The following conclusions are based on the information compiled during the literature review, including aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps and resource maps for the vicinity; the field survey; and professional experience with the desired topography, habitat, and resource requirements of the special-status species potentially utilizing the project site and vicinity.
Approach to Analysis
Impacts on biological resources were evaluated based on the likelihood that special-status species, sensitive habitats, wildlife corridors, and protected trees are present on the project site, and the likely effects of project construction or operation on these resources. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, the word “substantial” as used in the significance thresholds above is defined by the following three principal components:
• Magnitude and duration of the impact (e.g., substantial/not substantial), • Uniqueness of the affected resource (rarity), and
• Susceptibility of the affected resource to disturbance.
The study area for the proposed project is defined as the project site as well as any areas surrounding the site that would be disturbed by the proposed project.
21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special- Status Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2022. 22 Peterson, T.R. 2010. A Field Guide to Birds of Western North America, 4th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 23 Reid, F. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 24 Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 25 eBird. 2020. Online bird occurrence database. Website: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/. Accessed November 3, 2022. 26 California Herps. 2020. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Website: http://www.californiaherps.com/. Accessed November 3, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-18
3.4.5 - Thresholds of Significance
Significance Criteria
The lead agency derives its significance criteria based on the questions in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist. Accordingly, impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.
For purposes of this analysis, the following criteria consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 are considered in evaluating the significance of biological resources impacts resulting from implementation of the project. Specifically, whether the project would:
• Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop to below self-sustaining levels; • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or • Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.
3.4.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures where appropriate.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-19
Special-status Species
Impact BIO-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special-status Plant Species
Seventeen special-status plant species and CNPS sensitive species that have been recorded within the Goshen, California USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles by the CNDDB and CNPSEI were evaluated (Appendix C.2, Table 1).27,28 The evaluation includes the species’ status, required habitat, and potential to occur within the project site. As detailed more fully in Appendix C, none of the special-status plant species were determined to have potential to occur on-site primarily due to the absence of suitable habitat, past and current land use, and the extent and frequency of ground disturbance. Because of the absence of special-status plant species as well as the absence of suitable habitat for these species, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any special-status plant species.
Special-status Wildlife Species
The following section analyzes potential project-related impacts on special-status wildlife species and establishes feasible avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential project-related impacts to less than significant levels.
Swainson’s Hawk
Suitable Swainson’s hawk nesting trees are located on the project site and suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is present on adjacent properties north and east of the project site. Swainson’s hawks readily habituate to a variety of human disturbances including construction. Swainson’s hawk nests are often found along busy roadways and in a variety of settings where substantial noise and other disturbances occur, including in agricultural areas. There are conditions, however, where the potential for abandonment is increased. This can occur when new disturbances are introduced to an otherwise open, rural setting. Under these conditions, no-disturbance buffers are important to avoid nest abandonment. No-disturbance buffers are intended to prevent all ground-disturbing activities and project-related entry of any sort into the buffer area. Although tolerant of human presence and activities, Swainson’s hawks are most sensitive to direct observation of the nest by people.
Therefore, restrictions within buffers should prohibit all entry and direct observation of the nest.
If a Swainson’s hawk nest is active on or near the project site during construction, the proposed project could impact this species in several ways:
27 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special- Status Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed October 20, 2022. 28 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed October 20, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-20
• The proposed project could cause direct harm to the species by the destruction of active nests during tree removal activities.
• The proposed project could cause indirect harm to the species through the noise, light and other man-made disturbances resulting from project construction and operation, which may result in this species abandoning its nests.
The project developer would be responsible for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in place protecting Swainson’s hawk, including applicable provisions of CESA, MBTA, and the Fish and Game Code. These laws and regulations are described in Section 3.4.3 and are designed to reduce potential project-related impacts on Swainson’s hawk.
The project site does not currently provide foraging habitat due to the existing orchard operations.
Therefore, development of the proposed project would not remove foraging area for this species.
To further reduce potential impacts on Swainson’s hawk to less than significant levels under CEQA and avoid the “take” of a Swainson’s hawk as defined by CESA, Mitigation Measures (MM) BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b will be required to increase the potential to detect Swainson’s hawk nests and to establish adequate nest protection zones to decrease the chance of accidental violation of the above laws and to conform with applicable CDFW Guidelines.
29 In 2000, the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee prepared the above-noted Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley that focused on the timing of surveys and, as an alternative to the 1994 CDFW guidance (requiring 0.5 mile no-disturbance buffer), provided information on disturbance buffers and the risk to active nests. Although the members of the Technical Advisory Committee and other biologists have years of supporting observational data from a variety of construction or other related disturbances, the distance guidance in the Technical Advisory Committee document primarily used data from the California Department of Water Resources Delta Temporary Barriers project and other Delta projects. Annual surveys and nest monitoring are conducted to avoid nest abandonment resulting from project activities. This has resulted in a more reasonable data-based approach to assessing disturbance impacts and establishing buffers. Based on these data, the Technical Advisory Committee guidance indicates that the lowest risk of nest abandonment is achieved at a distance of 600 feet. The Technical Advisory Committee guidance on distance buffers has been regularly used for many years as an alternative to the 1994 CDFW guidance. Therefore, it has been determined that a 600-foot no-disturbance buffer prohibiting all entry during the breeding season would be sufficient for the proposed project should an active Swainson’s hawk nest become established.
Western Burrowing Owl
While no suitable habitat for western burrowing owl exists on-site (see Section 3.4.2), and no burrowing owl or signs thereof were observed on adjacent fields during the time of the survey, it cannot be ruled out that nesting burrowing owl may be present within disturbance distance of the proposed project, which is currently considered to be 500 feet. If project activities include a
29 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Sacramento, California. May 31, 2000.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-21
significant increase in noise or other indirect disturbance of an active burrowing owl within 500 feet of an active burrowing nest were to occur, premature nest abandonment and loss of viable eggs or young could take place. Loss of burrowing owl would be considered a significant impact. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1c, detection and protection of active burrowing nests on adjacent fields would reduce this potential impact to less than significant.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
Potential presence of San Joaquin kit fox is unlikely because no signs of suitable denning habitat were observed during the field surveys, and if it occurred, San Joaquin kit fox presence would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site in search of suitable habitat. The project site does not include suitable habitat and no suitable dens were observed on-site. However, a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the project site will be required (MM BIO-1d), and standard San Joaquin fox avoidance measures will follow to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
American Badger
Potential presence of American badger is unlikely because no dens or burrows suitable for this species were observed during the field surveys, and if it occurred, American badger presence would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site to find suitable habitat. The project site does not include suitable habitat and no suitable dens or burrows were observed on-site.
However, a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the project site shall be required (MM BIO-1d) to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Standard avoidance measures for the San Joaquin kit fox (MM BIO-1d) would also act to protect the American badger.
Crotch’s Bumblebee
Potential presence of Crotch’s bumblebee is unlikely because entire project site consists of actively managed orchard and no required habitat elements for this species are present, and if it occurred, it would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site to find suitable habitat. The project site does not include suitable habitat. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on this species. However, a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the site shall be required (MM BIO-1d) to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
Nesting Birds
Birds protected under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code are legally protected and considered sensitive during the active nesting period and are therefore included in this impact analysis for special-status species. The extensive almond orchards, numerous ornamental trees, and the stand of large eucalyptus trees along (outside of) the southern boundary of the project site provide suitable habitat for a variety of species of nesting birds, including Swainson’s hawk.
Construction activities that occur during the avian nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) could disturb nesting sites for bird species protected under the MBTA or the Fish and Game Code. Further, the removal of trees during the nesting season could result in direct harm to nesting birds, while noise, light and other man-made disturbances may cause nesting birds to abandon their nests.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-22
The project developer would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations protecting active bird nests, including MBTA and Fish and Game Code. These laws and regulations are described in Section 3.4.3 and are designed to reduce potential project-related impacts on protected nesting birds.
To reduce potential impacts on protected bird nests to less than significant levels, MM BIO-1e will be required to increase the potential to detect protected bird nests and to establish adequate nest protection zones to decrease the chance of accidental violation of applicable laws.
Roosting Bats
If protected bat roosts are present on the project site or within disturbance distance, demolition activities have the potential to disturb/disrupt protected bat roosts, potentially leading to direct destruction or premature roost abandonment and loss of bats (including young or rare/sensitive bat species).
The project developer would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations (including the Fish and Game Code) related to the take of non-game mammals naturally occurring in California, including bats. These laws and regulations are listed in Section 3.4.3 and are intended to reduce potential project-related impacts on naturally occurring non-game mammals, including bats.
To reduce potential impacts on roosting bats to less than significant levels, MM BIO-1f will be required to increase the potential to detect protected bat roosts and reduce the likelihood of disturbing or disrupting such roosts.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Pre-construction Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk
Prior to initial ground disturbance or building permits of any project area, if during the nesting season for Swainson’s hawk (March 20 to July 20), a qualified Biologist shall conduct Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys on-site and within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site to determine whether nests are present and if so, occupied.
Occupancy shall be determined through observation of all accessible areas, including from public roads or other publicly accessible observation areas of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) on and near the project site. If ground disturbance occurs outside the nesting season, no further action is required.
A qualified Biologist shall follow the survey protocol outlined in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, which recommends surveys according to the following survey periods:
1. January–March 20: Conduct one survey total.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-23
2. March 20–April 5: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.
3. April 5–April 20: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:30 p.m. to sunset.
4. April 21–June 10: Initiating surveys are not recommended. Monitoring of known nest sites only.
5. June 10–July 30: (post-fledging) Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to the subject ground-disturbing activities being initiated, with the latest survey no more than 10 days prior to the start of the subject ground- disturbing A copy of the survey results shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
MM BIO-1b Swainson’s Hawk Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring If nests are located and determined to be occupied, minimization measures must be implemented by the relevant applicant in connection with a specific individual development application, and construction monitoring conducted as follows:
1. Construction activities shall be prohibited within 600 feet of an active and occupied Swainson’s hawk nest or within 600 feet of nests under construction to prevent nest abandonment unless a smaller buffer is approved pursuant to subsection (2) below. This incorporates the maximum avoidance buffer size stated in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley.
2. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the construction activity (e.g., other nearby development, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer, or no buffer at all, could be used, the project developer may seek approval from the qualified Biologist who, in coordination with the CDFW, shall determine the appropriate buffer size, which, once approved, shall govern.
3. No tree containing an active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be removed.
If (i) no nests are located or (ii) if nests are located and determined not to be occupied, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under MM BIO-1b shall be required.
MM BIO-1c Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl (includes avoidance and passive relocation if found)
To determine whether burrowing owl have occupied the project site prior to its development, a qualified Biologist shall perform a pre-construction burrowing owl survey to determine burrow locations within 30 days prior to construction activities City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-24
using California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Guidelines. If construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the area shall be resurveyed. Surveys for occupied burrows shall be completed within all construction areas and within 300 feet of the proposed project impact area (where possible and appropriate based on locations of barren or ruderal habitats). At least 15 days prior to the expected start, or restart, of any project-related ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall provide a burrowing owl survey report with mapping exhibits to the CDFW. If no burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, no further action is necessary.
If burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, the following actions shall be taken to offset impacts during construction (as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Guidelines):
• During the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), no disturbance shall occur within an approximately 160-foot radius of an occupied burrow. During the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed within a 300-foot radius unless a qualified Biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
• If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques (as outlined by the CDFW [i.e., use of one-way doors]) should be used rather than trapping. At least one or more weeks will be necessary to accomplish this and to allow the owls to acclimate to alternate burrows. • If unpaired owls or paired owls are present in or within 300 feet of areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation (e.g., grading) and nesting is not occurring, owls are to be removed per CDFW-approved passive relocation protocols. Passive relocation requires the use of one-way exclusion doors, which must remain in place at least 48 hours prior to site disturbance to ensure owls have left the burrow prior to construction. A CDFW-approved exclusion plan would be required to implement this measure.
• If paired owls are nesting in areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation, nest(s) shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31 by a minimum 300- foot buffer or until fledging has occurred. Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated.
MM BIO-1d Pre-construction Special-status Species Wildlife Surveys and Protective Measures if Found, Including Standard Avoidance Measures for San Joaquin Kit Fox.
Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species be City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-25
detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue.
Copies of all reports and communication with the appropriate wildlife agencies shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
The following standardized recommendations as outlined by the USFWS for the protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox shall be implemented during project construction:
1. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible.
However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off- road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.
2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed.
Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below.
3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the Biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
6. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.
7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-26
depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project- related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.
8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.
9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project.
The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.
10. Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions.
11. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for guidance.
12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.
13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.
14. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-27
MM BIO-1e Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).
1. Removal of trees shall occur in compliance with and as required by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
2. If project development requires trees to be removed during the nesting season, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted 7 days prior to tree removal to determine whether active nests are present.
3. If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on species and anticipated disturbance level. The buffer shall be 250 feet for migratory bird species and 500 feet for raptors. That no-disturbance buffer can be reduced if it is determined whether a qualified on-site monitor determines through monitoring the effects of activities on the nest that the buffer can be reduced without nest abandonment or otherwise affecting nest success.
4. The relevant applicant of the proposed development at issue shall physically mark the nest protection zone with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow caution tape. The nest protection zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the nest protection zones until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist.
5. The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest(s) periodically during construction activities to prevent any significant impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project, until the young have fledged. Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
If no active nests are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1e shall be required.
MM BIO-1f Protection of Roosting Bats (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).
If tree removal or demolition of existing structures is proposed in connection with project development, trees and/or structures with features capable of supporting roosting bats shall be surveyed by a qualified Biologist for bat roosts or evidence of bat roosting (guano, urine staining and scent, dead bats) not more than 14 days before the start of ground disturbance, including vegetation removal. If active roosts are discovered, a protection zone of no less than 50 feet around the active roost shall be established by the qualified Biologist. Disturbance may occur within the buffer once active roosting ceases, as determined by the qualified Biologist.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-28
If roosts are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats shall be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or structure is removed. A bat Exclusion Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave, but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts shall be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance. If no active roosts are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1f shall be required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Sensitive Natural Communities or Riparian Habitat
Impact BIO-2: Would t he project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
None of the vegetation communities on-site and described in Section 3.4.2 are considered riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No sensitive natural communities are present on- site, and there is no riparian habitat present on-site. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Wetlands and Jurisdictional Features
Impact BIO-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The proposed project involves the removal or modification of the existing retention basin and would potentially require new culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch and extension of one existing culvert crossing (Exhibit 3.4-2).
As stated in Section 3.4.2, Modoc Ditch and the retention basin are not expected to be considered State- or federally protected aquatic resources pursuant to CWA Sections 404/401 and/or Fish and Game Code Section 1602. Moreover, because both features are parts of actively managed irrigation infrastructure, and therefore disconnected from natural flows downstream, it is not expected that City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-29
the proposed modifications would cause indirect impacts on State- or federally protected aquatic resources downstream.
A preliminary JD was conducted for the proposed project (Appendix C). According to the JD, the Modoc Ditch is likely an irrigation ditch that was solely constructed for the purposes of irrigation of agricultural areas. It has no downstream connection to federal or State water resources. The Modoc Ditch upstream connection to the Saint John’s River is likely artificial, and if irrigation activities surround the Modoc Ditch were to end, water would stop flowing into the ditch and it would subsequently dry up. Therefore, impacts to the Modoc Ditch would likely be exempt from permitting with the RWQCB due to the lack of connection to waters of the State and the status as an irrigation ditch constructed in an otherwise upland area, solely for the purpose of agricultural irrigation.
Modoc Ditch also lacks native plant communities or habitats and is of a low-quality habitat for wildlife. Therefore, impacts to Modoc Ditch would not likely require permitting with CDFW due to the project impacts not resulting in negative effects to habitat for wildlife or aquatic habitats.
Regardless, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal and State water quality laws and regulations, including CWA 402 (NPDES), and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (including stormwater control permits), and Fish and Game Code as described in Section 3.4.3. Compliance with all applicable provisions of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act would be sufficient for the proposed project to reduce potential impacts to State- and federally protected waters or wetlands to a less than significant level under CEQA.
It is notable that CDFW in its October 17, 2022, comment letter to the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project NOP (State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658) from October 17, 2022, submitted to the City of Visalia, the CDFW does not request submittal of a Notification of Streambed Alteration, indicating that none is required. No additional mitigation measures would typically be warranted in such instances.
However, in accordance with City standards and to further confirm that the project site does not contain any State or federally protected aquatic resources, MM BIO-3 shall be required for the proposed project.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602.
If Modoc Ditch is considered jurisdictional by the regulating agencies, the relevant project developer shall, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-30
obtain the relevant permit applications based on coordination with the appropriate regulating agencies, if required prior to impacting any waters.
As part of these authorizations, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulating agencies to offset the loss of aquatic resources. If so, and as part of the permit application process, a qualified professional shall draft a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address implementation and monitoring requirements under the permit(s) to ensure that the subject development proposal would result in no net loss of habitat functions and values. The Plan shall contain, at a minimum, mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation location, a discussion of actions to be implemented to mitigate the impact, monitoring methods and performance criteria, extent of monitoring to be conducted, actions to be taken in the event that the mitigation is not successful, and reporting requirements. The Plan shall be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and compensatory mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an appropriate off-site location, if required. Copies of the Plan and associated report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
Any material/spoils generated from project activities containing hazardous materials shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from stormwater runoff using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate and feasible. Protection measures should follow project- specific criteria as developed in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP).
Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.
Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely and in a feasible manner. In the event of any such spillage, the contaminated area shall be cleaned by the party responsible for the spillage, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Fish and Wildlife Movement Corridors
Impact BIO-4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-31
Most of the site consists of actively managed orchards and does not contain habitat features such as riparian corridors that could function as wildlife corridors. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by active roadways, active agriculture, and industrial and residential development, all of which impede the movement of wildlife and limit the use of the project site as a potential corridor for wildlife movement. The project site is not within a known wildlife corridor.
While the project site does is not within a known wildlife corridor, active bird nests and bat maternity roosts are potential wildlife nursery sites. Potential project-related impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts are analyzed and discussed under Impact BIO-1 and are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f would avoid significant impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts by establishing protection zones if nests or roosts are found and would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Local Policies or Ordinances
Impact BIO-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The valley oak (Section 3.4.2; Exhibit 3.4-1) rooted across Modoc Ditch with its canopy overhanging the project site is protected under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including against “Encroachment into canopy dripline of oak trees during construction” (Article 4; Section 3.4.3). The proposed project involves no vertical structures, soil disturbance or access road construction at this location (Exhibit 3.4-2). Therefore, impacts on the valley oak would be less than significant.
The proposed project would require removal of up to approximately 1.19 acre of non-native ornamental trees. These trees would only be considered protected or regulated if they are within the City’s right-of-way. This may be the case for the cedar tree in the southeast corner of the project site, potentially within the right-of-way of Riggin Avenue.
With compliance with the City’s Street Tree Ordinance, however, potential impacts on trees regulated by the City’s Street Tree Ordinance would be less than significant without additional mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-32
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan
Impact BIO-6: Would the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
The proposed project does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted HCP , NCCP , or other approved local, regional, or State HCP . No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
3.4.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The general geographic scope of the cumulative biological resources analysis is within the City of Visalia’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) as shown on Table 3-1. Existing cumulative projects in the geographic scope of the biological resources analysis include active mixed agriculture to the north and east, industrial complexes to the west and south, and a dairy farm to the south. The planned developments listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 are predominantly located in areas that have already been built out with limited potential to support special-status wildlife and plant species, wildlife corridors and wildlife nursery sites, and protected trees.
Furthermore, as noted below, there is a comprehensive regulatory framework that is imposed on cumulative projects to help ensure protected biological resources are identified and any significant impacts are feasibly mitigated. Accordingly, there is a low likelihood of special-status wildlife or plants, wildlife corridors or nursery sites, or protected trees occurring within these urban cumulative project areas due to past ground disturbance and planned for development.
Special-status Species
Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies and all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources. Cumulative projects would be required to adhere to standard pre-construction surveys and implement, if necessary, avoidance procedures would be required for projects with the potential to impact special-status wildlife species (see, e.g., MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1d). Given the already urbanizing nature of the cumulative geographic context and because cumulative development would be required to comply with the above requirements, as well as applicable General Plan and Municipal Code requirements (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework) cumulative biological impacts related to special-status species would be less than significant.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-33
Special-status Plant Species
The proposed project’s incremental contribution to less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Based on reasonable assumptions, this analysis concludes that no cumulative impacts on special-status plant species would result from the cumulative projects shown on Exhibit 3-1 due to the low probability of special-status plants to occur on active agricultural lands, and the generally applicable laws and regulations protecting special-status plant species. Therefore, this would constitute a less than significant cumulative impact.
Moreover, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species or to designated or proposed critical habitat for plant species on the project site. No suitable habitat for these species occurs within the project site and none were identified during the field survey.
Therefore, because none are present on the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative effects to special-status plants.
Special-status Wildlife Species
As discussed above, because cumulative development would be required to comply with the applicable requirements as described in the Regulatory Framework section, cumulative biological impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts on these protected functional groups are expected.
Moreover, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project site is an actively managed orchard with a few ornamental trees, and provides negligible habitat value for special-status wildlife species.
No special-status species are expected to successfully establish at the project site long term.
Therefore, no cumulative impacts on special-status wildlife species are expected.
Additionally, upon compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and the implementation of recommended mitigation measures (MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1c, and MM BIO-1d), potential short-term impacts to special-status wildlife species due to the proposed project are not expected to be significant. Potential project-related impacts on protected active bird nests and bat roosts will be avoided by compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and through implementation of MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to substantially affect regional populations and would not be cumulatively significant.
Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities Within the cumulative project areas, development would not directly and significantly impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities because they are largely located in previously developed or disturbed areas. Most of the current developments are designed to address future growth problems, prevent urban sprawl, and minimize developmental impacts to sensitive natural communities. Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies relating to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, implementation of applicable General Plan and Municipal Code requirements (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework) would City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-34
result in less than significant cumulative impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
Additionally, because none of the vegetation communities on the project site are riparian or otherwise sensitive natural communities, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact on sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat.
State or Federally Protected Waters and Wetlands
Within the cumulative project areas, development would not directly and significantly impact sensitive natural communities and/or the aquatic resources outlined above because they are largely sited in previously developed or highly disturbed areas. Furthermore, cumulative projects with the potential to impact wetlands, other waters, or riparian habitat would be required to adhere to any applicable laws and regulations including, for example, consultation that may be required with the applicable regulatory agencies, the quantification of their potential impacts in a formal JD, and implementation of any required mitigation pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. As such, there is a less than significant cumulative impact.
Additionally, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact. The Modoc Ditch and the retention basin present on-site are not expected to be considered State- or federally protected aquatic resources pursuant CWA Sections 404/401 and/or Fish and Game Code Section 1602. However, in line with the City’s standard practice, MM BIO-3a is included in the proposed project. The implementation of MM BIO- 3a would ensure potential significant impacts to State or federally protected waters and wetlands would be identified and avoided to the extent feasible, and the proposed project would otherwise be required to comply with the comprehensive regulatory framework to the extent applicable.
Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impacts on State- or federally protected waters and wetlands.
Local Policies or Ordinances
It is reasonably foreseeable that other cumulative projects identified in Table 3-1 may result in the removal of trees, which would be governed by the applicable local protection ordinance including the City’s Street Tree Ordinance and relevant General Plan Policies. Therefore, impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively significant.
Moreover, development of the proposed project and any related development of cumulative projects would not result in any conflicts with local tree policies or ordinances protecting trees or other biological resources given that the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and mandates, including, among others, the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
As such, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution on this already less than significant cumulative impact. The proposed project would require removal of up to approximately 1.19 acres of non-native ornamental trees. These trees would only be considered protected or regulated if they are within the City’s right-of-way. With compliance with the City’s City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-35
Street Tree Ordinance, however, potential impacts on trees regulated by the City’s Street Tree Ordinance would be less than significant without additional mitigation.
Fish and Wildlife Movement Corridors
The planned developments listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 are predominantly located in areas that have already been built out or with limited potential to support wildlife corridors. Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable General Plan Policies and Municipal Code requirements (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework Section) that protect fish and wildlife movement corridors.
With implementation of these policies cumulative projects would result in less than significant cumulative impact to fish and wildlife movement corridors.
The project site does not function as a wildlife corridor. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to any cumulative impacts in this regard.
Wildlife Nursery Sites
The planned developments listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 are predominantly located in areas that have already been built out or have limited potential to support wildlife nursey sites. Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable General Plan Policies, Municipal Code requirements, and other applicable regulations (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework) that protect wildlife nursey sites. With implementation of these policies cumulative projects would result in less than significant cumulative impact to wildlife nursery.
Nesting birds and roosting bats, including groups of species that are protected under federal and State law and are considered sensitive and protected under certain conditions (e.g., when nesting, breeding), are known to use the sites within the cumulative development areas for nesting and roosting. Removal of tall nest trees that are critical for species reliant on taller nest trees (e.g., the ash and pine trees on-site), may contribute to significant cumulative impacts on loss of suitable nest trees for bird species reliant on tall trees (e.g., Buteo species), if similar trees nearby are also removed, and not replaced in kind. Therefore, there are potential cumulative impacts to wildlife nursery sites.
Potential project-related impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts are analyzed and discussed under Impact BIO-1 and are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of MM BIO- 1e and MM BIO-1f would avoid impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts by establishing protection zones if nests or roosts are found and would reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to any significant cumulative impacts in this regard.
Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plan Consistency There is no adopted HCP , NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP within the geographic scope of this cumulative analysis. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed project does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted HCP , NCCP , or City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-36
other approved local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to any cumulative impacts in this regard.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f and MM BIO-3.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 41150039 • 11/2022 | 3.4-1_land_cover_veg.mxd
Exhibit 3.4-1
Land Cover and Vegetation
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery.
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
500 0 500250
Feet
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Land Cover and Vegetation
Access Road (dirt) 6.61 acres
Almond orchards 275.09 acres
Irrigation Cannal 1.41 acres
Ornamental Trees 1.19 acres
Retention Pond 0.28 acre
Valley Oak
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41150039 • 11/2022 | 3.4-2_bio_impacts.mxd
Exhibit 3.4-2
Impacts on Biological Resources
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. 4-Creeks, July 2022.
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
500 0 500250
Feet
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Limits of Disturbance (LOD)
Land Cover and Vegetation Project Site LOD Access Road (dirt) 6.61 acres 4.61 acres Almond orchards 275.09 acres 260.93 acres Irrigation Cannal 1.41 acres 0.05 acre Ornamental Trees 1.19 acres 1.18 acres Retention Pond 0.28 acre 0.23 acre Valley Oak
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-1
3.5 - Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) setting and potential effects that may result from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. The descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on information provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a records search conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), archival research, and a pedestrian survey as presented in the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment (Phase I CRA) prepared for the proposed project, which is included in Appendix D. This appendix contains sensitive information relating to cultural resources and is not available for public distribution pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(C)(2).
A copy of it is on file with the City and is available to qualified professionals upon request. The applicable regulatory framework is also discussed below. In addition, recommendations provided in the Phase I CRA pertaining to feasible mitigation of identified potential significant impacts to cultural and TCRs are also addressed in this section.
One comment letter was received from the NAHC with respect to the scope of environmental review, indicating the receipt of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) pertaining to this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and including a request for consultation for the proposed project. The letter contained information pertaining to the lead agency's obligations under Assembly Bill (AB) 52.
Overview
The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic resources, archaeological resources, TCRs and burial sites, which are generally defined as follows:
• Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State’s history and are generally less than 200 years old. Historic resources often take the form of buildings, structures, and other elements of the built environment. • Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of artifacts and material culture with the aim of understanding human activities and cultures in the past. Archaeological resources may be associated with precontact indigenous cultures as well as later historic periods. • Tribal Cultural Resources: TCRs include sites, features, places, or objects that are of cultural value to one or more California Native American Tribes. • Burial Sites and Cemeteries: Burial sites and cemeteries are formal or informal locations where human remains have been interred. Burial sites may be associated with precontact indigenous cultures as well as later historic periods.
More specifically, cultural resources may be understood as resources that have been formally recognized by a lead agency and/or are listed or determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 4852). However, the fact that a resource is not yet identified as a City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-2
historical resource or found eligible for the CRHR does not preclude a lead agency from determining that said resource is a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would constitute a significant effect on the environment.
3.5.2 - Environmental Setting
Cultural Setting
Following is a brief overview of the relevant prehistory, ethnography, and historic background, providing context in which to understand the background and relevance of sites found in the general project vicinity. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the current academic resources available; rather, it serves as a general overview. Unless otherwise stated, information contained in this section is drawn directly from the Phase I CRA conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS).1 Further details can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources in the Phase I CRA.
Prehistory
Early archaeological investigations in the San Joaquin Valley of California have primarily been conducted at sites located in the Buena Vista and Tulare Lakes regions. These investigations of the artifacts of the San Joaquin Valley’s prehistoric cultural groups have revealed a complex history of cultural change that has occurred over time. Through these studies, a cultural chronological framework encompassing three basic periods has been developed. These patterns include:
• Early Period (12,000 Before Present [BP] to 8000 BP)
• Middle Period (8000 BP to 2500 BP)
• Late Period (2500 BP to Ethnohistoric Present)
Brief descriptions of these temporal ranges and their unique characteristics follow.
Early Period (12,000 BP to 8000 BP)
Archaeological sites from the Early Period are not very well represented in the southern San Joaquin Valley, partially due to periodic episodes of erosion and deposition that have removed or buried large segments of the Early Period landscape. Currently, the earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from fluted and basally thinned projectile points in the Tulare Lake basin at the Witt Site (KIN-32). Hundreds of Late Pleistocene concave base points have been discovered from human occupation along the remnant shoreline of Tulare Lake in southern Kings County. Artifacts from the Witt Site include Clovis-like projectile points made of chert, chipped crescents, various scrapers, and other stone tools associated with the Fluted Point and/or Western Pluvial Lakes tradition. The Witt Site also contained faunal bones from horse, bison, ground sloth, and the tusk of a mammoth or mastodon.
The bones, including some human bone, have been radiocarbon dated to 11,000 to 13,000 BP .
1 FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2022. Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-3
Middle Period (8000 BP to 2500 BP)
The Middle Horizon is characterized by an increase in groundstone tools, including metates and manos. Middle Horizon site deposits include an abundance of expedient cobble-based pounding, chopping, scraping, and mulling tools, which reflect an increased dependence on vegetative foods that require processing. Archaeobotanical assemblages from foothill sites confirm that acorn and pine nuts were targeted food plants. However, the lithic technology remained relatively unchanged from the Early Period, in which stone tools were very similar to the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition.
Late Period (2500 BP to Ethnohistoric Present)
The beginning of the Late Period corresponds with the onset of the Late Holocene environmental conditions, marked by an abrupt turn to cooler, wetter, and a more stable climate. Lakes that had dried or diminished during the later parts of the Middle Period returned to higher levels. Cultural diversity was more pronounced, marked by artifact styles, contrasting burial positions, and other elements of material culture. People were buried in flexed positions more frequently, and burial goods were more numerous than those from the Middle Period. Both the Olivella shell bead and bow-and-arrow technology made their first appearance in the area. There was also a greater reliance on groundstone tools, indicating an increased dependence on nuts, seeds, and acorns. Villages and smaller residential communities developed along the many streams of the foothills and along the river channels and sloughs of the valley bottom. Occupation sites were also larger, reflecting semi- sedentism.
Native American Background
Southern Valley Yokuts
At the time of European contact, most of the San Joaquin Valley and the foothills of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada were occupied by 40 or so groups, classified together as the Yokuts, with a Foothills division and a Valley division of language dialects. The Yokuts were recognized as having three major subgroups: the Northern Valley, the Foothill, and the Southern Valley. Each of these ethnolinguistic groups was composed of autonomous, culturally and linguistically related Tribes or Tribelets. Ethnographic evidence suggests the City of Visalia is located in part of the Southern Valley Yokuts territory. The Southern Valley Yokuts were divided into true Tribes, with individual Tribelets having their own name, dialect, and territory, and there is no evidence to suggest that they practiced any formal religion.
Alfred Kroeber divided a Yokuts classification system into Valley Divisions and Foothill Divisions based on ethnographic lines, geographic habitat, and dialect. Here, the Foothill Division’s worldview and economy were influenced more by their Shoshonean neighbors than the Valley Division Yokuts.
Later, William Wallace divided the Yokuts into three subgroups, Southern Valley, Northern Valley, and Foothill, and shifted the known Tribelets among these divisions. The following is a review of ethnographic information associated with the Southern Valley Yokuts, given the ethnographic evidence suggests the City of Visalia is located in this Tribe’s territory. The Southern Valley Yokuts occupied a rich environment with abundant water resources from the nearby sloughs, lake basins, and river systems. Swamps and tule marshes surrounded the waterways and teemed with wildlife, including aquatic mammals, fish, and waterfowl. Adjacent grasslands provided food for herds of elk, antelope, and (in the winter) deer. The regional flora was equally, if not more, diverse and was used as a main staple of the Yokuts diet. The Southern Valley Yokuts’ dietary base relied on a mixed City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-4
strategy of fishing, waterfowl hunting, shellfish, and plant collecting, with less emphasis on large- game hunting. Important vegetal resources included cattail roots, grasses, nuts, seeds, tule, and bulbs. The resource-rich environment allowed for permanent village sites, which typically were occupied throughout the year.
Historic Background
The Spanish Period (1769–1821)
The formalization of Spanish routes in California were established by Father Junípero Serra and Gaspar de Portolà in 1769, in what was known as the Portolà Expedition. Although the Portolà party were not the first Europeans nor the first people to pass through the region, it was their observations and discoveries that formalized the routes and locations of the Mission System and facilitate trade and travel through California. The route used by Portolà was further explored in detail by Lieutenant Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza and Father Pedro Font during the Anza Expedition that lasted from 1775-1776. The Anza Expedition was considered pivotal as it helped to establish practical relationships with the natives, who at the time were revolting in San Diego, and to further explore and map Monterey and the San Francisco Bay Area.
The region that would become San Joaquin Valley was periodically visited by Franciscan friars scouting the area for mission sites, but a military expedition was led by Gabriel Moraga in September and October of 1806. The expedition started in San Juan Bautista and to the San Joaquin Plain. Once there, Moraga traversed several tributaries that flow to the San Joaquin River and discovered and named the Merced River. Moraga additionally came upon the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Mokelumne Rivers. Moraga’s expedition took him from the foot of the Sierras and the Rancherias between Kings River and Kern River. In 1808, Moraga traveled to Stockton and headed east to scouting sites for future missions. Moraga’s discoveries and mapping of the region contributed to the knowledge of the geography and ethnography of the area. This information served pivotal to Father Narciso Duran, Father Ramón Abella, and Lieutenant Luis Antonio Argüello, who followed the San Joaquin River at least as far as the Stockton Channel in 1817, meticulously mapping the area for future mission establishments. The diary kept by Father Duran helped to illustrate how the region appeared prior to colonization as well as initial contact with the Yokut people.
The Mexican Period (1821–1848)
In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the monopoly that the missions had in the area began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions were reorganized as parish churches and lost their vast land holdings. Following the Secularization Act, the Mexican government initially planned on redistributing the land to the Native Americans; however, it was instead redistributed to prominent non-native citizens. The last of the mission land holdings were relinquished in 1845, which led the way for the large ranchos common to California in the mid- 1800s.
California experienced a period of success with the establishment of the ranchos, adopting the Spanish ranching traditions and focusing on the herding of cattle as well as adapting to the market trends of the time that included the trade of fur and pelts; however, the constant threat of Russian invasion, the illegal squatting of American immigrants, and a growing threat of rebellion from the mission Indians prevented the region from achieving socio-political stability. The growing tensions City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-5
between Mexicans and American settlers led to the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846, led by U.S. Army Captain John C. Fremont and Ezekiel Merritt against Mexican General Mariano Vallejo, who was attempting to bring aid to the Mexican governor of California in an effort to suppress the growing wave of support for an American coup of California. The rebellion concluded with the takeover of Sonoma, thus weakening the little control that Mexico had over Alta California and paving the way for the United States to seize control of the Pacific Coast shortly thereafter.
By 1846, on the eve of the Mexican-American War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of California was 8,000 non-natives and 10,000 Native Americans. However, these estimates have been debated. Cook suggests the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S. Census of 1880 reports the Native American population as 20,385.
Local History
Tulare County and City of Visalia
The end of the Mexican-American War and the discovery of gold in California in 1848 brought new settlers into the San Joaquin Valley. The area was known as “Four Creeks,” named after the watershed and creeks which flowed from snow melt in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. One of the first settlers in the region, Loomis St. John, built a cabin on the river that would bear his name in the northeast boundary of what would become the City of Visalia. In 1849, Nathaniel Vise surveyed the area and established a small settlement along the river near the cabin of Loomis St. John. Vise named the bourgeoning town “Visalia” after Visalia, Kentucky, where he was born. The town slowly grew, and by November 1852, Vise wrote that Visalia “contains from 60 to 80 inhabitants, 30 of whom are children of school age. The town is located upon one of the subdivisions of the Kaweah (River) and is destined to be the county seat of Tulare.” Tensions remained high in San Joaquin Valley between the new American settlers and the Yokuts Tribe in the early years of Visalia’s establishment. On December 1, 1850, John Woods arrived in the region with 14 men and settled on the bank of the Kaweah River, 7 miles east of Visalia. The Kawia Yokuts asserted that one of Woods men had captured and killed members of their Tribes. In retribution, the Yokuts surrounded Woods’ cabin and he was subsequently killed. Deemed the Woods Massacre, the California legislature sent soldiers from Fort Miller in the north down to Visalia in 1851 and constructed a fort along the Kaweah River. As more settlers moved into the region, the Yokuts were increasingly pushed out of their land.
On July 10, 1852, these settlers successfully petitioned the California State Legislature to establish Tulare County as a separate entity from the larger Mariposa County. Tulare County was further divided, creating Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Inyo counties. The county is named after Tulare Lake, which was at one point the largest freshwater lake west of the Great Lakes. The lake was drained for agricultural purposes and is now in Kings County, which was created in 1893 from the western portion of the formerly larger Tulare County. The county derives its name from the giant sedge plant called tule (too-lee), schoenoplectus acutus, which in the plant family Cyperaceae, that was native to freshwater marshes that lined the shores of Tulare Lake.
Visalia was made the seat of the new county and the City was officially incorporated on February 27, 1874. Although the search for gold initially brought settlers to Visalia, when gold failed to materialize City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-6
in the San Joaquin Valley, many ended up settling there. The large oak forests in Visalia provided an easily accessible source of lumber for construction and the nearby St. John and Kaweah Rivers provided irrigation for agriculture. From the 1860s onward, Visalia’s economy was tied to agriculture with farms producing cotton, citrus, and olives for export to other regions in California.
During the Civil War, Visalia was divided between factions who supported either the North or South.
Fearing a potential uprising, the federal government intervened to ban Visalia's Equal Rights Expositor newspaper, which supported the South. They also established Camp Babbitt as a military garrison in the area to quell any potential rebellion.
Today, Visalia remains the county seat of Tulare County with a population of over 141,300 persons.
Agriculture remains a vital part of Visalia’s economy, with large farms producing corn, almond, citrus fruit, and olives. The downtown area is graced by historic brick buildings and Beaux Arts structures dating from the late nineteenth century.
3.5.3 - Methodology
Records Searches and Pedestrian Survey to Identify Existing Cultural Resources The information in this section is based, in part, on the Phase I CRA prepared for the proposed project by FCS in September 2022. The Phase I CRA used the methods below to analyze the potential impacts of project implementation.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
On June 17, 2022, a records search was conducted at the SSJVIC located at the California State University, Bakersfield for the project site and a 0.5-mile radius2 beyond the project site boundaries.
The current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Tulare County were also reviewed to determine the existence of previously documented local historical resources.
The results of the records search indicate that one historic era resource (Table 3.5-1) has been recorded off-site but within the 0.5-mile search radius, however, no resources were recorded within the project site boundary. In addition, three area-specific survey reports (Table 3.5-2) are on file with the SSJVIC for the project site and its 0.5-mile search radius. No reports address the project site specifically, indicating that it has not previously been surveyed for cultural resources.
Table 3.5-1: Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
P-54-003602 Modoc Ditch (Historic Site): HP20 2000
Source: Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) Records Search. June 17, 2022.
2 A 0.5-mile radius is a standard search radius used for California Historic Resources Information System requests.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-7
Table 3.5-2: Previous Investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project Site Report No. Report Title/Project Focus Author Date
TU-00628 The Archaeological Section of the Environmental Impact Report for Road 92 (Shirk Road) from State Highway 198
to Avenue 312 (Riggins Road)
Charlotte Williams 1974
TU-01069 Historic Properties Survey Report Road 80 Widening Project Tulare County, California
Mark Brown 2000
TU-01069A Historic Evaluation Report for the Road 80 Widening Project, Tulare County, California
Mark Brown 2000
TU-01069B Historic Architectural Survey Report for the Road 80 Widening Project, Tulare County, California
Janice C. Calpo 2000
TU-01149 Finding of No Adverse Effect Road 80 Widening Project, Tulare County, California
Janice C. Calpo 2001
Source: Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) Records Search. June 17, 2022.
Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Prior to the pedestrian survey, readily available historical aerial photographs were reviewed to evaluate land development and obtain information concerning the history of development on and near the project site. Eleven historic aerial photographs from 1956 to 2018 indicate the project site was in continuous agricultural use. During this period, several residential neighborhoods and commercial buildings were also developed south of the project site; the project site’s uses have remained relatively unchanged since 1956.
Native American Heritage Commission Record Search
On June 16, 2022, FCS sent a request to the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site and/or in the vicinity. A response was received on July 19, 2022, indicating that the Sacred Lands File search failed to locate the presence of Native American TCRs on the project site or within the immediate 0.5-mile vicinity. The NAHC provided a list of eight tribal representatives available for consultation.
To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on July 19, 2022. Two responses were received, on July 19, 2022, and on August 31, 2022.
Tribal Chairperson, Ron Goode, of the North Fork Mono Tribe, stated that the Tribe had no comments at this time; however, Chairperson Goode expressed concern about the source of water used for the development of the proposed project. See Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for analysis related to project water demand and cumulative water use. Cultural Specialist Monitor, Paige Berggren of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe, stated that the Tribe has concerns about ground disturbance within the project site and requested that the Tribe be retained for Native City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-8
American monitoring of any ground disturbance activities. The Tribe also requested a copy of the finalized cultural resources assessment report. No additional responses have been received to date.
The NAHC received the NOP for the proposed project dated September 8, 2022. Tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 was initiated by the City and is ongoing, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. On September 13, 2022, the City sent AB 52 notification letters to Tribal Representatives on the consultation list provided by the NAHC. The City conducted follow-up phone calls on October 12, 2022. No replies were recievd within the 30-day consultion period.
Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey
On August 3 and August 4, 2022, FSC Senior Archaeologist Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA; Kweku Williams; Ti Ngo; and Sam Banderas conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources in the project site. The survey began in the southwest corner of the project site and moved north and east, using north–south transects spaced at 15-meter intervals. All areas of the project site were closely inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. The project site is located in an almond tree orchard. Visibility of native soils was high, averaging over 95 percent across the site. The soil in the western portion of the project site consisted of grayish brown (10 YR 5/2) sandy clay soil with little to no inclusions. Small granite stones less than 1 centimeter could be found in the northern boundary of the project site. The soil in the eastern portion of the project site was largely composed of light brownish yellow (10YR 6/4) silty and sandy clay soil, interspersed with quartz and basalt stones ranging from 2 to 5 centimeters.
Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, the team examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire- affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, ceramics), soil discoloration, and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations), or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics).
No indications of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources were found over the course of the pedestrian survey.
Buried Site Potential
In addition to the pedestrian survey, the potential for yet-identified cultural resources on-site and in the vicinity was reviewed against geologic and topographic geographic information system data for the general area and information from other nearby projects. The project site, along with the lands within the 0.5-acre radius, were evaluated against a set of criteria identified by a geoarchaeological overview of the Central Valley that was prepared for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Districts 6 and 9. This study mapped the “archaeological sensitivity,” or potential to support the presence of buried prehistoric archaeological deposits, throughout the Central Valley based on geology and environmental parameters including distance to water and landform slope.
The methodology used in the study is applicable to other parts of California and concluded that sites consisting of flat, Holocene-era deposits in close proximity to water resources had a moderate to high probability of containing subsurface archaeological deposits when compared to earlier Pleistocene deposits situated on slopes or further away from drainages, lakes, and rivers.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-9
The project site is situated on undeveloped agricultural land. According to the geological map of Matthew and Burnett, the project site is entirely situated upon Holocene Great Valley fan deposits.
Applying the criteria set forth above, all Holocene-era deposits have the potential to contain archaeological deposits, which increases with the ease of the slope and proximity to a water resource. Although the record search results and pedestrian survey did not identify the presence of any prehistoric and/or historic resources, the project site is situated south of the St. John’s River.
Therefore, the project site has moderate potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources to be located on-site, which then could be impacted by project construction.
3.5.4 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, established the NRHP , which contains an inventory of the nation’s significant prehistoric and historic properties. Under 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60, a property is recommended for possible inclusion on the NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria:
• It is associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events. • It is associated with significant people in the past. • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. • It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP , but they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria listed above.
Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) amended the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] 431–433), set a broad policy that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected, and required special permits before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands. The purpose of ARPA was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained before October 31, 1979.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-10
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) established federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent rights of freedom for Native groups to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. These rights include but are not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American Tribe claiming affiliation.
State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)—CEQA Definition of Historical Resources CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, defines a “historical resource” as:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-11
Therefore, under CEQA, even if a resource is not included on any local, State, or federal register or identified in a qualifying historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that any resource is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA if there is substantial evidence supporting such a determination. A lead agency must consider a resource to be historically significant if it finds that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR.
Archaeological and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of State policies, laws and regulations, as enumerated in the Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive additional protection under the Public Resources Code and CEQA.
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5(a)—Definition of a Historic Resource
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, define a “historical resource” as a resource that:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)—California Register of Historical Resources Criteria As defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D), a resource shall be considered historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR and many local preservation ordinances have employed the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as a model (see criteria described above under the description of the NHPA), since the NHPA provides the highest standard for evaluating the significance of historic resources. A resource that meets NRHP criteria is clearly significant. In addition, a resource that does not meet NRHP standards may still be considered historically significant at a local or State level.
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(c)—Effects on Archaeological Resources CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant. CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine whether they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR. If an archaeological site is a historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, potential adverse impacts to it must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-12
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)—Effects on Human Remains • Native American human remains and associated burial items may be significant to descendant communities and/or may be scientifically important for their informational value. They may be significant to descendant communities for patrimonial, cultural, lineage, and religious reasons.
Human remains may also be important to the scientific community, such as prehistorians, epidemiologists, and physical anthropologists. The specific stake of some descendant groups in ancestral burials is a matter of law for some groups, such as Native Americans (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); PRC § 5097.98). CEQA and other State laws and regulations regarding Native American human remains provide the following procedural requirements to assist in avoiding potential adverse effects on human remains within the contexts of their value to both descendant communities and the scientific community. When an initial study identifies the existence or probable likelihood that a project would affect Native American human remains, the lead agency is to contact and work with the appropriate Native American representatives identified through the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and any associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); PRC § 5097.98).
• If human remains are accidentally discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, the Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must identify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to provide for the opportunity to make recommendations for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)). • If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, the MLD fails to make recommendations within 24 hours of notification, or the project applicant rejects the recommendations of the MLD, the Native American human remains and associated burial items must be reburied in a location not subject to future disturbance on the property (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)). • If potentially affected human remains or a burial site may have scientific significance, whether or not it has significance to Native Americans or other descendant communities, then under CEQA, the appropriate mitigation of effect may require the recovery of the scientific information of the remains/burial through identification, evaluation, data recovery, analysis, and interpretation (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(c)).
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code sets forth provisions related to the treatment of human remains. As the code states, “every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor” except under circumstances as provided in Section 5097.99 of the Public Resource Code. The regulations also provide guidelines for the treatment of human remains found in locations other than a dedicated cemetery including responsibilities of the Coroner.
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 provides protocol for the discovery of human remains. It states that “whenever the commission receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-13
Coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American.” It also sets forth provisions for descendants’ preferences for treatment of the human remains and what should be done if the commission is unable to identify a descendant.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.91—Native American Heritage Commission Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code established the NAHC, whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code, a State policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County Coroner. Section 5097.5 defines the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands as a misdemeanor.
California Senate Bill 18—Protection of Tribal Cultural Places California Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3) incorporates the protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies by establishing responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American Tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB 18 requires public notice to be sent to Tribes listed on the NAHC SB 18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the Tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan.
California Assembly Bill 52—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources California AB 52 was signed into law on September 25, 2014, and provides that any public or private “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” TCRs include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or included in a local register of historical resources.” Under prior law, TCRs were typically addressed under the umbrella of “cultural resources,” as discussed above. AB 52 formally added the category of “tribal cultural resources” to CEQA and extends the consultation and confidentiality requirements to all projects as provided for under CEQA, rather than just projects subject to SB 18 as previously discussed.
The parties must consult in good faith, and consultation is deemed concluded when either: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR (if such a significant effect exists); or (2) when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Mitigation measures agreed upon during consultation must be recommended for inclusion in the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-14
environmental document. AB 52 also identifies mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation. Recommended measures include:
• Preservation in place.
• Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
• Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
• Permanent conservation easements with culturally appropriate management criteria.
California Public Resources Code Section 21074—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources AB 52 amended the CEQA statute to identify an additional category of resource to be considered under CEQA called “tribal cultural resources.” It added Public Resources Code Section 21074, which defines “tribal cultural resources” as follows:
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following:
A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
City of Visalia General Plan
Historic Preservation
Objectives
H-O-1 Assure the recognition of the City’s history through the preservation of historic sites, structures and featuring zoning overlay designation and review procedures for the Historic District.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-15
H-O-2 Maintain historic residential areas as healthy, cohesive neighborhood units, and assure consistency of appearance within the historic area through conservation plans and historic preservation guidelines.
H-O-3 Support efforts to use the Local Register of Historic Structures and the Historic District to identify and promote community history through the use of walking tours and other public outreach.
H-O-4 Promote the maintenance and identification of historic resources in the community as key components of tourism and increased economic diversity for the City.
H-O-5 Promote the benefits of historic property ownership through programs such as tax incentives, available grants and loans, including but not limited to Federal Tax credits and similar programs for properties within the Historic District or on the Local Register of Historic Structures.
Policies
H-P-1 Pursue becoming a Certified Local Government in order to take advantage of grants, loans and other historic preservation programs. Under the National Historic Preservation Act, the Certified Local Government Program would allow Visalia to integrate its historic preservation efforts with those of the statewide historic preservation process and to be eligible, on a competitive basis, for special matching grants.
H-P-2 Update the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to include criteria for streamlining the process for issuing building permits for minor repairs and alterations as designated by the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. Include, as appropriate, preservation incentives, such as use of the California Historic Building Code, where appropriate, and other available incentives.
H-P-3 Expand the Historic Planned Office Conversion zone to preserve historically significant structures and facilitate office conversion in locations suited to commercial use and where a functional connection can be made between Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods with minimal parking impacts to the adjacent non-converted properties.
H-P-4 Continue to ensure that proposed new development within any Historic District or on any properties listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures is compatible with its surroundings, using criteria of height and scale; spacing of buildings; materials and textures; street walls; landscaping; and other elements which contribute to the historical neighborhood character.
H-P-5 Continue to facilitate the conversion of older structures to new uses, with minimal alterations to building or site appearance, by providing exceptions to zoning and building code requirements for structures on the Local Register of Historic Structures City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-16
and within the Historic District, where such exceptions shall contribute to and enhance the historic character of the area.
H-P-6 Use any available funding sources to provide low-interest loans for the rehabilitation and restoration of structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.
H-P-7 Continue to use the Historic Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.
H-P-8 Support the work of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, whose responsibilities include:
• Offering assistance in the form of information and referral to applicants who are developing restoration projects, and providing information on available grants and loans for restoration and rehabilitation of historic structures. • Identifying and recognizing all historic areas, sites, structures, and features by placing them on the local register and providing technical assistance with registration in the National Register of Historic Places and inclusion in the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
• Initiating efforts to educate the public to the significance of historic areas, sites and structures and the cultural and social events associated with them. • Facilitate the recognition of all structures, sites and features within the Historic District or on the Local Register of Historic Structures, along with significant historical landmarks or areas which are not contained within a District or Register where significant community history is represented. The owners of historic property shall be encouraged to display their plaques for public information. • Pursuing support of the creation of a revolving loan fund for historic rehabilitation to be financed through public and private contributions with efforts to encourage banks to provide loans for the acquisition or rehabilitation of historic properties.
H-P-9 Periodically survey historic resources and nominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Register of Historic Structures and/or Historic District, State of California Inventory of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.
H-P-10 Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.
H-P-11 Collaborate with Tulare County Historical Society and other civic organizations on appropriate monuments which publicize historic sites.
H-P-12 Establish criteria for historic street sign name blades in Historic Districts and at Gateways to historic areas.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-17
H-P-13 Identify, survey and establish new additions to the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.
H-P-14 As needed, but no less than every 10 years, review and update the Historic Element and related implementing ordinances.
• The City’s last comprehensive survey was completed for the 1979 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Many properties may be considered of historic value that were not reviewed at that time.
Cultural Resources
Objectives
OSC-O-11 Preserve and protect historic features and archaeological resources of the Visalia planning area including its agricultural surrounding for aesthetic, scientific, educational and cultural values.
Policies
OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archaeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA); • Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.
3.5.5 - Approach to Analysis
This evaluation focuses on whether implementation of the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts on historic resources, architectural resources, archaeological resources, human remains, or TCRs.
A project could have a significant impact on a historical resource if construction of the project would significantly impair a resource’s eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR; thus, this information has been taken into account, as appropriate, as part of the methodology used in this evaluation. Analysis is based, in part, on information collected from record searches at the SSJVIC, additional archival research, pedestrian surveys, and information from the historic architectural assessment of existing properties more than 45 years in age (if any) located within the project site boundaries. If a project would leave an identified cultural resource no longer able to convey its significance, meaning that the resource would no longer be eligible for listing in the CRHR, then the proposed project’s impact would be considered a significant adverse change. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15126.4(b)(1), if a project adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-18
Reconstructing Historic Buildings, then the project’s impact “shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” A project may have an impact on an archaeological resource or human remains if construction of the project would physically damage or destroy archaeological data or human remains (including those interred outside of formal cemeteries). Analysis is based, in part, on information collected from record searches at the SSJVIC, the additional archival research, and pedestrian surveys.
Both direct and indirect effects of project implementation were considered for this analysis. Direct impacts are typically associated with construction and/or ground-disturbing activities, and have the potential to immediately alter, diminish, or destroy all or part of the character and quality of archaeological resources and/or historic architecture, human remains, or eligible TCRs. Indirect impacts are typically associated with post-project implementation conditions that have the potential to alter or diminish the historical setting of a cultural resource (generally historic architecture) by introducing visual intrusions on existing historical structures that are considered undesirable.
3.5.6 - Thresholds of Significance
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to cultural resources or TCRs are significant environmental impacts, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
3.5.7 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures where appropriate.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-19
Historic Resources
Impact CUL-1: Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Impact Analysis
Construction
As detailed above, historic resources in this context refer to the built environment, mainly buildings and structures over 45 years in age that may be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP . Records search results conducted at the SSJVIC identified one historic resource (P-54-003602) located within the 0.5-mile records search radius. This recorded historic era resource was evaluated in 2000 by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. and does not meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR or the NRHP, nor is it located on-site, and it would remain unaffected by the proposed project. Additionally, no historic resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey. Thus, because there are no historic resources on-site or in close proximity, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any such known resources.
However, while unlikely, subsurface construction activities always have the potential to damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources such as wood, stone, foundations, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramic, and other refuse, if encountered. This would represent a potentially significant impact related to historic resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 would require an inspection monitoring by a qualified Archaeologist and a Native American Monitor during initial ground disturbance but before digging and trenching, when any historic or cultural resources would be visible. This would reduce potential impacts to historic resources that may be discovered during project construction. If a potential resource is identified, construction would be required to stop in the area of the finding(s) until appropriate identification and treatment measures are implemented. This measure would be consistent with the City’s standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts related to historic resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Operation
Impacts related to a project’s potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource are limited to inadvertent discoveries. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Because of the foregoing, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on any known historic era built environment resources but could have a significant adverse impact on any previously undiscovered historic resources.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-20
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Archaeological Spot-Monitoring and Halt of Construction Upon Encountering Historical or Archaeological Materials
Prior to any ground disturbance in connection with project development, a surface inspection of the relevant portion(s) of the project site shall be conducted by a qualified Archaeologist; a Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff from a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be permitted to observe, subject to an executed agreement between the Tribe and the relevant applicant (as noted below). The Archaeologist (and Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff, subject to an executed agreement with the relevant applicant) shall monitor the relevant portion(s) of the project site during initial ground disturbance activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal.
The relevant applicant shall offer, in good faith and based on commercially reasonable terms, a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe identified by the NAHC the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground- disturbing activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe as well as the parties being able to reach mutually acceptable terms.
In addition, the relevant applicant shall with diligence and good faith coordinate with the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff to enter into an agreement on commercially reasonable terms wherein the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide pre- project-related activities training to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which shall include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are found.
Subject to such an executed agreement, the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide the foregoing activities prior to any ground disturbance in connection with an individual specific development proposal.
In the event that TCRs are discovered during project-related subsurface construction activities, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. In consultation with the City of Visalia and consulting Tribes, the qualified Archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related subsurface construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified Archaeologist.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-21
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Archaeological Resources
Impact CUL-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Impact Analysis
Construction
Records search results from the SSJVIC did not identify any prehistoric archaeological resources located within the project site or within the 0.5-mile search radius. Additionally, the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the NAHC were negative for TCRs within the project site as well as within the 0.5-mile search radius. In addition, no archaeological resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey. However, the project site is situated on Holocene Great Valley fan deposits that have a moderate potential to contain archaeological deposits that could be encountered during project construction. Such resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. This represents a potentially significant impact related to archaeological resources.
Operation impacts related to a project’s potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource are limited to construction impacts. No respective direct or indirect operational impacts related to archaeological resource would occur.
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources that may be discovered during project construction.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1.
MM CUL-2 Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities for project development, the relevant developer shall ensure that all construction personnel conducting ground disturbance at the project site in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall be provided a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological resources, types of resources that may be found within the project site, and procedures to be followed in the event such resources are encountered. The training shall be conducted by an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Any Native American Monitors or representatives consulting on the proposed project shall be invited to attend and participate in the training session.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-22
MM CUL-3 In the event that prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during construction in connection with an individual specific development proposal, all construction activities associated therewith within 100 feet of the find shall halt and the City of Visalia and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be notified by the relevant applicant. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.
The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and commercially practicable. If it is determined that the construction associated with the subject individual specific development proposal could significantly damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and the relevant applicant shall implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Visalia.
Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Human Remains
Impact CUL-3: Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-23
Impact Analysis
Construction
The potential for human remains to be discovered during ground-disturbing activities is considered low because no formal cemeteries or areas containing human remains are known to be present on- site or within a 0.5-mile radius. However, while it is unlikely that the presence of human remains exists within or near the project site, there is always the possibility that construction-related subsurface ground disturbance (such as grading or trenching) could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the unlikely event such an accidental discovery is made during ground disturbance activities in connection with an individual specific development proposal, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed by the relevant applicant. Along with compliance with these statutes and regulations, implementation of MM CUL-4, which details inadvertent discovery procedures, would reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered human remains to a less than significant level.
Operation
Impacts related to a proposed project’s potential to disturb human remains are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-4 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains during ground disturbance activities in connection with an individual specific development proposal, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 shall be followed by the relevant applicant. Specifically, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.
2. Where any of the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity, either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-24
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD.
• The identified MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
• The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the identified MLD and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Each relevant applicant in connection with its individual specific development proposal may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-4: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Impact Analysis
See Section 3.5.30, Methodology, and Impact CUL-1 and CUL-2. Based on the foregoing and as described above, there are no known TCRs on-site or in the project vicinity. However, there is always the possibility that previously unknown TCRs could be damaged or destroyed as a result of subsurface construction activities. Therefore, implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.
Operation
Impacts related to a proposed project’s potential to damage or destroy TCRs are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-25
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-5: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Impact Analysis
See Impacts CUL-1 through CUL-4.
On September 13, 2022, and pursuant to AB 52, the City sent notification letters to Tribal Representatives on the consultation list provided by the NAHC. The City conducted follow-up phone calls on October 12, 2022. No replies were recievd within the 30-day consultion period. The City, in its capacity as lead agency, has not identified any TCRs within the project site that are significant pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
However, the possibility remains that TCRs in the form of subsurface archaeological resources or human remains may be encountered during project construction. Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less than siginificant level.
Operation
Impacts related to a proposed project’s potential to damage or destroy TCRs are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
3.5.8 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is described further below for each type of resource. This analysis evaluates whether the impacts of the proposed project, together with the impacts of other cumulative development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to historical, archaeological, and/or TCRs. This analysis then considers whether the incremental City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-26
contribution of the impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be significant. Both conditions must apply for the proposed project’s cumulative effects to rise to the level of significance.
Historic Resources
The relevant geographic scope for potential cumulative impacts to historic, built environment resources is the land within the City’s municipal boundaries. This is because the City provides the smallest geographic boundary of potential significance when a historic property is evaluated at the local, State, or federal level. The cumulative setting includes existing agricultural and industrial uses.
No historic resources eligible for the CRHR were identified in the records search, literature review, or pedestrian survey of the project site. One historic era resource (Modoc Ditch) was identified within the project vicinity; however, the resource was evaluated and found to be ineligible for the CRHR and would remain unaffected by the proposed project. As a result, any potential impacts to the historic resource would be less than significant. With respect to the cumulative projects, these cumulative projects have the potential to result in impacts to historic resources. However, potential cumulative impacts would be mitigated at an individual project level by adherence to applicable current State and federal laws and regulations, as well as other City and County laws, regulations, and mitigations, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources (similar to as MM CUL-1, e.g.). The combination of these efforts would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to historical resources to a less than significant level.
Moreover, the proposed project would not have a considerably cumulative contribution to this already less than significant impact because there are no known historic resources that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
Based on the foregoing, with implementation of MM CUL-1, the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact on any historic resources.
Archaeological Resources
The geographic scope of the cumulative archaeological resources analysis is the project vicinity. This is because archaeological resource impacts tend to be localized because the integrity of any given resource depends on what occurs in the immediate vicinity around that resource, such as disruption of soils, and the immediate vicinity provides the smallest geographic unit within which significant cumulative impacts spanning multiple projects may occur. Therefore, in addition to the project site itself, the area near the project site would be the area most affected by project activities (generally within a 0.5-mile radius). For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic scope is defined as the
0.5-mile SSJVIC records search radius. As discussed above, the geographic scope for this cumulative setting includes existing agricultural and industrial uses. All cumulative projects shown on Exhibit 3- 1, Cumulative Project Map, are within the 0.5-mile geographic scope. As noted above, there are three area-specific survey reports (Table 3.5-2) on file with the SSJVIC for the project site and its 0.5- mile search radius. No reports address the project site specifically, indicating that it has not previously been surveyed for cultural resources. There are no known unique archaeological resources within this geographic scope; however, there is always the possibility of previously unknown archaeological resources that could be damaged or destroyed during subsurface construction activities associated with cumulative projects. Nevertheless, any such potential City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-27
cumulative impacts would be mitigated at an individual project level by adherence to applicable local, State and federal laws and regulations, as well as City and County laws, regulations, and mitigations as discussed in Section 3.5.4, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
For the reasons noted above, the proposed project would not have a direct impact on any known archaeological resources, and potentially significant impacts to any previously unknown resources that could be damaged or destroyed during project construction would be mitigated to less than significant by adherence to applicable laws and regulations and compliance with the identified mitigation measures (MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4), which requires monitoring of initial ground disturbance by a qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor, a WEAP training for construction staff, inadvertent discovery procedures, and an updated site survey following clearing and grubbing. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution on this already less than significant cumulative archaeological resources impact.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact on any archaeological resources.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Significant impacts to TCRs may range from impacts to a resource meeting the CEQA definition of a significant historic resource to impacts to resources identified through consultation between a lead agency and Native American Tribe. As such, the scope and range of potential cumulative impacts to TCRs are highly contingent on the nature of the resource and status of consultation. In the absence of any known TCRs that would be significantly impacted by the proposed project, the appropriate geographic scope for assessing potential cumulative impacts to TCRs is the project vicinity. This is because any undiscovered TCRs would likely be archaeological in nature, and the immediate project vicinity provides the smallest geographic unit within which significant cumulative impacts spanning multiple projects may occur. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the immediate vicinity is defined as the 0.5-mile SSJVIC records search radius.
As discussed above, the geographic scope includes existing agricultural and industrial uses.
Additionally, all cumulative projects shown on Exhibit 3-1, Cumulative Project Map, are within the
0.5-mile geographic scope. As noted above, there are three area-specific survey reports (Table 3.5-2) on file with the SSJVIC for the project site and its 0.5-mile search radius. No reports address the project site specifically, indicating that it has not previously been surveyed for cultural resources.
There are no known TCRs or other archaeological resources within this geographic scope; however, there is always the possibility of previously unknown resources that could be damaged or destroyed during subsurface construction activities associated with cumulative projects. Nevertheless, any such potential cumulative impacts would be required to be mitigated at an individual project level through compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing cultural resources, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As explained above, there are no known TCRs that would be impacted by the proposed project. Although subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-28
have the potential to encounter undiscovered TCRs and other archaeological resources, the proposed project would be required to mitigate for impacts through compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing cultural resources. Additionally, the implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4, which require WEAP training for construction staff, inadvertent discovery procedures, an updated site survey, and opportunities for a culturally affiliated Tribal Monitor, would ensure that any undiscovered TCRs are not substantially adversely affected by project-related construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-1
3.6 - Energy
3.6.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing energy setting in the project area as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the possible impacts related to energy that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Information in this section is based on project- specific energy calculation outputs included in Appendix B. No public comments were received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to energy.
3.6.2 - Existing Setting
Energy Basics
Energy is generally transmitted either in the form of electricity, measured in kilowatts (kW)1 or megawatts (MW),2 or natural gas measured in British Thermal Units (BTU), or cubic feet.3 Fuel, such as gasoline or diesel, is measured in gallons or liters.
Electricity
Electricity is used primarily for lighting, appliances, and other uses associated with the proposed project.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is used primarily for heating, water heating, and cooking purpose and is typically associated with commercial and residential uses.
Fuel
Fuel is used primarily for powering off-road equipment, trucks, and passenger vehicles. The typical fuel types used are diesel and gasoline.
Electricity Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
The State of California generates approximately 277,764 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity, in 2021, which is the most recent year of reporting information available. Approximately 50.2 percent of the energy generation is sourced from natural gas, 34.8 percent from renewable sources (i.e., solar, wind, and geothermal), 6.2 percent from large hydroelectric sources, and the remaining 8.8 percent is sourced from coal, nuclear, oil, and other nonrenewable sources.4
1 1 kW = 1.000 watts; A watt is a derived unit of power that measure rate of energy conversion. 1 watt is equivalent to work being done at a rate of 1 joule of energy per second. In electrical terms, 1 watt is the power dissipated by a current of 1 ampere flowing across a resistance of 1 volt.
2 1 MW = 1 million watts
3 A unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units. A British thermal unit is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water 1 degree Fahrenheit at a constant pressure of 1 atmosphere. 4 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity- data/2021-total-system-electric-generation. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-2
In 2022, California ranked third in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation and fourth in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources combined. In addition, in 2022 renewable resources accounted for 49 percent of California in-state electricity generation.
Electricity and natural gas is distributed through the various electric load-serving entities (LSEs) in California. These entities include investor-owned utilities (IOUs), publicly owned LSEs, rural electric cooperatives, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers.5 Project Site
The project site currently does not use natural gas as no habitable structures exist on-site that would use natural gas. Existing agricultural activity could use electricity and/or diesel fuel to power vehicles and water pumps.
Natural Gas Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
Natural gas is used for everything from generating electricity to cooking and space heating to an alternative transportation fuel. In 2021, total natural gas consumption in California was 2,172.8 Trillion BTUs. Natural gas-fired generation has become a major source of electricity in California, as it fuels about 42 percent of electricity consumption in the State in 2022 followed by renewable sources. Because natural gas is a resource that provides load when the availability of hydroelectric power generation and/or other sources decrease, use varies greatly from year to year. The availability of hydroelectric resources, the emergence of renewable resources for electricity generation, and overall consumer demand are the variables that shape natural gas use in electric generation.
6 Fuel Use
State of California
The main category of fuel use in California is transportation fuel, specifically gasoline and diesel.
Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline sold in California being consumed by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. Diesel is the second largest transportation fuel used in California. Nearly all heavy-duty trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm, construction and heavy-duty military vehicles and equipment have diesel engines. In year 2021, it was estimated that 11,618 million gallons of gasoline and 1,611 million gallons of diesel were sold in California. 7 Project Site
Existing agricultural activity on the project site would consume gasoline and diesel fuel to power vehicles and water pumps.
5 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Electric Load-Serving Entities (LSEs) in California Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities.html. Accessed June 1, 2023. 6 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market. Accessed June 1, 2023. 7 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. A15 Report Responses vs. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual- reporting#notes. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-3
3.6.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the Renewable Fuel Standard Program. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expanded this program by:
• Expanding the Renewable Fuel Standard Program to include diesel in addition to gasoline. • Increasing the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. • Establishing new categories of renewable fuel, and setting separate volume requirements for each one.
• Requiring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
This expanded Renewable Fuel Standard Program lays the foundation for achieving substantial reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing the use of imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the nation’s renewable fuels sector.
Signed on December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) aims to:
• Move the United States toward greater energy independence and security. • Increase the production of clean renewable fuels.
• Protect consumers.
• Increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. • Promote research on and deploy GHG capture and storage options. • Improve the energy performance of the federal government. • Increase U.S. energy security, develop renewable fuel production, and improve vehicle fuel economy.
EISA reinforces the energy reduction goals for federal agencies put forth in Executive Order 13423, as well as introduces more aggressive requirements. The three key provisions enacted are the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, and the appliance/lighting efficiency standards.
The EPA is committed to developing, implementing, and revising both regulations and voluntary programs under the following subtitles in EISA, among others:
• Increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
• Federal Vehicle Fleets
• Renewable Fuel Standard
• Biofuels Infrastructure
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-4
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration8
EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Light-duty Vehicle GHG Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Final Rule Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, former President Barack Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO 2 per mile,
equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO2 emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016).
The EPA and the NHTSA issued final rules on a second phase joint rulemaking, establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012.9 The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleet wide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.
The EPA and NHTSA issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, which became effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that began in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles, and a 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.
The State of California has received a waiver from the EPA to have separate, stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Although global climate change did not become an international
8 United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act. Accessed June 1, 2023. 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks. Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-5
concern until the 1980s, efforts to reduce energy consumption began in California in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, resulting in the incidental reduction of GHG emissions. In order to manage the State’s energy needs and promote energy efficiency, Assembly Bill (AB) 1575 created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1975.
California Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. 10 The standards are to be phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in an approximately 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30 percent reduction.
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley Bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program.
The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.
The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars.
California Code of Regulations Title 13: Motor Vehicles California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.11 This measure seeks to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by establishing idling restrictions, emission standards, and other requirements for heavy-duty diesel engines and alternative idle reduction technologies to limit the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles.
Any person that owns, operates, or causes to operate any diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle must not allow a vehicle to idle for more than 5 consecutive minutes at any location, or operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted area.
California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449: General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets. This measure regulates oxides of nitrogen (NO
X), diesel particulate matter (DPM), and other criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road
10 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Clean Car Standards—Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/californias-greenhouse-gas-vehicle-emission-standards-under-assembly-bill-1493-2002-pavley. Accessed June 1, 2023.
11 Thomas Reuters Westlaw. 2019. California Code of Regulations, Title 13. Motor Vehicles. Website:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I143B9530D46811DE8879F88E8B0D AAAE&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-6
diesel-fueled vehicles. This measure also requires each fleet to meet fleet average requirements or demonstrate that it has met “best available control technology” requirements. Additionally, this measure requires medium and large fleets to have a written idling policy that is made available to operators of the vehicles informing them that idling is limited to 5 consecutive minutes or less.
California Senate Bill 1078: Renewable Electricity Standards On September 12, 2002, former Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill (SB) 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Former Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21-09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s LSEs to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. The ARB Board approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.
California SB 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act In 2015, the State legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 350 which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies toward a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Provisions for a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum Statewide were removed from the Bill due to opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage.
Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce Statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission, the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. • Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States. 12 California Code of Regulations Title 24
Part 6 (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6 (California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into
12 California Legislative Information (California Leginfo). 2015. Senate Bill 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-7
effect on January 1, 2017.13 The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020.
Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code)
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11, is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011. The Code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) that became effective January 1, 2023.14 Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 50 percent diversion requirement. CALGreen also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. The California Building Standards Code (CBC) provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.
California Public Utilities Code
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned telecommunication, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. It is the responsibility of the CPUC to (1) assure California utility customers safe, reliable utility service at reasonable rates; (2) protect utility customers from fraud; and (3) promote a healthy California economy. The Public Utilities Code, adopted by the legislature, defines the jurisdiction of the CPUC.
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan does not include goals or policies that explicitly aim to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption.15 However, some policies would indirectly improve energy efficiency.
AQ-P-9 Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.
BMPs include Transportation Demand Management strategies for large development projects such as:
• Providing bicycle access and parking facilities;
13 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Website:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016_Building_Energy_Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
Accessed June 3, 2023.
14 California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. Green Building Standards. Website:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1. Accessed June 3, 2023. 15 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan. Website: https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 3, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-8
• Providing preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, carpools, or alternative fuels vehicles;
• Establishing telecommuting programs or satellite work centers; • Allowing alternative work schedules;
• Subsidizing public transit costs for employee;
• Scheduling Deliveries at off-peak traffic periods; and • Providing recharge stations for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs).
AQ-P-13 Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low emission technology.
AQ-P-14 Promote and expand the trip-reduction program for City employees to reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas. The program may include carpooling and ride sharing; reimbursement of transit costs; encouragement of flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and teleconferencing.
3.6.4 - Methodology
This analysis calculated the amount of energy consumed during both construction and operation.
Energy use consumed by the proposed project was estimated and includes natural gas, electricity, and fuel consumption for project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as part of Appendix B.
3.6.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether impacts related to energy are significant environmental effects. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
3.6.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Energy Use
Impact ENER-1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-9
Impact Analysis
The information provided below is derived from the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Air Quality Report) prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) on May 4, 2023.
A discussion of the proposed project’s anticipated energy usage is presented below.
Construction
For purposes of a conservative analysis, the anticipated construction schedule for all three phases of development was assumed to begin in March 2024 and conclude in March 2028. It is important to note that if the construction schedule were to move to later year(s), construction energy demand would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. Even in a scenario where all three construction phases overlap, the impacts related to energy consumption would not be materially different from the phased construction analyzed here. That is because concurrent construction would not result in an increased use of fuel and electricity beyond that needed for a phased construction. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the project site (e.g., demolition, site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the buildings and related on- and off-site improvements and infrastructure. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.
The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project would include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of approximately 886,679 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix B).
Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB EMFAC mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix B. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 17,099,450 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and a combined approximately 924,696 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.
Other equipment would include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Chapter 8.36 of the Visalia Municipal Code defines permissible hours of construction as between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. As construction activities would be restricted to these hours, it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be relatively minimal. Singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from approximately 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square- City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-10
foot office trailer would consume approximately 6,548 kWh during the 12-month concurrent construction phase (Appendix B).
Limitations on the permissible idling time of vehicles and equipment along with requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with applicable State laws and regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are part of a comprehensive regulatory framework that is implemented by the ARB.
Additionally, as a practical matter, it is reasonable to assume that the overall construction schedule and process would be designed and implemented to be efficient as feasible in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction beyond those already built in due to commercially practicable considerations are relatively limited. For the foregoing reasons, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 3.6-1. For further details, see Appendix B.
Table 3.6-1: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption (approx.) Electricity Consumption 34,152,062 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 49,385,262 kBTU/year
Total Fuel Consumption 7,576,169 gallons of gasoline and diesel Operational Fuel Consumption–Passenger Vehicles 1,237,261 gallons of gasoline and diesel Operational Fuel Consumption–Trucks 6,338,908 gallons of gasoline and diesel Notes:
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh = kilowatt-hour
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2023. (Appendix B)
Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 34,152,062 kWh of electricity and an estimated 49,385,262 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project’s buildings and related improvements and infrastructure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards include 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, are widely regarded as the some of the most advanced and stringent building energy efficiency standards in the country. Moreover, as City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-11
specified in Chapter 5, Part 11 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to incorporate electrical conduit to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. In addition, as specified in Subchapter 6, Part 6 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to either include rooftop solar systems or design the proposed buildings to structurally accommodate future installation of a rooftop solar system. As such, the design of the proposed project would facilitate the future commitment to renewable energy resources. Therefore, building energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 7,576,169 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually. In addition, the proposed project would include the installation of bicycle parking fixtures consistent with the City of 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 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that would contribute to fuel savings through incentives for project staff to utilize non- motorized 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. Thus, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards Consistency Impact ENER-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by Southern California Edison (SCE).
In 2021, SCE obtained 31.4 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources (14.9 percent solar, 10.2 percent wind, 5.7 percent geothermal, 0.1 percent biomass and biowaste, and 0.5 percent eligible hydroelectric), while the remaining electricity was sourced from nuclear (9.2 percent), natural gas (22.3 percent), large hydroelectric (2.3 percent), and unspecified sources of power (34.8 percent).
16 Therefore, the proposed project’s electricity provider does not meet the State’s current objective of 33 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources. However, the utility would be
16 California Energy Commission. 2021. Annual Power Content Labels for 2021. Website: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom- files/Web%20files/2021%20Power%20Content%20Label.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-12
required pursuant to applicable laws and regulations to meet the future objective of 60 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. As noted above, the proposed project’s buildings and related improvements and infrastructure would be designed in accordance with then-current Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. Based on the foregoing, including the incorporation of the Title 24 standards into the design of the proposed project, this would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner.
The City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP) and General Plan contain policies that are related to energy conservation. While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, these policies would contribute toward less water demand, energy efficient operational uses, and reduce the unnecessary use of fuel. For example, the proposed project would be consistent with CAP actions related to Energy by including Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-2a, which would require rooftop solar panel systems, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78. 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.
Additionally, compliance with then-current Title 24 standards would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the General Plan energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building envelope, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting.
The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable State energy standards and with relevant energy conservation policies contained in the Visalia General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.6.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative energy analysis is the portion of SCE’s service area that covers incorporated and unincorporated Tulare County. Cumulative projects considered as part of this cumulative analysis include the project, other cumulative projects identified in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the SCE service area that covers the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Tulare County.
Electricity and Natural Gas During operation, cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable provisions of Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Specifically, the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-13
buildings and other improvements that would be constructed as part of the various cumulative projects would be required to be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings as applicable. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. Future cumulative development would also be required to meet even more stringent energy efficiency requirements through local and Statewide policy, such as Title 24, Part 6, which would require, for example, that newly constructed residential homes include on-site photovoltaic solar systems, with some exceptions.
Furthermore, 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. Electricity would also be consumed during construction of the cumulative projects from the use of construction trailers and any electrically driven equipment, vehicles, or tools. Electricity consumed during construction of the cumulative projects would also be subject to the renewable electricity generation requirements established by SB 100, as SCE would be the anticipated electricity supplier for the cumulative project areas. The incorporation of these regulations into the design of the cumulative projects would ensure that they would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of electricity or natural gas, and thus they would not have a significant cumulative impact.
Similarly, the proposed project’s energy use would be limited to that which is necessary for the construction and operation of the proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Statewide and local policies and standards pertaining to energy efficiency and can reasonably be assumed to pursue greater energy efficiencies to the extent commercially practicable in its operation, in the interest of reducing operating costs. As such, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be considerable with respect to energy consumption in the form of electricity and natural gas.
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, that limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Additionally, various federal and State regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS), Pavley Clean Car Standards, and LEV Program, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects.
Compliance with these regulations by the cumulative projects would ensure that they would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of fuel and their cumulative impact would be less than significant. As discussed in more detail above, the proposed project would consume vehicle fuel during both construction and operation. As previously discussed, the proposed project would also be required to use fuels which conform to various federal and State regulations, such as the LCFS, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and LEV Program. In addition, the proposed project would consume fuels in an amount necessary to construct and operate the proposed project and would not consume excessive amounts of fuel beyond what is necessary in the interest of avoiding unnecessary construction or operation costs. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be considerable with respect to the wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-14
Level of Cumulative Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-1
3.7 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing geologic and soil characteristics of the project site and the potential effects from implementing the proposed project with respect to potential geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological impacts. In addition, this section identifies feasible mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts, if and to the extent required. The descriptions and analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Evaluation1 and the Paleontological Records Search.2 These reports are provided in Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
No comments were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period related to geology, soils, and seismicity.
3.7.2 - Environmental Setting
Geologic Setting
City of Visalia
The City is part of the Central Valley province, one of several geomorphic provinces in California. The San Joaquin Valley is in a basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada foothills and mountains to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west, and it is filled with deep layers of sediment generally underlain by sequences of Tertiary- to Pleistocene-age marine and nonmarine sedimentary rock. The sedimentary rock is generally covered by Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium that has infilled the valley.3 The City’s topography is basically flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 330 feet above sea level. The St.
Johns River flows through the northeastern portion of the City, which, along with smaller streams and canals, forms alluvial fans.
Project Site
The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is located within the San Joaquin Valley of the Central Valley geomorphic province of California. The project site is generally flat and underlain by Holocene-age alluvial fan deposits.4 Existing Soils
City of Visalia
The City has relatively flat topography and is distant from any delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as shown in Exhibit 3.7-1, Regional Earthquake Fault Map, and described further below.
Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified, the potential for liquefaction is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and high-water tables coincide. The City’s Planning Area comprises all of the land within the City as well as neighboring unincorporated land, including the community of Goshen, and encompasses
1 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 2 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project (4119.0039), near the City of Visalia, Tulare County. June 20.
3 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 4 Ibid.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-2
approximately 66,640 acres.5 Subsidence in the Planning Area from groundwater removal may also occur based on the fact that the Kaweah Subbasin underlying the Planning Area is considered to be in an overdraft on an average long-term basis.6 Soils with moderate shrink-swell potential underlie about 2,480 acres in the Planning Area.7
Project Site
The Geotechnical Evaluation for the project site included the collection of site-specific data through geotechnical borings and laboratory analysis of collected soil samples. The results indicate that the project site is underlain by undocumented fill soils and alluvium. Both soil types are composed of silt, sand, and clay at depths of up to approximately 51.5 feet.
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling, although groundwater levels do have seasonal variations. However, groundwater monitoring well data from the State of California Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker website indicate that the depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 100 to 200 feet at monitoring wells located approximately
0.5 mile south and approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site.8 Based on the available information and the nature and location of the project site, it is anticipated that similar depths to groundwater are present at the project site.
Seismicity
The term seismicity describes the effects of seismic waves that are radiated from an earthquake fault in motion. While most of the energy released during an earthquake result in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energy may dissipate immediately in the form of seismic waves. Seismicity can result in seismic-related hazards such as fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction faults form in rocks when stresses overcome the internal strength of the rock, and fault rupture occurs when movement on a fault breaks through to the surface and can result in damage to infrastructure and persons. Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking. Strong ground shaking from an earthquake can result in damage, with buildings shifted off their foundations and underground pipes broken. Liquefaction occurs when an earthquake causes ground shaking that results in saturated soil to lose shear strength, deform, and act like a liquid. When liquefaction occurs, it can result in ground failure that can result in damage to roads, pipelines, and buildings.
City of Visalia
The State of California is one of the most seismically active areas in the United States. That said, there are no known active earthquake faults in the City’s Planning Area. The closest active faults are the Owens Valley Fault group and Sierra Nevada Fault Zone, located approximately 75 miles to the
5 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Introduction. October. 6 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. March. 7 Ibid.
8 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2022. GeoTracker: Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association (AGC100012325). Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=AGC100012325. Accessed August 16, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-3
east of the City’s Planning Area, the San Andreas Fault Zone located approximately 60 miles to the west of the City’s Planning Area, and the Pond Fault Zone located approximately 55 miles to the south of the City’s Planning Area (Exhibit 3.7-1).9 Historically, major earthquakes have been felt and caused some amount of property damage within the City’s Planning Area. Moreover, it is possible, but unlikely, that previously unknown faults could become active in the area. The State Geologist has not delineated any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within or near the City’s Planning Area.10 Project Site
Distant faults have low potential to cause ground shaking on the project site; this is because the magnitude of ground shaking experienced on-site is dependent on the distance to causative faults and the earthquake magnitude (or measure of the amount of energy released during an earthquake event). There are no known faults in close proximity to the project site.11 The faults with the highest potential to affect the proposed project from a design standpoint are the Pond Fault (approximately 61 miles away), Southern Sierra Nevada Fault (approximately 68.4 miles away), and Owens Valley Fault (approximately 74.6 miles away).
Slope Disturbance
Slope disturbance from long-term geologic cycle of uplift, mass wasting, intense precipitation or wind, as well as gravity can result in slope failure in the form of mudslides and rock fall. Uplift refers to the vertical elevation shift of the Earth’s surface often attributed to plate tectonics. Mass wasting refers to a variety of erosional processes from gradual downhill soil creep to mudslides, debris flows, landslides, and rock fall—processes that are commonly triggered by intense precipitation or wind, which varies according to climactic shifts. Often, various forms of mass wasting are grouped together as landslides, which are generally used to describe the downhill movement of rock and soil. Soil creep is a long-term, gradual downhill migration of soil under the influence of gravity and is generally on the order of a fraction of an inch per year. These soils can creep away downslope sides of foundations and reduce lateral support.
City of Visalia
According to the 2017 Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, areas that are more prone to landslides, mudslides, or debris flows include the foothill and mountain areas where fractured and steep slopes are present, where less-consolidated or weathered soils overlie bedrock, or where inadequate groundcover accelerates erosion.12 The City and the Planning Area is generally flat, with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. In the City, earthquake-induced slope disturbance such as mudslides are unlikely to occur due to the relatively stable geological formation and lack of active faults.
9 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022.
10 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Safety and Noise Element. October. 11 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022.
12 Tulare County Office of Emergency Services. 2018. Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. March.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-4
Project Site
The project site is located within a seismically stable region, and the City experiences relatively little tectonic activity as compared to other regions of the State. As noted above, the project site itself does not contain active faults that would cause geologic uplifting or other seismic-related hazards.
The project site is relatively flat and does not include foothill or mountain areas; it is located approximately 17 miles from Sierra Nevada foothills, and the project site does not contain weathered soils over bedrock.13
Paleontological Resources
Project Site
The project site is solely underlain by Holocene Great Valley fan deposits. The southwestern portion of the half-mile search area surrounding the project site includes subjacent Holocene Great Valley basin deposits. Holocene Great Valley deposits are too young to be fossiliferous. The nearest Pleistocene deposits are more than five miles east of the project site. It is highly unlikely that Pleistocene deposits are in the shallow subsurface of the project site. Localist V6540, approximately
5.5 miles southeast of the project site, yielded mammoth tooth fragments. There is an absence of any potentially fossiliferous localities within 5 miles of the project site.14
3.7.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established by the United States Congress when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95–124. In establishing the NEHRP , Congress recognized that earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and involvement programs. The four basic goals remain unchanged:
• Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation.
• Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems. • Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use. • Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four primary NEHRP agencies:
• National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce
13 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Science Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. August 2.
14 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project. June 20.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-5
• National Science Foundation
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security
Implementation of NEHRP priorities is accomplished primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist and guide State, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, authorized by Section 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act, controls water pollution by regulating point sources, such as construction sites and industrial operations that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to control discharges from a project site, including soil erosion, to protect waterways. A SWPPP describes the measures or practices to control discharges during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. A SWPPP identifies project design features and structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control, prevent, remove, or reduce stormwater pollution from the site, including sediment from erosion.
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act offers provisions of paleontological resources identified on federal, Native American, or State lands and guidance for their management and protection and promotes public awareness and scientific education regarding vertebrate fossils. The law also requires federal agencies to develop plans for inventory, collection, and monitoring of paleontological resources and establishes stronger criminal and civil penalties for the removal of scientifically significant fossils on federal lands.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Guidelines
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), a national scientific organization of professional Vertebrate Paleontologists, has established standard guidelines that outline acceptable professional practices in the conduct of paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, specimen preparation, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional Paleontologists in the nation adhere to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements, as specifically spelled out in its standard guidelines.15 State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 2621–2630) was passed in 1972 to provide a Statewide mechanism for reducing the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy. The main purpose of the Act is to prevent the siting of buildings used for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. It should be noted that the
15 The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Website: http://vertpaleo.org/the-Society/Governance-Documents/SVP_Impact_ Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx. Accessed February 22, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-6
Act addresses the potential hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as seismically induced ground shaking or landslides.
The law requires the State Geologist to identify regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around the surface traces of active faults, and to depict these zones on topographic base maps, typically at a scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet. Earthquake Fault Zones vary in width, although they are often 0.75-mile wide. Once published, the maps are distributed to the affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. With the exception of single-family wood frame and steel frame dwellings that are not part of a larger development (i.e., four units or more), local agencies are required to regulate development within the mapped zones. In general, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (PRC §§ 2690–2699.6), which was passed in 1990, addresses earthquake hazards other than surface fault rupture. These hazards include strong ground shaking, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, or other ground failures. Much like the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act discussed above, these seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local government in the land use planning process. The Act states, “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” The Act also states, “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” California Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24). Where no other building codes apply, Chapter 29 regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. The California Building Standards Code (CBC) applies to building design and construction in the State and is based on the federal Uniform Building Code (UBC) used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with more detailed regulations and is often viewed as setting forth some of the most stringent mandates in the nation.
The State earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety Code § 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, and Appendix Chapter A33 regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control and construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction.
The 2019 edition of the CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council. The code is updated triennially, and the 2019 edition of the CBC was City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-7
published by the California Building Standards Commission in 2019 and took effect starting January 1, 2020. The new 2022 edition of the CBC became effective January 1, 2023. Building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to the 2022 edition of the CBC.
California Public Resources Code
Other State requirements for paleontological resource management are included in Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and Section 30244. These statutes prohibit the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without permission of the jurisdictional agency, define the removal of paleontological sites or features as a misdemeanor, and require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public (State, County, City, District) lands.
California State Water Resources Control Board
The five-member California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops Statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the nine Regional Water Quality and Control Boards (RWQCBs) in the major watersheds of the State. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables the State Water Board to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters.
In 1999, the State adopted the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction Activities General Permit) (State Water Board Order No. 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). The General Construction Permit requires that construction sites with 1 acre or greater of soil disturbance, or less than 1 acre but part of a greater common plan of development, apply for coverage for discharges under the General Construction Permit by submitting a Notice of Intent for coverage, developing a SWPPP , and implementing BMPs to address construction site pollutants.
The SWPPP should contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list the BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs.
Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP . Enrollment under the General Construction Permit is through the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. Additionally, the State Water Board is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) and issues NPDES permits to cities and counties through the individual regional boards.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-8
Local Regulations
Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long- term risk to human life and property from natural or man-made hazards. The City participates in the preparation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) which covers Tulare County and 11 participating cities. The last MJ-LHMP was prepared in 2011. The plan has been designed to meet four goals: (1) significantly reduce life loss and injuries, (2) minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and human activities, (3) protect the environment, and (4) promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy.
General Plan Seismic Safety Element
The existing Visalia General Plan incorporates the Seismic Safety Element completed in 1974 by the Five-County Seismic Safety Committee, with participation from the Tulare Council of Governments.
The Safety Element determines that ground shaking is the main potential hazard in the southern Central Valley and the risk of ground shaking in the Visalia area is low. The Element includes a number of policies, calling for the creation of a public relations and education program to build awareness; development of an Earthquake Disaster Plan; consideration of seismic hazards in the environmental impact assessment process; and adoption and enforcement of the UBC, among others.
Visalia General Plan
Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable policies, laws and regulations contained within the City of Visalia General Plan, City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Visalia Buildings and Construction Regulations, which include, among others, policies pertaining to the avoidance of geologic hazards and/or the protection of unique geologic features.
The policies, goals, and implementation measures in the City of Visalia General Plan for geology, soils and seismicity that are relevant to this analysis are provided below.
Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation
6.1: Open Space Resources
Objective
OSC-O-4 Create and maintain open space for public health and safety in areas which require special management for regulation.
Chapter 8: Safety and Noise Open Space and Conservation
8.1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Objective
S-O-1 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
Policies
S-P-1 Work with Caltrans to seismically retrofit or replace local ramps and freeway overpass bridges that are categorized as structurally deficient by Caltrans, are located in high ground shaking areas, and/or are necessary for first responders to use during and/ or immediately after a disaster or emergency.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-9
S-P-2 Seismically retrofit or replace public works and/or emergency response facilities that are necessary during and/or immediately after a disaster or emergency.
S-P-3 Update the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan to include an Earthquake Disaster Plan, and coordinate procedures with the County Emergency Services.
S-P-4 Establish a public relations and education program to increase community awareness for emergency preparedness, including “community emergency preparedness teams.” Involving residents and having voluntary programs to help people prepare is the key to an effective program.
S-P-5 Update subdivision and zoning ordinance review criteria to include seismic considerations.
S-P-6 Continue to inspect unoccupied existing unreinforced masonry structures and “critical facilities” constructed prior to 1948 and develop condemnation procedures to be included in a dangerous building ordinance.
City of Visalia Code
Building and Construction
Section 15.08.010: Adoption of the 2019 California Building Code The 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, and published by the International Code Council, is adopted as the Building Code of the City as Municipal Code Section
15.08.010.
Building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to the 2022 edition of the CBC.
Grading, Soils, and Erosion Control Ordinances
Section 16.12.070: Grading and Erosion Control
Every map approved pursuant to this title shall be conditioned on compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. (Ordinance 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 9075).
3.7.4 - Methodology
Existing setting information about the project site as well as an evaluation of potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project were identified based, in part, on a review of available literature, the Geotechnical Evaluation,
16 and the Paleontological Records Search,17 all of which present findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning development of the proposed project. These evaluations are based, in part, on an engineering analysis of geotechnical properties of the subsurface conditions and evaluation of the underlying soils, as well as review and
16 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 17 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project (4119.0039), near the City of Visalia, Tulare County. June 20.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-10
consideration of available data, including, among others, the Visalia General Plan. This information is provided in Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
The loss of any identifiable fossil that could yield information important to prehistory, or that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of organism, environment, period of time, or geographic region, would be a significant environmental impact. Direct impacts to paleontological resources primarily concern the potential destruction of nonrenewable paleontological resources and the loss of information associated with these resources. This includes the unauthorized collection of fossil remains. If potentially fossiliferous bedrock or surficial sediments are disturbed, the disturbance could result in the destruction of paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information (significant impact). At the project-specific level, direct impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of paleontological mitigation.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) threshold of significance for a significant impact to paleontological resources is reached when a project is determined to “directly or indirectly destroy a significant paleontological resource or unique geologic feature.” In general, for projects that are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the higher the potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources. For projects that are directly underlain by geologic units with no paleontological sensitivity, there is no potential for impacts to paleontological resources unless sensitive geologic units which underlie the non-sensitive unit are also affected.
3.7.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency derives its significance criteria based on the questions in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist. Accordingly, impacts to geology, soils and seismicity would be considered significant environmental effects if the proposed project would:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv. Landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-11
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
3.7.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures where necessary.
Earthquakes
Impact GEO-1a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) R upture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Impact Analysis
Primary fault rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. The proposed project would introduce people to the project site (construction workers and on-site workers and visitors during operation) and could thus expose people and structures to seismic risks. While the project site is located in a highly seismic region within the influence of multiple faults, the project site is not located within or within close proximity to a known earthquake fault. As previously discussed, the nearest known earthquake fault, as delineated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, is associated with the Pond Fault that is approximately 61 miles south of the project site (Exhibit 3.7-1). 18 Because of the distance of this fault
to the project site, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known fault; therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
In addition, construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Visalia Building Code (Chapter 15.08) and other applicable standards and requirements. The City has adopted the CBC 2019 Edition (CCR Title 24), which incorporates substantially the same requirements as the IBC, 2018 Edition, with some modifications and amendments. Building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to the 2022 edition of the CBC. Adherence to all applicable laws and regulations would ensure that any potential fault rupture-related impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Based on the absence of any known active faults within or within close proximity to the project site, and the requirement of the proposed project’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations
18 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-12
including, among others, applicable provisions of the Visalia Building Code, impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact GEO-1b: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
ii) St rong seismic ground shaking?
Impact Analysis
According to the Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the County rarely experiences the effects of even the largest earthquakes from the San Andreas fault, the nearest major fault line located approximately 75 miles away from the City. Only one active fault, the Kern Canyon fault, runs through the County. As noted above, the project site is not near any major faults, although given the active seismicity of the region generally, it is possible that strong seismic ground shaking could be experienced on the project site and thus directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact.
However, as explained above, there is a robust regulatory framework intended to reduce risk to people and structures associated with strong seismic shaking. Here, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant would be required to design project buildings and other improvements and infrastructure to withstand substantial ground shaking in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements including, among others, applicable provisions the CBC. The CBC contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse and structural damage during an earthquake.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to incorporate all recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation within project construction and design plans, as outlined in Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1. All grading and construction that occurs as a result of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the specifications, procedures, and site conditions contained in the final approved design plans, which would be required to be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Evaluation as well as all applicable provisions of the CBC and the Visalia Building Code requirements. The required measures would encompass such items as site preparation, earthwork, site-specific seismic design considerations, foundations, flatwork, utilities, and paving. As such, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes, which require property line and public roadway setbacks that have the goal of reducing risks to on-site employees from potential hazards associated with the proposed project that could result from an earthquake.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-13
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the proposed project’s required compliance with the robust regulatory framework including, among others, applicable provisions in the Visalia Building Code, the CBC, as well as implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of the grading permit for each project development, the final grading, foundation, and construction plans for the subject proposal shall incorporate all the site-specific earthwork, foundation, floor slab, lateral earth pressure, and pavement design recommendations, as detailed in a Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. The final grading and construction plans for the subject individual specific development shall be reviewed by the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure. Grading operations performed in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall satisfy all applicable recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation.
During construction performed in connection with the specific development, the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor this construction to ensure the earthwork operations are properly performed in accordance with the foregoing requirements.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Impact GEO-1c: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iii) S eismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Impact Analysis
Since saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, no groundwater was encountered in borings during the site investigation; however, data from nearby wells indicate that historic groundwater levels were recorded at levels between 100 and 200 feet below ground surface (BGS). The project site is not mapped for liquefaction hazards by the California Geologic Survey (CGS); accordingly, as detailed more fully in the Geotechnical Evaluation, there are no City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-14
significant liquefaction-related seismic hazards that need to be considered as part of project design considerations.19
Based on the foregoing, potential impacts from liquefaction are considered to be low. Moreover, adherence to all applicable standards and requirements including, among others, those set forth in the CBC would help to further ensure that effects from seismic-related ground failure including the potential for liquefaction would be reduced and remain less than significant.
Therefore, with adherence to all required standards and mandates including, among others, implementation of the above-referenced building code requirements (with compliance confirmed by the City), the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Landslides
Impact GEO-1d: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iv ) Landslides?
Impact Analysis
The project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope toward the east with a ground surface elevation of approximately 300 to 305 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the project site is not expected to have any significant landslide potential, as explained more fully in the Geotechnical Evaluation.
Therefore, development of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides, and thus impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss
Impact GEO-2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
19 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-15
Impact Analysis
Topsoil refers to the uppermost 6 to 8 inches of soil, which have the highest concentration of organic matter and are where most biological soil activity occurs. Soil erosion occurs when soil is removed by wind and water at a greater rate than it is formed. Soil erosion removes the topsoil first and can continue to transport lower layers. Construction of the proposed project and associated improvements would involve earth-disturbing activities that could expose soils to the effects of wind or water erosion. Therefore, impacts in this regard are potentially significant.
However, the proposed project would disturb at least 1 acre of land and therefore would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), consistent with the City’s General Permit and required to comply with its conditions and standards, which are designed to minimize potential erosion issues. Compliance with the NPDES permit would require the developer to obtain and implement a SWPPP that would prevent sediments and other pollutants from entering the stormwater system. The SWPPP must include a detailed site map(s), including drainage patterns, and identify BMPs that will be used to manage stormwater. The SWPPP must contain measures for both the active construction phase and the post-construction phase. The above requirements have been incorporated as MM GEO-2.
Therefore, construction-related impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Post construction, the project site would be covered with a significant amount of impervious surfaces as well as ample landscape. This would help ensure that the topsoil would not be exposed and would not result in soil erosion during project operations. As a result, project operation would have a less than significant impact as it relates to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-2 In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods by a registered civil engineer or certified professional. The erosion control plan shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The erosion component of the plan must at least meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If earth- disturbing activities are proposed between October 15 and April 15, these activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to minimize potential erosion-related impacts.
Additional erosion control measures may be implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the project proponent shall submit detailed plans to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. The components of the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-16
of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right-of-way of designated access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion control measures.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Unstable Geologic Location
Impact GEO-3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Impact Analysis
Because of the relatively flat topography of the project site, the risk of on-site or off-site landslides associated with development of the proposed project is considered negligible.
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, groundwater fluctuates; however, data from a nearby well indicates that historic groundwater levels were recorded at greater than 100 feet BGS at a well approximately 0.5 miles south of the project site, and as noted above, it is anticipated that similar depths to groundwater are present at the project site.
20 As further described in the Geotechnical
Evaluation, saturated unconsolidated sediments would need to be present within the upper 50 feet of ground surface to be considered potentially liquefiable. 21 Shallow groundwater is not expected at
the project site and the project site is not mapped for liquefaction hazards by CGS.22 Other geologic
20 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 21 Ibid.
22 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-17
hazards related to liquefaction, such as lateral spreading and dynamic settlement, are therefore also considered low.23
Land subsidence on-site and in the vicinity could result from excessive pumping of the underground aquifer. Groundwater pumping may occur near the site boundary for nearby agricultural purposes, but it is likely that any such pumping would be at levels too small to contribute significantly to subsidence. A review of the aerial imagery for this area shows the presence of an agricultural water supply canal along the northern border of the project site (Modoc Ditch). This is the most likely source for water supplies for the intensive agriculture (orchards) used in the surrounding land uses.
For this reason and as detailed in the Geotechnical Evaluation, the potential risk for land subsidence is considered to be low to negligible.
The potential for soil collapse at the project site is considered negligible as the project site is located on a relatively flat-lying plain. It was determined that the probability of damage from surface fault rupture is considered to be low.
24 Moreover, the proposed project would be required to incorporate the recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Evaluation into the proposed project construction and design plans, as outlined in MM GEO-1, which would ensure that any risk associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, requirements and standards to further reduce potential impacts related to unstable geologic units.
Based on the foregoing, impacts associated with being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project, would be considered less than significant with the implementation of MM GEO-1.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Expansive Soil
Impact GEO-4: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
23 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 24 Ibid.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-18
Impact Analysis
The Geotechnical Evaluation for the project site concluded the predominant soils are silt with sand, sandy silt, silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and poorly graded sand. The shrink-swell behavior of expansive soils can lead to damage of project buildings, infrastructure and improvements over time if not addressed appropriately prior to construction. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the soil at the project site has a low expansion potential; moreover, as described above, the proposed project would be required to incorporate recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation into project construction and design plans to reduce potential impacts related to unstable soil, in accordance with MM GEO-1. In addition, the proposed project would be required to be comply with all applicable standards and requirements including, among others, applicable provisions of the CBC to reduce potential adverse effects from expansive soils. All grading and construction associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the applicable specifications, procedures, and site conditions contained in the final design plans, which would be subject to approval by the City of Visalia Planning Division (Municipal Code 16.12.070). Therefore, while the proposed project could be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (1994), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of MM GEO-
1. Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Wastewater Disposal Systems
Impact GEO-5: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would use portable bathroom facilities to accommodate on-site workers throughout the construction process. Once constructed, the proposed project would connect to City- operated sewer and wastewater, water, and stormwater facilities. Therefore, the proposed would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-19
Destruction of Paleontological Resource or Unique Geologic Feature Impact GEO-6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact Analysis
The Paleontological Report (Appendix E) concluded that the project site is located on Holocene alluvium, which is too young to be fossiliferous. The nearest localities of late Pleistocene or older deposits, which have the potential to be fossiliferous, are located approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the project site.25
Based on the Paleontological Records Search performed for the project site and geological map and paleontological literature review, the project site is located on undivided Holocene fan deposits that have no paleontological potential. The project site is not expected to disturb any pre-Holocene deposits that have a higher potential to be fossiliferous.
However, there is always the possibility to disturb or damage previously unknown paleontological resources during subsurface construction activities, which would be a significant impact. Therefore, MM GEO-3 shall be implemented, which would require appropriate identification and treatment of inadvertently uncovered paleontological resources, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant.
Impacts related to the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature are limited to construction. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-3 In the event a fossil is discovered during construction performed in connection with project development, the relevant project developer/contractor shall cease ground- disturbing activities within 15 feet of the find. The qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures which shall be implemented by the relevant applicant. In addition, all recovered fossils should be deposited in an appropriate repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, located on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, where they will be properly curated and made accessible for future study.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
25 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project (4119.0039), near the City of Visalia, Tulare County. June 20.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-20
3.7.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative geology, soils, and seismicity analysis is the project site and its vicinity, which includes an area generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. This is because adverse effects associated with many geological, soils, and seismicity issues tend to be localized; therefore, an area generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site would be the area most affected by such activities for purposes of this cumulative analysis. In addition, soil conditions associated with the proposed project, such as differential settlement, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil creep, are specific to the project site and generally do not contribute to a cumulative effect.
Some or all other cumulative projects may have similar conditions, but they also would not contribute to a general geologic or soil cumulative effect. Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, Cumulative Developments No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 would be within 0.5 mile of the project site. The cumulative setting includes Cumulative Developments No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, along with existing agricultural, industrial, and residential uses.
Seismic-related Hazards
Because the cumulative developments are within the project vicinity, they would have similar potential to experience ground shaking from earthquakes and would be exposed to the same ground shaking hazards. MM GEO-1 requires a geotechnical study to evaluate soil conditions and geologic hazards be performed by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer on the project site and to design the project facilities to withstand probable seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, and subsidence.
Likewise, they would be subject to the same requirements under the comprehensive regulatory framework. Cumulative developments would be required to adhere to all applicable requirements and standards including, among others, those set forth in the CBC, the General Plan, and Visalia Municipal Code reducing potential hazards associated with seismic ground shaking and ground failure. The purpose of these standards and requirements is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction, and by design, it is intended to reduce the risks, to the extent feasible, to people and structures resulting from seismic events. For example, cumulative developments would be subject to the mandatory requirements and standards of the CBC Title 24 (California Green Building Standards Code), which identify site preparation and construction techniques to attenuate the effects of strong ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure.
Additionally, compliance with the CBC ensures proper site preparation and grading practices, adequate design of foundations, and guidelines for the appropriate selection and use of construction materials that would minimize potential impacts associated with seismic-related events. Cumulative developments would also be required to implement recommendations from project-specific geotechnical evaluations to reduce seismic impacts on people and structures. As such, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant impact with incorporation of the identified mitigation. For example, the proposed project would be required to adhere to all City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-21
applicable standards and mandates set forth in the comprehensive regulatory framework, as well as to satisfy the identified mitigation measures noted above.
Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative developments, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact associated with seismic-related hazards.
Soil-related Hazards
Soil conditions associated with the proposed project, such as differential settlement, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil creep, are specific to the project site and generally do not contribute to a cumulative effect. MM GEO-2 requires the preparation of a SWPPP using BMPs to reduce the potential effects of erosion. Some or all other cumulative projects may have similar conditions, but they would comply with similar measures and would not contribute to a general geologic or soil cumulative effect. Therefore, there is no potentially significant cumulative impact related to soils.
With respect to the contribution of the proposed project to this already less than significant impact, the proposed project would be subject to a comprehensive regulatory framework including requirements and standards pursuant to all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code provisions, and the CBC, as well as being required to implement the identified mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2, all of which would reduce soil-related hazard impacts to a less than significant level. Other cumulative projects would be required to adhere to similar requirements, thereby minimizing cumulative erosion impacts. As such, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact associated with soil-related hazards.
Paleontological Resources and Unique Geologic Feature
The geographic scope related to cumulative unique geologic resources and paleontological resources is the project site and its immediate vicinity. This is because geologic resources and paleontological resource impacts tend to be localized since the integrity of any given resource depends on what occurs only in the immediate vicinity around that resource, such as disruption of soils. The Cumulative Developments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 listed on Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 would fall within this cumulative geographic scope.
The likelihood that unique geologic resources and paleontological resources are present on the proposed project and the cumulative development areas is relatively low, given that the majority of soil disturbance associated with these cumulative developments would take place within Holocene soils too young to be fossiliferous. This is based on the Paleontological Records Search prepared for the project site, which concluded that the nearest vertebrate locality is 5.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The Paleontological Records Search concluded that there is an absence of fossiliferous localities within 5 miles of the project site. However, in the unlikely event paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, implementation of MM GEO-3 requires construction work to stop within 15 feet of the find. The qualified Paleontologist would evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures that would be implemented by the relevant applicant.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-22
Nevertheless, construction activities associated with implementation of cumulative developments in the vicinity of the project site may have the potential to encounter undiscovered unique geologic resources and paleontological resources. However, these cumulative developments would be required to consider and mitigate, if necessary, for any identified impacts through compliance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations governing unique geologic resources and paleontological resources and other project-specific identified mitigation measures. Although there is the possibility that previously undiscovered resources could be encountered by subsurface earthwork activities, the implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that undiscovered geologic and paleontological resources are not adversely affected by cumulative project-related construction activities, which would prevent the destruction or degradation of potentially significant cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed project has a low potential for disruption of unique geologic resources and paleontological resources given the nature of the soils on-site.
Moreover, the proposed project incorporates mitigation to ensure that impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance in the event previously unknown unique geologic resources and/or paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction. Although project construction has the potential to disturb paleontological resources, with the implementation of MM GEO-3, the project would not result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Given this minimal impact and the requirement for similar mitigation for other projects in the area, cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative developments, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant impact related to unique geologic and paleontological resources.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, and MM GEO-3.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
41150039 • 03/2023 | 3.7-1_regional_earthquake_fault_map.cdr Exhibit 3.7-1
Regional Earthquake Fault Map
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Source: Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2005.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-1
3.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Information included in this section is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B). One public comment was received during the EIR scoping period related to GHG emissions.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) dated September 28, 2022, related to project construction and operational emissions, health risk assessment criteria, and recommended air pollutant reduction strategies.
3.8.2 - Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, and Climate Change
Climate change is a change in the average weather of the Earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature changes from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1°C (degrees Celsius) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios.
1 The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” An individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to effect a discernible change in global climate. However, every development project participates in the potential for global climate change by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on global climate change.
Greenhouse Gases and Global Emission Sources
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY , USA. Website: www.ipcc.ch /publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-2
nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. It is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.
Individual GHG compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. To describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the CO 2 equivalent
(CO2e) is used. The calculation of the CO2 equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CO2. For example, CH4’s warming potential of 25 indicates that CH4 has 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. A CO2 equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential. As described in Table 3.8-1, the GHGs defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (see the Climate Change Regulatory Environment section for a description) include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6. A seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), was added to Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern.
Table 3.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is a colorless GHG. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its
global warming potential is 298.
Microbial processes in soil and water, fuel
combustion, and industrial processes.
CH4 Methane is a flammable gas and is the
main component of natural gas. It has a
lifetime of 12 years. Its global warming
potential is 25.
Methane is extracted from geological
deposits (natural gas fields). Other sources
are landfills, fermentation of manure, and
decay of organic matter.
CO2 CO2 is an odorless, colorless, natural
GHG. CO2’s global warming potential is 1.
The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts
per million (ppm), which is an increase of
about 1.4 ppm per year since 1960.
Natural sources include decomposition of
dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria,
plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation
from oceans; and volcanic outgassing.
Anthropogenic sources are from burning
coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
HFCs HFCs are a group of GHGs containing
carbon, chlorine, and at least one
hydrogen atom. Global warming
potentials range from 140 to 11,700.
HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals
used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons
in applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.
PFCs PFCs have stable molecular structures
and only break down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above Earth’s
surface. Because of this, they have long
lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000
years. Global warming potentials range
from 6,500 to 9,200.
Two main sources of PFCs are primary
aluminum production and semiconductor
manufacturing.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-3
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources SF6 SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless,
and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high
global warming potential, 23,900.
This gas is man-made and used for insulation
in electric power transmission equipment in
the magnesium industry, in semiconductor
manufacturing, and as a tracer gas.
Nitrogen trifluoride Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was added to Health and Safety Code Section
38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. It has a
high global warming potential of 17,200.
This gas is used in electronics manufacture
for semiconductors and liquid crystal
displays.
Sources: Compiled from a variety of sources, primarily
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY , USA. Website:
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Website:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
The State of California has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants. The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy in March 2017. The ARB has completed an emission inventory of these pollutants, identified research needs, identified existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinated with other State agencies and districts to develop measures. 2 Sources of black carbon are already regulated by the ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control PM2.5 from diesel engines and other combustion sources.3 Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyond those required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed.
Human Health Effects of GHG Emissions
GHG emissions from development projects would not result in concentrations that would directly impact public health. However, the cumulative effects of GHG emissions on climate change have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health.
The United States Global Change Research Program, in its report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,
4 has analyzed the degree to which impacts on human health are expected to impact the United States.
Potential effects of climate change on public health include:
2 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 3 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs2015.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 4 The United States Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 2009. Website:
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-4
• Direct Temperature Effects: Climate change may directly affect human health through increases in average temperatures, which are predicted to increase the incidence of heat waves and hot extremes.
• Extreme Events: Climate change may affect the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and extreme heat and floods, which can be destructive to human health and well-being.
• Climate-Sensitive Diseases: Climate change may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects, such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. • Air Quality: Respiratory disorders may be exacerbated by warming-induced increases in the frequency of smog (ground level ozone) events and particulate air pollution.5
Although there could be health effects resulting from changes in the climate and the consequences that can occur, inhalation of GHGs at levels currently in the atmosphere would not result in adverse health effects, with the exception of ozone and aerosols (PM). At very high indoor concentrations (not at levels existing outside), CO, CH
4, SF6, and some chlorofluorocarbons can cause suffocation as the gases can displace oxygen.6
Existing GHG Emissions
United States GHG Inventory
In 2020, United States GHG emissions totaled 5,222 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e. Figure 3.8-1 presents 2020 United States GHG emissions by economic sector. Emissions decreased from 2019 to 2020 by 11 percent due to a 13 percent decrease in transportation emissions driven by decreased demand as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Electric power sector emissions also decreased 10 percent, reflecting both a slight decrease in demand from the COVID-19 pandemic and a continued shift from coal to less carbon intensive natural gas and renewables.
Since 1990, United States emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.1 percent. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 (after accounting for sequestration from the land sector) were 21 percent below 2005 levels.
7 5 The United States Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 2009. Website:
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2010. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Carbon Dioxide. Website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html. Accessed June 1, 2023. 7 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. April. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-5
Note: Emissions and removals from Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry are excluded.
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. April.
Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Figure 3.8-1: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors (1990-2020) California GHG Inventory
As the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in the U.S., California contributes a large quantity (369.1 MMT CO2e in 2020) of GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion and are attributable in large part to human activities associated with transportation, industry/manufacturing, electricity and natural gas consumption, and agriculture. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter at 38 percent of GHG emissions, followed by industry/manufacturing at 23 percent of GHG emissions (Figure 3.8-2).8
8 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2019 Edition. August 12. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-6
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2023. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2000-2020 Emissions Trends and Indicators Report. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Figure 3.8-2: 2020 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector City of Visalia
The baseline inventory year for the City of Visalia’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is 2005.9 The City baseline inventory involves two components: a community sector inventory (i.e., the full geographic area of City’s jurisdiction) and a separate inventory of the municipal sector, which includes government owned and operated facilities and activities. Table 3.8-2 provides the baseline inventory.
Table 3.8-2: City of Visalia 2005 Community GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory by Sector Sector MT CO2e/year Percentage of Total
Transportation 490,063 55%
Commercial/Industrial 208,342 23%
Residential 202,533 22%
Solid Waste2 -7,8623 -1%
Total 3,745,115 100%
Notes:
1 Emissions from municipal operations only
2 For the solid waste sector, CO2 and CH4 emissions could not be separated because the EPA WARM software utilized to calculate the emissions only provides results in CO2e.
3 The solid waste CO2e figure denotes a net GHG emissions figure resulting from landfilled solid waste, composting, and recycling activities in 2005. The negative figure is a result of the GHG emissions avoided specifically from composting and recycling efforts implemented by the City in 2005.
Source: Strategic Energy Innovations (SEI). 2013. City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP). December.
9 Strategic Energy Innovations (SEI). 2013. City of Visalia Climate Action Plan. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=28939. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-7
The City’s community activities emitted approximately 906,337 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. The transportation sector was the most significant of all community sectors, comprising 55 percent, followed by the commercial/industrial sector (23 percent), and then closely by the residential sector (22 percent). In addition, the City’s municipal operations emitted approximately 16,446 metric tons of CO2e in 2005.
3.8.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
The following are actions regarding the federal government, GHGs, and fuel efficiency that are relevant in this analysis.
GHG Endangerment
Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the EPA regulate four GHGs, including CO
2, under Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the CAA. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.
Clean Vehicles
Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, former President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
The first phase of the national program applied to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium- duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 applied to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of CO
2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.
The EPA and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, which became effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies proposed engine and vehicle standards that began in the 2014 model year and would achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies proposed separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles, and a 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-8
year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.
The State of California received a waiver from the EPA to have separate, stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Although global climate change did not become an international concern until the 1980s, efforts to reduce energy consumption began in California in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, resulting in the incidental reduction of GHG emissions. To manage the State’s energy needs and promote energy efficiency, AB 1575 created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1975. It should be noted that the EPA recently reinstated California’s waiver for its GHG and Zero- Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates that were more stringent than other federal regulations implementing the CAA.
10 In September 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-79- 20, which requires sales of all new passenger vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035 and additional measures to eliminate harmful emissions from the transportation sector.
Consolidated Appropriations Act (Mandatory GHG Reporting) On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA.
New Source Review
The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, that established thresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for CO2 emissions for new, affected, fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units on March 27, 2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatts would be required to meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology.
Cap-and-Trade
Cap-and-trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded, or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply.
10 Harvard Law School. 2022. EPA’s Revived Clean Cars Waiver for California. April. Website:
https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2022/04/epas-revived-clean-cars-waiver-for-california/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-9
The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners are California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Currently only California and Québec are participating in the Cap-and-Trade Program.11
California
Legislative Actions to Reduce GHGs
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.
Other legislation, such as the Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes, such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.
Assembly Bill 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. It should be noted that the EPA reinstated California’s waiver for its GHG and ZEV mandates that were more stringent than other federal regulations implementing the CAA.12
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley Bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low emission Vehicle Program referred to as low-emission vehicle (LEV) III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation is anticipated to reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars and will deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Assembly Bill 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
The ARB is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMT CO2e on December 6, 2007.13 Therefore, to meet the State’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 were required to be equal to or less than 427 MMT CO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a Business as Usual (BAU) scenario were estimated to
11 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 2015. Cap-and-Trade Basics. Website: https://www.c2es.org/content/cap-and- trade-basics/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
12 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: EPA Restoration of California Waiver Will Support State Climate Action, Improve Air Quality, and Advance our Electric Vehicle Future. March 11. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/what-they-are-saying-epa-restoration-california-waiver-will-support-state-climate. Accessed June 1, 2023.
13 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Staff Report. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. November 16, 2007. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-10
be 596 MMT CO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations.14 At that rate, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMT CO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, the ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the effects of the 2008 recession and slower forecasted growth. Under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels.
15 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
The ARB Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 to comply with AB 32. 16 The Scoping Plan identifies
recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a Statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California Cap-and-Trade Program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS); and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. Capped strategies are subject to the proposed Cap-and-Trade Program. Implementation of the capped strategies was calculated to achieve a sufficient amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. Uncapped strategies that would not be subject to the cap-and- trade emissions caps and requirements were provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional GHG emission reductions.
17 The ARB approved the First Update to the Scoping Plan on
14 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. (includes edits made in 2009) Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023 15 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projection and BAU Scenario Emissions Estimate. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-bau. Accessed June 1, 2023.
16 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. (includes edits made in 2009) Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 17 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008 (includes edits made in 2009). Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-11
May 22, 2014. The First Update builds upon the Initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations.18
Senate Bill 32 and the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update The Governor signed SB 32 in September 2016, giving the ARB the statutory responsibility to include the 2030 target previously contained in Executive Order B-30-15 in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. SB 32 states: “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the State [air resources] board shall ensure that Statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017. The major elements of the framework proposed to achieve the 2030 target are as follows:
• SB 350
- Achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030. - Doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard
- Increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).
• Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) - Maintaining existing GHG standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles. - Put 4.2 million ZEVs on the roads.
- Increase ZEV buses, delivery and other trucks.
• Sustainable Freight Action Plan
- Improve freight system efficiency.
- Maximize use of near-zero-emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy. - Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030. • Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
- Reduce emissions of methane and HFCs 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. - Reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. • SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
- Increased stringency of 2035 targets.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
- Declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada. - The ARB will look for opportunities to strengthen the program to support more air quality co-benefits, including specific program design elements. In fall 2016, ARB staff described potential future amendments including reducing the offset usage limit, redesigning the allocation strategy to reduce free allocation to support increased technology and energy investment at covered entities and reducing allocation if the covered entity increases criteria or toxics emissions over some baseline.
18 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-12
• 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector. • By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
2022 Scoping Plan
The most recent version of the ARB’s Scoping Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), addresses the SB 32 targets and was adopted on December 15, 2022.
It provides a detailed sector-by-sector guide to address climate change by cutting GHG emissions by 85 percent and achieving carbon neutrality in 2045, with the main focus of emission reductions efforts being the transportation and energy sectors.
The elements of the framework set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan proposed to achieve the emission reduction targets are as follows:
• Transportation
- Achieve 100 percent ZEV sales of light-duty vehicles by 2035 and medium heavy-duty vehicles by 2040.
- Achieve a 20 percent zero-emission target for the aviation sector. - Prioritize and increase funding for clean transportation equity programs. - Accelerate the reduction and replacement of fossil fuel production and consumption in California.
- Increase the stringency and scope of the LCFS.
- Achieve a per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below by 2045.
• Clean Electricity Grid
- Per SB 350, double Statewide energy efficiency savings by 2030. - Use long-term planning processes to support grid reliability and expansion of renewable and zero-carbon development.
- Per SB 100 and 1020, achieve 90 percent, 95 percent, and 100 percent renewable and zero- carbon retail sales by 2035, 2040, and 2045, respectively. • Sustainable Manufacturing and Buildings
- Maximize air quality benefits using the best available control technologies for stationary sources in communities most in need.
- Implement SB 905.
- Develop a net-zero cement strategy to meet SB 956 targets for the GHG intensity of cement use.
- Leverage energy efficiency and low carbon hydrogen programs. - Prioritize most vulnerable residents with the majority of funds in the new $922 million Equitable Building Decarbonization program.
- Achieve three million all-electric and electric-ready homes by 2030 and seven million by 2035 with six million heat pumps installed by 2030.
- Adopt a zero-emission standard for new space and water heaters sold in California beginning in 2030.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-13
- Implement biomethane procurement targets for investor-owned utilities as specified in SB 1440.
• Carbon Dioxide Removal and Capture
- Implement SB 905.
- Achieve the 85 percent reduction in anthropogenic sources below 1990 levels per AB 1279 by incorporating Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) into sectors and programs beyond transportation.
- Evaluate and propose the role for CCS in cement decarbonization and as part of hydrogen peroxide pathways.
- Explore carbon capture application for zero-carbon power for reliability needs per SB 100. • Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (Non-Combustion Gases) - Install anaerobic digesters to maximize air and water quality protection, maximize biomethane capture, and direct biomethane to specific sectors. - Increase alternative manure management projects.
- Expand markets for products made from organic waste.
- Pursuant to SB 1137, develop leak detection and repair plans for facilities in health protection zones, implement emission detection system standards, and provide public access to emissions data.
- Convert large HFC emitters to the lowest practical global warming potential (GWP) technologies.
• Natural and Working Lands
- Implement AB 1757 and SB 27.
- Implement the Climate Smart Strategy.
- Accelerate the pace and scale of climate smart forest management to at least 2.3 million acres annually by 2025.
- Accelerate the pace and scale of healthy soils practices to 80,000 acres annually by 2025, conserve at least 8,000 acres of annual crops annually, and increase organic agriculture to 20 percent of all cultivated acres by 2045.
- Restore 60,000 acres of Delta wetlands annually by 2045. - Increase urban forestry investment annually by 200 percent, relative to BAU.
Senate Bill 375—the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 does the following:
1. Requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions,
2. Aligns planning for transportation and housing, and
3. Creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-14
Senate Bill 1368—Emission Performance Standards
In 2006, the State Legislature adopted SB 1368, which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.
Senate Bill 1078—Renewable Electricity Standards
On September 12, 2002, Former Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established an RPS target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Former Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21-09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. The ARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.
Senate Bill 350—Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The State Legislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies toward a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.
Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce Statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. • Reorganize the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.19
SBX 7-7—The Water Conservation Act of 2009
The legislation directs urban retail water suppliers to set individual 2020 per capita water use targets and begin implementing conservation measures to achieve those goals. Meeting this Statewide goal of 20 percent decrease in demand has resulted in a reduction of almost 2 million acre-feet in urban water use.
19 California Legislative Information (California Leginfo). 2015. Senate Bill 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-15
Senate Bill 100—The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 The legislation directs the CPUC, CEC, and the ARB to plan for 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045. This Act amends Sections 399.11, 399.15, and 399.30 of, and adds Section 454.53 to, the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy.
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of Executive Orders, which state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch have the effect of law.
Although not legislation, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of State agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target.
Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard
The Governor signed Executive Order S 01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a Statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the Executive Order established a LCFS and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the CEC, ARB, University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “lifecycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. The ARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.
Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy20 was adopted, which is the “. . . first Statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.”. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
20 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Website: https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-16
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Former Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an Executive Order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s Executive Order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The Executive Order sets a new interim Statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of metric ton (MT) CO 2e.
California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth and are viewed as some of the most stringent requirements in the nation.
California Code of Regulations Title 13: Motor Vehicles California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.21 This measure seeks to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other air contaminants by establishing idling restrictions, emission standards, and other requirements for heavy-duty diesel engines and alternative idle reduction technologies to limit the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. Any person that owns, operates, or causes to operate any diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle must not allow a vehicle to idle for more than 5 consecutive minutes at any location, or operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted area.
California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449: General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets. This measure regulates NO X, DPM, and other
criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. This measure also requires each fleet to meet fleet average requirements or demonstrate that it has met “best available control technology” requirements. Additionally, this measure requires medium and large fleets to have a written idling policy that is made available to operators of the vehicles informing them that idling is limited to 5 consecutive minutes or less.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608:
Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for
21 Thomas Reuters Westlaw. 2020. California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Website:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I6DACC2EF0D6441DDA5B788DFEDCD1A22?viewType=FullText&originationContext=d ocumenttoc&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-17
sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the State and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The newest version of Title 24 (2022 Tile 24) adopted by the CEC went into effect on January 1, 2023.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 11 code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011. The code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards Code (CALGreen) that became effective January 1, 2023. 22 Local
jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. The State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) was required by AB 1881 Water Conservation Act. The bill required local agencies to adopt a local landscape ordinance at least as effective in conserving water as the MWELO by January 1, 2010. Reductions in water use of 20 percent consistent with (SBX-7-7) 2020 mandate are expected for the MWELO. New development projects that include landscaped areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the MWELO. The update requires:
• More efficient irrigation systems;
• Incentives for graywater usage;
• Improvements in on-site stormwater capture;
• Limiting the portion of landscapes that can be planted with high water use plants; and • Reporting requirements for local agencies.
Senate Bill 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Revisions
Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall
22 State of California. 2022. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Website: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-18
certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).”
Section 21097 was also added to the Public Resources Code, which provided an exemption until January 1, 2010 for transportation projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 or projects funded by the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, in stating that the failure to analyze adequately the effects of GHGs would not violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Natural Resources Agency completed the approval process, and the Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
The 2010 CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change.
California Supreme Court GHG Ruling
In a November 30, 2015 ruling, the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife invalidated the EIR for the Newhall Ranch project due to insufficient evidence in the administrative record supporting that project’s GHG analysis, among other reasons. The Court endorsed the use of AB 32’s Statewide emission reduction goals as a legally permissible significance threshold for analyzing a project’s GHG impacts under CEQA. However, comparisons to the AB 32 Scoping Plan must be supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence.
In other words, the Court approved the methodology used in the EIR’s analysis in terms of reductions from projected BAU emissions consistent with AB 32’s Statewide reductions mandate (rather than against some absolute numeric limit above the project site’s baseline emissions), but the Court held the GHG analysis lacked supporting substantial evidence and a cogent explanation correlating the project-specific reductions to AB 32’s mandated Statewide reductions so as to demonstrate consistency with the latter’s goals under the approved methodology. The Court made the following key points with respect to its holding on the GHG analysis under CEQA, as summarized below: Specifically, the Court held that:
• Substantiation of Project Reductions from BAU. A lead agency may use a BAU comparison based on the Scoping Plan’s methodology so long as it also substantiates the reduction a particular project must achieve to comply with Statewide goals (page 25). In so doing, the lead agency needs to ensure the administrative record establishes a “firm ground for the efficiency comparison” by documenting with substantial evidence in the record the EIR’s conclusion that the individual project’s percent emissions savings over BAU satisfies the EIR’s significance criterion of consistency with the Scoping Plan’s 29 percent Statewide savings by 2020. In so doing, this alleviates the analytical gap by establishing, through substantial evidence and reasoned explanation, a quantitative equivalence between the Scoping Plan’s Statewide comparison and the EIR’s individual project-level comparison.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-19
• Compliance with Regulatory Programs or Performance Based Standards. A lead agency “might assess 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” (page 26). • Compliance with GHG Reduction Plans or Climate Action Plans. A lead agency may utilize “geographically specific GHG emission reduction plans” such as Climate Action Plans (CAPs) or GHG emission reduction plans to provide a basis for the tiering or streamlining of project-level CEQA analysis (page 26).
• Compliance with Local Air District Thresholds. A lead agency may rely on “existing numerical thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions” adopted by, for example, local air districts (page 27).
Regional
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Climate Change Action Plan On August 21, 2008, the Valley Air District Board approved a proposal called the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP began with a public process bringing together land use agencies, environmental groups, business groups, and other stakeholders to conduct public workshops to develop comprehensive policies for CEQA Guidelines to be used in the Air Basin, a carbon exchange bank, and voluntary GHG emissions mitigation agreements for the Valley Air District’s Board’s consideration. The CCAP contains the following goals and actions:
• Develop GHG significance thresholds to address CEQA projects with GHG emission increases. • Develop the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange for banking and trading GHG reductions. • Authorize use of the Valley Air District’s existing inventory reporting system to allow use for GHG reporting required by AB 32 regulations.
• Develop and administer GHG reduction agreements to mitigate proposed emission increases from new projects.
• Support climate protection measures that reduce GHG emissions as well as toxic and criteria pollutants. Oppose measures that result in a significant increase in toxic or criteria pollutant emissions in already impacted areas.
On December 17, 2009, the Valley Air District’s Board adopted “Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” and the policy “District Policy—Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.” The Valley Air District concluded that the existing science is inadequate to support quantification of the impacts that project-specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change. The Valley Air District found the effects of project-specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered cumulatively considerable. The Valley Air District found that this cumulative impact is best addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their GHG emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-20
The Valley Air District’s approach is intended to streamline the process of determining whether project-specific GHG emissions would have a significant effect. Projects exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and projects complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources and must have a certified final CEQA document.
For non-exempt projects, those projects for which there is no applicable approved plan or program, or those projects not complying with an approved plan or program, the lead agency must evaluate the project against performance-based standards and would require the adoption of design elements, known as a Best Performance Standard, to reduce GHG emissions. The Best Performance Standards (BPS) have not yet fully been established, though they must be designed to affect a 29 percent reduction when compared with the BAU projections identified in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan.
BAU represents the emissions that would occur in 2020 if the average baseline emissions during the 2002–2004 period were grown to 2020 levels, without control. These standards thus would carry with them pre-quantified emissions reductions, eliminating the need for project-specific quantification. Therefore, projects incorporating BPS would not require specific quantification of GHG emissions, and automatically would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact for GHG emissions.
For stationary source permitting projects, BPS means, “The most stringent of the identified alternatives for control of GHG emissions, including type of equipment, design of equipment and operational and maintenance practices, which are achieved-in-practice for the identified service, operation, or emissions unit class.” The Valley Air District has identified BPS for the following sources: boilers; dryers and dehydrators; oil and gas extraction, storage, transportation, and refining operations; cogeneration; gasoline dispensing facilities; volatile organic compound (VOC) control technology; and steam generators.
For development projects, BPS means, “Any combination of identified GHG emission reduction measures, including project design elements and land use decisions that reduce project-specific GHG emission reductions by at least 29 percent compared with business as usual.” Projects not incorporating BPS would require quantification of GHG emissions and demonstration that BAU GHG emissions have been reduced or mitigated by 29 percent. As stated earlier, the ARB’s adjusted inventory reduced the amount required by the State to achieve 1990 emission levels from 29 percent to 21.7 percent to account for slower growth experienced since the 2008 recession.
According to Valley Air District guidance, quantification of GHG emissions would be required for all projects for which the lead agency has determined that an EIR is required, regardless of whether the project incorporates BPS.
San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange
The Valley Air District initiated work on the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange in November 2008.
The purpose of the carbon exchange is to quantify, verify, and track voluntary GHG emissions reductions generated within the San Joaquin Valley. However, the Valley Air District has pursued an City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-21
alternative strategy that incorporates the GHG emissions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Offset Banking that formerly only addressed criteria pollutants. The Valley Air District is also participating with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), of which it is a member, in the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx). The GHG Rx is operated cooperatively by air districts that have elected to participate. Participating districts have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CAPCOA and agree to post only those credits that meet the Rx standards for quality. The objective is to provide a secure, low-cost, high-quality, GHG exchange for credits created in California. The GHG Rx is intended to help fulfill compliance obligations, or mitigation needs of local projects subject to environmental review, reducing the uncertainty of using credits generated in distant locations.
Rule 2301
While the CCAP indicated that the GHG emission reduction program would be called the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange, the District incorporated a method to register voluntary GHG emission reductions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Banking through amendments of the rule. Amendments to the rule were adopted on January 19, 2012. The purposes of the amendments to the rule include the following:
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to bank voluntary GHG emission reductions for later use.
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to transfer banked GHG emission reductions to others for any use.
• Define eligibility standards, quantitative procedures, and administrative practices to ensure that banked GHG emission reductions are real, permanent, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable.
Tulare County Association of Governments
2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) component in accordance with SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. TCAG adopted the 2018 SCS/RTP on August 20, 2018. In so doing, the TCAG Board of Directors made a determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve the per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions targets established by its Board of Directors. The 2020 target is a 5 percent per capita reduction and the 2035 target is a 10 percent per capita reduction from the 2005 base year. The ARB accepted the determination that the TCAG 2018 SCS, if implemented, would achieve the region’s per capita GHG emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2035. At the time of writing of this report, the TCAG 2022 RTP was still in the Draft phase and has not yet been formally adopted. 23 The 2018 SCS/RTP strives to reduce air emissions from passenger vehicle and light-duty truck travel by better coordinating transportation expenditures with forecasted development patterns and, if feasible, help meet ARB GHG targets for the region. SB 375 requires the ARB to develop regional
23 Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). 2022. Website: https://tularecog.org/tcag/about-us/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-22
GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The ARB is to establish targets for the automobile and light-duty truck sector for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are responsible for preparing an SCS within their RTP . The key purpose of SB 375 and the TCAG SCS is to reduce per capita emissions originating from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Accordingly, the 2018 SCS/RTP:
• Describes sources of emissions in the Tulare County region, 2020 and 2035 emission reduction targets established by the ARB for the San Joaquin Valley, and modeling techniques used to estimate and forecast emissions;
• Identifies Statewide strategies to reduce transportation-related emissions and their anticipated effect within the Tulare County region;
• Identifies regional strategies that complement the SCS by reducing emissions in other sectors (e.g., energy consumption);
• Quantifies the effect of policies and programs in the RTP that reduce transportation-related emissions in the region; and
• Compares the emissions reductions anticipated with implementation of the SCS/RTP with the regional targets.
The GHG emission targets for lowering emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, as set by the ARB and approved by the TCAG Board of Directors, call for a 5 percent reduction in per capita emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2020 and a 10 percent reduction by 2035 through land use and transportation planning. Based on the analysis of strategies included in the 2018 SCS/RTP , CO 2 emissions were anticipated to be 12.3 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2020 and 16.0 percent lower by 2035, exceeding the targets established by the ARB in 2010.
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan was updated and adopted on October 14, 2014, and establishes the following applicable objectives and policies that are relevant to GHG emissions evaluated in this analysis:
24 Chapter 7: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Objective AQ-O-3 Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change in accord with federal and State law.
AQ-P-12 Support the implementation of Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the District) for individual development projects that may exceed District significance thresholds. A VERA is a voluntary mitigation measure where a project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process
24 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan. October 14.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-23
that develops, funds, and implements emissions reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of emissions reduction programs and verifier of successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project-specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s Strategies and Incentives Program. The funds are disbursed in the form of grants for projects that achieve emissions reductions.
AQ-P-13 Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low emission technology.
AQ-P-14 Promote and expand the trip-reduction program for City employees to reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas. The program may include carpooling and ride sharing; reimbursement of transit costs; encouragement of flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and teleconferencing.
AQ-P-15 Maintain an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and track related solid waste, energy, economic, and environmental data. Update the inventory periodically as additional data and methodologies become available.
AQ-P-16 Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energy management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32. By proposing compact development, mixed use centers, walkable neighborhoods, green building technology, and jobs-housing balance, the City will be helping to implement many of the strategies and programs in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan.
AQ-P-17 Prepare and adopt a Climate Action Plan that incorporates a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Plan. The GHG Emissions Reduction Plan will quantify current and anticipated future emissions and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of General Plan implementation on climate change and air quality.
City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City of Visalia CAP was adopted in December 2013 and provides a policy document that includes strategies for reducing GHG emissions.25 The CAP includes objectives and policies from the General Plan that address long-term emissions reduction efforts and the timeframe of the CAP extends through 2030. Visalia’s CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory of community and municipal sector GHG emissions, identification and analysis of existing and proposed GHG reduction measures, and GHG emission reduction targets to help Visalia work toward the State’s goal of an 80 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2050. The CAP sets 2020 and 2030 GHG emission
25 City of Visalia. 2013. Climate Action Plan. December.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-24
reduction targets, and includes reduction actions for energy, transportation, and waste and resource conservation. Additionally, the CAP includes targets and action steps for the municipal and community sectors. The CAP was prepared concurrently with the updated General Plan, was evaluated in the General Plan EIR together with the General Plan update, and includes objectives and specific policies from the proposed General Plan to address long-term emissions reduction efforts by the City.26
The CAP sets five major long-term objectives for the City government and community as a whole27:
• Reduce net GHG emissions from both municipal operations and community activities; • Promote cleaner and healthier air to breathe;
• Help the City and its residents save on energy costs; • Reduce vulnerability to changes in energy availability and price; and • Increase public awareness of climate change issues.
The CAP sets a reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2020 and 30 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2030. In order to meet these reduction targets the CAP includes a comprehensive set of actions and programs: Energy Systems, Transportation, Water and Resource Conservation, Transportation/Land Use, and Waste and Resource Conservation. However, the City has not monitored the progress of achieving the goals of the CAP . As such, without a mechanism to track the effectiveness of the CAP goals and measures, the CAP cannot be relied upon for the purposes of CEQA analysis. The proposed project’s consistency with the CAP is discussed for informational purposes only.
3.8.4 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether greenhouse emissions impacts are significant environmental effects. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.4(a) of the CEQA Guidelines notes that the significance determination with respect to GHG emissions “calls for a careful judgment” by the lead agency, making 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 result 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.”
26 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Update EIR. Chapter 3.4, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. 27 City of Visalia. 2013. Climate Action Plan. December.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-25
Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency should 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 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 15064.4(c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision-makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change, so long as this selection is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
For the reasons explained below, this analysis contains 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 SB 32 targets, the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Scoping Plan Update. This approach provides estimates of project emissions in the new 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.
City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City of Visalia CAP has established two GHG emission reduction targets: (1) a 15 percent reduction below 2005 baseline year levels by 2020, and (2) a 30 percent reduction below 2005 baseline year level by 2030. These two targets were selected to meet the ARB’s recommended reduction target and the reduction target set by California Executive Order S-3-05. The CAP describes the GHG emission reduction targets for the community and municipal sectors compared to the baseline level:
• The community sector 2020 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 443,051 MT CO 2e.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-26
• The community-wide 2030 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 759,887 MT CO2e. • The municipal sector 2020 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 13,979 MT CO2e. • The municipal sector 2030 reduction target of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent below 2005 emissions levels equates to a reduction of 11,512 MT CO 2e.
However, the CAP would not be considered an “approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program” for purposes of streamlining CEQA review. The standard elements of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy include the following steps:
• Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic range.
• Establish a level, based on substantial evidence below, which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable. • Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.
• Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
• Monitor the plan’s progress.
• Adopt the GHG reduction strategy in a public process following environmental review.
The Visalia CAP includes elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, but does not meet element 5, which requires lead agencies to monitor their progress toward achieving and meeting the goals of a CAP . Based on information provided on the City’s website and description of the CAP , the City has not published publicly available progress reports.
Valley Air District’s Guidance for Providing a BAU Analysis and the State’s Scoping Plan The Valley Air District ’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides guidance for preparing a BAU analysis.28 Under the Valley Air District guidance, projects meeting one of the following would have a less than significant impact on climate change:
• Exempt from CEQA.
• Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program. • Project achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards. • Project achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.”
28 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2009. “Final Staff Report, Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.” Website: http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/11-05- 09/1_CCAP_FINAL_CEQA_GHG_Draft_Staff_Report_Nov_05_2009.pdf. December 2009. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-27
With respect to the foregoing, the proposed project (1) is not exempt from CEQA; (2) the City’s CAP does not qualify as an “approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program” for purposes of streamlining CEQA review; and (3) to date, the Valley Air District has not developed a pre-determined list of BPS to achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU. Therefore, consistent with the Valley Air District guidance (see No. 4, above), this analysis evaluates whether the proposed project would achieve the AB 32 target GHG reduction compared with BAU. It is important to note that when the Valley Air District guidance was adopted in 2009, it referenced a need for development projects to have in excess of a 29 percent reduction from BAU to meet AB 32 targets, which was established by the ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. However, the GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 was reduced to 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020 in the 2014 First Update to the Scoping Plan to account for slower than projected growth after the 2008 recession.
29 In addition, the State has reported that the 2016 GHG inventory was below the 2020 target for the first time.30 Furthermore, the 2017 Scoping Plan stated that California was on track to achieve the 2020 target.31
As explained further above, the 2030 target was codified under SB 32 and is now addressed by the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which includes methodologies and threshold approaches required to determine the fair-share contributions development projects would need to make to achieve the 2030 target. The SB 32 target requires GHG emissions to be reduced from 1990 levels. However, no consensus has been reached around the State on a new quantitative target for new development based on consistency with the SB 32 targets. The ARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan Update on December 14, 2017. The plan provides the State’s strategy to achieve the SB 32 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels. The plan includes existing and new measures that when implemented are expected to achieve the SB 32 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update would achieve substantial reductions beyond 2020 through continued implementation of existing regulations. Other regulations will be adopted to implement recently enacted legislation including SB 350, which requires an increase in renewable energy from 33 percent to 50 percent and doubling the efficiency of existing buildings by 2030.
The State Legislature extended the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030. Cap-and-Trade provides a mechanism to make up shortfalls in other strategies if they occur. 32 In addition, the strategy relies on
reductions achieved in implementing the ARB Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy to reduce pollutants not previously controlled for climate change such as black carbon, CH4, and hydrofluorocarbons.33
29 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 30 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2018. Climate Pollutants Fall Below 1990 Levels for the First Time. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/climate-pollutants-fall-below-1990-levelsfirst-time. Accessed June 1, 2023. 31 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
32 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
33 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017 /final_slcp_report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-28
As described previously, 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 BPS have been identified for projects constructed after 2020. Therefore, significance is based on making continued progress toward the SB 32 2030 goal.
Newhall Ranch
As explained above at length, the California Supreme Court has set forth additional guidance in evaluating a project’s potential GHG impact. In a November 30, 2015, ruling, the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife invalidated the EIR for the Newhall Ranch project due to insufficient evidence in the administrative record supporting that project’s GHG analysis, among other reasons. The Court endorsed the use of AB 32’s Statewide emission reduction goals as a legally permissible significance threshold for analyzing a project’s GHG impacts under CEQA. In particular, the Court upheld: (1) use of the Statewide emissions reduction goal in AB 32 as a significance criterion (pp. 15–19), (2) use of the Scoping Plan’s BAU model “as a comparative tool for evaluating efficiency and conservation efforts” of the Project (pp. 18–19), and (3) a comparison of the project’s expected emissions to a BAU model rather than a baseline of pre- project conditions (pp. 15–19).
However, comparisons to the AB 32 Scoping Plan must be supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence. In other words, the Court approved the methodology used in the EIR’s analysis in terms of reductions from projected BAU emissions consistent with AB 32’s Statewide reductions mandate (rather than against some absolute numeric limit above the project site’s baseline emissions), but the Court held the GHG analysis lacked supporting substantial evidence and a cogent explanation correlating the project-specific reductions to AB 32’s mandated Statewide reductions so as to demonstrate consistency with the latter’s goals under the approved methodology. The Court suggested a lead agency could examine the “data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual model” to determine the necessary project-level reductions from new land use development at the proposed location (p. 25). A lead agency “might assess consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from particular activities.”
The substantial evidence needed to support a project BAU threshold can be derived from data used to develop the Scoping Plan inventory and control strategy, and from analysis conducted by the ARB to track progress in achieving the AB 32 2020 target. The critical factor in determining the appropriate project threshold is whether the State requires additional reductions beyond those achieved by existing regulations in order to achieve its target. If no additional reductions are required from individual projects, no nexus exists to require a project to mitigate its emissions. In City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-29
that case, the percentage reductions achieved by projects through compliance with regulations is the amount needed to reach the AB 32 target.
The State’s regulatory program implementing the 2008 Scoping Plan is now fully mature. All regulations envisioned in the Scoping Plan have been adopted by the responsible agencies and the effectiveness of those regulations have been estimated by the agencies during the adoption process and then are tracked to verify their effectiveness after implementation. The combined effect of this successful effort is that the State now projects that it will meet the 2020 target and achieve continued progress toward meeting post-2020 targets.
The California Supreme Court was concerned that new development may need to do more than existing development to reduce GHGs to demonstrate that it is doing its fair share of reductions. As will be shown below, new development does do more than existing development and, because of the nature of the sources of GHG emissions related to development, existing development is equally responsible for reducing emissions from the most important sources of emissions. It is important to note that most of the State’s regulatory program applies to both new and existing development.
The Scoping Plan reduction from BAU accounts for growth projected in the State and assumes that existing development would continue to emit GHGs at the same rate that occurred in the base year (2002-2004 average). The California Department of Finance (CDF) Report E-5 predicts that population growth in California from 2005 to 2020 will be 13.2 percent. This means that development that existed in 2005 will produce nearly 87 percent of the State’s emissions in 2020.
Conversely, new development is only responsible for about 13 percent of the emissions generated during this timeframe. If measures to reduce emissions from existing development were not available, new development could not provide sufficient reductions to reach the 2020 target even if their emissions were reduced to net-zero. This continues to apply to the 2030 target. The CDF forecasts California’s population will grow by 8.1 percent between 2020 and 2030, so existing development will be responsible for 92 percent of the emissions that occur in 2030.
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. This includes regulations on mobile sources such as: the Pavley standards that apply to all vehicles purchased in California, the LCFS that applies to all fuel used in California, and the 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 and CALGreen Code 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 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-30
industrial building would be constructed after 2023 and would be required to comply with the regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued.
As described above, the State requires an average reduction from all sources of the emission inventory of 21.7 percent to achieve the 2020 target. The Scoping Plan strategy will achieve greater than average reductions from energy and mobile source sectors that are the primary sources related to development projects, and lower than average reductions from other sources such as agriculture.
The amount of reduction estimated by the ARB for each sector was based on technical feasibility and cost effectiveness. Review of the 2008 Scoping Plan inventory and strategy shows that the reduction from all development related sources is approximately 29 percent from BAU in order to make up for the below average sectors and achieve the required 21.7 percent average reduction. Achieving the SB 32 2030 target will require an approximate 40 percent reduction from 2020 levels assuming the State achieves the AB 32 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies a range of reduction amounts expected from each emission sector, but an amount needed for development’s fair share of reductions have not been determined.
The 2022 Scoping Plan addresses the latest climate-related legislation, AB 1279, which required the State to reduce Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 and to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.
Approach to Methodology and Analysis
Given the above regulatory framework and relevant caselaw, for purposes of this analysis, it incorporates both a quantitative evaluation as well as a qualitative consistency evaluation.
Specifically, a quantitative analysis was prepared for the proposed project to determine the extent to which it may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting (see Consideration No. 1, above). The analysis also sets forth an evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with the SB 32 targets and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update based on an assessment of the proposed project’s reduction from BAU based on emissions in 2030 compared with the 21.7 percent reduction and the with a consistency analysis. This approach provides estimates of project emissions in the new 2030 milestone year with the existing threshold to show the extent of progress achieved with existing regulations and project design features to address Considerations 1 and 2 above.
Consistent with the guidance provided by the Newhall Ranch decision, a BAU analysis was prepared that assesses the proposed project’s “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.” To that end, this analysis shows the extent to which the proposed project complies with adopted regulations as well as the additional amount of GHG reductions that would be achieved through implementation of identified project design features.
At this point in time, no additional reductions are required from new development beyond existing regulations for the State to achieve its 2020 target. The recently adopted 2030 target will require a reduction from 431 MT CO
2e to 260 MT CO2e or 40 percent from 1990 levels. After accounting for projected growth of approximately 0.8 percent per year, an average decrease of 5.2 percent per year from the State GHG inventory will be required to achieve the target. As noted above, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes a strategy for achieving the needed reductions, but does not identify an amount required specifically from new development. However, all GHG emission sources within development projects are subject to GHG regulations.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-31
Therefore, this analysis considers the proposed project’s consistency with the existing 2020 target and shows progress toward achieving the 2030 target. The quantitative analysis prepared for the proposed project sets forth the reduction from 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. The new reduction strategies from the plan are designed to close the gap between existing commitments and those needed to achieve the 2030 target, but many of the strategies must go through a regulatory process to be implemented. Therefore, the reduction levels needed from new development beyond regulations, if any, is uncertain.
The analysis prepared for the proposed project also includes qualitative assessments of compliance with the 2008 Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and the 2022 Scoping Plan Update to support GHG significance findings under Impact GHG-2.
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 below.
Greenhouse Gases Assessed
This analysis is appropriately limited to GHGs identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
The proposed project may emit GHGs that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the proposed project may generate aerosols through emissions of DPM from the vehicles and trucks that would access the project site. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about one week. Black carbon is a component of aerosols. Studies have indicated that black carbon has a high GWP; however, the IPCC states that these studies were not conclusive and the results are based on a low level of scientific certainty.34
In addition, water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping in connection with the proposed project, but water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related activities, and therefore it was determined that it would be speculative to consider potential project impacts associated with water vapor.
The proposed project would emit NOx and VOCs, which are ozone precursors. However, this is distinct from ozone, which itself, is a GHG; however, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis.
Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants.
Furthermore, certain GHGs defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the proposed project given the proposed uses. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in heavy industrial
34 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller [eds.]). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY , USA. Website: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-32
applications,35 none of which would be used by the proposed project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride, and thus these GHGs are not studied in this analysis.
3.8.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact Analysis
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Air Quality Report), which is included in Appendix B.
Construction Emissions
Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 3.8-3. The Valley Air District does not recommend assessing the significance of construction- related emissions. However, other jurisdictions, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) and the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (Sacramento Metro AQMD), have concluded that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. For purposes of a conservative analysis, the City, in its discretion, has elected to account for the construction emissions by amortizing the total emissions generated during construction based on the life of the development (30 years) and then adding them to the operational emissions. Table 3.8-3 presents the amount of GHG emissions during construction assuming implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2a and MM AIR-2b.
Table 3.8-3: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigation Included) Construction Year Total MT CO2e per year (approx.)
2024 7,013
2025 3,710
2026 3,081
2027 3,713
2028 874
Entire Construction Duration (2024-2028)
Total 18,391
Amortized over 30 years 613
35 Note: the heavy industrial land uses stated here include uses such as petroleum refineries and manufacturing of heavy metals. Light industrial uses would not engage in similar applications.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-33
Construction Year Total MT CO2e per year (approx.)
Notes:
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Because of rounding, total MT CO2e may be marginally different from CalEEMod output.
Source: Appendix B
Operational Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the life of the proposed project. Sources of emissions would consist of motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources, such as, for example, landscaping activities.
Business As Usual Operational Emissions
Operational emissions under the BAU scenario were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.
Modeling assumptions for the year 2005 were used to represent 2030 BAU conditions (without the benefit of regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions). The Valley Air District guidance recommends using emissions in 2002–2004 in the baseline scenario to represent conditions—as if regulations had not been adopted—to allow the effect of projected growth on achieving reduction targets to be clearly defined.
2025 and 2030 Operational Emissions
Operational emissions were modeled for the years 2025 and 2030 using CalEEMod. It should be noted that although Phase 1 of the proposed project is assumed to be operational in 2025, Phase 2 in 2026, and Phase 3 in 2028, in order to present a conservative evaluation, this BAU analysis assumed that full buildout of the project would be occur and be operational in 2025. CalEEMod assumes compliance with some, but not all, applicable rules and regulations regarding energy efficiency, vehicle fuel efficiency, renewable energy usage, and other GHG reduction policies, as described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide.
36 The reductions obtained from each regulation and the source of the reduction amount used in the analysis are described below.
Emissions Accounting for Applicable Regulations
The following regulations are incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors:
• Pavley I and Pavley II (LEV III) motor vehicle emission standards • ARB Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulation
• 2005, 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The following regulations have not been incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors and require alternative methods to account for emission reductions provided by the regulations:
• Renewable Portfolio Standards
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard
• 2022 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
36 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2017. User's Guide for CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-34
• California Green Building Standards Code (indoor water use) • California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water)
Pavley II/LEV III standards have been incorporated in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. The ARB estimates a 3 percent reduction in 2020 and a 19 percent reduction from the vehicle categories subject to the regulation by 2030.
37,38
The ARB GHG Regulation for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles would apply to trucks accessing the project site. Therefore, the benefits of this regulation were incorporated into CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. The ARB estimates that this regulation will reduce GHG emissions from the affected vehicles by 7.2 percent.39
Title 24 reductions for 2013 and 2016 updates are included in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. RPS is not accounted for in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for indoor water use and California MWELO for outdoor water use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 mandates a 20 percent reduction in urban water use that is implemented with these regulations.
Regulations applicable to project sources and the percent reduction anticipated from each source are shown in Table 3.8-4. The percentage reductions are only applied to the specific sources subject to the regulations. For example, the Pavley LEV Standards apply only to light-duty cars and trucks.
Table 3.8-4: Summary of Applicable Greenhouse Gas Regulations Regulation Project Applicability
Pavley Low Emission Vehicle Standards Light-duty cars and trucks accessing the project site are subject to the regulation.
Truck and Bus Regulation Heavy-duty trucks accessing the project site for deliveries and services are subject to the regulation.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Vehicles accessing the project site would use fuel subject to the LCFS.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The project buildings would be constructed to meet the latest version of Title 24 (currently 2022). The
reduction applies only to energy consumption subject
to the regulation.
Green Building Code Standards The proposed project would include water conservation features required by the standard.
Water Efficient Land Use Ordinance The project landscaping would be required to comply with the regulation.
37 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. Pavley 1 + Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor Version 1.0 User’s Guide. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/tools/pavleylcfs-userguide.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 38 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Clean Car Standards—Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 39 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed GHG Regulations for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/hdghg2013/hdghg2013isor.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-35
Regulation Project Applicability
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Electricity purchased for use at the project site is subject to the 33 percent RPS mandate and would be
subject to the 60 percent mandate starting in the
2030 operational year.
Reported operational emissions are considered to represent unmitigated project conditions to present a conservative analysis. Although MM AIR-2c through MM AIR-2g would reduce GHG emissions due to the use of more efficient on-site vehicles and equipment, reducing vehicle idling, providing EVs with charging infrastructure, these measures cannot be quantified in CalEEMod. Full assumptions and model outputs are provided in Appendix B including detailed results of this analysis for the year 2025.
As shown in the Air Quality Report (Appendix B), the proposed project would demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations and implement project design features to further reduce GHG emissions. In 2025, the proposed project would be expected to generate a total of approximately 63,290 MT CO2e per year, which would be an approximately 37.05 percent reduction in GHG emissions from BAU (100,540 MT CO2e per year).40 This is above the 29 percent reduction required by the Valley Air District 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 c
onsistency 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.
Summary
In conclusion, the proposed project would achieve a reduction of 15.35 percent beyond the ARB 2020 21.7 percent target and 8.05 percent beyond the Valley Air District 29 percent reduction from BAU requirements with compliance with applicable regulations and incorporation of identified project design features in the 2025 operational year. Moreover, 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.
Based on the foregoing progress, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and would contribute a reasonable fair share contribution to achieving the 2030 target. This fair share would be achieved through several mechanisms, including, for example, compliance with increasingly stringent State regulations that apply to new development, such as Title 24 and CALGreen, and regulations on energy production, fuels, and motor vehicles that
40 FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2023. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report, Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-36
apply to both new and existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate significant direct or indirect GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulation that Reduces Emissions Impact GHG-2: Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact Analysis
The following analysis assesses the proposed project’s compliance with Consideration No. 3 regarding consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. This 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.
It should be noted that although the City of Visalia has adopted a CAP in December 2013 as part of the General Plan Update and corresponding EIR, the Visalia CAP does not meet the requirements of a qualified GHG reduction plan, which requires lead agencies to monitor their progress toward achieving and meeting the goals of a CAP . Table 3.8-5 assesses project consistency with the Visalia C A P.
Table 3.8-5: Consistency with City of Visalia’s CAP
CAP Actions Project Consistency
Energy
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Institutional Barrier
Removal. The City participated in an initiative
called the Southwest Solar Transformation
Initiative (SSTI), a regional team of public and
private entities committed to advancing solar
power adoption across the partner municipalities
in the Southwest United States.
Not Applicable. This action applies to the City of Visalia and other municipalities, not individual development
projects such as the proposed project.
Solar PV installations. This action emphasizes the
benefit for community members to install solar
photovoltaic systems.
Consistent. As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar photovoltaic panels on building rooftops. In addition, the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
comment letter sent from the Valley Air District
recommends that the proposed project include rooftop
solar, or solar-ready rooftops, or light colored roofing material. MM GHG-2a would require that the proposed
project includes one of the following measures: rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar
reflective index greater than 78. Therefore, with
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-37
CAP Actions Project Consistency
implementation of MM GHG-2a the proposed project
would be consistent with this action.
Energy Upgrade CA. Energy Upgrade California™ is
a Statewide program that offers incentives to
homeowners who complete select energy
-s
aving
home improvements on a single-f
amily residence
and two to four unit buildings such as a
townhouse, condominium, as well as homeowners
associations with either single-family homes or two
to four unit buildings.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include
residential uses.
Southern California Edison Small Business Direct
Install Program. Southern California Edison will
provide business owners free energy efficiency
evaluations.
Consistent. The proposed project tenants would be able
to freely consult with Southern California Edison (SCE) to conduct energy efficiency evaluations.
Southern California Gas Weatherization Program.
This program offers weatherization upgrades for
qualified property owners through the SoCalGas
Energy Savings Assistance Programs.
Not Applicable. As a new development the proposed
project buildings would be constructed according to
Title 24 of the California Building Code standards. As a result, this action would not be necessary because no
weatherization upgrades would be needed in brand new
buildings.
CSET Weatherization Program. This program offers
free weatherization of residential homes for low-
income residents.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include
residential uses.
Urban Forestry. The Street Tree Ordinance requires
all new commercial and residential development to
plant street trees, which can reduce electricity use
due to shade reducing the need to cool buildings.
Consistent. The proposed project would include drought
tolerant landscaping throughout the project site
consistent with the City of Visalia Tree Ordinance.
Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulbs. Encourage
the use of CFLs throughout the community.
Consistent. The proposed project would as a new
development be constructed according to the latest
adopted version of Title 24 of and the CALGreen
Building Code Standards. These standards include
requirements on energy efficient lighting fixtures, which would reduce energy demand.
Transportation
Sequoia National Park Shuttle Bus. In 2007, the City
began running a shuttle service from Visalia to
Sequoia National Park. Sequoia Shuttle’s external
shuttle service provides affordable, convenient,
and comfortable transportation from Visalia to the
majestic Sequoia National Park, seven days a week,
during summer. Though most park visitors arrive
by private vehicle, the increasing number of motor
vehicles in the nation’s parks threatens the very
resources the parks were intended to protect.
Sequoia National Park receives over 1 million
visitors every year. More visitors results in more
traffic on park roads and parking areas, resulting in
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-38
CAP Actions Project Consistency
lengthy delays and roadway congestion. This
congestion translates to air and noise pollution
which threatens the fragile natural and cultural
resources within the parks. Sequoia Shuttle also
operates four free in-
park routes within Sequoia
National Park. No tickets are required, and bus
stops are clearly marked throughout the park. This
bus service currently consists of a fleet of 12
gasoline-dr
iven buses that operate 109 days of the
year. The annual average ridership for this bus
service is approximately 7,041.
Bicycle Path Expansion. Visalia has an excellent
system of multi-u se paths that are well suited to
biking. Currently, the cumulative distance of
bicycle paths and trails within the City total 27.7
miles. Through acquisition and construction, the
City plans on extending the total distance of bicycle
paths, lanes and trails to 140 miles by 2020 and will
continue expanding bicycle paths through 2030.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
Vi-Cycle Pilot Program. The City of Visalia believes
in the benefits of bikes, buses, and hybrid vehicles.
Reducing our dependency on automobiles can help
conserve natural resources and improve air quality.
The City’s “Vi-Cycle” program takes recovered
b
icycles from the Police Department, Transit and
other sources, refurbishes them and then
distributes them to businesses for use by
employees or customers in the community. This
program is intended to reduce car emissions and
congestion, save money, improve air quality and
utilize recycled bicycles in the community. The City
hopes to keep expanding the program through
2020 and 2030.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
Dare to Spare Program. Dare to Spare Challenge is
a City-wid e challenge implemented by the City's
Transit Division that encourages teamwork,
rewards clean practices, and educates the
community on the simple things we can do to
positively impact air quality.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
Increase in Transit Ridership (City Transit Buses).
The City has been working hard to promote the use
of the City’s public transit systems, in particular
transit bus services. For example, Visalia Transit
hosted the “Make an Impression” campaign where
over 80 green footprints were painted around
town prompting the largest Earth Day event to
date and Transit continues to be an annual Earth
Day participant. Visalia Transit also utilizes social
media, and has a very active and ever
-gr
owing
Facebook page that interacts with fans each day,
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-39
CAP Actions Project Consistency
giving them different tips, facts, updates and
promotions.
Traffic Light Synchronization. The City of Visalia will be installing advanced technology systems and
implementing effective management strategies in
order to improve the operational efficiency of
transportation systems and the movement of
people, goods, and services, including
synchronization of traffic lights and signals.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Waste and Resource Conservation
Waste-To-Energy Program. The Waste-to-Energy
Program began in 2005. The City of Visalia belongs
to the Consolidated Waste Management Authority,
a joint powers authority (includes seven cities and
Tulare County) that ships a small percentage of its
solid waste to be incinerated at a transformation
facility in Long Beach. Based on estimates from
2006
-20
09, approximately 1,416 tons of waste
from Visalia are incinerated each year. This
percentage is subject to change, however, in
subsequent years, depending on funding that is
available. The program ended in 2009.
Not Applicable. This program no longer exists according to the CAP .
Construction and Demolition Recycling. Visalia’s
C&D debris recycling program began in 2006. It
requires all major construction and demolition
related projects in the City to recycle their waste
including, waste building materials, packaging, and
rubble resulting from construction, remodeling,
repair, and demolition operations on pavements
and structures. The requirement for C&D debris
recycling for the City is 50 percent of all C&D waste
generated.
Consistent. The proposed project contractor would be
required to comply with these and all other applicable
construction and demolition recycling requirements
through the issuance of construction and grading
permits.
Yard Waste/Food Scrap Composting. The City of
Visalia has had a yard waste collection service
specifically for the residential sector since 1985.
The yard waste program was expanded to service
the commercial sector in 2006. To promote this
new service, the City implemented a commercial
green waste/recycling audit program where the
City visits individual businesses, studies their waste
stream, and makes recommendations on how local
businesses can save money by reducing the landfill
solid waste content by increasing their green waste
and recycling content. The City continues to offer
the audit program to local businesses. The City’s
yard waste service was yet again expanded to
include food scrap composting in 2009 with the
start of a pilot program for the residential sector.
The program was expanded to the commercial
Consistent. With respect to the removal of the existing orchards, green waste would be removed by
construction contractors consistent with City
requirements. In terms of operation, the proposed
project would include typical landscaping maintenance
and yard waste procedures, which would be disposed of
according to the applicable City of Visalia requirements including, among others, those addressing the City’s
audit program.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-40
CAP Actions Project Consistency
sector in 2010. Starting in 2012, the City's Natural
Resource Conservation Division and Solid Waste
Division began targeting commercial accounts that
would benefit from adding food scrap composting
services. The City will continue to offer commercial
waste audits and utilize every opportunity to
educate the community on the benefits of
yard/food waste composting.
Energy Systems
Energy Star Appliances and Equipment: Promote
purchasing of energy efficient (e.g., ENERGY STAR)
home and office appliances and equipment.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the then-current Title 24 requirements
(including those involving energy efficiency measures)
and would consider Energy efficient Starr Appliances
and Equipment, where feasible.
Community-wide Solar PV Bulk Purchasing:
Continue to promote community-w ide rooftop
solar. Continue exploring the potential to
collaborate with regional partners on a
community- wide solar bulk purchase program.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program:
Work to establish PACE financing which supports
energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
by providing up
-f
ront capital that is subsequently
paid back through a special assessment on
participants’ property taxes, to be implemented in
conjunction with SCE incentive opportunities.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Energy Efficiency Marketing and Programs:
Providing public education on the need for energy
efficiency, emissions reduction programs, and cost
savings associated with energy
-
efficient buildings;
continue co-br
anding programs with the VIEW, SCE
and SoCalGas through Public Goods Funds, facility
benchmarking through AB1103, and other energy
efficiency program opportunities
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) Solar
Program: Through various funding sources, the
VUSD has installed and will continue to implement
renewable energy opportunities at school facilities.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the VUSD, not individual development projects such as
the proposed project.
Water Resource and Conservation
Water Efficient Landscaping Policy: Continue
working to reduce the amount of water used for
landscaping through the development of a local
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, updates to
the Landscape Standards, and enforcement of the
Water Conservation Ordinance
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
adhere to all landscape and water conservation
standards and measures, including, among others,
inclusion of drought tolerant landscaping consistent
with applicable provisions of the City of Visalia
Municipal Code.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-41
CAP Actions Project Consistency
Water Efficient Landscaping Promotion and
Education: Educate the community on the benefits
of using low- maintenance landscaping.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Transportation and Land Use
Transit Oriented Development: Investigate and
integrate transit-oriented development into all of
the City's relevant long
-t
erm planning goals and
projects when applicable.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) Charging Stations:
Continue working to expand the deployment of
PEV through the development of infrastructure,
including the installation of two PEV charging
stations each at the transit parking lot and the two
public parking structures.
Consistent. The proposed project would include MM
AIR-2d, which would require each relevant the project
applicant to include infrastructure for EV charging
stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle
parking spaces (including parking for trucks) in
connection with each individual specific development
proposal, consistent with the applicable California
Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential
Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). MM AIR-2d
would also 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. As a result, the proposed
project would be consistent with this action by
facilitating not inhibit this action intended to expand the deployment of EV charging infrastructure.
Local, Low-Carbon Transportation Education:
Educate citizens on options for utilizing local, low-
carbon transportation.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Infill and Higher Density Development: Through
the 2030 General Plan Update and other tools, the
City will continue to promote infill development
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
CNG Public Fueling Stations: The City will continue
to remove barriers to the installation of public CNG
fueling stations, and work with community
stakeholders to advance the utilization of CNG as a
cleaner alternate fuel source.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Anaerobic Digestion. Commercial compost will be
processed through anaerobic digesters by 2015
and all other green waste and food scraps will be
processed by anaerobic digesters by 2018.
Not Applicable. This action would be implemented by
the City of Visalia, not individual development projects such as the proposed project.
Source: Strategic Energy Innovations (SEI). 2013. City of Visalia Climate Action Plan. December. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=28939. Accessed February 7, 2023.
As described in Table 3.8-5, although many actions in the City of Visalia’s CAP would not apply as they are intended to be actions taken by the City as opposed to being implemented by individual development projects, the proposed project would be consistent with nearly all the City of Visalia CAP actions applicable to individual development, given the nature of the proposed project including City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-42
the incorporation of identified design features, as well as assumed implementation of recommended mitigation measures except CAP Action–Solar Panels. As currently designed, the proposed project would not include solar panels or solar-ready rooftop infrastructure, resulting in a potentially significant impact due to inconsistency with the CAP . However, implementation of MM GHG-2a would require the proposed project to include rooftop solar panels, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78 upon issuance of building permit. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with the Visalia CAP would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Consistency with California’s Post-2020 Targets
The State’s executive branch adopted several Executive Orders related to GHG emissions. Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are two examples. Executive Order S-3-05 sets goals to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The goal of Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was codified by AB 32. The proposed project, as analyzed above, is consistent with AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with this component of Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order B-30-15 establishes an interim goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
The 2030 goal was codified under SB 32 and is now addressed by the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes methodologies and threshold approaches required to determine the fair- share contributions City development projects would need to make to achieve the 2030 target. In the meantime, however, the discussion under “Consistency with SB 32” below addresses the consistency of the proposed project with SB 32, which provides the statutory underpinning of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The SB 32 target requires GHG emissions to be reduced from 1990 levels. No consensus has been reached around the State on a new quantitative target for new development based on consistency with the SB 32 targets.
In 2022, AB 1279 codified requirements for achieving net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and achieving and maintaining net negative GHG emissions thereafter. AB 1279 requires that by 2045, Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels. To address the requirements, ARB 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality as directed by AB1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. 41 • Energy Sector: Continued improvements in California’s appliance and building energy efficiency programs and initiatives, such as the State’s zero-net-energy building goals, would serve to reduce the proposed project’s emissions level. Additionally, further additions to California’s renewable resource portfolio would favorably influence the project’s emissions level.
41 California Air Resource Board (ARB). Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed November 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-43
• Transportation Sector: Anticipated deployment of improved vehicle efficiency, zero-emission technologies, lower carbon fuels, and improvement of existing transportation systems all will serve to reduce the project’s emissions level.
• Water Sector: The project’s emissions level will be reduced as a result of further desired enhancements to water conservation technologies.
• Waste Management Sector: Plans to further improve recycling, reuse and reduction of solid waste will beneficially reduce the project’s emissions level.
For the reasons described above the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets. The trajectory required to achieve the post-2020 targets is shown in Figure 3.8-3.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Figure 3.8-3: California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target
In his January 2015 inaugural address, Former Governor Brown expressed a commitment to achieve “three ambitious goals” that he would like to see accomplished by 2030 to reduce the State’s GHG emissions:
• Increasing the State’s RPS from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030; • Cutting the petroleum use in cars and trucks in half; and • Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-44
These expressions of executive branch policy may be manifested in adopted legislative or regulatory action through the State agencies and departments responsible for achieving the State’s environmental policy objectives, particularly those relating to global climate change.42 Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the Statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.
43 Given the proportional contribution of mobile source-related GHG emissions to the State’s inventory, recent studies also show that relatively new trends—such as the increasing importance of web- based shopping, the emergence of different driving patterns, and the increasing effect of web-based applications on transportation choices—are beginning to substantially influence transportation choices and the energy used by transportation modes. These factors have changed the direction of transportation trends in recent years and will require the creation of new models to effectively analyze future transportation patterns and the corresponding effect on GHG emissions. For the reasons described above the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets.
Consistency with SB 32
As discussed previously, the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update was adopted on December 15, 2022. Appendix D of the Scoping Plan explains that local government actions, such as the City of Visalia, are crucial to achieving the State’s climate goals. The actions of the 2022 Scoping Plan are focused on GHG reductions in the building and transportation sector, which are primarily associated with residential and mixed use development, not light industrial development such as the proposed project. As such, a discussion of the 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies and measures are discussed further. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32.
Table 3.8-6 provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.
Table 3.8-6: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50 percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from 33
percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030.
Not applicable. This measure would apply to utilities
and not to individual development projects. However,
the proposed project would be required to purchase
electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350
42 Brown, Edmund G. Jr. 2015. Press Release: California Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Goal in North America. April 29.
Website: https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2015/04/29/news18938/index.html. Accessed June 1, 2023. 43 Energy and Environmental Economics. 2015. Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States. Website: https://irp.cdn- website.com/6f2c9f57/files/uploaded/US_Deep_Decarbonization_Technical_Report_Exec_Summary.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-45
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Renewable Mandate and the RPS requirements. SB 100
has increased the 2030 RPS standards to 60 percent by
2030, superseding the increase required by SB 350.
SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.
This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.
Not applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected to increase in stringency over time. However, the
proposed project would be required to comply with the
applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building permits are received.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.
Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.
However, vehicles accessing the project site would
benefit from the standards.
Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy
-D
uty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million ZEVs
on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of
ZEV trucks and buses.
Consistent with mitigation incorporated. The proposed
project is industrial in nature and would support truck and freight operations. It is expected that deliveries
throughout the State would be made with an increasing
number of ZEV delivery trucks, including trips that
would be coming to and from the project site. The
proposed project would not inhibit the Mobile Source
Strategy because the implementation of MM AIR-2d
would require the project applicant to include
infrastructure for EV charging stations, including for
trucks, into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle
parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure. 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. As such, future ZEVs
could access the project site to charge batteries as part of normal goods delivery operations.
Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target
is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent
by increasing the value of goods and services
produced from the freight sector, relative to the
amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero-
emission operation and maximize near
-z
ero-
emission freight vehicles and equipment powered
by renewable energy by 2030.
Consistent with mitigation incorporated. This measure
applies to owners and operators of trucks and freight
operations. The proposed project is industrial in nature and would support truck and freight operations. The
proposed project would implement MM AIR-2e, which
would require the project applicant to include
infrastructure for EV charging stations, including for
trucks, into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle
parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure.
Additionally, MM AIR-2c would require (1) that all on-
site off-road and on-road service equipment be zero-
emission or all-electric and (2) that all project buildings would be designed to support the use of zero-emission
or all-electric service equipment. These measures would City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-46
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
support the sustainable Freight Action Plan by providing EV charging infrastructure and zero-emission support
equipment.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project would not include
major sources of black carbon. This measure revolves
around the ARB’s SLCP Reduction Strategy that was
released in April 2016 as a result of SB 650. SB 650
required the State to develop a strategy to reduce
emissions of SLCPs. DPM reductions have come from
strong efforts to reduce on-road vehicle emissions. Car and truck engines used to be the largest sources of
anthropogenic black carbon emissions in California, but the State’s existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel
engines within 10 years. These policies are based on
existing technologies.
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.
Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include
a Sustainable Communities Strategy for reduction
of per capita vehicle miles traveled.
Not applicable. This measure applies to the public
agencies involved in adopting and implementing
RTP/SCS and is not intended to be implemented by
individual development projects.
Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap-a nd -T rade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap-
and-
Trade
Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.
Not applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations, and,
therefore, this measure does not apply to the project.
However, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
indirectly affects people and entities who use the
products and services produced by the regulated
industrial sources when increased cost of products or
services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.
Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB
is working in coordination with several other
agencies at the federal, State, and local levels,
stakeholders, and with the public, to develop
measures as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update
and the Governor’s Executive Order B-30
-1
5 to
reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net carbon
sequestration potential for California’s natural and
working land.
Not Applicable. The project site is in a built-up urban area and would not be considered natural or working
lands.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with then-applicable measures that are enacted by State lawmakers to lead to an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, the ARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-47
Plan Update, however, the ARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” The 2017 Scoping Plan provides an intermediate target that is intended to achieve reasonable progress toward the 2050 target. 2022 Scoping Plan
As explained earlier, the 2022 Scoping Plan addresses the recent signing of AB 1279, which codified Executive Order 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 2022 Scoping Plan reaffirms and clarifies the role of local governments in achieving the State’s climate goals, particularly as it concerns the approval of new land use development projects and their environmental review under CEQA. It outlines three distinct approaches that lead agencies may consider for evaluating the consistency of proposed plans and residential and mixed use development projects with the State’s climate goals:
• The first approach involves consistency with a GHG reduction plan, such as a CEQA-qualified C A P.
• The second approach involves determining whether a project would result in net-zero GHG emissions.
• The third approach involves assessing a project’s consistency with key project attributes that have been demonstrated to reduce operational GHG emissions while advancing fair housing.
In other words, the 2022 Scoping Plan considers these approaches to evaluate whether a project may have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions. The proposed project is evaluated against the third approach because no CEQA-qualified CAP would be applicable to the City of Visalia and the project and the proposed project would not result in net-zero GHG emissions. Although the proposed project is not residential in nature, an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan by assessing the project’s consistency with key project attributes identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan remains a valid approach. An evaluation of the project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan serves as a roadmap for evaluating a project’s current design, and to determine whether it 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. The 2022 Scoping Plan acknowledges that projects incorporating some, but not all, of the key project attributes may also be consistent with the State’s climate goals, at the discretion of the lead agency. Furthermore, consistency with other attributes of the 2022 Scoping Plan would reduce operational GHG emissions, as described in Table 3.8-7, by reducing operational energy use and increasing access to EV charging infrastructure.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-48
Table 3.8-7 presents the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table 3.8-7: Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Update
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Light-Duty Vehicles: Smart Growth/Reduce Vehicle
Miles Traveled. VMT per capita reduced 25 percent
below 2019 levels by 2030, and 30 percent below
2019 levels by 2045.
Consistent. Based on the quantitative VMT analysis
and described in Section 3.15 Transportation of the
Draft EIR, the proposed project would have a less
than significant VMT impact with implementation of
mitigation measures to provide end-of-trip bicycle
facilities and expanding the bicycle network.
Deploy ZEVs. Medium Heavy and Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks. This measure is supported by Executive Order
N79-20 and plans in the AB 74 ITS Report: 100
percent of MD/HDV sales are ZEV by 2040.
It does not depend on VMT reductions from the
freight and truck transportation sector.
Consistent with mitigation. Medium heavy and
heavy heavy-duty trucks would be compliant with
truck Fuel Economy Standards: California Phase II
GHG Standards and would transition to ZEV by 2045.
Infrastructure for the proposed project would be
required to support this transition to ZEV; as such,
MM AIR-2d and MM GHG-2b are required to
demonstrate consistency with this measure.
Implementation of MM AIR-2d would require the
project applicant to include infrastructure for EV
charging stations, including for trucks, into a
minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces
(including parking for trucks), consistent with the
applicable California Green Building Standards Code
Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure. Moreover,
MM AIR-2d would require the any buildings that
would include tractor trailer parking spaces would
include an electrical room that is sufficiently sized to hold additional electrical panels that may be needed
to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations.
Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining CA fuel demand. This measure involves the phase out
oil and gas extraction operations by 2045 as well as
CCS on majority of petroleum refining operations by
2030 Interim goals are to reduce petroleum
production reduced in line with its demand.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would include
light industrial land uses and is not related to the
petroleum industry.
Low Carbon Fuels for Fuels for Buildings and
Industry. In 2030s renewable natural gas (RNG)
blended in pipeline, ramping up to 2040. Dedicated
hydrogen pipelines constructed to serve certain
industrial clusters
Consistent. Natural gas utilized by the proposed
project would contain this RNG blend as
implemented by the Scoping Plan and the energy
providers.
Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation. Biomass supply
is used to produce conventional and advanced
biofuels, as well as hydrogen.
Consistent. Off-road construction equipment would
utilize renewable diesel in compliance with the In-Use
Off-Road rule. On-road diesel trucks would also utilize these fuels consistent with the LCFS.
Generate clean electricity. Electric sector GHG target
of 38 MMT CO2e in 2030 and 31 MMT CO2e in 2045.
This GHG target is determined to meet the loads
Not Applicable. The proposed project will benefit
indirectly from these goals, however, there are no
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-49
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
associated with the scenario and corresponds to
meeting the 2021 SB 100 Joint Agency Report’s 100
percent of retail sales with eligible renewable and
zero-carbon resources definition.
actions related to the project itself, because this
measure would apply to passenger vehicle producers.
Decarbonize industrial energy supply. Electrification
goals by industry sector specific to Food Industry,
Agriculture, and Chemical and Allied Products and
Pulp and Paper Industry for milestone years 2030 and
2045. Other Industrial Manufacturing: 0 percent
energy electrified by 2030 and 50 percent by 2045.
Construction Equipment: 25 percent energy demand
electrified by 2030 and 75 percent by 2045.
Retire all combined heat and power facilities by 2040.
Consistent. Construction equipment used for the
proposed project would comply with ARB off-road
regulations meeting milestones for electrification as
required by regulations as promulgated. Starting in
2024, amendments to the off-road In-Use Diesel Rule
require use of renewable diesel consistent with the
2022 Scoping Plan and implementing the LCFS. Other
portions of this measure are not applicable to the
proposed project.
Decarbonize buildings. All electric appliances
beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed
Statewide by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with
the AB197 commercial timeline. In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with
CALGreen measures for 2022 as part of MM GHG-2a,
which require rooftop PV solar panels with battery
storage for warehouses and heat pumps (in all
climate zones) for office space in warehouses
consistent with decarbonization strategies.
Reduce non-combustion emissions. This strategy
involves a number of sectors and measures:
• Increase landfill and dairy digester methane
capture.
• Capture of fugitive methane emissions from the oil
and gas infrastructure components.
• The introduction of Low GWP refrigerants
introduced as building electrification increases
mitigating HFC emissions.
Consistent. The proposed project would use low
GWP refrigerants as part of the building design
consistent with current California Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) regulations. Note, no cold
storage is proposed as part of the project.
Compensate for remaining emissions. This measure
encompasses using Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) to
compensate for remaining emissions. Targets are
demonstration projects by 2030 and CDR scaled to
compensate for remaining GHG emissions in 2045.
Not applicable. This measure relates to remaining
emissions and is not applicable at the individual
project level.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November.
Although not quantified in this analysis, the MM GHG-2a would be required to ensure the implementation of one of the following as feasible: rooftop photovoltaic solar system, solar-ready rooftop design, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than
78. MM GHG-2a would further reduce GHG emissions due to a reduction in electricity demand and ensure that the proposed project and City would contribute to meeting the State’s climate goals.
Additionally, MM AIR-2d and MM GHG-2b are required to ensure that the proposed project would City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-50
not hinder the future transition to ZEV trucks. Accordingly, taking into account the proposed project’s identified design features and the progress being made by the State toward reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the proposed project would be consistent with State 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.
City of Visalia General Plan
As described previously, the City of Visalia General Plan was updated and adopted on October 14, 2014 and establishes objectives and policies that are relevant to GHG emissions. Specifically, General Plan Objective AQ-O-3 aims to, “reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change in accord with federal and State law.” The General Plan includes several policies to address GHG emissions, but only policy AQ-P-12 would apply to individual development projects.
This policy applies to projects that would exceed district thresholds. However, as demonstrated in this analysis, with implementation of the indicated mitigation measures, the project would not exceed district thresholds, and therefore the policy would not apply to this project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-2d and:
MM GHG-2a Rooftop Solar
Prior to issuance of the first building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal, the relevant project applicant shall provide the City of Visalia Planning Department reasonable documentation demonstrating that each of the buildings that are covered by the subject individual specific development proposal would be designed with one of the following: (i) rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, (ii) solar-ready rooftop design that shall support the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panel, as feasible, or (iii) roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78.
MM GHG-2b Warehouse usage shall be limited to dry storage. If the warehouse is used for cold storage, then prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of Visalia shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the project site be plug-in capable.
Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-51
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
3.8.6 - Cumulative Impacts
GHG emissions and global climate change inherently represent cumulative impacts. GHG emissions cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change.
No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature; instead, the GHG emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities have contributed to and would contribute to global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. According to the Valley Air District, project GHG emissions are inherently cumulative and do not require the estimation of cumulative projects in the region of the project.
44 Thus, the determination of GHG cumulative impacts is based on: the State target established by AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, SB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to at least 40 percent below the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030, and AB 1279 which required the State to reduce GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. In order to ensure that this goal would be achieved, as discussed above in detail, Air Districts and Lead Agencies developed GHG thresholds to ensure compliance with the State target. Projects with GHG emissions in conformance with these thresholds, therefore, would not be considered significant for purposes of CEQA. In addition, although the emissions from such cumulative projects would add an incremental amount to the overall GHG emissions that cause global climate change impacts, emissions from projects consistent with these thresholds would not be a “cumulatively considerable” contribution under CEQA. Such projects would not be “cumulatively considerable,” because they would be helping to solve the cumulative problem as a part of the AB 32 and SB 32 process. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable thresholds as evaluated above in detail with mitigation incorporated, and as a result, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to generation of GHG emissions.
Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-2d, MM GHG-2a and MM GHG-2b.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
44 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), Chapter 8.9.1. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_guidance_documents.htm. Accessed June 8, 2023.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-1
3.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9.1 - Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) describes the existing characteristics of the project site and vicinity with respect to hazards and hazardous materials, as well as the relevant regulatory setting. It also describes the proposed project's potential impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials and presents feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required. (For a discussion of potential hazards related to geology, soils, and seismicity, see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR. For a discussion of potential impacts related to wildfire, see Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR.) The descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on the site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA),1,2 prepared by Ninyo & Moore and provided in Appendix F of this Draft EIR, and publicly available databases including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor, California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) (formerly the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources [DOGGR]).
During the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping period, no comments related to hazards and hazardous materials were received.
3.9.2 - Environmental Setting
Hazards
This description of existing conditions focuses on hazardous materials and wastes as well as hazards from fire. A hazard is a situation that poses a level of threat to life, health, property, or the environment. Hazards can be dormant or potential, with only a theoretical risk of harm. However, once a hazard becomes active, it can create an emergency. A hazardous situation that has already occurred is called an incident. Emergency response is action taken in response to an unexpected and dangerous occurrence in an attempt to mitigate its impact on people, structures, or the environment. Emergency situations can range from natural disasters to hazardous materials problems and transportation incidents.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials include but are not limited to hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes, as defined in Section 25501 and Section 25117, respectively, of the California Health and Safety Code. A hazardous material is any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released; and any material that a handler or an administering regulatory agency under Section 25501 has a reasonable basis for believing would be
1 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20. 2 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-2
injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment. Various properties may cause a substance to be considered hazardous, including:
• Toxicity—causes human health effects.
• Ignitability—has the ability to burn.
• Corrosivity—causes severe burns or damage to materials. • Reactivity—causes explosions or generates toxic gases.
Recognized Environmental Concern (REC) is one of the terms used to identify environmental liability within the context of a Phase I ESA and a Phase II ESA. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines an REC as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” Hazardous Building Materials
Many older buildings contain building materials that consist of hazardous materials. These materials include lead-based paint, asbestos-containing material, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Prior to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban in 1978, lead-based paint was commonly used on interior and exterior surfaces of buildings. Disturbances such as sanding and scraping activities, renovation work, gradual wear and tear, old peeling paint, and paint dust particulates have been found to contaminate surface soils or cause lead dust to migrate and affect indoor air quality. Exposure to residual lead can cause severe health effects, especially in children.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that was extensively used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction materials before such uses were banned by the EPA in the 1970s. In addition, many types of electrical equipment contained PCBs as an insulator, including transformers and capacitors. After PCBs were determined to be a carcinogen in the mid to late 1970s, the EPA banned PCB use in new equipment and began a program to phase out certain existing PCB-containing equipment. For example, fluorescent lighting ballasts manufactured after January 1, 1978, do not contain PCBs and are required to have a label clearly stating that PCBs are not present in the unit.
Hazardous Substances
A hazardous substance can be any biological, natural, or chemical substance, whether solid, liquid, or gas, that may cause harm to human health. Hazardous substances are classified on the basis of their potential health effects, whether acute (immediate) or chronic (long-term). Dangerous goods are classified on the basis of immediate physical or chemical effects, such as fire, explosion, corrosion, and poisoning. An accident involving dangerous goods could seriously harm human health or damage property or the environment. Harm to human health may happen suddenly (acute), such as dizziness, nausea, and itchy eyes or skin; or it may happen gradually over years (chronic), such as dermatitis or cancer. Some people can be more susceptible than others. Hazardous substances and dangerous goods can include antiseptic used for a cut, paint for walls, a cleaning product for the bathroom, chlorine in a pool, carbon monoxide from a motor vehicle, fumes from welding, vapors City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-3
from adhesives, or dust from cement, stone, or rubber operations. Such hazardous substances can make humans very sick if they are not used properly.
Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is to be discarded, abandoned, or recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. Specifically, materials and waste may be considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxic); can be ignited by open flame (ignitable); corrode other materials (corrosive); or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactive). Soil or groundwater contaminated with hazardous materials above specified regulatory State or federal thresholds is considered hazardous waste if it is removed from a site for disposal. If handled, disposed, or otherwise treated improperly, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.
Hazardous Materials Listing
The Cortese List is a list of known hazardous materials or hazardous waste facilities that meet one or more of the provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5, including:
• The list of hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.3 • The list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year from the State Water Board GeoTracker database.4
• The list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the State Water Board with waste constituents exceeding hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit. 5 • The list of active cease-and-desist orders and cleanup and abatement orders from the State Water Board.6
• The list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified by the DTSC. 7 3 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List—Site Cleanup (Cortese List).
Website: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/ SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. 4 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). Website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/sites_by_county.
5 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/files/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList- CurrentList.pdf.
6 California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA). Website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/files/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList- CDOCAOList.xlsx.
7 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Website: https://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962- 5a/.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-4
Existing Fire-Related Conditions and Presence of Hazardous Materials On-Site The City of Visalia (City) contains mostly urban and suburban uses with relatively little open space or foothill areas susceptible to wildfire hazards. The southwestern areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) contain some “Moderate” fire hazard zones.
Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 direct the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to map fire hazard within State Responsibility Areas (SRA) based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been identified by CAL FIRE as a major cause of wildfire spread. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), classify a wildland zone as Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard based on the average hazard across the area included in the zone. There are also Fire Protection Responsibility Areas (non-SRA), delineated as either a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) or a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). According to the CAL FIRE, there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) within the City.
Database Search
As shown in Table 3.9-1, the project site was not listed in any of the searched databases.
Table 3.9-1: Project Site Hazardous Materials Search Results Database Search Result
DTSC EnviroStor: Hazardous Waste and Substances
Site List (Cortese)
No hazardous waste and substances on-site.
California State Water Resources Control Board
GeoTracker: Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Site List
No LUST on-site.
California State Water Resources Control Board: Sites
Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous
Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit
Project site not listed.
California State Water Resources Control Board: List
of “Active” Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and
Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs)
No CDOs and/or CAOs on-site.
DTSC: List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject To
Corrective Action Pursuant To Section 25187.5 Of The
Health And Safety Code
Project site not listed.
Sources:
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2023.
California State Water Resources Board (State Water Board) 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-5
Table 3.9-2: Summary of Off-site Facilities of Potential Concern Facility
Name/Address
Distance/Direction
from Site
(Approximation by
EDR) Database Summary
Amazon Service LLC
3315 North Kelsey
Street
Adjoining west of
the site
HWTS CERS TANKS The facility was listed in the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS)
TANKS database for aboveground
petroleum storage. Further information
was not provided.
The facility was listed in the HWTS
(Hazardous Waste Tracking System) for
general warehousing and storage.
Violations were not found.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
Roadrunner
Transportation
8711 West Riggin
Avenue
Adjoining southeast
of the site
RCRA NONGEN/NLR The facility was listed as a non-generator of hazardous waste in Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) NONGEN/NLR
database. Violations were not noted.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
UPS Freight
8711 West Riggin
Avenue
Adjoining southeast
of the site
HWTS CERS HAZ
WASTE HAZNET
CERS
The facility was listed in the Hazardous
Waste Tracking System (HWTS). The status
was inactive for the facility.
The facility was listed in the CERS HAZ
WASTE database as a hazardous waste
generator.
The facility was listed in the Facility and
Manifest Data (HAZNET) for the removal of
0.085 ton of unspecified organic liquid
mixture in 2017.
The facility was listed in the CERS facility as
a chemical storage facility. Violations were
recorded, including failure to complete and
electronically submit the business activities
page and/or business owner operator
identification page, etc. The facility
returned to compliance.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
VWR International,
LC
8711 West Riggin
Avenue
Adjoining southeast
of the site
HWTS CUPA
LISTINGS
The facility was listed in Hazardous
Materials/Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA) Tulare database as a large
generator.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-6
Facility
Name/Address
Distance/Direction
from Site
(Approximation by
EDR) Database Summary
The facility was listed as inactive in the
HWTS database. Additional information
was not provided.
This information is not considered an
environmental concern.
Kawneer Company
Inc
7200 West Doe
Avenue
0.713 mile south-
southeast
RCRA-LQG
ENVIROSTOR CPS-
SLIC PADS CERS
The facility was listed as a large quantity
generator in RCRA-LQG. The facility was
described as aluminum-extruded product
manufacturing, secondary smelting,
refining, and alloying of nonferrous metal,
and metal window and door manufacture.
Violations were not found.
The facility was listed in the PCB Activity
Database System (PADS). Further
information was not provided.
The facility was listed in the Cleanup
Program Sites (formerly known as Spills,
Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (CPS-
SLIC) and ENVIROSTOR database. The
facility performed anodizing of aluminum
architectural products from 1971 to 1993.
Two lined evaporation ponds were used for
disposal sludge and other wastes. 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA), dichloroethene
(DCE), other organic/salt were reported
leak to aquifer used for drinking water
supply. In 1990, approximately 11,100 tons
of residual materials from the ponds, pond
liners, and visually observed impacted soil
beneath the pond liners were excavated.
The case was open for site assessment in
the database. A recent groundwater
sampling report was prepared by CDM
Smith Inc. (CDM Smith), dated on July 8,
2021. According to the report, three
groundwater samples (including one
duplicate sample) were collected on
February 16, 2021. 1,1- DCE was not
detected from the samples.
Based on the distance and groundwater
flow direction, this listing is not considered
an environmental concern.
Heller Performance
Polymers Inc.
7227 Doe Avenue
0.729 mile south-
southeast
SEMS Archive
CORRACTS RCRA-
TSDF RCRA-SQG
ENVIROSTOR CPS-
According to the Superfund Enterprise
Management System (SEMS) Archive
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-7
Facility
Name/Address
Distance/Direction
from Site
(Approximation by
EDR) Database Summary
SLIC RAATS FINDS
ECHO CERS
database, this listing had a non-NPL status
of “deferred to RCRA (subtitle C).”
The facility was listed as a small quantity
generator in RCRA-SQG. A violation related
to financial requirements was recorded in
1988 and the facility returned to
compliance.
The facility was listed in the ENVIROSTOR
and CPS-SLIC database due to volatile
organic compounds contamination in 1989.
The case was closed as of August 1, 1989.
Based on the distance, regulatory status,
and groundwater flow direction, this listing
is not considered an environmental
concern.
Notes:
EDR = Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Off-site properties/facilities listed in the database report were evaluated as to their potential to impact soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater at the site. To supplement the information in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) report, the State Water Board GeoTracker and DTSC EnviroStor databases were reviewed. Information from the EDR database report and supplemental sources is included in the facilities of potential concern summaries below. The following properties/facilities were interpreted to represent a potential environmental concern to the site based on their proximity to the site, the nature of the database on which they are listed, and/or the assumed direction of the groundwater flow in the site vicinity (southwest).
According to the Phase I ESA, there is a low likelihood that the listings for the other off-site properties listed in the database report represent an REC to the site at the current time. This opinion is based on one or more of the following factors:
• The nature of the database(s) on which the property is listed, and/or because the property was not listed on a database that reports unauthorized releases of hazardous substances; • Reported regulatory agency status (i.e., case closed); • Reported nature of the case (i.e., soil contaminated only); • Reported distance of the property from the site; and/or • Location of the property in relation to the site with respect to topography or expected groundwater flow direction (southwest).
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-8
3.9.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the EPA to regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Occupational Health and Safety Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the United States Department of Labor is responsible for implementing and enforcing federal laws and regulations that address worker health and safety. OSHA requires specific training for use and handling of hazardous materials, provision of information (procedures for personal safety, hazardous materials storage and handling, and emergency response) to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets from materials manufacturers. Material safety data sheets describe the risks, as well as proper handling and procedures, related to particular hazardous materials. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.
Code of Federal Regulations, Titles 29 and 40
Provisions in Code of Federal Regulations Title 29 include requirements to manage and control exposure to lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. In California, these requirements are implemented by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) under California Code of Regulations Title 8 (see further discussion of California Code of Regulations Title 8 below). The removal and handling of asbestos-containing materials is governed primarily by EPA regulations under Code of Federal Regulations Title 40. The regulations require that the appropriate State agency be notified before any demolition, or before any renovations, of buildings that could contain asbestos or asbestos-containing materials above a specified threshold.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The EPA is responsible for implementing and enforcing federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. The primary legislation includes RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act (known as SARA Title III). RCRA and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes and mandate that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment, including detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities. As permitted by RCRA, in 1992, the EPA approved California’s program called the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), administered by DTSC, to regulate hazardous wastes in California, as discussed further below. The purpose of CERCLA is to identify and clean up chemically contaminated City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-9
sites that pose a significant environmental health threat, and the Hazard Ranking System is used to determine whether a site should be placed on the National Priorities List for cleanup activities. SARA relates primarily to emergency management of accidental releases and requires annual reporting of continuous emissions and accidental releases of specified compounds that are compiled into a nationwide Toxics Release Inventory. Finally, SARA Title III requires formation of State and local emergency planning committees that are responsible for collecting material handling and transportation data for use as a basis for planning and provision of chemical inventory data to the community at large under the “right-to-know” provision of the law.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of Hazardous Materials Safety regulates the transportation of hazardous materials on water, rail, or highways, through air, or in pipelines and enforces guidelines created to protect human health and the environment and reduce potential impacts by creating hazardous material packaging and transportation requirements. It also includes provisions for material classification, packaging, marking, labeling, place-carding, and shipping documentation. The USDOT provides hazardous materials safety training programs and supervises activities involving hazardous materials. In addition, the USDOT develops and recommends regulations governing the multimodal transportation of hazardous materials.
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act of 1990 and the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule (amended 2010) of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 112) require the owner or operator of a tank facility with an aggregate storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons to notify the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and prepare an SPCC plan. The SPCC plan must identify appropriate spill containment measures and equipment for diverting spills from sensitive areas, and must discuss facility-specific requirements for the storage system, inspections, recordkeeping, security, and training.
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (Title 33 § 1251, et seq. of the United States Code [33 USC 1251, et seq.]) is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The CWA established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States (not including groundwater). The objective of the act is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. Responsibility for administering the CWA resides with the State Water Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs); the Central Valley RWQCB administers the CWA for Tulare County. Section 404 of the CWA regulates temporary and permanent fill and disturbance of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes to place fill in navigable waters and/or to alter waters of the United States below the ordinary high-water mark in non-tidal waters. Section 401 of the CWA requires compliance with State water quality standards for actions within State waters. Compliance with the water quality standards required under Section 401 is a condition for issuance of a Section 404 permit. Under Section 401 of the CWA, every applicant City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-10
for a permit or license for any activity that may result in a discharge to a water body must obtain a State water quality certification from the RWQCB to demonstrate that the proposed activity would comply with State water quality standards.
State
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The HWCL is the primary hazardous waste statute in the State of California, and implements RCRA as a “cradle to grave” waste management system for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that protects human health and the environment and would reduce potential resulting impacts. The law specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their waste is hazardous and to ensure proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous waste used or reused as raw materials. The law exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning, and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of types of waste and waste management activities that are not covered by federal law.
California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code (HSC § 25141) defines hazardous waste as a waste or combination of waste that may:
. . . because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infection characteristics:
(1) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitation-reversible illness. (2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment, due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of or otherwise managed.
These laws and regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribe management practices for hazardous wastes; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous waste that commonly would be disposed of in landfills.
Under both the RCRA and the HWCL, hazardous waste manifests must be retained by the generator for a minimum of 3 years. The generator must match copies of the manifests with copies of manifest receipts from the treatment, disposal, or recycling facility.
In accordance with Chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC § 25404, et seq.), local regulatory agencies enforce many federal and State regulatory programs through the CUPA program, including:
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-11
• Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) (HSC § 25501, et seq.). • State Uniform Fire Code (UFC) requirements (UFC § 80.103, as adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to HSC § 13143.9).
• Underground storage tanks (USTs) (HSC § 25280, et seq.). • Aboveground storage tanks (HSC § 25270.5(c)).
• Hazardous waste generator requirements (HSC § 25100, et seq.).
California Code of Regulations, Title 8
Worker health and safety is regulated at the federal level by OSHA. In California, worker health and safety protections are regulated by Cal/OSHA, which assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations and also provides consultant assistance to employers.
These regulations concern the use of hazardous materials in the workplace, including requirements for employee safety training; availability of safety equipment; accident and illness prevention programs; hazardous substance exposure warnings; and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans.
Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, and requires that safety data sheets (formerly known as material safety data sheets) be available for employee information and training programs.
Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations.
California standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials are contained in Title 8 California Code of Regulations and include practices for all industries (General Industrial Safety Orders), with specific practices for construction and other industries. Workers at hazardous waste sites (or workers who may be exposed to hazardous wastes that might be encountered during excavation of contaminated soils) must receive specialized training and medical supervision according to the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations (Title 8 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 5192).
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1529 authorizes Cal/OSHA to implement the survey requirements of Code of Federal Regulations Title 29 relating to asbestos. These federal and State regulations require facilities to take all necessary precautions to protect employees and the public from exposure to asbestos. Workers who conduct asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with federal and State OSHA requirements. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) oversees the removal of regulated asbestos-containing materials (see “Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing Rule” below).
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1 includes requirements to manage and control exposure to lead-based paint. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage, and disposal of lead-containing material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring, and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead-based material. Loose and peeling lead-based paint must be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead equals or exceeds City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-12
applicable hazardous waste thresholds. Federal and State OSHA regulations require a supervisor who is certified with respect to identifying existing and predictable lead hazards to oversee air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities in areas where lead-based paint may be present. Special protective measures and notification of Cal/OSHA are required for highly hazardous construction tasks related to lead, such as manual demolition, abrasive blasting, welding, cutting, or torch burning of structures, where lead-based paint is present.
Cal/OSHA enforcement units conduct on-site evaluations and issue notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.
California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4.5
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, contains the Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, which includes California waste identification and classification regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3, “Soluble Threshold Limits Concentrations/Total Threshold Limits Concentration Regulatory Limits,” identifies the concentrations at which soil is determined to be a California hazardous waste. California’s Universal Waste Rule (Title 22 CCR § 66273) provides an alternative set of management standards in lieu of regulation as hazardous wastes for certain common hazardous wastes, as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.9. Universal wastes include fluorescent lamps, mercury thermostats, and other mercury-containing equipment. Existing structures may contain fluorescent light ballasts that could contain mercury or lead. The Alternative Management Standards for Treated Wood Waste (Title 22 CCR § 67386) were developed by the DTSC to allow for disposal of treated wood as a nonhazardous waste to simplify and facilitate the safe and economical disposal of such waste. Chemically treated wood can contain elevated levels of hazardous chemicals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, copper, pentachlorophenol, or creosote) that equal or exceed applicable hazardous waste thresholds. The Alternative Management Standards provide for less stringent storage requirements and extended accumulation periods, allow shipments without a hazardous waste manifest and a hazardous waste hauler, and allow disposal at specific nonhazardous waste landfills.
Porter-Cologne Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne Act) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the State must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the State’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The RWQCBs are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans (also known as basin plans) for all areas of the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The Porter-Cologne Act sets forth the obligations of State Water Board and RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans that recognize and reflect the differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s groundwater and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. It also authorizes the State Water Board and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements and to implement programs for controlling pollution in State waters. Finally, the Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the State Water Board and RWQCBs to oversee site investigation and cleanup for unauthorized releases of pollutants to soils and groundwater and in some cases to surface waters or sediments.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-13
California Emergency Response Plan
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, State, and local governments and private agencies. Responding to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies. Emergency response team members respond and work with local fire and police agencies, emergency medical providers, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), CAL FIRE, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE has mapped fire threat potential throughout California. CAL FIRE maps fire threat based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate). The threat levels include no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threat.
Additionally, CAL FIRE produced a 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, which contains goals, objectives, and policies to prepare for and mitigate the effects of fire on California’s natural and built environments. CAL FIRE’s Office of the State Fire Marshal provides oversight of enforcement of the California Fire Code as well as overseeing hazardous liquid pipeline safety.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Standards Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and is viewed as being some of the most stringent standards in the nation. The Code is updated triennially. The new 2022 edition of the CBC became effective January 1, 2023. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all new high-rise buildings and residential buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building material; and particular types of construction.
California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code includes fire safety regulations that restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors8 on construction equipment that use an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided on-site for various types of work in fire-prone areas.
These laws and regulations include the following:
• Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 4442);
8 A spark arrestor is a device that prohibits exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine from passing through the impeller blades where they could cause a spark. A carbon trap is commonly used to retain carbon particles from the exhaust.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-14
• Appropriate fire suppression equipment would be maintained during the highest fire danger period—from April 1 to December 1 (PRC § 4428);
• On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials would be removed to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame and the construction contractor would maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment (PRC § 4427); and
• On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines would not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (PRC § 4431).
Department of Toxic Substance Control
The DTSC is the agency authorized by the EPA to enforce and implement federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. State and federal laws mandate detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly stored, handled, used, and disposed of, and, if such materials are accidentally released, prevent or mitigate injury to health or the environment. Such laws include a required to prepare written plans, such as Hazard Communication Plans and HMBP . HMBPs are required for business that handle a hazardous material, a mixture containing a hazardous material (including hazardous waste), or an extremely hazardous substance (as defined in Section 355.61 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) at reportable quantities, which are generally equal to or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of a gas, and 500 pounds of a solid). 9 (California Health and
Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1 [25500-25519]).
A HMBP contains detailed information including the following:
• An inventory of hazardous materials at a facility.
• Emergency response plans and procedures to be followed in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
• Requirements to train employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material, including onboarding for new employees and annual refresher courses for existing employees.
• A site map that depicts north orientation, loading areas, internal roads, adjacent streets, storm and sewer drains, access and exit points, emergency shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazardous material handling and storages areas, and emergency response equipment.
California regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are equal to or exceed the federal regulation requirements. Most State hazardous materials regulations are contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The DTSC generally acts as the lead agency for soil and groundwater cleanup projects that affect public health and establishes cleanup levels for subsurface contamination that
9 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2022. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Website:
https://calepa.ca.gov/cupa/lawsregs/hazardous-materials-business-plan-program/. Accessed October 27, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-15
are equal to, or more restrictive than, federal levels. The DTSC has also developed land disposal restrictions and treatment standards waste disposal in California.
California State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Board enforces, among other laws and regulations, those regulations pertaining to implementation of underground storage tank programs. It also allocates monies to eligible parties who request reimbursement of State funds to clean up soil and groundwater pollution from LUSTs.
The State Water Board also enforces the Porter-Cologne Act through its nine regional boards, including the Central Valley RWQCB described below.
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, including implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988. The ARB has developed State air quality standards and is responsible for monitoring air quality in conjunction with the local air districts.
Regional
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Central Valley RWQCB can act as a responsible agency to provide oversight of sites where the quality of groundwater or surface waters is threatened. The Central Valley RWQCB has the authority to require investigations and remedial actions.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The Valley Air District has primary responsibility for control of air pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products (which are the responsibility of the EPA and ARB). The Valley Air District is responsible for preparation of attainment plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, management of volatile organic compounds (VOC- containing soils (District Rules 4002, 4651, and 6130), and the issuance of permits for activities including asbestos removal, demolition, and renovation activities (District Rule 7050).
Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Tulare County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), updated and adopted in 2011 and incorporated in the EOP , establishes responsibilities, threat levels and triggers for evacuation, evacuation areas, and evacuation routes to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies. The extent and the severity of a disaster will determine which routes and which direction people must take in order to escape or avoid the afflicted areas. The EOP places the City of Visalia in Zone 5 and identifies State Route (SR) 198, SR-99, and SR-63 as evacuation routes. The Agriculture Center in Tulare is identified as a County shelter. Visalia and other cities within the County are responsible for preparedness activities, including identifying equipment, vehicles, and critical supplies; identifying locations outside of potential impact areas to move resources; and keeping contact information updated for the County and State database. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, the City of Visalia will coordinate with the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and State and federal agencies responsible for providing emergency shelter for displaced residents. The sites most commonly used City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-16
are schools, senior centers, community centers, public buildings, and churches. Kaweah Delta Health Care District provides emergency health care services.
Tulare County Division of Environmental Health
In Visalia, the Tulare County Division of Environmental Health is the local agency responsible for the implementation of the State-mandated Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program.
Cal/EPA designated the Tulare County Division of Environmental Health as the CUPA for Tulare County. The role of the CUPA is to assure consolidation, consistency, and coordination of the hazardous materials programs within the County.
The Tulare County Division of Environmental Health is responsible for overseeing the six hazardous materials programs in the County. The Tulare County Division of Environmental Health is responsible for inspecting facilities that handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, own/operate USTs, own/operate aboveground petroleum storage tanks, or handle other materials subject to the California Accidental Release Program.
Tulare County has prepared an HMBP and a multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which serve as the County’s emergency response plan for hazardous materials emergency incidents.
In addition, the Environmental Health Division acts as lead agency to ensure proper remediation of leaking underground petroleum storage tank sites and certain other contaminated sites. The Environmental Health Division provides three permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) drop- off facilities in the County, including one in Visalia, and operates mobile collection events throughout the year.
Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code requires each county to create an airport land use commission and for this commission to prepare and adopt an airport land use plan for each public use airport in the county. In accordance with this mandate, the Tulare County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prepared the current Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan in 2012. The intention of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is to promote the safety and well-being of the public by ensuring adoption of land use regulations which minimize exposure of persons to hazards associated with the operation of these airports including aircraft accidents and aircraft noise.
The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan establishes various airport zoning designations, such as the Visalia Municipal Airport’s Airport Influence Area. Land use compatibilities within these airport zoning designations are defined in the Tulare County Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Section 3 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). Light and Flex Industrial and Commercial land uses are considered compatible within the Airport Influence Area with consistency determination requirements, such as the prohibition of aboveground storage of over 2,000 gallons of hazardous materials.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-17
Local
City of Visalia Fire Department
The Visalia Fire Department (VFD) provides fire and life safety services for residents located within the city limits while the Tulare County Fire Department provides additional services for unincorporated areas within the Planning Area. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.13, Public Services, as of this writing, VFD staffs five paramedic engine companies, one truck company, and a Battalion Chief daily, from five fire station locations. The engines and truck are staffed with three personnel, giving the Fire Department a daily minimum staffing of 19. All apparatus are staffed with a paramedic at all times. The City requires all new development and subdivisions to meet UFC provisions, and the VFD reviews development applications during the plan check process.
The VFD also provides oversight of hazardous materials. The VFD is responsible for conducting inspections for code compliance and fire-safe practices and for scene management and investigation of fire and hazardous materials incidents. According to Chapter 8.32 (Hazardous Materials) of the City of Visalia Municipal Code (Municipal Code), an emergency situation created by a hazardous material release which poses an imminent risk to the life, health, or safety of persons, property, or to the environment shall be mitigated in the manner prescribed and pursuant to the direction of the VFD. The VFD regulates explosive and hazardous materials under the UFC, and permits the handling, storage, and use of any explosive or other hazardous material.
City of Visalia Municipal Code
Visalia Fire Code
Chapter 8.20 of the Municipal Code details the Visalia Fire Code, which is an adoption of the 2019 California Fire Code with some amendments. The purpose of the Visalia Fire Code is to regulate the safeguarding of life, property, and public welfare to a reasonable degree from the hazards of fire, hazardous materials release, and/or explosion due to handling of dangerous and hazardous materials, conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy and use of buildings and premises, the operation, installation, construction, and location of attendant equipment, the installation and maintenance of adequate means of egress, and providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees.
Visalia Hydrant Ordinance
Chapter 16.36.120 of the Municipal Code outlines the following requirements for water mains, fire hydrants, and fire department access as detailed more fully in Section 3.16, Wildfire.
City of Visalia General Plan
Following are General Plan goals, policies, and objectives that are relevant to this analysis.
Chapter 8: Safety and Noise
Objectives
S-O-3 Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.
S-P-15 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-18
The level of remediation and cleanup will be determined based on the intended use and health risk to the public. At the minimum, remediation will be in compliance with federal and State standards. Clean up shall be required in conjunction with new development, reconstruction, property transfer of ownership, and/ or continued operation after the discovery of contamination.
S-P-17 Ensure that all specified hazardous facilities conform to the Tulare County Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
S-P-18 Coordinate enforcement of the Hazardous Material Disclosure Law and the implementation of the Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan with the Tulare County Health and Human Service Agency.
State and federal legislation requires every business that handles hazardous materials report their inventories to the local fire department. The program’s primary function is to identify, monitor, and assist businesses using or storing hazardous materials and allow the City to handle emergency incidents more effectively. The City will maintain and share this information with police, fire, and emergency services.
S-P-19 Coordinate with the Tulare County Environmental Health Division and other appropriate regulatory agencies during the review process of all proposals for the use of hazardous materials or those involving properties that may have toxic contamination, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, CAM 17 metals, asbestos, and lead.
S-P-20 Require applicants of projects in areas of known or suspected hazardous materials occurrences such as petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, CAM 17 metals, USTs, location of asbestos rocks and other such contamination to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with regulatory agency testing standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the project applicant to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of appropriate agencies, such as Tulare County Department of Environmental Health, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board.
S-P-26 Implement a program that provides vegetation management services to elderly, disabled, or low-income property owners who lack the resources to remove flammable vegetation from around their homes.
S-P-27 Implement a fuel modification program, which also includes residential maintenance requirements and enforcement, plan submittal and approval process, guidelines for planting, and a listing of undesirable plant species. Require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-19
S-O-6 Provide comprehensive emergency response and evacuation routes for Visalia area residents.
S-P-30 Integrate the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, in particular the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections, into the development review process, the Emergency Operations Plan, and Capital Improvement Program, as appropriate.
City of Visalia
The City’s EOP was adopted in 2011. The City’s EOP is designed to establish a framework for implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System for the City, which is located within the Governor's Office of Emergency Service’s Mutual Aid Region V. The City’s EOP is used in conjunction with the Tulare County’s EOP , which incorporates the County’s updated 2011 Evacuation Plan, establishes responsibilities, threat levels, and triggers for evacuation, evacuation areas, and evacuation routes to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies, including wildfire. As described more fully therein and below (see Regulatory Framework), the extent and the severity of a disaster will typically determine which routes and which direction people must take. Additionally, the City’s EOP will be reviewed and revised annually by the City of Visalia Disaster Preparedness Manager (Fire Department Battalion Chief) and every four years the entire City EOP will be reviewed, updated, and redistributed.
10 It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the City of Visalia will continue to upgrade preparedness strategies and techniques in all departments so as to be prepared when disaster, either natural or man-made, occurs in order to escape or avoid the afflicted areas.
The County’s Evacuation Plan places the City of Visalia in Zone 5 and identifies SR-198, SR-99, and SR-63 as evacuation routes. SR-198, SR-99 and SR-63 are all four-lane highways (two lanes in each direction) and thus can accommodate significant amounts of traffic. Additionally, because these highways are heavily traveled and commercially important corridors, they are regularly maintained by Caltrans. The Agriculture Center in Tulare is identified as a County shelter available to the community in the event of a catastrophic emergency.
11 3.9.4 - Methodology and Approach to Analysis
This evaluation focuses on whether the proposed project would result in changes to the physical environment that would cause or exacerbate adverse effects related to the use, transportation, disposal, accidental release, or emission of hazardous materials. The evaluation also includes a determination of whether the proposed project would result in changes to the physical environment, or would impair or interfere with emergency response plans, or would expose people or structures to increased wildfire hazards (including dangers from overhead power lines). For the evaluation of potential construction-related and operational impacts from existing hazardous materials in project site soils, sediments, groundwater, surface water, and structures, the results of environmental sampling are compared to identified screening levels. The following analysis is based,
10 City of Visalia. 2011. City of Visalia Emergency Operations Plan. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/documents/Engineering/Flood%20Info/Complete%20EOP%20Binder%202011.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2023.
11 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8, Safety and Noise. October.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-20
in part, on information provided by the General Plan, the Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA, and State of California websites.
Additional analyses regarding hazards and health risk related to emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality. Flooding and inundation hazards, including those related to erosion and mudflow, are addressed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Traffic- related safety hazards are addressed in Section 3.14, Transportation. Other geotechnical-related safety hazards, such as earthquakes, are addressed in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils. Finally, excessive noise exposure with respect to airport use or air traffic is addressed in Section 3.12, Noise.
3.9.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The City, as lead agency, has elected in its discretion to utilize the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant. Specifically, it would be a significant impact if the proposed project would:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
3.9.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures, if and to the extent required.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-21
Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Impact Analysis
As described further below and in Appendix F, a Phase I ESA was conducted for the project site and found the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil, due to the current and historic agricultural use of the project site, to be an REC. No Controlled RECs (CRECs) or Historical RECs (HRECs) were observed on the project site.
12 Following the conclusions of the Phase I ESA, a limited Phase II ESA was conducted on the project site to address the REC identified in the Phase I ESA through evaluation of the site’s current subsurface soil conditions by providing additional soil sampling and analysis. 13 No reportable
concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, or groundwater, were encountered on-site. The Phase II ESA found detectable arsenic concentrations in soil samples, at concentrations of 1.22 to 7.78 mg/kg, which are above the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) and DTSC Screening Levels for industrial soil, but simultaneously below the 12 mg/kg background arsenic concentration in Southern California soil as identified by the DTSC.14 The DTSC Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 11 for Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level states that mitigation or remediation is usually not undertaken to reduce the concentration of contaminants below ambient levels.
15 Ambient and background concentrations of some inorganic elements, which includes arsenic, can exceed risk-based concentrations. Furthermore, Ninyo & Moore performed statistical analysis using the arsenic concentrations reported at the site to determine the upper limit of local arsenic background concentrations in accordance with the DTSC Guidance. There is only one reported concentration of arsenic at the site (7.78 mg/kg) that exceeds the calculated background concentration of 7.5 mg/kg. It is determined the exceedance is not significant and does not indicate contamination from an anthropogenic source. As such, the Phase II ESA concluded that the soil within the project site would be characterized as nonhazardous waste. 16 There are no identified HRECs or CRECs on the project site. However, there is the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil that is considered a REC.17 During the site reconnaissance, a chemical storage and mixing area was observed along the central northern property boundary, containing a small storage shed (potentially used for storing chemicals), an approximately 1,000- gallon aboveground pesticide/algaecide mixing tank, three 2,000-gallon aboveground nutrient mixing tanks, a multimedia filtration system comprised of six small multimedia filtration aboveground tanks and pump/piping network, and a large water storage basin. Associated transformers and power/control boxes located on top of concrete slabs and gravel beds were also
12 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20. 13 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27. 14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-22
observed. Additionally, one abandoned tank and sump of unknown contents were observed south of the northern chemical mixing/storage area along the private road that traverses south to north.
Evidence of chemical or petroleum leaks/staining on the soil were not observed.18 According to aerial imagery in the Phase I ESA, all on-site improvements were constructed after 2016 and would not contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint, asbestos-containing material, or PCBs.
It was determined that, based on the agricultural use of the project site and vicinity since 1937, commercial pesticides and herbicides may have been applied to the project site and vicinity.
Concentrations of these substances and/or their breakdown derivatives may be present in the project site’s soils. The historical aerial photographs indicated the presence of buildings or other structures on the project site where pesticides or herbicides may have been mixed or stored.
Therefore, the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil is considered a REC.
The Phase II ESA concluded that no reportable concentration organochlorine pesticides were found on the project site.
19 As discussed previously, the project site also contains soils with detectable arsenic concentrations (1.22 to 7.78 mg/kg). However, the measured concentration in site soils is below the Southern California soil background level of 12 mg/kg and thus soil from the project site would be considered nonhazardous waste.
Valley Fever or coccidioidomycosis, is prevalent in the central San Joaquin Valley of California. This disease, which affects both humans and animals, is caused by inhalation of arthroconidia (spores) of the fungus Coccidioides immitis (CI). CI spores are found in the top few inches of soil and the existence of the fungus in most soil areas is temporary. The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores within the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that on-site workers could be exposed to Valley Fever as fugitive dust is generated during construction. Implementation of dust control measures throughout the construction period would reduce fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of these dust control measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would entail the use of heavy equipment on the project site. Potential hazardous materials transported, used, or disposed of during project construction would be limited to commonly used substances such as gasoline, diesel, oil, grease, mechanical fluids, paints, cleaning solvents, and similar items. However, construction of the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Most of the hazardous materials used and hazardous waste generated by the proposed project would occur during the temporary construction period. Likely uses during construction
18 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20. 19 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-23
would include cleaning fluids, solvents, petroleum products, dust palliative, and herbicides that are typical in nature and quantity. Some solid hazardous waste, such as welding materials and dried paint, may also be generated during construction. These materials would be transported to the project site during construction, and any hazardous wastes produced as a result of the construction of the proposed project would be collected and transported away from the project site pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. During construction of the proposed project, material safety data sheets for all applicable materials present at the project site would be made readily available to on- site personnel in accordance with required BMPs as part of a SWPPP (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Workers would be trained to properly identify and handle all hazardous materials, and hazardous waste would either be recycled or disposed of at a permitted and licensed treatment and/or disposal facility. All hazardous waste shipped off-site for recycling or disposal would be transported by a licensed and permitted hazardous waste hauler and disposed of at an approved location.
During construction, nonhazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of in local landfills pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. Sanitary waste would be managed using portable toilets located at a reasonably accessible on-site location. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials such as petroleum fuels and lubricants used on field equipment would be subject to the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, the SPCC plan, the SWPPP , and other standard measures to limit releases of hazardous materials and wastes (see further discussion of BMP requirements in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR). Recyclable materials, including wood, shipping materials, and metals, would be separated when practicable for recycling. The disposal of any oils or lubricants would be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the requirements of licensed receiving facilities. Overall, the relatively limited use and small quantities of typical hazardous materials, and subsequent transport and disposal of such materials, during construction would be controlled through compliance with applicable laws and regulations pursuant to a comprehensive regulatory framework administered by the DTSC and other relevant public agencies.
As discussed above, the potential presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil due to past and current agricultural use was determined to potentially result in significant impacts due to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous levels of pesticides and herbicides on-site. Soil samples were taken to determine the presence of pesticides or herbicides in site soil. The Phase II ESA found that there were no reportable concentrations of pesticides or herbicides on-site and found the arsenic levels in the on-site soil to be below regional background levels. Therefore, the soil would be expected to be considered nonhazardous waste, and its transport and disposal would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment. Furthermore, required compliance with applicable hazardous material laws and regulations would ensure that transport and disposal of any contaminated soils would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-24
Operation
Operations and maintenance activities associated with the proposed project would not involve activities that would handle large quantities of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste given the nature of the proposed uses. Primary operations and maintenance activities that would occur on the project site would consist of light industrial and flex industrial uses as well as: a convenience store, gas station, car wash facility, RV/self-storage facilities, and drive-through restaurants. As part of its site design, the gas station would have two 20,000-gallon underground tanks on-site. In accordance with General Plan Policy S-P-17, the proposed project would be required to prepare an HMBP in accordance with the applicable Tulare County regulations outlined in the Tulare County HMBP . The proposed project’s HMBP would be required to disclose the inventory of all hazardous materials on-site and would be made available to first responders in the City and County for emergency response activities. In addition, the project applicant for the gas station would be required to obtain a permit to operate the proposed UST system per California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, California Health and Safety Code Section (25280–25299.8). These regulations mandate the testing and frequent inspections of the UST facilities. Plans must be submitted to the Tulare County Division of Environmental Health prior to any underground storage tank installations, modifications, repairs, or removals.
Vehicles used during standard operations and maintenance would include delivery vehicles, trucks (pickup, flatbed), forklifts, and loaders for routine and unscheduled maintenance. Large heavy-haul transport equipment and cranes may be brought to the project site infrequently for equipment repair or replacement. Long-term maintenance and equipment replacement would be scheduled in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) oversees the Statewide implementation of the HMBP, which aims to prevent or minimize harm to public health and safety, and the environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous material. The minimum reporting quantities for hazardous materials is 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for compressed gas. If a business handles hazardous materials at or in excess of the minimum thresholds, a HMBP is required to be prepared and approved by the State and local jurisdictions. The project tenants/operator will be required to submit information to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), Tulare County Department of Public Health, and the City regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials. Both the proposed gas station/mini-mart and future industrial uses would be subject to the HMBP requirements if they handle hazardous materials in excess of minimum reporting quantities.
During operation, tenants/operators may use potentially hazardous substances that are typical for this type of light industrial and flex industrial uses as well as the proposed commercial uses, including lubricants, hydraulic oils, and other substances. Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used on-site during operation of the proposed project, but not in sufficient quantities to create significant hazard in the unlikely event of upset or accident. Any routine storage, handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and programs set forth by various City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-25
federal, State, and local agencies, including, without limitation, the EPA, RCRA, Caltrans, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Operation of the proposed tenants would include a gas station, with the routine use and storage of hazardous materials, which includes storage of gasoline in the project’s underground fuel storage tanks (USTs), as well as delivery of gasoline and subsequent refilling of the tanks. Gasoline is considered a hazardous waste, and therefore, the installation and operation of underground fuel storage tanks are regulated by a variety of State and local agencies.
Development of a gas station would include the installation of two 20,000-gallon gasoline or diesel USTs that would be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Tulare County Department of Public Health, which is the CUPA. The installation and operation of USTs will be in compliance with local and State regulations related to USTs and hazardous materials.
Therefore, the construction of the gas station would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Development of uses associated with the industrial park portion of the project site would be subject to the same regulations and permitting standards as noted above.As a result, operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, and impacts related to operation would be less than significant.
In conclusion, impacts during construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Risk of Upset
Impact HAZ-2: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact Analysis
See Impact HAZ-1.
Construction
Construction activities required for the proposed project would involve trenching, excavation, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities. Construction activities would temporarily require use of equipment, such as trucks, excavators, and other powered equipment and would use potentially hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel) and lubricants (oils and greases). In addition, construction would include the use of cleaning fluids, solvents, petroleum products, dust palliative, and small quantities of household herbicides. Some solid hazardous waste, such as welding materials and dried paint, may also be generated during construction. Such materials would be used in City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-26
quantities typically associated with construction of the proposed project and would be transported, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and manufacturers’ instructions.
As discussed above, there were no reportable concentrations of hazardous contaminants except for arsenic found on the project site. Detectable concentrations of arsenic were found in collected soil samples at concentrations above EPA RSLs and DTSC Screening Levels for industrial soil but simultaneously below background arsenic concentration as identified by the DTSC.20 DTSC’s HHRA Note Number 11 states that mitigation or remediation is usually not undertaken to reduce the concentration of contaminants below ambient levels. As such, it was concluded that soil on the project site would be categorized as nonhazardous, and would not require mitigation.21 According to CalGEM, the project site is not located within a known active oil production field but does include one plugged and abandoned well. However, it was confirmed plugged and abandoned on April 6, 2015.22 There was no evidence of chemical or petroleum leaks/staining on the soil at the project site. However, as there is a known well on-site, and in the unlikely event an unknown, abandoned, or unrecorded well may occur on-site and may be discovered during construction of the proposed project, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 would require that any known well be indicated on engineered plans showing a minimum 10-foot no build radius area. Should any abandoned or unrecorded wells be uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, the project developer would immediately contact CalGEM, and comply with established procedures for dealing with wells.
With the implementation of MM HAZ-1, impacts related to potentially hazardous materials uncovered during construction would be considered less than significant.
In conclusion, the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Operation
During operation, it is reasonable to assume that tenants/operators would use potentially hazardous substances that are typical for this type of light and flex industrial and compatible commercial uses, including, for example, lubricants, hydraulic oils, and other substances. Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used on-site during operation of the proposed project but not in sufficient quantities to create significant hazard in the unlikely event of upset or accident. These types of materials are common in such light/flex industrial and commercial projects and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used and handled as intended, pursuant to the requirements set forth in the comprehensive regulatory framework, and would not be expected to result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The handling, transport, and disposal of such substances must comply with all local, State, and federal laws and regulations, which would help reduce risks of upset and accident conditions. As such, operational impacts related to hazardous materials risk would be less than significant.
20 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2023. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. January 27. 21 Ibid.
22 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Northeast Corner of West Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street. July 20.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-27
As noted above, the proposed project would include the installation of USTs. Accordingly, the proposed project would be required to submit a HMBP , and as such the hazardous materials that would be present on-site in connection with the proposed gas station would be contained within specifications that follow applicable federal, State, and local requirements. For example, and without limitation, OSHA requirements call for the inclusion of appropriate ventilation, acid resistant materials, and presence of spill protection supplies.
Overall, adherence to applicable laws and regulations and standard protocols during the storage, transportation, and usage of any hazardous materials would minimize or reduce potential impacts during construction related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Furthermore, impacts during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 (a) Any known wells on the project site shall be delineated on an engineered site plan with a minimum 10-foot radius no build area.
(b) In the event that any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM), shall be contacted for requirements and approval; copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Community Development Department. CalGEM may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required.
(c) T he following note shall appear on all final maps and grading plans: “If during grading or construction, any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged, CalGEM will be contacted to inspect and approve any remediation required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Hazardous Emissions Proximate to a School
Impact HAZ-3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact Analysis
The project site is not located within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the project site is Denton Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.46-mile southeast of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not emit hazardous materials or involve City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-28
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
As noted above, construction activity would be expected to involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that are typical for this type of light/flex industrial and compatible commercial uses, such as diesel fuels, aerosols, and paints. However, the handling, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Public Resources Code, and other State and local laws and regulations, which further limits the risk of emissions or release of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. In addition, it is anticipated that construction trucks would travel west along Riggin Avenue to access SR-99, which is the nearest highway. The nearest schools are southeast of the project site and therefore it is unlikely that the construction trucks would travel past the schools. Therefore, construction impacts in this regard be less than significant.
During operation, because of the distance to the nearest school, the low probability of significant quantities of hazardous materials to be present on-site, and required project compliance with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to handling, storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials, substances, or waste, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, operational impacts related to hazardous emissions proximate to a school would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites
Impact HAZ-4: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Impact Analysis
As noted above, the project site is not identified in any of the California hazardous materials databases, as shown in Table 3.9-1. Searches were completed for all lands within the project site in the following hazardous materials lists: Cal/EPA’s Cortese List, including the DTSC’s EnviroStor database of hazardous substances release sites; and GeoTracker, the California database of leaking underground storage tanks.
23,24
Because the proposed project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, there is no potential of
23 Department of Conservation. 2022. EnviroStor. Website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=vasalia.
Accessed August 11, 2022.
24 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2022. Geotracker. Website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=visalia. Accessed August 11, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-29
creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment and, therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Proximity to Public Airport Safety Hazard
Impact HAZ-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area?
Impact Analysis
The nearest public airport to the proposed project would be Visalia Municipal Airport, located approximately 2.68 miles southwest of the project site. According to the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the southwest corner of the project site lies within the Visalia Municipal Airport’s Airport Influence Area but outside of the Airport Safety Zone.25 Land use compatibility within the Airport Influence Area is defined in the Tulare County Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Section 3 of the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). The proposed light and flex industrial and compatible commercial uses are considered “compatible.” Buildings within the Airport Influence Area are also subject to height restriction set forth in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The proposed project would have a maximum height of 45 feet, which is far lower than the FAR Part 77 height restriction of 200 feet, beyond which would require Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification.
26 As such, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Emergency Response and Evacuation
Impact HAZ-6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
25 Aries Consultants Ltd. 2012. Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. December. 26 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Form FAA 7460-1- Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Website:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/FAA_Form_7460-1_042023.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-30
Impact Analysis
The City has not previously experienced wildfire or other hazards that required evacuation.
The City of Visalia’s EOP was adopted in 2011 and is used in conjunction with the Tulare County’s EOP , which incorporates the County’s updated 2011 Evacuation Plan. To keep Tulare County residents and businesses informed of emergencies and other time-sensitive messages, the County utilizes Alert TC. Notifications may include severe weather warnings, wildfire alerts, and road closures/detours. As discussed under Impact PUB-1 in Section 3.13, Public Services, Fire Station 55 is the nearest fire station to the project site, located approximately 0.43 mile to the south at 921 West Ferguson Avenue. The next closest station is Fire Station 53, located approximately 3.27 miles to the southeast at 5025 West Walnut Avenue. Based on this distance from the Fire Department’s fire station, the response time for a fire engine traveling at an average speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) would be approximately 2 minutes. There are not currently any fire hydrants on the project site; however, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Hydrant Ordinance, including providing the mandated number of hydrants with adequate fire flow pressure (a minimum flow of 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure).27 During construction, construction equipment and vehicles would access and leave the project site, which in turn could potentially impede evacuation or Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA). The City does not currently have any established evacuation routes; however, the General Plan designates SR-198, SR-99, and SR-63 as evacuation routes consistent with the County EOP. 28 The foregoing State Routes
are located approximately 2 miles south, 3 miles west, and 4 miles east from the project site, respectively. In addition to these State Routes that would be likely evacuation routes in the event of a wildfire emergency, there are other main arterial roads that are in the vicinity and readily accessible, which could reasonably be assumed to serve as emergency evacuation routes in the project vicinity. The proposed project’s primary access roads (Kelsey Street, Clancy Street, Shirk Street, and Riggin Avenue) allow adequate egress/ingress to the project site in the event of an emergency. These streets would connect to an internal road network within the project site, providing ample access for emergency vehicles in the case of an emergency. Given the availability of multiple State Routes identified as evacuation routes available to the proposed project as well as other community members, coupled with several alternative main arterial roads that provide access to these identified evacuation routes, the proposed project’s construction would not substantially impair these evacuation routes and would not substantially impair any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. While construction would result in truck deliveries, hauling of materials, and construction crews, and operation of the proposed project would involve both passenger vehicles and truck trips associated with the flex/light industrial and compatible commercial uses, improvement plans and any work completed in existing roadways would be required to be approved by the City Engineer before they could occur. The proposed streets have been designed and would be required to be constructed to applicable City specifications and have adequate site access for emergency vehicles. In the event of an emergency response, the City’s
27 City of Visalia. 2001. Municipal Code Section 16.36.120 Water mains, fire hydrants and fire department access.
Website: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=4255. Accessed November 22, 2022. 28 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-31
Engineering, Police, and Fire Departments would coordinate to ensure that adequate access to and from the project site is maintained. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Wildland Fires
Impact HAZ-7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impact Analysis
The project site is not located in or near an SRA and also does not contain lands classified as a VHFHSZ.29 According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ Maps for the LRA, the project site is classified as LRA Unzoned, which means that the project site is located outside of areas identified by CAL FIRE as having substantial or very high risk.
The Unit Strategic Fire Plan for the CAL FIRE Tulare Unit designates the project site as being located within an Agriculture area by Tulare County (County).30 The closest mapped FHSZ is an SRA Moderate Zone located approximately 15 miles east of the project site, at the outer city limits of the City of Exeter. There is an FRA Moderate Zone located approximately 23 miles to the southwest of the project site just outside of the City of Lemoore city limits.31 The nearest VHFHSZ is located over 25 miles east of the project site.
In addition, the General Plan does not designate the project site as being in a fire hazard area.
According to General Plan Figure 8-4, Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services, there is an area of moderate fire susceptibility located along North Plaza Drive between West Ferguson Avenue and Goshen Avenue, which is located approximately 3,700 feet southwest of the project site. 32 The
nearest VHFHSZ is located over 25 miles east of the project site. Thus, the project site is not in a wildfire-prone area. Additionally, the project site is not located within a wildland urban interface area and has not previously experienced wildfire. The area surrounding the project site is mostly agricultural and industrial land. As such, the project site is surrounded either by urban development or by managed land that does not contain steep terrain or unmanaged open space areas that could be prone to wildfires. See also Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR for additional detail in this regard.
Slope and wind speed and can influence the spread of fires. Upslope topography eventually increases the spread rate of the fire in all fuel beds over flat conditions. As described in Chapter 2,
29 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. 30 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2022. Unit Strategic Fire Plan CAL FIRE/Tulare Unit. May. 31 Ibid.
32 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise, Figure 8-4: Fire Hazards and Public Safety Services. October.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-32
Project Description, the project site has an elevation of approximately 303 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The project site has is predominantly flat with a gentle slope to the northwest.
The nearest air monitoring station that measures meteorological data is the Visalia Municipal Airport Station, located approximately 2.87 miles southwest of the project site. According to the ARB, this station has an average wind speed of 6.9 mph and an annual maximum of 12 mph.33 While these wind speeds could potentially spread wildfires, the project site and vicinity are not in or near a WUI zone and are bordered by urban development on two sides, with similar development planned in the area in the immediate future.34 Annual prevailing winds in the City of Visalia are from the northwest; therefore, the prevailing winds would blow fire embers away from the project site and would not exacerbate fire risk.35 As such, the project site and its surroundings do not embody conditions that would exacerbate wildfire in this regard.
The project site would be annexed into the City; as such, VFD would maintain responsibility for fire prevention and suppression over the project site. As discussed further in Section 3.13, Public Services, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would be adequately served by fire protection services from VFD. Furthermore, project structures would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code with respect to emergency access and use of building materials that would limit the spread of wildfire to the greatest extent feasible. The City requires all new development and subdivisions to meet UFC provisions, and the VFD reviews all development applications during the plan check process.
36 Additionally, the City undertakes vegetation
management activities that, in accordance with General Plan Policy S-P-27, require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction. 37 Compliance with applicable State and local plans, laws, and regulations and adherence to General Plan Policy S-P-27 would further reduce any potential risk of impacts related to wildland fire hazards.
Therefore, potential impacts from wildland fires would be less than significant.
See also Section 3.16, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR for additional discussion of wildfire issues.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
33 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Tulare County – All Networks Annual Resultant Wind Summary Data 2022. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=WINSPD_mph&year=2022&mon=8&day=18&hours=all&county_name=54- Tulare&basin=--AIR+BASIN--&latitude=--PART+OF+STATE--
&report=ASRPT&order=state%2Cbasin%2Ccounty_name%2Cname&network%5B%5D=ALL&submit=Retrieve+Data&ptype=met.
Accessed August 18, 2022.
34 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2019. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). December. 35 Western Regional Climate Center. 2022. Prevailing Wind Direction. Website:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/comp_table_show.php?stype=wind_dir_avg. Accessed November 22, 2022. 36 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 3.11 Hazardous Materials. 37 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-33
3.9.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials analysis is the project area.
Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project area would be most affected by project activities. For the transport of hazardous materials, the geographic scope includes local and regional transportation facilities. The cumulative projects are those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, including those listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects.
Hazards Materials Exposure Risk
Cumulative projects listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, may include demolition of existing structures that have the potential to contain hazardous building materials.
Building materials may contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). To address potential release of hazardous materials, the City would require the applicants of cumulative developments to assess structures and comply with standard conditions of approval/ mitigation measures (e.g., required testing, removal, and proper disposal) to minimize release prior to any demolition. Additionally, a comprehensive regulatory framework involving regional, State, and federal laws and regulations would apply to these cumulative projects, which would ensure a less than significant cumulative impact related to exposure to hazardous materials.
With respect to impacts related to the creation of a hazard through upset or accident conditions involving the release of a hazardous material, the following could occur during construction or operation of the project site: grading that would generate dust and the use and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, fuels, herbicides, and pesticides to and from the site. The potential exists for proposed project activities to result in mobilization of hazardous materials in the soil resulting in exposure of personnel and other sensitive receptors to contaminant levels that could result in short-term and/or long-term health effects. Project conformance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, approval of a HMBP , project safety design features, etc., would reduce this impact to less than significant.
As noted, the project site is not located within a known active oil production field but does include one plugged and abandoned well. However, in the unlikely event an unknown, abandoned, or unrecorded well may occur on-site and may be discovered during construction of the proposed project, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 would require that, should any abandoned or unrecorded wells be uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, the project developer would immediately contact CalGEM, and comply with established procedures for dealing with wells.
Therefore, this impact does not have the potential to combine with contamination from the discovery of other unknown oil wells from other projects to result in a cumulative impact, due to the localized nature of the issue.
With respect to the proposed project, other proposed projects would similarly be required to adhere to standard conditions of approval and identified mitigation and otherwise ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, plans, and policies related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as discussed above. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would not City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
3.9-34
combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact.
Fire Hazard
The project site is not located in or near an SRA and also does not contain lands classified as a VHFHSZ.38 The project site is classified as LRA Unzoned, which means that the project site is located outside of areas identified by CAL FIRE as having substantial or very high risk.
The Unit Strategic Fire Plan for the CAL FIRE Tulare Unit designates the project site as being located within an Agriculture area by the County.39 The closest mapped FHSZ is an SRA Moderate Zone located approximately 15 miles east of the project site and there is an FRA Moderate Zone located approximately 23 miles to the southwest 40 The nearest VHFHSZ is located over 25 miles east of the project site.
Project-related activities at the project site are not expected to increase the risk of wildfires. The General Plan includes policies that would protect the project and the community from fire dangers.
These include the enforcement of fire codes during project-related activities. In addition, developers are required to pay impact fees that offset the impact of development on public services, such as fire protection. In addition, implementation of appropriate safety measures during construction and operation of the project, as well as other cumulative projects, would reduce the impact to a level that would not contribute to cumulative effects related to fire hazards. Given the minimal risks of fire hazards at the project site, cumulative impacts are unlikely to occur. Therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively significant.
Hazards and Emergency Response
The main arterial streets that would act as the most likely evacuation routes for cumulative developments out of the City are SR-198 (east–west), SR-99 (north–south), and SR-63 (north–south).
Planned uses as proposed by the cumulative projects contemplated in the General Plan would result in planned development within the City and would not significantly increase the need for emergency services, including those related to wildfires. Furthermore, all construction would be required to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations, including those in the California Fire Code, which are designed to minimize the potential for the release of hazardous materials or uncontrolled fires. Once development is proposed, the City would assess the needs for fire protection services and inform efforts to improve or expand needed facilities.
As listed in Table 3-1, cumulative development in the City consists predominantly of residential, commercial, and industrial development, which would result in an additional number of persons and structures with the geographic scope. The types of cumulative development would increase the population, as contemplated in the City’s General Plan. All cumulative development would, however, be required to comply with emergency access requirements as standard conditions of approval.
Furthermore, the cumulative development in the City would be required to ensure no permanent
38 City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia General Plan Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. 39 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2022. Unit Strategic Fire Plan CAL FIRE/Tulare Unit. May. 40 Ibid.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9-35
road closures, would not be permitted to impede established emergency access routes, and would not interfere with emergency response requirements. Given the location of the relevant cumulative developments, it is anticipated that the identified evacuation routes of SR-198 (east–west), SR-99 (north–south), and SR-63 (north–south) would be available and would not be substantially impaired.
As such, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact associated with hazards and emergency response.
With respect to the proposed project, similarly, it would be required to adhere to standard conditions of approval and identified mitigation and otherwise ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, plans, and policies related to emergency access routes and emergency response requirements. For these reasons, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to this less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM HAZ-1.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-1
3.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing hydrology and water quality setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed project by 4Creeks, Inc., in September 2022, included as Appendix G of this document and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
During the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period, no public comments were received related to the project’s potential hydrologic impacts.
3.10.2 - Environmental Setting
Surface Hydrology
The City of Visalia (City) is located in the Kaweah River’s Delta system, which results in many rivers and creeks that flow through the City.1 The Kaweah River travels to the south of the Planning Area, and the St. John’s River splits off from the Kaweah River and travels on the northern border of Visalia. Surface runoff in the Planning Area generally flows from east to west and terminates in the Tulare Lake Basin. Major surface water resources in the area include the St. John’s River, Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek Ditch, Mill Creek, Tulare Irrigation District Canal, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Evans Creek, Persian Ditch, and several other local ditches. Except for the Tulare Irrigation District Canal, most watercourses are intermittent drainages that receive a significant portion of flow from stormwater runoff during the rainy season. This intermittent flow is typically supplemented from water released from Terminus Dam, which was constructed in 1962 and is operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). When drier conditions return in the spring, groundwater generally provides base flow for a portion of the summer.
The City operates and maintains a vast municipal storm drainage system that consists of drainage channels, 23 detention and retention basins, 33 pump stations and 250 miles of pipe. Historically, runoff was disposed of by directing it to the natural creeks, rivers, and irrigation ditches that flow through the City including the St. John’s River, Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, Modoc Ditch, Evans Ditch and Persian Ditch. To mitigate the increased runoff due to urbanization, the City has invested heavily in the purchase of land and the construction of permanent retention basins.
Surface Water Quality
The surface water quality of the Kaweah River Delta system is considered excellent and typical of Sierra Nevada snowmelt runoff.2 There are no known water quality impairments in the area according to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List of impaired waters. The City complies with the terms of the General Permit for stormwater discharges from small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). As a result, the City is proactively involved in protecting water quality.
1 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30496. Accessed December 13, 2022. 2 Ibid.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-2
In November 2005, the City adopted a Storm Water Management Plan that includes a detailed analysis of its plans to handle stormwater runoff from increased amounts of impervious surface.
Plans include retention/detention facilities, street sweeping, establishment of a water quality hotline, and an Illicit Discharge Protection System which will allow the City to determine whether there is a serious water quality problem from illegal discharges.
The quality of stormwater in the urbanized area of Visalia varies greatly depending on climatic and land use conditions. Urban and industrial runoff is known to contribute significantly to the levels of toxic materials, such as metals and organic pesticides, transported to streams. Stormwater discharges may contain unacceptable levels of petroleum fuels and oils; organic matter such as pet and domestic livestock wastes; pesticides; and metals such as copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc.
Fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphorus may also be present.
Groundwater Basin Hydrology
Kaweah Subbasin
The sole source of water supply for the Visalia residents is groundwater. California Water Service (Cal Water) Visalia District pumps from the Kaweah Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. The total surface area of the Kaweah Subbasin is 446,000 acres or 696 square miles. The subbasin lies between the Kings Groundwater Subbasin on the north, the Tule Subbasin on the south, crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east, and the Kings River Conservation District on the west. Major rivers and streams in the subbasin include the Kaweah and St. Johns Rivers, with the former being the primary source of recharge in the area. Groundwater flow is generally southwestward. In 1999, small groundwater depressions occurred to the north and south of Visalia and at the northwest corner of the subbasin, and a groundwater mound was present in the central western subbasin. Based on current and historical groundwater elevation maps, horizontal groundwater barriers do not appear to exist in the subbasin. 3 California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) determined that the subbasin is in a condition of critical overdraft.
California Water Service Visalia District
Cal Water Visalia District provides water services within the City. Cal Water is an urban water supplier that provides the main source of water supply for the City and surrounding communities.
The Visalia District is an urban retail water supplier, as defined by California Water Code Section 10608.12. The Visalia District does not provide water wholesale.
The Visalia District also serves the communities of Goshen, Mullen, and Tulco. California Water Service operates 72 wells to meet the water demands of Visalia and Goshen customers. Visalia District is part of a regional group of agencies and providers as follows:
• Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA)
• Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD)
• Kaweah River Basin Regional Water Management Group
3 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan EIR Utilities Section. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499. Accessed January 30, 2023.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-3
In the region in which the Visalia District is located, Cal Water participates with the KDWCD. In this District, the City of Visalia and others established the Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) under the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 3030. KDWCD is the lead agency in this effort. KDWCD has historically focused on the conservation of flows of the Kaweah River for groundwater recharge. Cal Water is also a stakeholder group participant in the Kaweah River Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, adopted in December 2018.
Conservation Measures
Cal Water’s conservation program has reduced per capita usage and demands on critical water sources and will continue to do so. Cal Water is committed to helping its customers use water efficiently and has developed a range of water conservation programs to support this goal. To ensure that it is providing the right mix of programs in the most cost-effective manner possible, Cal Water routinely conducts comprehensive conservation program analysis and planning. This is done on a five-year cycle in tandem with the UWMP. Cal Water’s current Conservation Master Plan (April 2021) provides the basis for the information on the implementation of and expected water savings from Demand Management Measures (DMMs).
Flooding and Inundation
Visalia experienced major floods in 1950, 1955, 1966, and 1969. The waterways described above have historically been used for flood control, stormwater conveyance, riparian, and recreational uses. In addition, the City maintains parks and detention ponds that serve to detain stormwater runoff when significant storm events occur. Most of the City is located in Zone X and X02, defined as areas of moderate to low risk of flooding. However, some areas along the creeks and drainages are within Zone A and Zone AE, which are high risk areas prone to the 100-year storm event.
3.10.3 - Regulatory Framework
Clean Water Act
The CWA (33 United States Code [USC] § 1251, et seq.) is the major federal legislation governing the water quality aspects of construction and operation of the proposed project or variant. The CWA established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States (not including groundwater) and waters of the State. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States.
The CWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement pollution control programs. Under the CWA, it is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is obtained. In addition, the CWA requires each state to adopt water quality standards for receiving water bodies and to have those standards approved by the EPA. Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses for a particular receiving water body (e.g., wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, fishing), along with water quality objectives necessary to support those uses.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-4
Responsibility for protecting water quality in California resides with the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State Water Board establishes Statewide policies and regulations for the implementation of water quality control programs mandated by federal and State water quality statutes and regulations. The RWQCBs develop and implement water quality control plans (basin plans) that consider regional beneficial uses, water quality characteristics, and water quality problems. Water quality standards applicable to the project are listed in the Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan.
Section 303—Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States based on the water body’s designated beneficial use. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. Water quality standards are typically numeric, although narrative criteria based on biomonitoring methods may be employed where numerical standards cannot be established or where they are needed to supplement numerical standards.
CWA Section 303(d) requires states and authorized Native American tribes to develop a list of water quality-impaired segments of waterways. The list includes waters that do not meet water quality standards necessary to support a waterway’s beneficial uses even after the minimum required levels of pollution control technology have been installed. Listed water bodies are to be priority ranked for development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL). A TMDL is a calculation of the total maximum daily load (amount) of a pollutant that a water body can receive on a daily basis and still safely meet water quality standards. The TMDLs include waste load allocations for urban stormwater runoff as well as municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, with allocations apportioned for individual Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and wastewater treatment plants. For stormwater, load reductions would be required to meet the TMDL waste load allocations within the 20 years required by the TMDLs.
The State Water Board, RWQCBs, and EPA are responsible for establishing TMDL waste load allocations and incorporating approved TMDLs into water quality control plans, NPDES permits, and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) in accordance with a specified schedule for completion. The Central Valley RWQCB develops TMDLs.
Section 401—Water Quality Certification
Section 401 of the CWA requires compliance with State water quality standards for actions within State waters. Under CWA Section 401, an applicant for a Section 404 permit (to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States) must first obtain a certificate from the appropriate agency stating that the fill is consistent with the State’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the State Water Board delegates authority to either grant water quality certification or waive the requirements to the nine RWQCBs. The Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for the project site.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-5
Section 402—National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits The RWQCBs administer the NPDES stormwater permitting program, under Section 402(d) of the federal CWA, on behalf of the EPA. The objective of the NPDES program is to control and reduce levels of pollutants in water bodies from discharges of municipal and industrial wastewater and stormwater runoff. CWA Section 402(d) establishes a framework for regulating nonpoint-source stormwater discharges (33 USC 1251). Under the CWA, discharges of pollutants to receiving water are prohibited unless the discharge complies with an NPDES permit. The NPDES permit specifies discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and other provisions, such as monitoring deemed necessary to protect water quality based on criteria specified in the National Toxics Rule (NTR), the California Toxics Rule (CTR), and the basin plan.
Discharge prohibitions and limitations in an NPDES permit for wastewater treatment plants are designed to maintain public health and safety, protect receiving water resources, and safeguard the water’s designated beneficial uses. Discharge limitations typically define allowable effluent quantities for flow, biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended matter, residual chlorine, settleable matter, total coliform, oil and grease, pH, and toxic pollutants. Limitations also typically encompass narrative requirements regarding mineralization and toxicity to aquatic life. Under the NPDES permits issued to a city/county to operate the treatment plants, the city/county is required to implement a pretreatment program. This program must comply with the regulations incorporated in the CWA and the General Pretreatment Regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Title 40, Part 403 [40 CFR 403]).
Section 401—Water Quality Certification
Section 404 of the CWA regulates temporary and permanent fill and disturbance of wetlands and waters of the United States. Under Section 404, the discharge (temporary or permanent) of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, typically must be authorized by the USACE through either the Nationwide Permit (general categories of discharges with minimal effects) or the Individual Permit.
River and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that regulated activities conducted below the ordinary high-water elevation of navigable waters of the United States be approved and permitted by the USACE. Regulated activities include the placement or removal of structures, work involving dredging, disposal of dredged material, filling, excavation, or any other disturbance of soils/sediments or modification of a navigable waterway. Navigable waters of the United States are those waters of the United States that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high-water mark and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use, to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Section 10 also regulates tributaries and backwater areas that are associated with navigable waters of the United States and are located below the ordinary high-water elevation of the adjacent navigable waterway.
A project proponent can apply for a permit/letter of permission for work regulated under Section 404 (CWA) and Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) by completing and submitting one application City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-6
form. An application for a USACE permit will serve as an application for both Section 404 and Section 10 permits.
Federal Antidegradation Policy
The federal antidegradation policy is designed to protect existing water uses, water quality, and national water resources. The federal policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions:
• Existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected.
• Where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development. • Where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected.
National Toxics Rule and California Toxics Rule
In 1992, the EPA promulgated the NTR under the CWA to establish numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for 14 states to bring all states into compliance with the requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). The NTR established water quality standards for 42 pollutants not covered under California’s Statewide water quality regulations at that time. As a result of the court-ordered revocation of California’s Statewide basin plans in September 1994, the EPA initiated efforts to promulgate additional federal water quality standards for California. In May 2000, the EPA issued the CTR, which includes all the priority pollutants for which the EPA has issued numeric criteria not included in the NTR.
Executive Order 11988
Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” directs all federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, long- and short-term adverse impacts of occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid supporting development in a floodplain either directly or indirectly wherever there is a practicable alternative. Compliance requirements are outlined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 650, Subpart A, “Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachment on Floodplains.” If a project involves significant encroachment into the floodplain, the final environmental document must include:
• The reasons why the proposed action must be located in the floodplain, • Alternatives considered and the reasons they were not practicable, and • A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable state or local floodplain protection standards.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-7
National Toxics Rule and California Toxics Rule
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 were enacted to reduce the need for flood protection structures and limit disaster relief costs by restricting development in floodplains. FEMA, established in 1979, is responsible for predicting hazards from flooding events and forecasting the level of inundation under various conditions. As part of its duty to develop standards for delineating fluvial and coastal floodplains, FEMA provides information on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) about the potential for flood hazards and inundation and, where appropriate, designates regions as special flood hazard areas. Special flood hazard areas are defined as areas that have a 1 percent chance of flooding in a given year.
FEMA also administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as protection against flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne Act) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the State must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the State’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The RWQCBs are required to formulate and adopt basin plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The Porter-Cologne Act sets forth the obligations of the State Water Board and RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update basin plans. The Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for the project site.
Basin plans are the regional water quality control plans required by both the CWA and the Porter- Cologne Act that establish beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs for each of the nine regions in California. The Act also requires waste dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of their activities by filing reports of waste discharge and authorizes the State Water Board and RWQCBs to issue and enforce WDRs, NPDES permits, CWA Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. The RWQCBs are also authorized to issue waivers to reports of waste discharge and WDRs for broad categories of “low threat” discharge activities that have minimal potential to cause adverse water quality effects when implemented according to prescribed terms and conditions.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permits all involve similar processes, which include submitting notices of intent for discharging to water in areas under the Central Valley RWQCB’s jurisdiction and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize those discharges. The Central Valley RWQCB may also issue site-specific WDRs, or waivers to WDRs, for certain waste discharges to land or waters of the State.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-8
Construction Activity
The State Water Board stormwater general permit for construction activity (Order 2009-009-DWQ, as amended by Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) applies to all construction activities that would disturb 1 acre of land or more. Construction activities subject to the general construction activity permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters.
Through the NPDES and WDR processes, the State Water Board seeks to ensure that the conditions at a project site during and after construction do not cause or contribute to direct or indirect impacts on water quality (i.e., pollution and/or hydromodification) upstream and downstream. To comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, the project applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Board to obtain coverage under the permit; prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and implement inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements appropriate to the proposed project’s risk level as specified in the SWPPP. The SWPPP includes a site map, describes construction activities and potential pollutants, and identifies BMPs that will be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources, such as petroleum products, solvents, paints, and cement. The permit also requires the discharger to consider using post-construction permanent BMPs that will remain in service to protect water quality throughout the life of the project. All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Project sites served by the combined sewer system are not required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit.
Industrial General Stormwater Permit
The Statewide stormwater NPDES permit for general industrial activity (Order 2014-0057-DWQ, superseding Order 97-03-DWQ) regulates discharges associated with 10 broad categories of industrial activities, such as operation of wastewater treatment works, and with recycling facilities.
The industrial general permit requires the implementation of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology to achieve performance standards.
The permit also requires development of a SWPPP that identifies the site-specific sources of pollutants and describes the measures at the facility applied to reduce stormwater pollution. A monitoring plan is also required.
Stormwater
In November 1990, the EPA published regulations establishing NPDES permit requirements for municipal and industrial stormwater discharges. Phase I of the permitting program applied to municipal discharges of stormwater in urban areas where the population exceeded 100,000 persons.
Phase II of the NPDES stormwater permit regulations, which became effective in March 2003, required that NPDES permits be issued for construction activity for projects disturbing 1–5 acres.
Phase II of the municipal permit system (known as the NPDES General Permit for Small MS4s, Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ as amended by 2013-0001-DWQ) required small municipalities of fewer than 100,000 persons to develop stormwater management programs. This permit authorizes discharges City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-9
of stormwater and some categories of non-stormwater that are not “significant contributors of pollutants.”
California Toxics Rule and State Implementation Policy
The CTR, presented in 2000 in response to requirements of the EPA’s NTR, establishes numeric water quality criteria for approximately 130 priority pollutant trace metals and organic compounds. The CTR criteria are regulatory criteria adopted for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries in California that are on the CWA Section 303(c) list for contaminants. The CTR includes criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health. Human health criteria (water- and organism-based) apply to all waters with a municipal and domestic water supply beneficial use designation as indicated in the basin plans. The Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, also known as the State Implementation Policy, was adopted by the State Water Board in 2000. It establishes provisions for translating CTR criteria, NTR criteria, and basin plan water quality objectives for toxic pollutants into:
• NPDES permit effluent limits,
• Effluent compliance determinations,
• Monitoring for 2,3,7,8-tcdd (dioxin) and its toxic equivalents, • Chronic (long-term) toxicity control provisions,
• Site-specific water quality objectives, and
• Granting of effluent compliance exceptions.
The goal of the State Implementation Plan is to establish a standardized approach for permitting discharges of toxic effluent to inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries throughout the State.
MWELO
The California Water Commission approved the State’s updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) on July 15, 2015. The updated MWELO supersedes the State’s MWELO developed under AB 1881. The size of landscapes subject to MWELO has been lowered from 2500 square feet to 500 square feet. The size threshold applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. Additionally, the maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) has been lowered from 70 percent of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) to 55 percent for residential landscape projects and 45 percent of ETo for nonresidential projects. This water allowance reduces the landscape area that can be planted with high water use plants such as cool season turf. For typical residential projects, the reduction in the MAWA reduces the percentage of landscape area that can be planted to high water use plants from 33 percent to 25 percent. In typical nonresidential landscapes, the reduction in MAWA limits the planting of high-water use plants to special landscape areas (such as play fields or parks) or landscaping irrigated with recycled water. The revised MWELO allows irrigation efficiency to be entered for each area of the landscape.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-10
Local
Cal Water
Cal Water filed Schedule 14.1 with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the spring of 2015; it went into effect on June 1, 2015. Cal Water’s Schedule 14.1 filing, which applies to both residential and nonresidential customers, was responsive to Governor Brown’s emergency drought declaration and an executive order requiring a statewide 25 percent reduction in urban potable water use. The following measures were put into place to reduce wasteful water use at all times for all customers:
• Applying water to outdoor landscapes that can cause runoff onto adjacent property, non- irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures is prohibited.
• Using a hose to wash motor vehicles unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use is prohibited. • Applying water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited. • Using water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system is prohibited.
• Applying water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall is prohibited.
• Using potable water to irrigate outside of new construction without drip or micro-spray systems is prohibited.
• The serving or drinking water other than upon request in eating and drinking establishments, including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafés, cafeterias, bars, or other public places where food or drink are served and/or purchased is prohibited. • Hotel/motel operators must provide an option to not have towels or linens laundered daily during a guest’s stay and must provide clear notice of this option in easy-to-understand language.
• Customers must fix leaks within their control within five business days of notification. • Irrigating ornamental landscapes with potable water is prohibited during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
In addition to the DMMs above, Cal Water operates rebate, giveaway, and direct installation programs aimed at plumbing fixture replacement, irrigation equipment, and landscape efficiency improvements, including but not limited to smart irrigation controller installation, high-efficiency sprinkler nozzle rebates, and turf replacement rebates.
General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Visalia General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to water resources that may be applicable to the proposed project:
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-11
Objective OSC-O-6 Protect water resources vital to the health of the community’s residents and important to the Planning Area’s ecological and economic stability.
Objective OSC-O-7 Preserve and enhance Planning Area waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources which serve as plant and wildlife habitats, as groundwater recharge facilities, as flood control and irrigation components, and as connections between open space areas.
Municipal Code
The City of Visalia Municipal Code (Municipal Code) contains the following requirements related to water resources that may be applicable to the proposed project:
16.12.070 Grading and erosion control: Every map approved pursuant to this title shall be conditioned on compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017:
prior code § 9075).
City of Visalia Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 15.60: Floodplain Management Regulations): Applies to all special flood hazard areas within the jurisdiction of the City.
Chapter 16.54 Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation: This chapter is intended to fund activities and projects to mitigate impacts to conditions of groundwater overdraft. Such activities will include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Acquisition of surface water rights and surface water supplies.
B. Development of groundwater recharge facilities.
C. Reconfiguration of stormwater facilities designed to retain as much stormwater as possible within and near the City.
D. Enhancement of cooperative programs with local water management agencies and companies.
E. Development of more efficient water delivery systems. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2005-09 § 2 (part), 2005).
3.10.4 - Methodology
4Creeks prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that analyzed the proposed project’s water demand and the available groundwater supply to serve the proposed project. The WSA is included in Appendix J.
3.10.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would:
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-12
a) Violate any water quality standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) R esult in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
(iii) C reate or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. (iv) I mpede or redirect flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable Groundwater Management Plan.
3.10.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Surface and Groundwater Quality
Impact HYD-1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Impact Analysis
Construction
Construction activity for the proposed project would expose soils on the project site to potential erosion and to potential pollutants related to the use of construction equipment during excavation, grading, and other earthwork activities. Runoff from graded areas could carry eroded soils and pollutants into the storm drainage systems, increasing sedimentation, degrading downstream water quality, and potentially affecting the groundwater table. This would represent a potentially significant construction impact related to surface and groundwater quality.
The Central Valley RWQCB requires an NPDES Permit and SWPPP for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the proposed project is greater than 1 acre, an NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required. MM GEO-2 would require preparation of a SWPPP that would include BMPs to reduce pollutants from construction activities that could potentially enter surface waters.
Compliance with the permit requires each qualifying development project to file an NOI with the State Water Board. Permit conditions require development of a SWPPP , which must describe the site, facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-13
disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls.
Inspection of construction sites before and after a storm is also required to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Typical BMPs may include measures such as biofiltration and bioretention, swales, and other measures to prevent pollutants from moving off-site through the treatment of stormwater on- site. The intention would be to keep all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters by treatment on-site. Furthermore, compliance with Chapter 16.12.070 of the Municipal Code would ensure that the applicant complies with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, and that the proposed project is subject to the review and approval of the City engineer. All grading would be done in conformance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City of Visalia Improvement Standards, and the project’s preliminary geotechnical evaluation.
During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. However, the SWPPP would identify all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and would identify BMPs related to stormwater runoff.
Although construction activities have the potential to generate increased sedimentation, compliance with applicable policies, laws, and regulations and implementation of MM GEO-2 would minimize the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies to the maximum extent feasible.
As a result, construction-related project impacts would not violate any water quality standards or WDRs or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts in this regard related to surface and groundwater and water quality would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project would result in approximately 218 acres of new impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, which would in turn, generate stormwater runoff, which may carry pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, and deposits of fluids and metals from motor vehicles into Modoc Ditch or allow seepage of such pollutants into the associated groundwater table. This would represent a potentially significant operational impact related to surface and groundwater quality.
The proposed project would include seven Water Quality Management Basins that would surround the parking and loading areas on the project site. The basins would total approximately 31.3 acres in size and would be planted with species including the Berkeley sedge, Canyon Prince wild rye, Hummingbird sage, and California goldenrod, consisting of species with very low to medium water needs. All slopes greater than a 4 (horizontal):1 (vertical) would receive an erosion control mat, and all disturbed areas would receive seed and straw or a stabilization mat. The basins would be designed to promote infiltration, which would serve to sequester pollutants in the soil.
The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of inlets, underground piping, and basins. Runoff would be directed to a drainage system including the aforementioned approximately 31.3 acres of detention basins located throughout the project site.
The basins would be designed to meet all applicable standards and requirements, including City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-14
accommodating a 100-year storm event, and would detain runoff and release it at a rate no greater than the pre-development condition of the project site. The proposed project would be required to retain the stormwater per the City’s drainage requirements and all other applicable standards.
Therefore, pursuant to the foregoing and with each applicants’ compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations, operation-related project impacts related to surface and groundwater and respective water quality would be less than significant.
Post construction, the project site would be covered with a significant amount of impervious surfaces as well as ample landscaping. This would help ensure that the topsoil would not be exposed and would not result in soil erosion during project operations. As a result, proposed project operation would have a less than significant impact as it relates to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-2.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Groundwater Supply/Recharge
Impact HYD-2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact Analysis
Groundwater is the sole source of water for the Visalia District, and there are no new sources of supply currently planned. Cal Water’s Visalia District would provide water for the proposed project.
Cal Water’s Visalia District pumps groundwater from the Kaweah Subbasin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.11) and the Tule Subbasin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.13) of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. The KDWCD manages the Basin. KDWCD and other irrigation districts and companies have historically managed groundwater through the conjunctive use of surface water. KDWCD regularly provides programs that benefit local agricultural customers by making available additional surface water supplies for irrigation. These programs effectively reduce the withdrawals of groundwater, resulting in less recharge to the aquifer. Groundwater is normally used by agriculture as an alternate source when surface supplies are not available and is the sole source in areas within KDWCD jurisdiction that do not have access to surface wate r.
KDWCD also operates about 40 dedicated water management basins with a total area of approximately 2,100 acres for the multiple purposes of flood control and groundwater replenishment. The basins have the capacity to recharge approximately 983 acre-feet per day under optimal conditions.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-15
There are three public water systems that comprise the Visalia District which overlies the Kaweah Subbasin and the Tule Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. Visalia District operates the public water systems listed in Table 3.10-1. Public water systems are the systems that provide drinking water for human consumption and these systems are regulated by the State Water Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Table 3.10-1: Public Water Systems
Public Water System
Number Public Water System Name
Number of Municipal
Connections, 2020
Volume of Water Supplied,
2020 (AF)
5410016 Visalia 45,325 30,034
5400935 Mullen 42 21
5410041 Tulco 183 97
The WSA calculated the proposed project’s water demand using information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the EPA. The different proposed land uses are grouped into the Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial, and Landscaping categories to calculate water demand.
Based on the assumptions provided in the WSA and as shown in Table 3.10-2 below, the proposed project would use a total of approximately 124.1 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water at buildout. This includes an Industrial water demand of 11,466,345 gallons per year, or 35.2 AFY , upon full buildout; a Light Industrial water demand of 1,723,392 gallons per year, or 5.3 AFY , upon full buildout; and a Commercial water demand of 1,720,162 gallons per year, or 5.3 AFY , upon full buildout. Project landscaping would require approximately 76.8 AFY of the total water demand at buildout. 4 Table 3.10-2: Operational Project Water Demands
Land Use
Category for
Water Usage
Calculations Land Use Square Footage
Water Usage
Factor
Water Usage in
Phase
(Gal/Year)
Water Usage in
Phase (AFY)
Total Water
Usage (AFY)
Phase One
Industrial Industrial 1,864,680 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
6,153,444 18.9 18.9
Light
Industrial
Flex Industrial – – – – –
Light
Industrial
Self storage – – – – –
Commercial Drive-Thru
Restaurant
– – – – –
Commercial Convenience
Store
– – – – –
4 4Creeks, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Technical Memorandum – Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. September.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-16
Land Use
Category for
Water Usage
Calculations Land Use Square Footage
Water Usage
Factor
Water Usage in
Phase
(Gal/Year)
Water Usage in
Phase (AFY)
Total Water
Usage (AFY)
Commercial Car Wash – – – – –
Landscaping Landscaping 6.99 Acres 2.5 AFY/Acre 5,696,413 17.5 17.5 2025 Usage: 11,849,857 36.4 36.4
Phase Two
Industrial Industrial 830,700 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
2,741,310 8.4 27.3
Light
Industrial
Flex Industrial – – – – –
Light
Industrial
Self storage – – – – –
Commercial Drive-Thru
Restaurant
4,796 – 483,625 1.5 1.5
Commercial Convenience
Store
6,922 – 443,840 1.3 1.3
Commercial Car Wash 4,560 – 840,230 2.6 2.6
Landscaping Landscaping 10.52 Acres 2.5 AFY/Acre 8,571,170 26.3 43.8 2026 Usage: 13,080,175 40.1 76.5
Phase Three
Industrial Industrial 779,270 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
2,571,591 7.9 35.2
Light
Industrial
Flex Industrial 84,480 20.4
gallons/square
feet/year
1,723,392 5.3 5.3
Light
Industrial
Self storage 144,800 3.3
gallons/square
feet/year
477,840 1.5 1.5
Commercial Drive-Thru
Restaurant
– – – – 1.4
Commercial Convenience
Store
– – – – 1.3
Commercial Car Wash – – – – 2.6
Landscaping Landscaping 13.1 acres 2.5 AFY/acre 10,724,706 33.0 76.8 2028 Usage: 15,527,523 47.6 124.1
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-17
In the Cal Water Visalia District UWMP ,5 projections for future population growth and future residential water use are based on data from the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) long-term socioeconomic forecast model, which utilizes historic growth to forecast future population growth. The Caltrans long-term socioeconomic forecast model provides a county-wide forecast, so growth occurring outside of the existing Visalia City limits was incorporated into the Visalia UWMP’s assessment of future water conditions and projections for future water use. As such, the adequacy of the water supply for the proposed project would be analyzed based on the analysis of the Visalia District’s water supply in the UWMP.
The WSA calculated the project site’s baseline water demand based on the site’s land use designation that was accounted for in the UWMP . According to the General Plan, the floor area ratio (FAR) for Industrial uses is assumed at 0.15, and a FAR of 0.2 is assumed for Light Industrial. Using the baseline values, it was determined that the site is expected to have 1,929,716 square feet of buildings, with an expected annual demand of 111.8 AFY. Because the proposed project would have a higher FAR than the baseline that was assumed for the project site in the UWMP , the proposed project’s water demand (124.1 AFY) would be 12.3 acre-feet more than what was assumed in the UWMP (111.8 AFY).
However, the total water supplies given in the UWMP are determined by the demand, not necessarily the actual maximum supply. The UWMP states, "It should be noted that the Kaweah and Tule Subbasins are not adjudicated, and the projected groundwater supply volumes are not intended to and do not determine, limit or represent Cal Water’s water rights or maximum pumping volumes." The proposed project would add additional Industrial and Commercial water demand.
This would not impact other uses in the Visalia District, as Cal Water will be able to increase the amount of water pumped. The UWMP states, “Cal Water expects that, under all hydrologic conditions, its groundwater supply for the Visalia District will fully meet future demands.” Cal Water can expect to meet the increased demand because Municipal and Industrial (M&I) pumping accounted for 9 percent of the total pumping in the Kaweah Subbasin and 3 percent of the total pumping in the Tule Subbasin. From this, the UWMP concludes, “It is therefore likely that management of agricultural groundwater use, rather than M&I use, will be a much larger determining factor in maintaining groundwater sustainability in both the Kaweah and Tule Subbasins in the future.” The increase in Industrial and Commercial demand would most likely impact water used for agricultural uses.
The UWMP adds, “Further, under California law, municipal water rights and uses have a higher priority and are entitled to more protection than other uses of water, including in connection with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The use of water for domestic purposes is recognized as the ‘highest use’ of water in the State of California pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) Section 106, and the rights of urban water purveyors should be protected to the fullest extent necessary for existing and future uses, pursuant to CWC § 106.5.”
5 California Water Service (Cal Water) Visalia District. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Website:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/VIS_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2022.
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-18
The proposed project would convert irrigated agricultural land into other uses with reduced water demand. An analysis from the Pacific Institute of DWR found that almond farms require 4.49 AFY per acre. The approximately 284-acre site includes a current almond farm is estimated to use 1,257 A F Y.
The UWMP states, “Irrigated agriculture typically uses more water on a per-acre basis than urban uses; thus, some future growth will likely result in a net decrease in water use within the subbasins.” Therefore, the proposed project would use significantly less water than the existing use on-site.
However, while the overall water usage at the project site would be significantly less under the proposed uses, the water demand projections in the UWMP and WSA are based on annexation of the site into the Cal Water service area, and projected availability is based on planned land uses in the City of Visalia. Because the existing orchard is not currently connected to the Cal Water service area, the existing uses are not reflected in the WSA. For this reason, the proposed project would increase demand for potable water to the Cal Water Visalia District water system, which is reliant on groundwater to serve its customers.
Table 3.10-3 shows Cal Water’s projected supply volumes through 2045. Projected water use is estimated as a function of expected service growth and a forecast of average water use per service for each of the use types shown in the table. Cal Water is assuming that current and planned basin recharge activities and land use conversions will result in sufficient groundwater supplies to meet demand through 2045. Therefore, the groundwater supply amounts shown in Table 3.10-3 equal the projected demand each year.
Table 3.10-3: Cal Water Visalia District Retail Water Supplies Water
Supply
Projected Water Supply
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Actual Supply
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
Reasonably
Available
Volume
30,152 acre-
feet
32,520 acre-
feet
35,276 acre-
feet
38,310 acre-
feet
41,258 acre-
feet
44,529 acre-
feet
The proposed project’s estimated water demand in 2025 would be approximately 0.1 percent of the projected water supply, which is a nominal amount. Furthermore, Cal Water’s current Conservation Master Plan includes water conservation measures such as limited irrigation during severe drought conditions, recycled water, economic incentives, and DMMs that reduce water use.
According to the Visalia General Plan Update EIR, Cal Water estimated that the maximum groundwater pumping capacity is 100,829 AFY . At the time, Cal Water determined that capacity was adequate to meet a projected 2030 demand of 57,364 AFY . Updated estimates from the UWMP project a demand of 44,529 AFY in 2045, mainly due to slowed growth and improved conservation methods. The demand in the service area with the proposed project was calculated to be 44,541.3 AFY in 2045. As discussed above, because the proposed project would have a higher FAR than the baseline assumed for the project site in the UWMP , the service area water demand forecasted by the City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10-19
UWMP is 12.3 AFY lower than the estimated water demand with the proposed project. The proposed project is expected to add an additional 12.3 AFY to the Visalia District water demand beginning in 2028; therefore, with the proposed project, the Visalia District would demand 44,541.3 AFY. Because Cal Water has determined the system can meet 57,364 AFY of demand and the Visalia District’s water demand is 44,541.3 AFY including the proposed project, with an available capacity of at least 12,835 AFY, there would be enough water supply for the proposed project.
As shown in Table 3.10-4, during project construction, water demand will increase more than the operating demand.
Table 3.10-4: Total Project Demands by Year
Year Construction Demand (AFY) Operational Demand (AFY) Total Demand (AFY) 2024 302.4 0 302.4
2025 235.2 36.4 271.6
2026 268.8 76.5 345.3
2027 302.4 76.5 378.9
2028 100.8 124.1 224.9
2029 through 2045 – 124.1 124.1
Notes:
AFY = acre feet per year
During project construction, water demand would increase more than the operating demand. The project construction would occur in 2024. The UWMP expects a demand of 31,951 acre-feet in 2024.
With the project construction, the Visalia District is expected to have a total demand of 32,253.6 AF, an increase of 302.4 AF. The UWMP states that the driest year since 1991 was 2013, and during 2013 there was an available water supply of 45,400 AF. Therefore, even if 2024 is a dry year, there would be at least 13,449 acre-feet available. This would be able to supply the one-time increase in 302.4 AF. Additionally, the proposed project would contain storm drainage detention basins. The project site would produce 111.5 AFY of stormwater runoff, and the proposed basins would be capable of retaining 123.4 AFY , representing an additional 11.9 AFY of capacity than what would be needed for the proposed project. The proposed project would also pay its fair share in fees for new and expanded groundwater recharge projects and would therefore not affect groundwater supplies beyond what was analyzed and approved in the General Plan and by Cal Water.
According to the WSA, there is a continuing decline in groundwater levels of the aquifer system below Cal Water’s Visalia District. To assist in mitigating this groundwater decline, the City has established a Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee and Special Revenue Funds that would fund groundwater recharge and other water resource projects within the City. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Water Resource Management and Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.54, Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation), which states, “conversion of land from agricultural to urban uses increases the local groundwater overdraft,” and City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
3.10-20
requires impact fees for new development and a volumetric fee for existing urban water supplies to fund programs to mitigate the impact of new development and existing water extractions upon conditions of groundwater overdraft. According to the ordinance, the fee shall be paid as a condition of final map approval or other final discretionary development approval, and the fee paid shall be in addition to all other impact fees paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed project would be required to pay $382,480 ($1,366/acre) in the Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee.
Current Special Revenue Funds to support the City's water services include the following:
• Groundwater Recharge Fund–Fund 223: Established to account for the costs of recharging the City’s underground water system. The funding is provided by monthly rates and development fees.
• Kaweah Lake and Local Stormwater Maintenance Fund–Fund 224: Established to account for the costs of adding to the water holding capacity of Lake Kaweah (a source of the City’s water) and was expanded to include the maintenance of local storm channels. The funding is provided by monthly rates and development fees.
Projects from Visalia's 2018/19-2023/24 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), regarding water services, are:
• Construct East Side Regional Park Basins: 100 acres of recharge basins in accordance with the overall Master Plan.
• Construct Groundwater Recharge Facilities: Includes modification of existing basins to allow for groundwater recharge.
• Purchase Water Rights: Purchase surface water rights and water supply for ground water recharge to help reduce groundwater overdraft. Surface water is purchased in wet years, but not in drought years.
• Water Resource Management: Includes consultations and engineering services as needed for guidance on water management issues, specifically those regarding surface and irrigation- water allocations, grant application, and certain SGMA issues. • Acquire Land for Basins: Acquire properties to develop into groundwater recharge facilities.
The focus will be on vacant or agricultural properties that can receive waters from a nearby waterway. The overarching goal of this program is maximizing groundwater recharge within the City and pursuing groundwater sustainability under SGMA. • Cameron Creek Park and K Road Park/Basin: Locate and acquire site for an 8–10 acre neighborhood park and storm/recharge basin along the southerly extension of McAuliff adjacent to Cameron Creek.
Furthermore, the Visalia District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) identifies six shortage levels that increase with the severity of the water supply shortage. A level 1 water shortage necessitates a demand reduction of up to 10 percent, while a level 6 shortage necessitates a demand reduction of 50 percent or greater. The Visalia District’s 2020 WSCP provides a full spectrum of measures to reduce the City’s water consumption (See Appendix G of the WSA [Appendix J]). The City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality