Agenda Item Wording:
title
Appeal of Planning Commission Action - An appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the following entitlements pertaining to the Shirk-Riggin Industrial Project:
• Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08: A request to subdivide approximately 284 acres into 14 parcels to facilitate industrial and supportive service-oriented development, and
• Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26: A request to allow a planned development that includes the creation of lots without public street frontage, reduced lot sizes, and the establishment of two pads with drive-through lanes, convenience store, and car wash.
Project Applicant: Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.
Project Location: The proposed Project is located on approximately 284 acres, on the north side of Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Kelsey Street. (APN:077-840-004, 005, 006)
body
Deadline for Action: 3/17/2025
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner, (559) 713-4636, brandon.smith@visalia.city <mailto:brandon.smith@visalia.city>
Paul Bernal, Planning & Community Preservation Director, (559) 713-4025, paul.bernal@visalia.city <mailto:paul.bernal@visalia.city>
Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and presentation, hold a public hearing, and adopt Resolution Nos. 2025-14 and 2025-15, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26.
Background Discussion:
The applicants, Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., have filed entitlement applications for the development of a 284-acre industrial park (“Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project”), consisting of a General Plan Amendment, Annexation, Development Agreement, Tentative Parcel Map, and Conditional Use Permit. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has also been prepared to analyze and identify impacts associated with the project. A full description of the project is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5) to this report and is also covered in the separate City Council agenda item included on the agenda for the March 17, 2025 City Council meeting.
All entitlements were heard by the Visalia Planning Commission at a public hearing on February 10, 2025. The Planning Commission approved the Tentative Parcel Map and the Conditional Use Permit and recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment, Annexation, and Development Agreement, and certification of the Environmental Impact Report, to the Visalia City Council.
Staff noticed the entitlements in the Visalia Times-Delta newspaper for a public hearing before the City Council on March 3, 2025. The public hearing notice was published February 20, 2025. However, on February 20, 2025, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26, citing arguments that the EIR is flawed. Due to the timing of the filing and the required noticing, the public hearing item was withdrawn from the City Council meeting on March 3, 2025, and re-noticed for the meeting of March 17, 2025. Details on the appeal are provided below.
Project Description:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 is a request to subdivide the 280 gross acres among the three subject parcels into 14 parcels, which includes one parcel created to accommodate a ponding basin (see Attachment 3). The map coincides with the commercial development layout depicted in the site plan (see Attachment 2). This includes the establishment of warehouse buildings on Parcels 1 through 8, flex industrial and self-storage on Parcels 9 and 10, commercial uses on Parcels 11 through 13, and a ponding basin on Parcel 6A. Reciprocal access and utility easements are established between the parcels and for the creation of access points to the adjacent arterial and collector streets. An 84-foot wide irrevocable offer of dedication is also shown for the extension of Clancy Street, which is a planned collector roadway.
Conational Use Permit No. 2024-26 is a request to allow a planned development in conjunction with the development plan and tentative parcel map. The planned development will result in one parcel without public street frontage (Parcel 7) and parcels that are less than the Zoning Ordinance’s minimum site area of five (5) acres in the Light Industrial zone. Access would be provided via three access points along Shirk Street, three access points along Riggin Avenue, and five access points along Kelsey Street. Access points will also be provided along Clancy Street, which will be extended to replace the existing private road and would be able to travel south to north of the site.
The conditional use permit further considers two pads with drive-through lanes, a convenience store, and a car wash, which are all conditionally permitted in the Light Industrial zone. An operational statement associated with these uses is included as Attachment 4.
Appeal:
On February 20, 2025, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 (TPM) and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 (CUP). The appeal was filed by Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm, on behalf of the Carpenters Local Union #1109 (“Local 1109”).
The full text of the appeal is included in Attachment 1. The appeal argues that the Final EIR remains subject to numerous deficiencies that violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thereby preventing it from being certified by the City in its current form. The deficiencies “include, but are not limited to, the EIR’s failures to adequately analyze the project’s cumulative impacts, to adequately analyze and assess the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan and impacts on future conversion agricultural lands, and to adequately mitigate the Project’s significant impacts on agriculture and air quality.”
The appellant had previously submitted comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report of the Project in a letter dated May 28, 2024. The Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), released on January 17, 2025, includes this letter and responds to the letter’s comments (the Final EIR is included as Attachment 7).
The appeal also includes a letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated February 10, 2025, demonstrating that the Commission’s decision to approve the TPM and CUP violated CEQA in that the project was improperly conditioned upon 1) a finding that the entitlements were consistent with the analysis of the Final EIR for the Project, 2) a finding that the Final EIR was prepared consistent with CEQA and the City’s Environmental Guidelines, and 3) a recommendation that the Final EIR be certified by the City Council based on its consistency with CEQA.
Analysis of Appeal:
City staff has determined, based on the discussion contained in the responses below, that no error or abuse of discretion was exercised by the Planning Commission, and therefore the Planning Commission’s approval of the items shall stand. Furthermore, being that the City Council will consider a separate agenda item on March 17, 2025, for the certification of the Final EIR prior to this agenda item for the appeal, the City Council may utilize the certified Final EIR for approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit.
It should be noted that items raised in the letter primarily relate to the environmental review process and/or the related responses to past comments, and that the items do not appear to directly address errors or abuses surrounding the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 or Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26.
The letter attached to the Appeal of Planning Commission Action (Attachment 1) outlines the flaws in the environmental review process. These items are outlined as follows, along with the City’s response.
A separate memorandum addressing the Appeal and late comment letters has been shared by the preparer of the EIR and is included as Attachment 8.
1. The City’s Municipal Code indicates that the appeal hearing shall be de novo (starting from the beginning).
Response: This comment is noted and is not, in of itself, considered an error or abuse of discretion. The appellant cites Municipal Code Sections 16.04.040(C) and 17.02.145(C) to support the statement that when holding a hearing on the appeal, the City Council may receive and consider any and all information pertinent to the matter, regardless of whether such information was first presented to the Planning Commission.
2. The City should require the use of a local workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment.
Response: This comment is noted and is not, in of itself, considered an error or abuse of discretion. The comment states that having a local workforce has the potential to result in lessened environmental impacts such as a reduction of construction-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As such, the City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate certain environmental impacts.
This comment was also addressed in the Final EIR’s Response to LOCAL 1109 comment #2, starting on page 2-497.
This comment is not wholly consistent with the basic purposes of CEQA, which include informing decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities, and identifying alternatives, means, and mitigation measures that are found by the government agency to be feasible that can avoid or significantly reduce damage to the environment. In fact, the EIR has met these requirements, as found by staff and the Planning Commission and, where feasible, includes mitigation measures that reduce or avoid environmental impacts. Although the suggestion may bring about benefits to the City’s own economic development and employment, there is no obligation under CEQA for a project to incorporate mitigation or other measures that would require a local workforce. In fact, development of the project alone is intended to “generate increased revenue and economic development for the City” according to the project’s objectives as provided in the Draft EIR.
3. The Planning Commission approved project entitlements in violation of CEQA.
A-1. CEQA requires subsequent or supplemental environmental review when substantial changes or new information comes to light.
Response: This comment is noted and is not, in of itself, considered an error or abuse of discretion. While the appellant makes clear the CEQA requirement that the presentation of significant new information presented after notice has been given on a project requires recirculation of an EIR, the appellant has not presented to the City any new information regarding the project or its mitigation measures that would be deemed as significant.
The Project’s Final EIR also address the CEQA requirement of recirculation when a Lead Agency adds “significant new information” to an EIR after notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR for public review but before its certification. The Final EIR confirms, on page 2-2, that its responses to comments (which include one comment letter submitted by the appellant dated May 28, 2024) include discussion providing clarification, amplification and/or minor modifications to specific environmental analyses, none of which constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
B. The entitlement approvals made by the Planning Commission were premised on its determination of the EIR’s consistence with CEQA.
Response: The appellant makes reference to findings in the Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit’s separate Planning Commission resolutions that the Commission finds that the Final EIR was prepared consistent with CEQA and the City’s Environmental Guidelines. The appellant then continues to make the assertion, for reasons set forth in the appeal letter and in the prior comments by Local 1109 (i.e., May 28, 2024, and February 10, 2025) and other commenting parties that the Project has not been prepared consistent with CEQA, such that the Planning Commission’s approval of the entitlements is flawed and must be reversed.
While the appellant continues to make such claims, the City maintains its position that the EIR, as a whole, sufficiently analyzes environmental impacts related to the project, and conforms to all requirements of CEQA. The comments submitted by the appellant on behalf of Local 1109 on May 28, 2024 were responded to in the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, and the comments submitted on February 10, 2025 do not present items that are deemed as significant new information or significant environmental issues that require additional analysis, revisions to, or recirculation of the EIR prior to certification, in accordance with CEQA. Further, since the February 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting comments were submitted after the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR, the City is not under the obligation to respond to the correspondence in the context of the EIR and CEQA.
C. The FEIR fails to include necessary information, analysis, and mitigation requested in past comment letters.
Response: The appellant makes the claim that in the Final EIR, “the City declined, without adequate justification, to address the concerns raised by Local 1109 and other interested parties regarding the Project’s Draft EIR”, which include consideration of cumulative impacts from the neighboring, recently approved Shirk & Riggin Annexation Project. This “Annexation Project” refers to the 80-acre annexation of Industrial designed land located at the southwest corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue, which was initiated by the City Council on May 20, 2024, and subsequently annexed into the City limits.
The consideration of all cumulative developments, including the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project, was addressed in the Final EIR’s Response to Local 1109 comment #4, starting on page 2-498 and the Response to LUINA comment #6, starting on page 2-189. This response explains how the City released an environmental report consistent with CEQA for the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project in April 2024, which was past when the proposed Project’s Notice of Preparation was issued in August 2022, which determined the baseline for cumulative impacts. Furthermore, the Annexation Project was intended only for the annexation of the property and did not propose any specific use on the property in conjunction with the annexation.
This claim asserts that the City chose not to respond to the comments submitted by Local 1109 and other interested parties, when in fact the City did respond to all comments in the Final EIR prepared for the Project and released on January 17, 2025. The findings that were presented to the Visalia Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2025-05, which recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR, included thorough evidence, a finding of fact, and a statement of overriding considerations, which addressed the project’s unavoidable impacts towards agricultural resources and air quality.
The consideration of impacts on agricultural land and secondary impacts related to the further conversion of surrounding areas was addressed in the Final EIR’s Response to Local 1109 comment #6, starting on page 2-500. This response concludes that the potential project and cumulative impacts have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA.
The consideration of additional mitigation measures proposed for agricultural resources and air quality were addressed, respectively, in the Final EIR’s Response to Local 1109 comments #7 and #8, starting on page 2-501. The Final EIR has prepared responses and justification as to why the additional suggested mitigation measures were not warranted. Namely, for agricultural resources, both the responses as well as CEQA Guidelines address the reasons as to why further mitigation measures cannot be legally imposed, and particularly cites the competing interests of the City’s General Plan to allow for orderly growth and a balance of uses, together with the General Plan’s policy toward an agricultural mitigation program that is not applicable to this location being within Growth Tier I. For air quality, existing mitigation measure MM AIR-2C regarding all of the project’s road-based service equipment to utilize zero-emission technology remains enforceable towards reducing the project’s emissions, while also recognizing that such reductions cannot be guaranteed or reliably modeled and that the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Prior Council Action:
A separate City Council public hearing item on the March 17, 2025, agenda pertains to other entitlements related to the Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Project wherein the City Council has the final authority on the following actions: Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report; adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-01; Initiation of Annexation No. 2024-03; and a Development Agreement.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
recommendation
I move to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08 per Resolution No. 2025-14; and,
I move to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26 per Resolution No. 2025-15.end
Alternative Motions:
The City Council may, in lieu of the recommended motion specified above, consider any of the following alternatives:
1. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission; or,
2. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing for additional information.
Environmental Assessment Status / CEQA Review:
A Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2022080658), incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared in association with the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It should be noted that this project would not be subject to Assembly Bill 98 pertaining to logistic uses, passed by California Legislature on September 30, 2024, since this project was initiated and had its Draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for review prior to the effective date of the bill, and is therefore considered to be currently in a local entitlement process per the law.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR has determined that all project impacts were either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of the following impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable:
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Conversion of prime farmland (project level)
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Conversion of prime farmland (cumulative level)
• Air Quality - Implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan (project level)
• Air Quality - Cumulatively considerable net increase of nitrogen oxide (NOX) during construction, and reactive organic gas (ROG), NOX, and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) during operation (project level)
• Air Quality - Exceeding certain identified construction and operational significance thresholds (cumulative level)
• Noise - Mobile source operational noise (project level)
• Noise - Exceeding certain identified operational significance threshold (cumulative level)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15091 and 15092, the City, as the Lead Agency, may still approve a project for which the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the project. This requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each environmental impact that falls into the category of significant and unavoidable. The decision to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by factual documentation that supports the decision that:
1. There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant impact; and,
2. Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
The findings and recommended conclusions for each of the seven environmental analysis areas noted above are contained in the resolution recommending certification of the EIR.
Mitigation Measures
The EIR further disclosed mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The measures addresses:
• Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Air Quality for impacts of the project having a considerable net increase of a criterial pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment.
• Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources for impacts of the project to special-status wildlife species possible to occur on-site (i.e., Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, San Joaquin Kit Fox).
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction.
• Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Geology and Soils to address potential impacts related to grading, the potential for on-site erosion due to project construction & operation, and the potential of exposing a fossil during construction.
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Greenhouse Gas Emissions to address the potential for the project to conflict with an agency plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Hazardous Materials to address the potential presence of abandoned or unrecorded wells.
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Noise to address the impacts of drive-through lane and car wash noise upon noise-sensitive land uses, and the potential of any other specific uses that could result in a noise-related conflict.
• Eleven (11) mitigation measures pertaining to Transportation for addressing impacts to Vehicle Miles Travelled, Level Of Service, and construction traffic.
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Utilities and Service Systems for addressing the potential to attain solid waste reduction goals.
Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed Project. This Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
• Reduced Footprint Alternative: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed in a manner largely similar to the Project, except that the project would have a reduced overall footprint of development consisting of 142 acres of developable land and 142 acres preserved in agriculture use.
• Alternative Location: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed like the Project Concept at a different location, on 290 acres west of Plaza Drive and Riggin Avenue.
• No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would not be constructed, and the site would remain in agricultural production.
Public Review and Recommendation
Circulation of the Draft EIR followed a Notice of Availability period wherein the Draft EIR was duly noticed and conducted for the project for a 45-day public review and comment period from April 11 to May 28, 2024. The City of Visalia is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIR. Seven comment letters were received during this public review period. City staff and the preparer of the EIR have prepared responses to the comments received (refer to the Final EIR, dated January 2025). The Draft Program EIR, including the technical appendices, all the comments received and the responses to these comments, constitute the Final EIR.
The certification of the EIR for this project rests with the final approving body, which is the City Council. A separate City Council agenda item on the March 17, 2025 agenda pertains to certification of the Final EIR.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 2025-14, denying the appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-08
Resolution No. 2025-15, denying the appeal and upholding Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-26
1. Appeal of Planning Commission Action, which includes:
- Letter dated February 20, 2025, listing reasons for appeal
- Letter dated February 10, 2025, previously submitted to City and shared with Planning Commission as late correspondence
2. Site Plan.
3. Tentative Parcel Map.
4. Operational Statement
5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 10, 2025.
6. Draft Environmental Impact Report.
• The Draft EIR with Appendices can also be accessed online at <https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55426>
7. Final Environmental Impact Report.
• The Final EIR can also be accessed online at <https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=57144>
8. Memorandum from First Carbon Solutions dated March 6, 2025, further addressing points in letters submitted by commentors and appellant.