Visalia shall confirm that the subject proposal has been designed to include the following: a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in accordance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) Section 140.10. The required solar PV system shall be sized based on calculations provided in Section 140.10(a) of the Energy Code, which includes a number of factors such as the amount of conditioned space. Unconditioned buildings, except unoccupied or unused first-time tenant improvement spaces, do not need to be part of the solar sizing calculations. All buildings required to have a solar PV system pursuant to this MM GHG-2a must also have a battery storage system.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-31
See also solar photovoltaic (PV) system to be included in accordance with 2022 Energy Code Section 140.10. The required solar module size would be calculated based on the proposed project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage. The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact after implementation of MM AIR-2d, MM GHG2a, and MM GHG-2b; this determination remains accurate with the updated MM GHG-2a, which would further increase opportunities for the use of on-site renewable solar power generation. An obligation to supply 100 percent of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the project is not required under CEQA. Therefore, no further mitigation is required and no change to the conclusions in the Draft EIR are warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither the future tenants nor the City would have control over the vehicles accessing the project site and thus neither would have the ability to enforce any obligation requiring that trucks utilize alternative low carbon fuels during the life of the proposed project. Given the volume of mediumduty vehicles that would be involved as part of the tenants’ business operations, practical limitations on the owner’s ability to control and enforce such an obligation, along with the current substantial cost and concerns regarding widespread availability of EVs, the suggested mitigation is not feasible.

Moreover, the project applicants would be required to provide EV charging infrastructure throughout all parking areas as part of MM AIR-2d, which would improve charging infrastructure in the City and help facilitate the transition to electric vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The required solar PV size is calculated based on the project’s climate zone, amount of conditioned space, and space usage. The required solar PV system is intended to offset the annual electrical consumption of a mixed-fuel building such that it will self-utilize about 80 percent of the annual solar PV generation without battery storage, and about 90 percent with battery storage, over a year.3 The foregoing, which is reflected in modified MM GHG-2a, further ensures the project’s GHG impacts would be less than significant through compliance with the foregoing, which incorporates a quantitative performance standard. This requirement has replaced the original language in MM GHG-2a. (See also AFTE-5 and Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR). 3 California Energy Commission. 2022. Nonresidential Solar PV General Information. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programsand-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/2022-0. Accessed June 20, 2024.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-36
Therefore, consistent with the analysis set forth in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP policy which encourages the installation of solar PV systems. The Draft EIR properly determined that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact after implementation of identified measures, including MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a, and MM GHG-2b. The commenter offers no evidnece or substantation of this assertion, which has been noted for the record and revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary.

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

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

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

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

As noted in the Draft EIR, MM AIR-2 requires each development within the proposed project incorporate infrastructure for EV charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks). In so doing, this would facilitate achievement of the State’s GHG emission reduction goals by incorporating substantial opportunities for EV infrastructure to be available to serve the vehicles utilized during project operations. Furthermore, beyond what is required by the CBC, MM AIR-2d specifies that the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the project site.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-37
The Draft EIR appropriately analyzed the project’s GHG impacts and it was found, based on substantial evidence in the record, that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, there is no legal nexus to implement additional mitigation measures and no requirement under CEQA to do so. The comment has been noted for the record, and revisions to the Draft EIR or additional mitigation measure are not warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) 572-0400
May 24, 2024
Brandon Smith VIA EMAIL TO:

Principal Planner [email protected]
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
SUBJECT: Comments on Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project EIR (SCH NO. 2022080658) Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The Project site is approximately 284 acres and currently consists of an actively managed almond orchard with an onsite pump house and small structures supportive of the orchard operations. The proposed project would discontinue the existing agricultural uses, demolish remaining on-site structures that serve agricultural uses, and develop a mixed-use industrial park totaling approximately 3,720,149 square feet of light industrial, flex industrial, and commercial uses along with car/trailer parking areas and related on- and off-site improvements. The industrial park would involve both flex industrial and light industrial uses. Flex industrial uses would consist of small incubator space available for small manufacturing, storage, limited warehouse space, while the light industrial uses would consist of warehouse, distribution, storage, and light manufacturing.

The project site proposes construction of eight light industrial buildings (3,474,650 total sf), six flex industrial buildings (84,480 total sf), Self-Storage/Recreation Vehicle (RV) Buildings (144,800 total sf), Convenience Store and Gas Station (6,922 sf), two 2,368 sf Drive-through Restaurants (4,736 total sf), and a Car Wash (4,560 sf). The project site is located within the GSEJA

1 Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

1. Approval of a Development Agreement

2. Approval of Resolution Initiating Annexation Proceedings

3. Approval of the Site Plan

4. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map

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

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

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

1 CONT
2 Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

2 CONT
3 4
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 CONT
5 6
7 Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

7 CONT
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

7 CONT
8 Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

8 CONT
9 10
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 12
13 14
15 Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

15 CONT
17 16
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

TRANS-10a: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the site plan shall include the location of up to six secured bicycle storage lockers near each of the buildings entrances and the future transit stop. Up to 10 potential locations shall be included, for a total of up to 60 lockers throughout the site. Lockers shall be provided for approximately 1.5 percent of the 4,178 site s daily employees with flexibility to add future lockers based on demand.

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

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

17 CONT
18 19
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

19 CONT
20 21
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

GSEJA

21 22
23 Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

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

Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:

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

24 25
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

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

The EIR also has not provided evidence that the local unemployed population is qualified for or interested in work in the industrial sector. The EIR states that, Given the nature of the proposed project, it would likely be staffed primarily by local employees once However, there is no specific information given about the of the proposed project in this context. The EIR also uses uncertain language in stating that the project will and have a staff of employees, and the geographic boundaries of the area are undefined. The EIR relies upon Census data to improperly conclude that because 22.5% of the active workforce is employed within the "wholesale trade, manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation and sectors, this translates to 22.5% of the unemployed workforce being available for work in these sectors. The EIR has not provided any information about the unemployed workforce and their qualifications/interest in work in the industrial sector. Even if the theory that workers within the City was viable, it would only account for 27% of the proposed employees and 19% of the piecemealed Seefried project employees, meaning that the majority of employees will commute from outside the City to the project. The EIR states here that, .S. Census Bureau 2011 2015 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS) Commuting Flows, there are a total of 140,091 workers who both live in Tulare County and commute to work within the County. It is reasonable to assume that workers who currently reside in the Tulare County near the City of Visalia would continue to commute to work and thus also would be available to serve as employees for the proposed The EIR provides no information about the Tulare County workers and their interest/qualifications for work in the industrial sector, therefore this group cannot be relied upon to provide adequate staffing. Additionally, the EIR that the theoretical Tulare County workers also live the City of Visalia, and has not provided any meaningful evidence to support this claim, either. Relying on the entire labor force within the greater east bay region (Tulare, Kings, and Fresno Counties) to fill the construction and operational jobs will increase VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and operations and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances. A revised EIR must also include a cumulative analysis on this topic and a finding of significance due to the significant and unavoidable impacts discussed above.

GSEJA

25 CONT
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

5.2 Growth-inducing Impacts and 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes The EIR does not address the proposed annexation requirements in this analysis. The EIR states that, terms of the removal of any direct barriers to growth, this would not occur due to the proposed project because it does not propose removing any existing obstacles that currently prevent growth within the The annexation of the proposed project site into the boundaries will remove an existing obstacle that currently prevents growth within the City, and contribute towards the development thresholds that unlock development in the Tier II and Tier III Urban Development Boundary of the General Plan. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to this impact.

The EIR provides the same reasoning as provided in the Population and Housing analysis to conclude that the project will not result in significant growth inducing impacts. The EIR states that, proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 4,100 new employees at full which was calculated based on ITE vehicle trip rates for the proposed project. This does not represent the best available data as local data is available in the General Plan. The General Plan22 provides employment generation rates, including the rate of 1 employee for every 750 square feet of light industrial building area.

Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:

Proposed Project: 3,720,149 sf / 750 sf = 4,961 employees Seefried Piecemealed Projects: 5,300,639 sf / 750 = 7,068 employees The EIR utilizes uncertain and misleading language which does not provide any meaningful analysis of the project s population and employment generation. In order to comply with CEQA s requirements for meaningful disclosure, a revised EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by all uses of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions. A construction worker employment analysis must also be included to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. It must also provide a job buildout analysis of the General Plan. Table 1-5: Employment by Sector within the General Plan indicates that the Industrial land use designation will allow for the creation of 9,670 new jobs from 2010-2030. The whole of the action proposed by the project (inclusive of SPR21071 and SPR22041) will create 2,071 new jobs, which is 21% of the industrial job buildout accounted for by a single project. Piecemealed Seefried projects combined with the proposed 22 https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474 GSEJA

26 Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

project cumulatively generate 7,068 employees, which is 73% of the industrial land use job buildout. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since General Plan adoption and projects the to determine if the project will exceed the General Plan buildout scenarios. For example, other recent industrial projects such as recent YS Industries projects (SPR19213, SPR21150 and SPR22130; 2,507,328 sf of building area and 3,344 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 10,412 employees on land with industrial designations. This represents 107% of the industrial job buildout through 2030 accounted for by only a few recent projects. These totals increase when other industrial development approved, submitted, or the since General Plan adoption are added to the total.

The EIR also has not provided evidence that the local unemployed population is qualified for or interested in work in the industrial sector. The EIR states that, Given the nature of the proposed project, it would likely be staffed primarily by local employees once However, there is no specific information given about the of the proposed project in this context. The EIR also uses uncertain language in stating that the project will and have a staff of employees, and the geographic boundaries of the area are undefined. The EIR relies upon Census data to improperly conclude that because 22.5% of the active workforce is employed within the "wholesale trade, manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation and sectors, this translates to 22.5% of the unemployed workforce being available for work in these sectors. The EIR has not provided any information about the unemployed workforce and their qualifications/interest in work in the industrial sector. Even if the theory that workers within the City was viable, it would only account for 27% of the proposed employees and 19% of the piecemealed Seefried project employees, meaning that the majority of employees will commute from outside the City to the project. The EIR states here that, .S. Census Bureau 2011 2015 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS) Commuting Flows, there are a total of 140,091 workers who both live in Tulare County and commute to work within the County. It is reasonable to assume that workers who currently reside in the Tulare County near the City of Visalia would continue to commute to work and thus also would be available to serve as employees for the proposed The EIR provides no information about the Tulare County workers and their interest/qualifications for work in the industrial sector, therefore this group cannot be relied upon to provide adequate staffing. Additionally, the EIR that the theoretical Tulare County workers also live the City of Visalia, and has not provided any meaningful evidence to support this claim, either. Relying on the entire labor force within the greater east bay region (Tulare, Kings, and Fresno Counties) to fill the construction and operational jobs will increase VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and operations and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip GSEJA

26 CONT
Brandon Smith
May 23, 2024

distances. A revised EIR must also include a cumulative analysis on this topic and a finding of significance due to the significant and unavoidable impacts discussed above.

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

Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
GSEJA

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

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

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

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

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

In terms of the specific comment regarding the definition of “project” for purposes of CEQA, the comment is mistaken as to the nature of the two non-related development applications it references, as well as the relevant legal principles under CEQA. The fact that the same or similar entities may be seeking entitlements for distinct developments from the same local jurisdiction does not mean that these separate, different, and independent developments must or should be treated as a single overall “project.”
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the entire project being proposed for consideration for approval must be described to ensure the environmental impacts of the entire project are considered and disclosed. A lead agency may not split a single large project into smaller ones resulting in piecemeal environmental review that fails to consider the environmental consequences of the entire project.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-58
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR does not improperly artificially narrow the project description to evade environmental review. Instead, Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR provides a detailed description of all project components that are the subject of the discretionary land use entitlements being sought by the applicant, including all phases thereof. The comment has provided no substantial evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

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

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

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

The commenter does not raise a legitimate issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is necessary and no change is warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed project, as with most larger projects, would involve subsequent approvals. To the extent those subsequent approvals are discretionary in nature, then CEQA compliance would be required. For those subsequent approvals that are ministerial in nature, such as the review and approval of interior tenant improvements, this would be governed by the applicable provisions of the California Fire Code, the CBC, and other related construction codes. The EIR project description provides sufficient information to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-60
The extent and nature of the grading and related drainage and any potential flooding items are sufficiently described and evaluated in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and referenced in all other chapters as appropriate. The Draft EIR is supported by facts and analysis and, where appropriate, informed estimates, based on available information and is sufficiently detailed for purposes of conducting environmental review. For instance, as detailed more fully therein, based on the assumptions related to the estimated amount of cut and fill, the Draft EIR properly considered the amount of construction-related truck trips that would occur as a result of the off-haul demands generated by the project, and disclosed all potential environmental impacts associated therewith. Specifically, these assumptions are based on CalEEMod default values for trip lengths and vehicle fleets as explained in Appendix B, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information, of the Draft EIR, for the proposed demolition of approximately 1,065 square feet of existing outbuildings and foundations and the approximately 130,000 cubic yards of fill being imported to the project site.

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

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

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

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

Rather, the emissions resulting from the vehicles accessing the project site would largely be influenced by the comprehensive body of laws and regulations (current and future) that would apply to vehicle manufacturers based on determinations made by the California Air Resource Board (ARB), which is the expert public agency charged to address these issues via a comprehensive regulatory framework applied Statewide based on robust data and evaluation with consideration of multiple complicated factors. For example, with compliance with ARB regulations such as Advanced Clean Fleet, it is assumed that over the lifetime of the project, heavy heavy-duty (HHD) truck fleets traveling to and from the project will include increasingly zero and near-zero technologies as the project moves to later years.

Given the volume of medium-duty vehicles that would be involved as part of the future tenants’ business operations, practical limitations on the owner’s ability to control and enforce such an obligation, along with the current substantial cost and concerns regarding widespread availability of electric vehicles and related charging infrastructure, the suggested mitigation is not feasible.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-61
Moreover, the project applicants would be required to provide EV charging infrastructure throughout all parking areas as part of MM AIR-2d, which would improve charging infrastructure in the City and help facilitate the transition to EVs. Furthermore, MM AIR-2d requires the building’s electrical room to be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on the project site. In addition, it would be speculative to attempt to quantify the amount of emission reduction that would occur from the suggested measure, and it also cannot be enforced in a way that would ensure a reduction to potential health impacts. Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR as well as this Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the information would not be relevant to tenants that use third-party carriers, further limiting the potential benefit of including this suggestion mitigation. Finally, such a measure is not necessary to reduce any significant impacts. The suggested mitigation would not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts and is not required under CEQA; therefore, no change is warranted. The commenter does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR and further response is necessary.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-64
See also Response to AFTE-5 and GSEJA-2.

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

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

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

As required by CEQA, the Project Description identifies, to the extent known by the Lead Agency, a list of discretionary permits, entitlements and other approvals required to implement the project and for which the EIR would be utilized in the consideration of same (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(d)).

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

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

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

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

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

See also Response to GSEJA-2.

Regarding the details of the related CUP process, the Draft EIR properly described the need for an approval of this and other discretionary land use entitlements and disclosed that, among other things, the CUP would involve consideration of certain site planning elements such as deviations in lot sizes and lots that would not have public street frontage, as permitted under the City’s Municipal Code. The Draft EIR incorporated sufficient information to properly consider the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including, among others, those relating to air quality, transportation, land use, noise, hydrology and water quality. The commenter fails to identify any specific areas of environmental review that have not been evaluated and disclosed as these specifically relate to the relatively minor planning issues referenced therein. The related CUP process will involve consideration of the non-CEQA related planning issues associated therewith pursuant to applicable provisions in the City’s Municipal Code.

As required by CEQA, the Project Description identifies, to the extent known by the Lead Agency, a list of discretionary permits, entitlements and other approvals required to implement the project and for which the EIR would be utilized (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(d)). CEQA does not, however, require the detailed specific application materials themselves for such permits associated with such approvals to be included in an EIR. Here, consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the Draft EIR expressly identified the required discretionary approvals, entitlements and permits, including, among others, the CUP(s), in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.6, Required Actions and Approvals.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-66
Pursuant to applicable State and local laws and regulations, the applicant is currently submitting a CUP application. The applicant may, in the future, pursue additional CUP(s) to address all project elements. The CUP(s) will be considered by the relevant City decision-making bod(ies) as part of the duly noticed public hearing process. No action may be taken on any CUPs without CEQA compliance.

The CUP referenced by the comment would involve all parcels involved in the proposed project.

According to the Visalia Zoning Ordinance, Table 17.25.030 and as discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project’s objective of providing an automated car wash and fast-food restaurant(s) with a drive-through would be allowed subject to approval of a CUP, and the self storage and fueling station uses would be permitted by right as permitted uses under the applicable Zoning District. The CUP(s) would allow the proposed convenience store and drivethrough restaurants, as well as a reduction in the minimum parcel size of 5 acres and approval of lots not facing public street frontage, as prescribed by and pursuant to the governing provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. All proposed improvements would be required to be constructed in accordance with applicable City development standards, including, among others, those relating to height, floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, setbacks, undergrounding of utilities, loading/parking requirements, and landscaping. As such, to the extent the CUP(s) contemplate improvements or other physical changes in the environment, those improvements are identified and analyzed in the Draft EIR since they are reflective of the fundamental components of the proposed project.

For the reasons set forth above and as detailed further in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Draft EIR contains a thoughtful, detailed, robust project description that is sufficient for ensuring adequate analysis and disclosure as required under CEQA. No revisions to the Draft EIR or further response are warranted.

Comment GSEJA-6
The commenter states that Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR excludes the YS Industrial Park- Phase 3, which is adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The comment suggests that the Draft EIR must be revised to include this project within the cumulative analysis.

Response to GSEJA-6
The comment is noted for the record. To provide the impact assessment that is fundamental of an EIR, the EIR must describe environmental conditions in place without the project, which then serves as the baseline against which predicted effects can be described and quantified. Pursuant to applicable requirements under CEQA, the baseline utilized in the Draft EIR, including for use in evaluating potential cumulative impacts, is the date when environmental review commenced, defined as the date of publication of the NOP (published August 29, 2022) (e.g., CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)(1)).

Accordingly, for purposes of reasonably foreseeable future cumulative projects, the list is limited to those projects that: (1) were approved but not yet built, (2) were currently being processed pursuant to a formal application that had been submitted by or before August 29, 2022, and (3) those approved and under construction, as identified in the Draft EIR, including in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The YS Industrial Park Phase 3 application was not deemed complete by the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-67
City as of the issuance of the NOP, and therefore the City did not include it in the cumulative projects analysis.

Therefore, the Draft EIR’s cumulative projects analysis, including its description of other cumulative developments considered therein, is adequate under CEQA. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR. No changes are warranted, and no further response is required.

Comment GSEJA-7
The commenter states that the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of relevant environmental justice impacts to nearby communities, which are overly burdened by and especially burdened by existing sources of pollution as identified by CalEnvironScreen, Cal/EPA’s screening tool. Additionally, the commenter notes that the project’s census tract and the adjacent census tracts are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, and provides a general description of the implications of this designation, including impacts associated air quality/health risk, water quality and soils/hazardous materials generally, which the commenter asserts have not been discussed or presented for analysis in the Draft EIR.

Response to GSEJA-7
The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

CEQA does not require analysis of environmental justice considerations in this, or any Draft EIR and the City does not have any applicable thresholds of significance related to environmental justice for purposes of CEQA. Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the SJVAPCD, both of which are expert public agencies charged with addressing air quality and GHG emissions, has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of same as part of the CEQA process.

As discussed in more detail in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, it utilized the currently recommended SJVAPCD significance thresholds to determine construction- and operational-related potential health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The Draft EIR evaluated potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors located southeast of the project site, Air Quality, through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impact AIR-2 and Impact AIR-3. The Draft EIR acknowledged that the project site is adjacent to existing sensitive receptors, some of which live in adjacent areas identified by the comment. Therefore, the Draft EIR identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts. See also Response to GSEJA-3 and Response to AFTE-4.

For purposes of conducting the health risk impact analysis, the Draft EIR’s analysis properly identified the closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project in the dispersion modeling; it also identified the MIR during each construction phase of the proposed project, which may be different since the MIR during pollutant-generating activity is influenced by the distance of that receptor to the pollutant source(s), the amount and type of pollutants generated by each source, the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-68
topography and direction of the MIR as it relates to the pollutant source(s), and the prevailing meteorological conditions.

As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the proposed project’s construction and operational DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold or non-cancer hazard index significance threshold at the MIR.

In terms of potential impacts with respect to water quality, GHG, soils and/or hazardous materials, the Draft EIR contains a thoughtful and robust analysis in the relevant chapters (see Sections 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality; 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; and 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials respectively). The commenter merely asserts generalized concerns but does not raise any project-specific issues with respect to these environmental topic areas, nor does the commenter raise a legitimate issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR For the reasons set forth above and as otherwise detailed therein, the Draft EIR contains sufficient analysis and disclosure with respect to all relevant environmental topic areas and no changes are warranted and no further response is necessary.

In contrast, an off-site worker is a worker receptor who is not an employee of or a contractor for proposed project. The analysis of a residential receptor as the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) during construction and operation would be the most conservative approach because for residential receptors. Age sensitivity factors are applied as multipliers to the cancer risks for exposures during infancy and childhood to account for increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposures. The proposed project’s HRA determined that the MIR is a single-family residence approximately 400 feet southeast of the project site. The MIR represents the maximally impacted, or the worst-case, receptor risks. Because residential receptors have higher sensitivity factors compared to workers, no off-site worker would experience health risks greater than the MIR.

As shown in Section 3.3, Air Quality, Tables 3.3-19 through 3.3-22, the MIR would not experience health risks beyond thresholds set forth by the SJVAPCD. As shown in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to health risks.

The construction HRA was prepared and followed the methodologies prescribed in the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines–Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015), which was adopted in 2015 replacing the previous 2003 guidance manual. Section 3.3, Air Quality, pages 3.3-62 through 3.3-68 of the Draft EIR provide an overview of the HRA assumptions, as well as a summary of the HRA results. Detailed HRA assumptions and results are provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Report included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR. As detailed more fully therein, the HARP2 program was used to automatically calculate the health risk for the proposed project. Use of the HARP2 program ensures that the calculational procedures for cancer and non-cancer risk follow the OEHHA 2015 Guidelines and that Age Sensitivity Factors (ASF) and Fraction of Time at Home (FAH) parameters are applied correctly. The HARP2 output files which are included in Appendix B, Health Risk Appendix Supporting Information of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report detail how the HARP2 model was applied and document the appropriate HRA parameters for ASF and FAH for exposure. As set forth therein, City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-69
the ASF appropriately started in the third trimester for residential receptors and the FAH was set to 100 percent for residential receptors.

With respect to the assertion that the Draft EIR HRA also includes emissions from the drive-through restaurants, considering PAH risk from commercial cooking operations, as mentioned on pages 3.3– 63 of Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, there are several types of different cooking sources/configurations that could be used at the quick serve restaurants (QSRs) from the proposed project and while the restaurants may utilize char broilers, they may also utilize other cooking technologies (such as griddles and/or deep fryers). With this in mind, SJVAPCD references were reviewed for commercial cooking including emission factors, emission inventories and toxicity data for the various TACs emitted.

Considering the range of combination of cooking quantities, cooking types and toxicity data, the predicted risk from a QSR could vary significantly, by orders of magnitude. For example, a QSR utilizing only griddles and low-to-average values of poultry cooking might result in a risk of 0.01 in a million, while a chain driven char broiler used primarily for hamburgers might predict a risk of 0.5 in a million, while an underfired char broiler for steak might result in a risk of 10 in a million. Stack design and exhaust parameters could also influence the predicted health risk results by another order of magnitude (1–10), introducing even more uncertainty.

Accordingly, because the nature, type, and usage of the QSRs is not currently known, the consideration of PAH risk in the HRA is speculative in nature and thus not required by CEQA.

Moreover, the commenter recognizes the health risks associated with commercial cooking operations such as char broiler emissions and, as such, has promulgated Rule 4692, which addresses emissions and controls for underfired and chain driven char broilers. If the future QSRs built and operated as part of the proposed project are char broilers, they would be captured and controlled by provisions under SJVAPCD Stationary Source Rules and permitting processes and risks would be addressed at such time.

Comment GSEJA-8
The commenter generally asserts that there are three “approved compliance modeling software” (i.e., CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) for nonresidential buildings and purports that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The commenter purports that CalEEMod modeling “does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards” and therefore “under-reports” the proposed project’s significant energy impacts and fuel consumption. The comment further states that because the Draft EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a revised EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts.

Response to GSEJA-8
The comment is noted for the record. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that was not evaluated and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

The basis for the commenter’s assertion that CalEEMod is “not approved” is unclear and unsubstantiated. Additionally, the commenter does not identify any project-specific impact that the Draft EIR failed to consider and disclose.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-70
Use of CalEEMod for purposes of modeling potential air quality and related health risk assessments is appropriate. As detailed more fully in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the City, in its discretion as Lead Agency, has determined to utilize the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds and methodologies, which are contained under each impact statement in Section 3.3 and are based on scientific and factual data appropriately considered and incorporated therein by SJVAPCD, as the expert regulatory public agency charged with addressing air quality and GHG emissions within SJVAPCD boundaries.

Specifically, the City utilized approved models from the SJVAPCD, which is the authority for this air basin, the expert agency with respect to air emissions and which directed that CalEEMod be used.

CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform to calculate construction and operational emissions from land use development projects, such as the proposed project. CalEEMod was developed for CAPCOA in collaboration with the California Air Districts. The model is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California, is used throughout California, and can properly be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary, such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, conducting pre-project planning, and verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations. CalEEMod includes the gas and electric utility emissions factors pursuant to the location of the proposed project, as well as building energy zones.

CalEEMod also generates default electricity and natural gas consumption that consider Title 24 standards.

The commenter referenced CBECC, EnergyPro, IES VE software, which are approved specifically for Title 24 compliance; however, they are used to confirm that a final building design (with detailed information included in its construction drawings) is Title 24 compliant. They are not required or appropriate for the purposes of conducting air quality analysis under CEQA prior to the submission of final designs.

The final designs and construction drawings are not currently available for the proposed project and are not typically prepared until after a proposed development project is approved/entitled. Exact asbuilt design specifications are not required, nor are they possible in the early stages of a project when an EIR is prepared. Rather, an EIR’s project description may allow for flexibility and leave room for future design decisions. See Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1052-55 (upholding an EIR’s project description that “provide[d] for flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions and unforeseen events that could possibly impact the Project’s final design,” since “courts [have not] required resolution of all hypothetical details prior to approval of an EIR”); see also City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1336-37 (holding that it was unreasonable and unrealistic to demand that an EIR “must describe in detail each and every conceivable development scenario”). In other words, an EIR need not contain a design-level description of the project; a conceptual description of project components is permissible as long as the description contains sufficient detail to enable the public and the decision-makers to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26, 36 (“Appellants have not established that the general description of the [proposed project] in the EIR coupled with approval of final designs after the project is approved violated any CEQA mandate.”). These software are not City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-71
used for disclosing air emissions, and there is no substantial evidence provided that supports the commenter’s position that these software should be used for discussing air emissions in connection with the proposed project (e.g., Maintain Our Desert Env’t v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th430).

The City has the authority under CEQA to rely upon its experts and the methodologies recommended by relevant expert public agencies, based on substantial evidence in the record, in terms of selecting the appropriate methodologies to utilize in conducting the CEQA analysis.

The Draft EIR and underlying technical studies correctly used CalEEMod to estimate energy demand for CEQA purposes based on average intensity factors for similar land use types. Since the occupants of the proposed project’s buildings are unknown at this time, and specific, detailed information about the future specific building users’ energy use is also not available at this time, it is appropriate to rely upon the CalEEMod default assumptions which have been derived by CAPCOA and accepted by the SJVAPCD. To do otherwise would involve improper speculation.

There is no requirement in CEQA to show specific compliance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards based on conceptual building designs that are proposed at the entitlement stage of a project’s approval process. As is consistent with typical practice, a required showing of compliance with the above-referenced Energy-Efficient Standards as well as other applicable building code and CALGreen Code requirements would be addressed pursuant to State law prior to issuance of each building permit and verified by the City’s Building Safety Division.

For the reasons set forth above and as otherwise detailed therein, the Draft EIR contains sufficient analysis and disclosure with respect to all relevant environmental topic areas and no changes are warranted. The commenter does not raise a legitimate issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

No changes are warranted and no further response is necessary.

Comment GSEJA-9
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. The commenter asserts that the General Plan projected approximately 9,689,000 square feet of industrial building area between 2010 and 2030, as well as approximately 9,670 industrial jobs, and the project (inclusive of two other non-related developments) would collectively represent about 54 percent of that assumed growth.

The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR has not provided adequate evidence that the growth generated by the proposed project was anticipated by the General Plan, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), or Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

Additionally, the commenter discusses other industrial development projects in the City, which when combined with the proposed project and other projects proposed by Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., represent approximately 80.5 percent of the City’s industrial buildout through 2030. The comment notes that these totals increase further when other industrial development approved, submitted, or “in the pipeline” since General Plan adoption are added to the total. As such, the commenter states that a revised EIR must be prepared to include a cumulative analysis on this topic.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-72
Response to GSEJA-9
The comment is noted for the record. It is not clear if the commenter 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.

The project site is currently designated under the General Plan as 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 reflected in its General Plan. Thus, the project is consistent with the buildout scenario contemplated in the General Plan and is therefore properly accounted for in the growth projections of the General Plan as well as the RTP/SCS and AQMP (which rely on and incorporate in General Plan growth/population projections). 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 full and complete environmental analysis as reflected in the Draft EIR, as opposed to tiering from the General Plan EIR. Thus, the commenter does not raise a legitimate issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response or revision of the Draft EIR is warranted.

Regarding the commenter’s assertion to combine the proposed project with other related projects and treat them as one overall project that constitutes the “whole of the action,” this is unsupported and inaccurate. The specifically referenced projects (inclusive of SPR21071 and SPR22041) are separate and distinct from each other and have independent utility, and thus are not part of the proposed project. Therefore, it would be improper to analyze them in the Draft EIR as such. See also Response to GSEJA-2.

To the extent the commenter then shifts its reference to specifically identified projects (SPR21071 and SPR22041), as well as other unspecified projects, and attempts to frame this as a cumulative analysis issue, the comment in this regard also lacks merit. There is no deficiency with the cumulative effects analysis as it relates to cumulative impacts. As is discussed in more detail in the Draft EIR, every topical section utilized Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects, contains a proper cumulative analysis, which includes an identification of the appropriate geographic scope for the particular topic at issue, and then identifies and considers relevant past, present and reasonably probable future projects that could potentially combine with the project to create significant cumulative impacts. In so doing, the Cumulative Projects List approach was utilized, which is a method that is expressly authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, subdivision (b)(1)(A). Table 3-1 includes reasonably probable future projects that are either awaiting approval based on a formal application having been submitted, approved but not yet constructed, or under construction, as of the date of NOP publication. This approach fully satisfies CEQA. Nothing in the law requires the City to use buildout in the General Plan as the basis for conducting cumulative impact analysis. Notably, YS Industry projects are listed in Table 3-1 and included in the cumulative analysis. Regarding the specific comment about the scope of cumulative projects considered in the analysis. The YS Industrial Park Phase 3 application was not deemed complete by the City when the NOP was circulated, and City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-73
therefore the City did not include it in the cumulative projects analysis. See also Response to GSEJA6. Thus, the commenter does not raise a legitimate issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response or revision of the Draft EIR is warranted.

Comment GSEJA-10
The commenter states that Table 3.11-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR provides an “erroneous and misleading” analysis of the proposed project and its significant and unavoidable impacts because it does not provide consistency analysis with all land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The commenter claims that the proposed project has significant potential to conflict with many of these policies, including General Plan Policy T-P-9, which requires maintaining acceptable levels of service for all transportation modes and facilities as established in General Plan Table 4-1, Intersection Level of Service Definitions, and Table 4-2, Level of Service Criteria for Roadway Segments.

Response to GSEJA-10
The comment is noted for the record. To the extent the comment involves general concerns about the consistency analysis and does not raise project-specific issues relating to environmental concerns, no further comment is required.

In preparing a land use consistency analysis for purposes of CEQA, the relevant goals and policies are those that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. It specifically does not require an analysis of all policies.

Also, to the extent the commenter raises concerns about the analysis’s treatment of certain specific goals and policies, the comment has not provided substantial evidence that the above-referenced goals and policies were adopted by the City for purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. For example, Policy T-P-9 addresses Level of Service (LOS) issues at intersections. Pursuant to SB 743, CEQA was amended to confirm that such LOS items are no longer typically cognizable under CEQA and thus LOS is no longer used as a metric to identify environmental effects. The traffic analysis included in the Draft EIR as Appendix I is consistent with the City's current traffic impact analysis guidelines (adopted in March 2021), which completely exclude roadway segment analysis and thresholds for the purpose of determining transportation deficiencies under CEQA.

Roadway segment analysis relies on assumptions of peak-hour traffic to estimate roadway capacities.

While this analysis is a good estimation of conditions along highways and freeways, it is generally not representative of the actual operations of roadways, which is directly related to the intersection operations during peak-hour conditions. For this reason, the City has moved away from roadway segment LOS requirements and relies on analysis of peak-hour conditions to determine transportation capacity needs.

Despite this, the Draft EIR includes an LOS as well as a queueing analysis that fully addresses the issues being raised in this comment. Furthermore, General Plan Policy T-P-18 states, “To ensure that citywide traffic service levels are maintained, require a traffic study, as a condition of development, of surrounding arterials, collectors, access roads, and regionally significant roadways for any major project that would require a General Plan amendment, and for projects where the proposed use could create traffic congestion because needed improvements identified by this General Plan would City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-74
not be completed before project occupancy or are not funded under the [Capital Improvement Plan] CIP.” Because the project land uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designations and because Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street have funded and designed CIP improvements, roadway segment analysis was not required to be considered. This comment does not otherwise raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR. No changes to the Draft EIR are warranted and no further response is required.

Comment GSEJA-11
The commenter claims that the proposed project has significant potential to conflict with many of these policies, including General Plan Policy T-P-15, which requires additional right-of-way and improvements of Circulation Element facilities where needed for turning movements or to provide access to adjacent properties wherever access is not feasible from the lower classification street system.

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

As noted by the commenter, the referenced policy requires “additional right-of-way and improvements of Circulation Element facilities where needed for turning movements or to provide access to adjacent properties wherever access is not feasible from the lower classification street system.”
As a preliminary matter, the commenter does not provide substantial evidence that the referenced policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Given the nature of the policy, it is reasonable for the City to conclude this policy is focused on planning and policy issues related to appropriate circulation improvements.

Moreover, the commenter does not indicate how the project would be inconsistent with this policy or provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact. To the contrary, the project proposes to construct or make fair share payments toward various identified circulation improvements, as discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description and Section 3.14, Transportation (including MM TRANS-1 through MM TRANS-9). The foregoing improvements are based, in part, on the City’s technical assessment of the appropriate and relevant circulation facilities that should be provided, either via construction or through proportionate fair share payment(s), in order to serve the project and consistent with the City’s overall CIP. These street and other transportation-related improvements, which were delineated, in part, via the LOS and queueing analysis conducted by the City and its transportation experts can be implemented within the General Plan roadway classifications right-of-way. Access to adjacent properties is maintained, consistent with the circulation element classifications. Additional right-of-way beyond the scope of the street standards is not necessary for the construction of the identified project circulation improvements.

The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. No change is warranted, and no further response is necessary.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-75
Comment GSEJA-12
The commenter claims that the proposed project has significant potential to conflict with many of these policies, including General Plan Policy T-P-61, to encourage high-security off-street parking areas for tractor-trailer rigs in industrial areas.

Response to GSEJA-12
See Responses to GSEJA-10 and GSEJA-11. Note that California courts have held that parking is appropriately recognized as a social issue and is not typically recognized as an environmental concern. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 CA4th 656, 697; Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v Watershed Conserv. Auth. (2021) 68 CA5th 8, 27 n10.)
As a preliminary matter, the commenter does not provide substantial evidence that the referenced policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Given the nature of the policy, it is reasonable for the City to conclude this policy is focused on planning and policy issues related to security in identified parking areas, which is typically not treated as a cognizable CEQA concern.

Moreover, the commenter does not indicate how the project would be inconsistent with this policy or provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that was not identified and disclosed in the Draft EIR. A consistency analysis was completed for the goals and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact that were relevant to the analysis.

Furthermore, the commenter’s approach to a consistency analysis for purposes of CEQA is inaccurate under the law. “The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine a proposed project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan. Consistency is achieved if a project will further the overall objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment, recognizing that a proposed project may be consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan, but not with each and every policy thereof. In all instances, in making a determination of consistency, the City may use its discretion to balance and harmonize policies with other complementary or countervailing policies in a manner that best achieves the City’s overall goals.” Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609. The courts have repeatedly held that “an action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 817.

Thus, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, a project is not required to comply with each and every General Plan goal and policy. CEQA does not contain any specific requirements for determining whether a project is inconsistent with an applicable plan. Courts will defer to a lead agency’s decision on consistency with its own plan unless, on the basis of evidence before the decisionmaking body, a “reasonable person” could not have found the project to be consistent. See, e.g., The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883, 896; Clover Valley Found. V.

City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 239.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-76
Moreover, simply identifying a handful of policies (as noted in Comments GSEJA-10 through GSEJA13), which have not been specifically and expressly addressed in the EIR, but not explaining the alleged inconsistency or significant environmental impact the omission would create (as these comments fail to do), is not sufficient to demonstrate that a reasonable person could not have found the project to be consistent. Also, CEQA is focused only on planning conflicts with policies that have been adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts (see, e.g., The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883), and as noted above, it is reasonable for the City to conclude that a number of the cited policies were not adopted for the purpose of avoiding o or mitigating environmental impacts, in which case they are not relevant for CEQA purposes. As explained above, under the Planning and Zoning Law, perfect consistency with all aspects of a general plan is not possible or required. As indicated above, a lead agency may find a proposed project to be consistent with relevant goals and policies in the local general plan if it determines that the subject project would further one or more policies and would not obstruct other policies. See, e.g., 67 Ops Cal Atty Gen 75 (1984); OPR, State of California General Plan Guidelines (2003). Generally, given that land use plans reflect a range of competing interests, a project should be compatible with the plan’s overall goals and objectives but need not be in perfect conformity with every plan policy. See, e.g., Golden Door Props., LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 502 (EIR finding that climate action plan would not be inconsistent with general plan was supported by substantial evidence); Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 (upholding overall consistency finding even though project deviated from some plan provisions because plan allowed for balancing of competing policies); Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719 (although a project should be “in harmony” with a general plan’s goals and objectives, it need not completely satisfy plan policies that allow for flexibility in interpretation and application).

As noted above, the commenter does not provide substantial evidence that the referenced policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts nor does it provide any specific information as to a potential project inconsistency therewith. Furthermore, Policy T-P-61 does not create any mandatory provisions that would apply to the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project would provide parking for automobiles, trailers, and trucks in accordance with the City’s applicable Municipal Code requirements, as well as include mounted outdoor lighting for maximum security.

Therefore, the Draft EIR properly concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the relevant provisions of the General Plan. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the City, as Lead Agency, has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. No further response is necessary.

Comment GSEJA-13
As a continuation of Comment GSEJA-10 through GSEJA-12, the commenter states that the proposed project has the potential to conflict with Policy AQ-O-3 of the General Plan, which aims to reduce GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change in accordance with federal and State law.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-77
Response to GSEJA-13
The commenter does not provide any substantial evidence to support its claim of inconsistency. To the contrary, as detailed more fully in the Draft EIR, the GHG emissions analysis demonstrates that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to the consistency of the proposed project with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for reducing GHG emissions.

See also Response AFTE-4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to GSEJA-17
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR includes a detailed discussion of the TCAG 2018 RTP/SCS, and consistency with Goal 10 (among others) specifically, in Impact LAND-2. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact requiring a revision of the Draft EIR. Nor does the comment identify a specific inconsistency with a mandatory provision in the 2018 RTP/SCS or Goal 10. It is important to note that Goal 10 is a broadly-framed goal that is part of a larger, regional policy document that seeks to provide, from a regional perspective, opportunities to coordinate land use, housing and the transportation system— based on localities’ growth projections. The notion that a specific development proposal that is identified to have significant air quality or GHG impacts that cannot be fully mitigated constitutes an improper inconsistency that automatically equates to a significant impact under CEQA is not supported by the law. The 2018 RTP/SCS does not govern local land use decisions; the City, in its discretion, has designated the project site for Industrial and Light Industrial uses, which are reflected in the City’s land use vision and the population and employment projections relied upon in the 2018 RTP/SCS. See Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, for additional discussion in this regard.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-82
In reviewing CEQA documents, courts generally recognize that plan goals and consistency therewith, in particular, are designed to provide policy guidance rather than to mandate specific regulatory requirements. See, e.g., Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Moreover, courts have consistently held that lead agencies have particularly broad discretion in determining a project’s consistency with such goals. See, e.g., North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 632; Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563. Accordingly, the City may determine that the proposed project is consistent with a goal to improve air quality when it approves projects that mitigate impacts to the fullest extent feasible, even if the project-specific environmental impacts remain significant. See also Response to GSEJA-12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment GSEJA-21
The commenter makes a generalized assertion that the Draft EIR has underreported the quantity of VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The commenter notes that the operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. The comment asserts that once employees arrive at work at the proposed project, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a warehouse, which will drastically increase project generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision-makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. The project’s actual VMT generated by all aspects of project operation is not consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce GHG emissions by reducing VMT. The comment concludes by stating that a revised EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity.

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

The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR has underreported the quantity VMT generated by the proposed project operations that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity. As a preliminary matter, the commenter does not provide any evidence beyond mere speculation that project VMT was underestimated in the Draft EIR.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-86
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR accurately reported the VMT results for the proposed project. The VMT analysis adhered to the metrics and threshold adopted in the City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, which are based on the OPR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. However, OPR guidelines exclude truck traffic from consideration in calculating project VMT.

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

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

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

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

No further response or change is warranted.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-87
Comment GSEJA-23
The commenter reiterates the assertion made in Comment GSEJA-15; it states that Appendix I Table 23: Summary of Access Recommendations, which provides recommendations to the site plan and off-site street areas to related project traffic queueing and safety, are not included as mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. For this reason, the commenter concludes that they are not required to be completed by the proposed project and outstanding project traffic queueing and safety issues exists, and the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts under Impact TRANS-3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, Tulare County currently has an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, or 20,800 people of the working population. There are a total of approximately 140,091 workers who both live in Tulare County and commute to work within the County. Given the foregoing plus the nature of the proposed project, it is reasonable to assume that a number of unemployed county residents living near the City of Visalia could accept a job working at one of the proposed project businesses, and would commute to the City to work.

Nonetheless, additional employees could potentially transfer into the area as a result of the proposed project, resulting in population growth. However, the General Plan contemplated a certain amount of population growth, projecting that its population would grow from 125,000 people in 2014 to 210,000 people by 2030, which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. It is notable that the City’s actual population growth has been slower than previously 4 City of Visalia. General Plan - Introduction. Website: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30473.

Accessed August 29, 2024.

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

Therefore, any population growth caused by increased employment opportunities provided by the proposed project would be within the planned growth anticipated in the General Plan. To the extent people transfer into the City and vicinity to fill the positions provided by the proposed project, it is reasonable to conclude that any such increase in potential housing demand could be readily absorbed by the local housing inventory and/or the pending and approved residential projects in the City and the surrounding area. As of this writing, the current housing vacancy rate in the City is 3.9 percent, and the County vacancy rate is 5.7 percent. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a significant, unplanned change to the population of the City or alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the anticipated population planned for the City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment does not raise a specific concern related to the proposed project’s physical impacts on the environment or otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response, change or recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is warranted.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-91
The comment’s suggestion that the Draft EIR was required to speculate as to whether referenced unemployed individuals have the qualifications and/or interest to seek project employment is inaccurate under the law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment does not raise a specific concern related to the proposed project’s physical impacts on the environment or otherwise raise a substantive issue related to the content of the EIR, and no further response, change or recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.is warranted.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-92
Comment GSEJA-27
The commenter purports to set forth various legal principles under CEQA related to alternatives analysis, including stating that the EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. The commenter asserts that the alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required “No Project” alternative and only two others. The commenter states that the EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives beyond the No Project Alternative, and fails to include an alternative that meets the project objectives and also eliminates all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.

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

The Draft EIR reflects CEQA’s requirements with respect to an adequate alternatives analysis. As explained therein, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Draft EIR contained a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project. The purpose of this analysis was to provide decision-makers, other interested organizations, and the public with a reasonable number of potentially feasible project alternatives that could attain most of the basic project objectives, while avoiding or reducing any of the project’s significant adverse environmental effects.

Important considerations for this alternatives analysis are noted below pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
• An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; • An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process;
• Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
- Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; - Infeasibility; or
- Inability to avoid significant environmental effects.

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

LIUNA

1 LIUNA

1 CONT
2 LIUNA

2 CONT
3 LIUNA

3 CONT
LIUNA

4 LIUNA

4 CONT
LIUNA

4 CONT
5 LIUNA

5 CONT
6 LIUNA

6 CONT
7 LIUNA

7 CONT
8 LIUNA

8 CONT
9 10
LIUNA

10 CONT
11 12
LIUNA

12 CONT
13 LIUNA

13 CONT
14 LIUNA

14 CONT
15 LIUNA

LIUNA

16 17
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA Page 31 of 89 17 CONT
LIUNA Page 32 of 89 17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
LIUNA

17 CONT
18 LIUNA

18 CONT
19 LIUNA

19 CONT
LIUNA

19 CONT
20 LIUNA

20 CONT
LIUNA Page 40 of 89 20 CONT
LIUNA Page 41 of 89 20 CONT
LIUNA Page 42 of 89 20 CONT
LIUNA Page 43 of 89 20 CONT
LIUNA

21 LIUNA

21 CONT
22 LIUNA

23 LIUNA

23 CONT
LIUNA

23 CONT
24 LIUNA

24 CONT
25 LIUNA

26 25
CONT
LIUNA

26 CONT
LIUNA

LIUNA

LIUNA

27 LIUNA

27 CONT
LIUNA

27 CONT
LIUNA

27 CONT
LIUNA

27 CONT
LIUNA

27 CONT
LIUNA

27 CONT
LIUNA

LIUNA

28 29
LIUNA

29 CONT
LIUNA

29 CONT
30 LIUNA

30 CONT
31 LIUNA

31 CONT
32 LIUNA

32 CONT
LIUNA

32 CONT
33 LIUNA

LIUNA

34 LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT
LIUNA

34 CONT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lead Agency is of the opinion that this Draft EIR and the public review process has sufficiently complied with State CEQA Guidelines. The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 245. Nor must an EIR analyze in detail mitigation measures it concludes are infeasible. Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 351. See also Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, 2nd Edition. While an EIR must respond to comments making specific suggestions for mitigating a significant impact unless the suggested mitigation is “facially infeasible,” a response that provides a reasoned analysis of the City’s determination that a proposed measure is infeasible or would not be useful is sufficient. An EIR need not explain why suggested mitigation measures that are described in general terms and are not specific to the project are infeasible. While the City is required to respond to such comments, it is not required to accept the suggested mitigation measures.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-185
The commenter purports to assert legal principles under CEQA related to mitigation, and then claims that the proposed project would result in potentially significant air quality impacts from ROG, NOx and PM10 and did not implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce its significant impacts, and provides a list of recommended mitigation measures. Each suggested mitigation measure is discussed below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM AIR-2d would require each project applicant, in connection with an individual specific development proposal, to include infrastructure for EV charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks) for the subject proposal, consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). Although this measure would not directly include functioning charging stations, the installation of the infrastructure needed to support charging stations would allow for the future charging stations to be installed. Furthermore, MM AIR2d would require the design of the building’s electrical room to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on-site. By providing EV charging infrastructure, this measure would allow for the installation of charging stations, which would provide a convenient location for employees to charge EVs and incentivize employees to use EVs.

MM AIR-2e would require the relevant project applicant to include signage and pavement markings along project site driveways and internal roadways to clearly identify on-site circulation patterns, minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel, and reduce vehicle idling, which would otherwise result in excessive NOX and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reduce Footprint Alternative would also substantially hamper the ability of the City to implement its longtime vision for the project site and instead increase land use incompatibilities, thereby creating inconsistencies with applicable goals and policies as set forth in the General Plan, including the designations and policies that contemplate light industrial and industrial uses (rather than agricultural uses). This alternative also would severely impair the objectives that seek to:
maximize development of the existing underutilized project site; create employment-generating businesses to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, and maximize the placement of industrial uses in close proximity to the State Highway system and other major transportation corridors to avoid or shorten truck trip lengths. It would also not meet the project objectives related to placement of industrial uses to avoid locating industrial buildings in close proximity to residential uses and other sensitive receptors.

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

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

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

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

Response to LIUNA-6
The Draft EIR appropriately considers all relevant cumulative developments, as described more fully therein. The City released a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-referenced “Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project” in April 2024. The physical conditions existing when the NOP for the subject development is published normally are used to establish the baseline for cumulative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15125 (a)(1). The NOP for the proposed project was issued August 29, 2022. The City has discretion to determine a reasonable date as a cutoff for which projects are to be included and considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 (agency has discretion to determine existing conditions baseline, subject to review for substantial evidence); Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 (county had discretion to set date of application for current project as cutoff date for deciding which projects to include in cumulative impacts analysis). In defining what constituted a “cumulative project” for purposes of this analysis, for purposes of “reasonably foreseeable future projects,” the City, in its discretion as lead agency, determined to include the following: (1) all approved but not yet constructed developments; and (2) all developments that had submitted formal applications with the City. When the project’s NOP was published, and the baseline for evaluation was set by the City, the application for the separate Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project had not been deemed complete, and therefore was not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable future project. Accordingly, the commenter’s suggestion that the Cumulative Impacts section of the Draft EIR is flawed for not including the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project is not accurate under the law; and the Draft EIR fully accounts for all relevant cumulative development projects known at the time environmental review commenced (i.e., NOP publication date). The commenter does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. No further response is required.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-190
For informational purposes, the following is noted. All proposed projects that involve discretionary review, regardless of whether they are included in the cumulative project list, including, without limitation, the “Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project” would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform with the applicable General Plan and City development standards and other requirements under applicable laws and regulations. For example, during the site-specific evaluation for the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project, its CEQA analysis determined that the foregoing development would not have any significant biological resources impacts, either individually or cumulatively, due to the fact that there is no suitable habitat for special-status species.

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

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

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

The Lead Agency concluded that a less than significant cumulative biological impact with mitigation incorporated. This is especially so where, as here, the impacts to sensitive species are small and the amount of habitat actually being used by those species is even smaller. CEQA requires that the project be adequately analyzed and that its environmental impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent feasible. The proposed mitigation measures satisfy CEQA by providing mitigation for the cumulative impacts to biological resources. Based on the information presented above, the lead agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to cumulative impacts and biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-191
The Cumulative Impacts portion of Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR adheres to the commenter’s suggested approach; for example, it specifies an appropriate geographical context, identifies the relevant cumulative developments being considered, and accounts for cumulative impacts related to special-status species, including Swainson’s hawk and Crotch’s bumblebee, through MM BIO-1b and BIO-1d (revised). The analysis in the Draft EIR confirms that, due to the already-urbanizing nature of the relevant geographic context, as well as the requirements that the relevant cumulative projects comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies, all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources, and all other site-specific mitigation measures, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also Response to LIUNA-7.

Comment LIUNA-9
The commenter generally summarizes comments to the Draft EIR with respect to habitat loss, movement impacts, traffic mortality, and cumulative impacts regarding biological resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover, CDFW’s Terrestrial Connectivity Map identifies the project site as a 1, having limited connectivity opportunity (measured on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being an irreplaceable and essential corridor) (see Figure 2-1: Terrestrial Connectivity Map). The project site is not within a known wildlife corridor. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-197
Figure 2-1: Terrestrial Connectivity Map
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-198
Comment LIUNA-11
The commenter makes the general statement that the Draft EIR fails to address the impacts to wildlife due to traffic collisions and provides estimates of species’ casualties based on the reported findings from Shawn Smallwood, PhD. The commenter concludes that this is a significant impact that must be disclosed, discussed, and mitigated in a recirculated Draft EIR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a preliminary matter, it is important to note there is concurrence with the premise that preconstruction surveys would not necessarily be sufficient, on their own, to fully mitigate identified impacts. Rather, such surveys are a first step; i.e., intended to confirm presence/absence of a species. To the extent presence is determined as a result of pre-construction surveys, then further steps would need to be taken, in the form of feasible protective measures, in order to reduce impacts.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-200
Accordingly, the mitigation measures referenced by the commenter go beyond simply requiring preconstruction surveys, and instead also include other detailed provisions to ensure adequate mitigation in the event special-status species are located on-site during ground/vegetation disturbance and/or construction activities. Furthermore, the City has agreed to revise, and the project applicant has agreed to implement, certain mitigation measure refinements as suggested by CDFW, which would further ensure impacts are fully mitigated. There is no requirement under CEQA or otherwise for the project applicant(s) to implement the commenter’s suggested mitigation. CDFW reviewed the Draft EIR and had three very minor comments. CDFW did not propose any additional mitigation measures that were not already include in the Draft EIR, rather they provide minor comments on mitigation that was already contained within the Draft EIR. Further, the applicant addressed their comments in this document. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarifications as noted above.

See also Responses LIUNA-6 through LIUNA-12.

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

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

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

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

The latest California Building Energy Efficiency Code went in effect on January 1, 2023. The latest requirements for solar panel installation (Section 140.10) are more stringent than the original MM GHG-2(a), which, crafted per SJVAPCD suggestion in their NOP comment letter dated September 28, 2022, only required the project applicant to install one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78. Therefore, MM GHG-2(a) has been revised to reflect the solar panel installation obligation under State law per California Building Energy Efficiency Code Section 140.10.

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

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

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

The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with CAP actions related to Energy by including MM GHG-2a which requires installation of solar photovoltaic system to increase 5 To present a conservative estimate of emissions, the Draft EIR did not take any reductions related to the inclusion a solar photovoltaic system.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-202
generation and use of renewable energy. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with other CAP actions related to reduction energy consumption such as, including drought-tolerant landscaping that requires less water demand and consequently less electricity to convey that water to the project site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Response to GSEJA-7 for further justification for the methodology used for the HRA.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-203
No further response is needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment LIUNA-18
The commenter first generally summarizes requirements under CEQA in terms of the scope of information necessary to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting (including the relevant regional setting), which is then used as the basis for opining as to the potential impacts of the project being considered. The commenter then asserts that the Draft EIR’s analysis, and the related steps taken, were “incomplete and misleading.”
Response to LIUNA-18
As an example of the Draft EIR’s inadequacy, the commenter points to the description and conclusions set forth int the BRA regarding a valley oak (that has a substantial portion of its canopy overhanging the project site). The commenter disagrees with the conclusion there are no roots south of Modoc Ditch. To the extent this statement is general in nature and does not raises any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-205
Regarding its specific comment about the valley oak, the commenter’s assertion about the nature and scope of the root zone for the above-referenced valley oak is speculative. As a preliminary matter, the Draft EIR and related BRA identify the valley oak, although rooted on adjacent property, as having a substantial portion of its canopy overhanging onto the project site, and characterize it a sensitive biological resource due to its local rarity, the locally unique ecosystem services it provides (including shading, nesting, and roosting and foraging opportunities, nutrient cycling, and others), and its status as a protected tree under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Specifically with respect to the root zone, the relevant conclusions set forth in Appendix C, Biological Resources Supporting Information, to the Draft EIR are as follows: the roots of the on-site valley oak “are on the north side of the ditch away from construction and would avoid impacts as a result.” Furthermore, compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those set forth in the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24, Article 4 Oak Tree Preservation), which prevents any encroachment into the canopy dripline of the oak trees during construction, regardless of root location, would ensure impacts to the oak tree in question (which is a “protected” tree under the Ordinance) are less than significant.

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

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

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

The table details why the anticipated potential for each of these species to occur on-site was either addressed further in the BRA or was “None” based on a lack of suitable habitat.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-206
As noted in Response to LIUNA-8 above contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the BRA describes how “general site conditions” as well as the basis for determining the suitability of the habitat for specific species were assessed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The commenter does not define what is meant by the protection of “productive capacity.” To the extent it is meant to reference the future number of species that could potentially be birthed on the site, this is not a threshold or topic area under CEQA and is therefore not a necessary component that will be addressed in this response.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-210
Moreover, as discussed in detail in the Draft EIR and related BRA, the habitats present on-site are not considered sensitive because, among other reasons, they have been significantly altered from their natural state to support an actively managed almond orchard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The commenter also refers to the 36,100 trees present on-site.

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

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

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

This commenter asserts there are 36,100 trees present on-site. This presumably refers to the actively managed almond orchard present on-site and argues that mitigation and surveying of these trees would not be achievable in 7 days. However, this underestimates the manpower allocated to the subsequent survey efforts and assumes the number of hours needed to survey the site. The commenter’s argument is based on assumptions and does not provide evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Draft EIR, and as such, the document has adequately addressed this issue under CEQA. The Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA.

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

Comment LIUNA 26
The commenter reiterates his prior recommendations regarding changes and/or additions to project mitigation. Specifically, the commenter recommends the addition of requirements to (1) conduct protocol-level detection surveys, (2) provide compensatory mitigation for habitat loss, (3) provide compensatory mitigation for the increased wildlife mortality and road traffic, and (4) provide compensatory mitigation that includes funding contributions to wildlife habitation facilities to cover the cost of injured animals due to automobile collisions.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-213
Response to LIUNA-26
These comments are noted for the record. For the reasons set forth herein, the commenter’s suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA, and the Lead Agency has determined to rely upon its biological resource experts in terms of the methodology and conclusions set forth in the Draft EIR and related BRA. Please also refer to Responses to LIUNA-9, LIUNA-10, LIUNA-11, LIUNA-12, LIUNA15, and LIUNA-21). The Lead Agency is of the opinion that potential project impacts related to biological resources have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required.

Comment LIUNA-27
The commenter provides a CV for Kenneth Shawn Smallwood, an ecologist, who prepared a peer review of the BRA of the Draft EIR and sets forth comments to the Draft EIR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-214
the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarification as noted above.

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

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

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

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

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

Comment LIUNA-32
The commenter reasserts claims made in LIUNA-4 related to potentially significant air quality impacts from ROG, NOX and PM10. The commenter reiterated that the Draft EIR did not implement all feasible mitigation measures, as well. The comment raises a number of other issues with these measures.

City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-215
Response to LIUNA-32
See Responses to AFTE-3 through AFTE-5 and LIUNA-4.

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

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

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

Finally, because the Draft EIR reflects a reasoned analysis that thoughtfully discloses the project’s air quality, energy and GHG impacts and identifies mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
2-217
the extent feasible, the Draft EIR is sufficient under the law, no changes are warranted, and recirculation is not triggered. Based on the information presented above, the Lead Agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA, therefore no further analysis or revisions are required except for clarification as noted above.See also Responses to AFTE-3 through AFTE-5, SJVAPCD- through SJVAPCD-9 and Response to LIUNA-4, above.

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

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

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

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

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
LOCAL1109