2010-08 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PRORAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE GRAND TERRACE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace began a comprehensive General Plan Update that
consisted of numerous workshops by the Grand Terrace Planning Commission and City Council.
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that the General Plan Update ("Project")
was a project requiring review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq. and that Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") be
prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project;
WHEREAS, A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and an Initial Study for the Draft EIR were
distributed to State, regional, and local agencies, as well as the State Clearinghouse on January 22,
2008, for a 30-day review period ending on February 22, 2008,pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of ten comment letters were received. The NOP,
Initial Study and the ten NOP response letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
Relevant comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR; j
WHEREAS, the NOP was published in the Grand Terrace City News providing notice that
a public scoping would be conducted to solicit oral comments on the NOP at the Grand Terrace
Council Chambers on February 11, 2008. Eight speakers provided oral comments during the
scoping meeting. Specific EIR-related comments included circulation/traffic, aesthetics, land use,
noise, recreational resources, agricultural resources, hazardous materials, and cumulative impacts.
A summary of the oral comments is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and relevant
comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion ("NOC") for the Draft EIR (SCH #2008011109) was
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review on January 21, 2010;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun on January 22, 2010, making the Draft EIR available for a 45-day public
review period on January 22, 2010 with the comment period expiring on March 8, 2010. Nine
comment letters were received during the public comment period, and two comment letters were
received after the public comment period. The responses to comments are included in the Final
EIR;
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2010 the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace held a
legally noticed public hearing, in the Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795
Barton Road Grand Terrace, California and voted 4-1 recommending that the City Council certify
the Final EIR;
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held a legally
noticed public hearing in the Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, California to consider the General Plan Update, Final EIR, and staff
recommendations. Notice of this City Council hearing was provided through publication in the San
Bernardino County Sun on April 15, 2010;
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis
for its decision on the Project.
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been
satisfied in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant
environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated;
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the
feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential
environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these
effects in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this
Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based
solely on the information provided in this Resolution;
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A,hereof;
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but
which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of
feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in
Section 6 of Exhibit A,hereof;
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant but which the
City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all
feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in
Section 7 of Exhibit A.hereof;
WHEREAS, cumulative environmental impacts identified or discussed in the Final EIR are
described in Section 8 of Exhibit A, hereof,
WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes are identified in the Final EIR and are
found to be less than significant, as described in Section 9 of Exhibit A,hereof;
WHEREAS, the potential for growth inducing impacts described in the Final EIR and
found to be less than significant are described in Section 10 of Exhibit A,hereof;
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 11 of Exhibit A,hereof;
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and
considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, and
all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings;
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is
deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project;
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any
additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring
recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5;
and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City
of Grand Terrace as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, above, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced
public hearing on April 27, 2010, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, and the consideration of the contents of the Final EIR, this Council hereby
finds and concludes as follows:
a. The Final EIR prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resource
Code Sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA) with the State and the City Guidelines for
implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
b. The Final EIR was presented to the Council and the Council reviewed and considered
the information contained in the Final EIR prior to the consideration of the Project.
The Council also finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR
and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this City
Council takes the following actions:
a. Certifies the Final EIR to be in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq.
(CEQA)with the State and the City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other
applicable laws and regulations.
b. Adopts a Statement of Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the EIR attached hereto as Exhibit "A" respectively, based on the following
findings:
Page 3 of 5
i. The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Facts and Findings and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial
evidence in the administrative record and the Final EIR.
ii. The Final EIR identified all significant environmental impacts of the Project
and there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts not
addressed in the Final EIR.
iii. All significant impacts identified in the Final EIR as a result of the Project
have been identified, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level by the
imposition of mitigation measures on the Project. These mitigation measures
are attached hereto as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and are incorporated herein by the reference.
iv. The Final EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.
Potential mitigation or Project alternatives have been incorporated into the
Project to reduce the impacts.
V. The cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered. Except for the
identified unavoidable impacts described in the Statement of Facts and
Findings and the Final EIR, mitigation measures are incorporated into the
Project to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels.
(' vi. The unavoidable significant impacts of the Project as identified in the
Statement of Facts and Findings and the Final EIR are outweighed by the
economic, social, and other benefits of the Project identified in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
C. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit
«B„
d. Modifies Exhibit 3-A of Appendix B of the Draft EIR General Plan Update Traffic
Study by adding the following footnote to Exhibit 3-A: "This exhibit references current
land uses inventoried in approximately 2007. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) are consistent
with the East Valley Traffic Model."
4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
5. The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the Board of the
County of San Bernardino within five (5)working days of final Project approval.
Page 4 of 5
l
- PASSED,APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 271h day of April 2010.
AYES: Councilmember Stanckiewitz, Mayor Pro Tem Garcia and Mayor Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Cortes
ABSTAINED: None
o i
Maryetta erre', Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
ATTEST AS TO FORM:
"JC)61
John Harper, COAt orney
Page 5 of 5
I, BRENDA MESA, CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council on the
27th day of April 2010.
Executed this 27 -day of Anril , 2010, at Grand Terrace, California.
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
- SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace ("this Council") hereby adopts this entire document,
including the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 13 below, as its findings
("Findings") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the General Plan
Update ("Project") described in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for
the Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2008011109.
In considering the potential benefits of the Project, the City identified the following objectives that
will be achieved:
General Plan Update
• Update the General Plan to be more consistent with the format articulated in the Office of
Planning and Research 2003 General Plan Guidelines.
• Update existing environmental conditions.
• Update General Plan goals to better reflect the relationship between the General Plan and the
citizens of Grand Terrace.
• Provide a basis for informative policy decisions when considering development associated
with implementation of the General Plan.
• Guide future physical development in the City and provide for a high-quality visual image of
the City.
• Update City environmental baseline (i.e., existing) conditions to the year 2007/2008.
• Update the General Plan Land Use Element and attendant Land Use Plan to facilitate greater
diversity in future development options for vacant and/or underutilized parcels remaining in
the City.
• Update City General Plan elements to establish consistency with the updated Land Use
Element.
• Accommodate growth on undeveloped and underdeveloped properties within the City.
• Accommodate future demand to the City street system and infrastructure.
• Promote new commercial development that will capitalize on City proximity to major
transportation corridors.
• Maintain and continue to develop Grand Terrace's established commercial areas.
• Continue to promote development of quality housing for all segments of the population and
households with special needs.
• Ensure residents are provided with a safe and healthful environment in which to live and work.
• Preserve those amenities that make Grand Terrace an attractive place to live and work.
Page 1 of 36
` • Mitigate and eventually eliminate, where economically feasible,natural and manmade hazards
to life and public safety within the City of Grand Terrace.
• Conserve energy and other critical natural resources through a comprehensive program for
sustainable development practices.
• Provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide opportunities for a wide range of
employment,housing, and maintenance of a healthy diversified economy.
These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Final EIR
prepared for the Project. The Final EIR was prepared by the City of Grand Terrace, acting as the
lead agency under the CEQA.
SECTION 2
THE PROJECT
A. Project Description
General Plan Update
The Grand Terrace General Plan is proposed to be updated in several ways: 1) it has been
reorganized to comport more closely with the format articulated in the 2003 General Plan
Guidelines prepared by OPR; 2) the goals of the General Plan have been modified to better reflect
the relationship between the General Plan and its relevance to the citizens of Grand Terrace; 3) its
Land Use Element and attendant Land Use Plan has been modified to facilitate greater diversity in
future development options for the relatively few vacant and/or underutilized parcels remaining in
the City; and, 4) its other elements have been modified to reflect changes to the Land Use Element.
The content of the proposed General Plan Update is described in Section 2.4 Project Components of
the Draft EIR (Page 31), and it is in full compliance with California Government Code Section
65302 et seq.
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City initiated the environmental process with the completion of an Initial Study. The
City used an Initial Study to determine which impacts would be less than significant and did not
warrant further environmental review,while identifying those issues that required further analysis in
an EIR. The City circulated the Initial Study with a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Project
to State, regional, and local agencies on January 22, 2008, for a 30-day review period that
concluded on February 22, 20008. The Initial Study was made available to the public during and
after the comment periods. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse.
Comments received regarding the NOP were used to help identify impacts that could result
from implementation of the proposed project. At of the close of the 30-day NOP public review
period, ten responses to the NOP were received by the City. Copies of the NOP, Initial Study and
ten NOP comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
Page 2 of 36
A public scoping meeting was held to solicit public comment on the direction and scope of
the analysis necessary for the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting was advertised in the Grand
Terrace City News on January 22, 2010, and was held on February 11, 1008, at 6:00 p.m., at the
City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California. Eight
speakers provided oral comments at the public scoping meeting and their summarized comments are
included in Attachment A of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies,
and interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code §21092(b)(3), the
Draft EIR has been provided to all parties who have previously requested copies. During the 45-day
public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices had been made available for review at
the City, San Bernardino County Library, Grand Terrace Branch, and on the City's website. The
Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on January 22, 2010,with the comment
period expiring on March 7, 2010. The comment period was closed by the State Clearinghouse on
March 8, 2010. Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period, and two
comment letters were received subsequent to the close of the public comment period.
After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental
issues raised were prepared. These responses were made available for review for a minimum of 10
days prior to the public hearing before the Grand Terrace City Council, at which time the
certification of the Final EIR was considered. The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR,
Appendices, the public comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR,) were included as
part of the environmental record for consideration by the City decision-makers.
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or
hearings, and these Fact, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other
information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental
determination.
The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures
for the Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. Responses to comments and any
revisions/omissions to the Draft EIR are provided in Chapter 2 and 3 of the Final EIR, and indicated
by strikethrough(deletions) or underline (additions) in the Final EIR,respectively.
The Draft EIR and Initial Study evaluated sixteen environmental categories (Aesthetics,
Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise,
Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities and
Service Systems) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts.
Components of the sixteen environmental categories relating to Agricultural Resources, Biological
Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Noise and Utilities were found to be insignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the Project.
Except as may be otherwise expressly provided herein, these Findings incorporated the conclusions
Page 3 of 36
on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) and the City finds
that no significant impacts have been identified as to the components of those categories identified
in the Initial Study and no further analysis is required.
At a public hearing assembled on April 27, 2010, at the City of Grand Terrace City Council
Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, the City Council of the City of
Grand Terrace determined that, based upon all of the evidence presented, included by but not
limited to the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at the meetings and hearings, and
submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following
impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2)
potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of
insignificance through the identified mitigation measures and/or implementation of an
environmentally superior alternative to the Project; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated
to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the
identified mitigation measures.
SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following issues were found in the Final EIR as having no potential to cause significant
impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. The City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than
significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
A. Aesthetics
1. Adverse effects on scenic vista, or degrade existing visual character or quality of
the City. The majority of future development within the City pursuant to the Land Use Plan
presented in the Updated General Plan Land Use Element will be infill in nature, occur
incrementally, and aside from the proposed Mixed Use and 20-acre Town Square Master
Development Plan areas, will be relatively minor in scale. Most future development projects would
be in the flat area of the City and would not be visible beyond their immediate surroundings. Blue
Mountain is the City's major scenic resource for views to the east. Other scenic views include those
of the nearby hills and the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. Certain areas along the northern
flank of Blue Mountain are designated for residential development; however, the General Plan
Update requires that development in this area shall be undertaken pursuant to a Specific Plan that
incorporates design features specifically directed to "protect the scenic views and environmental
resources of the mountain". The proposed General Plan Update contains numerous goals, policies
and policy actions specifically directed to preserve the integrity of Blue Mountain as a community
asset, regulate hillside development, and protects scenic vistas. Therefore, the Project will have a
less than significant impact on a scenic vista or the existing visual character or quality of the City.
(DEIR pp. 41-42)
Page 4 of 36
2. Substantially damage existing resources within a State scenic highway. There are
i neither state designated scenic routes in the City, nor any locally designated scenic routes and
therefore, no impacts to visual resources from designated routes will occur. (DEIR pp. 41-42)
3. New source of substantial light or glare that adverse day or nighttime views in
the area. New development would introduce new sources of light and increase ambient luminosity.
However, the City is substantially built out and future development pursuant to the General Plan
Update will occur incrementally on parcels that would be generally adjacent to existing sources of
light. Compliance with current City Zoning Code lighting standards in combination with subjection
to the City's design review process would reduce any effects on day or nighttime views to a less
than significant level (DEIR pp. 42-43)
B. Air Quality
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The
2007 AQMP used the existing City General Plan for their growth estimates. A comparison of the
estimates of the General Plan Update to the existing General Plan (DEIR Table 4B-6, p. 74) shows
that the overall growth is less than that which was expected in the currently adopted General Plan.
Although growth under the proposed General Plan results in significant regional air quality impacts,
the growth projected under the General Plan Update is consistent with the AQMP. The Project is
consistent with the AQMP and other regional plan strategies related to reduction in traffic, and
improvement in the jobs/housing balance, as evidenced in proposed goals, policies and actions
contained in the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Circulation and Sustainable
Development Elements. The Project is also consistent with the Goals and Policies of SANBAG's
Regional Comprehensive Plan. Therefore a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 73-
75)
2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. An impact is potentially significant if emissions levels exceed the State or federal
Ambient Air Quality Standards typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized carbon
monoxide (CO) concentrations, with higher concentrations typically at intersections,but can also be
along congested major arterials and freeways. Based on the Air Quality Analysis prepared,no long-
term significant impacts are anticipated to occur. The most proximate SCAQMD monitoring
station has not experienced any CO violations of the standards in the last five years, and CO
emissions are projected to decrease from current levels (pursuant to CARB requirements), no new
violations of the CO standards would be projected. For individual projects, CEQA documentation
would be required to address, and if necessary mitigate potential impacts to less than significant
levels. Also, General Plan goals, policies and actions contained in the proposed Land Use,
Circulation and Sustainable Development Elements will serve to address air quality impacts.
Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 75-76)
3. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Short-term
construction odors from materials such as paint and asphalt would quickly disburse into the
atmosphere and not create a significant impact. Future residential and commercial development
Page 5 of 36
would involve minor, odor-generating activities from typical residential uses and are not considered
significant air quality impacts. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR p. 77)
C. Biological Resources
1. Substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status. Sensitive vegetation communities occur in the community. Additionally, a number
of sensitive plant and animal species occur or have the potential to occur in the City. The Project
will not have direct impacts to these resources; however, implementation of the proposed Project
allows for the development of largely undisturbed areas. Development activities have the potential
to impact these resources through construction, reduction in habitat and food resources, and
increased human activity. However, development within the City will be required to comply with
applicable United States Federal Endangered Species (USFES), California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) and Natural Community Conservation Planning/Habitat Conservation Plan
requirements, and compliance with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFG
requirements. Compliance with these regulations and implementation of General Plan Open Space
and Conservation goals, policies and implementing actions will reduce potential impacts to less than
significant levels. (DEIR pp. 104-105)
2. Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural
community; or substantial adverse effect federally protected wetlands. Riparian communities
support species along watercourses or water bodies adaptable to seasonal flooding. Riparian
communities, as well as wetlands, may exist within the City. Implementation of the proposed
Project could impact existing riparian and wetlands areas through development and potential
recreational uses. However, potential impacts will be mitigated through compliance with USACE
regulations under Section 404 and CDFG regulations under Section 1601-1603, and any project
specific mitigation measures. Additionally, goals, policies and implementing actions proposed in
the Open Space and Conservation Element encourage data collection, protective land use
regulations, coordination with other agencies and the establishment of additional policies to
preserve open space. All of these policies serve to reduce potential impacts related to riparian and
wetland habitats or other sensitive communities that may occur. Therefore, a less than significant
impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 105-106)
3. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Future projects initiated in accordance with the General Plan would comply with all relevant
policies and ordinances relating to tree preservation, including Chapter 12.28 (Street and Parkway
Trees) of the Municipal Code which regulates the installation, maintenance, removal and pruning of
trees within the City's rights of way.
D. Cultural Resources
1. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The Gage Canal
has been evaluated as National Register of Historical Place (NRHP) Significant. Development
pursuant to the Project will result in development upon vacant lands. Implementation of proposed
Open Space and Conservation Element goals, policies and implementing action would minimize
impacts to historical resources by requiring appropriate studies and monitoring, where warranted.
Additionally, each incremental development is required to comply with all applicable State and
Page 6 of 36
federal regulations concerning preservation of historic resources. Therefore, a less than significant
impact will occur. (DEIR p. 114)
2. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, or
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature. The records search shows that cultural resources within the City include prehistoric or
protohistoric sites including rock art sites and sites containing lithic artifacts, and historic-era sites
including residential structures, railroads, bridges and canals associated with water irrigation. There
are no known paleontological resources or sites within the City. Implementation of proposed Open
Space and Conservation Element goals,policies and implementing action would minimize potential
impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources that may occur with buildout of the proposed
General Plan. Therefore, potential impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources or unique
geologic features would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 114-115)
3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. Implementation of the Project. No human remains or burial sites are known to exist
on the potential future development properties. In the unlikely event human remains are discovered
during grading or construction activities, adherence to provisions of Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 and State law sufficiently mitigates for potential impacts to human remains. Therefore, a
less than significant impact will occur.
E. Geology and Soils
1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Earthquakes are a
common occurrence in Southern California. Development pursuant to the General Plan Update
would result in an increase in population and uses, thereby exposing more people (residents and
employees) to the effects of ground shaking from regionally generated earthquakes. Seismic
hazards include secondary effects of seismically induced ground failure including landslides, which
may result in property damage, personal injury, and loss of life may result from such events.
Policies and implementing actions found in the proposed Open Space and Conservation and Public
Health and Safety Elements encourage the avoidance of geotechnically hazardous areas, and
compliance with existing seismic design standards will minimize potential seismic hazards in the
City to less than significant levels. (DEIR p. 122)
2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. The steep slope areas of Blue Mountain, should
they be underlain by weak soils, may present a significant hazard in terms of potential landslides.
However, goals, policies and implementing actions of the proposed Project would ensure that the
hazards associated with landslides would be reduced to a less than significant level. (DEIR pp. 122-
123)
3. Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The City is relatively flat resulting in a low
potential for soil erosion; however, the Blue Mountain area does provide the opportunity for soil
erosion during rain. Development undertaken pursuant to the General Plan Update could expose
areas of soil to erosion during construction activities. Development would be subject to regional
Page 7 of 36
policies and standards regarding stormwater runoff, and General Plan goals, policies and
implementing actions contained in the proposed Open Space and Conservation and Public Health
and Safety Elements relating to soil erosion, open space, grading and erosion control plans.
Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 123-124)
4. Located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable, or potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse. Landslide hazards are present on the slopes of Blue Mountain.
Liquefaction may occur in areas along the Santa Ana River, however, these areas are not located
with areas considered to be developable within the City, and are not considered a direct hazard to
the City. General Plan policies and implementing actions contained in the proposed Public Health
and Safety Element would ensure that the hazards associated with soil that is unstable or that would
become unstable would be reduced to a less than significant level. As a result, a less than
significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 124-125)
F. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
1. Significant hazard to the public or the environment through release of hazardous
materials into the environment. New non-residential development within the City may result in
an increase in commercial and industrial land uses involving the use of hazardous materials or
generation of hazardous waste. However, the type and extent of hazardous materials is unknown
and could range from common automobile oil and household pesticides to substances used in
commercial and industrial operations. However, with implementation of the proposed General
t Plan, the amount of land dedicated to industrial and commercial land uses would decrease, and the
increase in mixed-use designations would result in a decrease in the amount of hazardous materials
used, generated, or transported. Further, proposed General Plan policies and implementing actions
contained in the Land Use, Circulation, and Public Health and Safety Elements related to
compatible land uses, land use buffering, business and truck routes, and hazardous waste will
minimize potential impacts associated with potential releases of hazardous materials into the
environment. These policies and actions would ensure that the hazards associated with hazardous
materials would be reduced to a less than significant level.
2. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Build out
would result in increased population levels within the City, thus increasing the number of school-
age children in the City, due to an increase in residential development. Projects involving school
site acquisition to be funded under the State School Facilities Program must also satisfy several
specific requirements established in the California Education Code and California Code of
Regulations relating to potential hazards, including hazardous materials. Additionally,
implementation of proposed General Plan policies and actions contained in the Land Use,
Circulation and Public Health and Safety Elements would ensure that potential hazard impacts
related to schools would be reduced to a less than significant level. (DEIR pp. 139-140)
3. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Major evacuation routes within the City include
Barton Road, La Cadena Avenue, and Mount Vernon Avenue, and San Bernardino County includes
Page 8 of 36
I-10, I-215, and I-15 as potential evacuation routes. The City maintains an emergency operations
center staffed by the Emergency Operations Committee, maintains a Community Emergency
Response Team and participates in a Statewide Master Mutual Aid Agreement as well as Mutual
Aid Agreements with surrounding cities. Implementation of proposed General Plan goals, policies
and actions included in the Public Health and Safety Element ensure that the City continues to
prepare for emergency responses throughout the City. Therefore, a less than significant impact will
occur. (DEIR pp. 140-141)
4. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires. The majority of the City is highly urbanized and relatively built out;
however; the Blue Mountain area is more susceptible to wildland fires as a result of its larger
proportion of vegetation and open space, as depicted on Exhibit 5-3 Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones. Additionally, the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District has established general fire
flow requirements for new development in accordance with the California Fire Code, which takes
into consideration, amongst other things, occupancy type and building size. Implementation of
proposed General Plan policies and actions contained the Open Space and Conservation, Public
Health and Safety and Public Services Element relating to open space designations, water supply
fire fighting and emergency preparedness will reduce potential impacts to levels of less than
significant. (DEIR p. 142)
5. Included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the
public environment. There are two sites in the City limits that are listed on a list of hazardous
materials sites maintained, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Both sites are under clean-up activities as regulated by the
DTSC. Additionally, General Plan Update policies and implementing actions included in the
proposed Public Health and Safety Element relating to hazardous materials would reduce potential
impacts to less than significant. (DEIR p. 143)
G. Hydrology/Water Quality
1. Violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality. Future development associated with General Plan buildout
may potentially contribute to water quality degradation in the City from runoff, construction
activities, and chemical releases, such as oils, fuels and paints at construction sites, and the level of
impacts would vary depending upon the activity, weather and soil conditions. However, goals,
policies and implementing actions included in the proposed General Plan Update Open Space and
Conservation, Public Health and Safety and Public Services Elements relating to water quality and
protection of water resources would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. (DEIR
pp. 154-155)
2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, or lower the local groundwater table level. Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update could result in a 26.4 percent increase in the amount of residential
units, and an increase of 42.8 percent of non-residential development; thereby increasing water
demand. Water conservation in Southern California became increasingly important in the 1980s
Page 9 of 36
and early 1990s, when the entire region suffered a severe drought. Drought conditions in southern
California directly affect groundwater recharge and groundwater supplies. The proposed Public
Services and Sustainable Development Elements of the General Plan Update contains goals,polices
and implementing actions relating to water conservation and enhancement of the water supply
which will minimize potential impacts to a less than significant level. (DEIR 155-156)
3. Results in impacts to drainage patterns or contributes to runoff water to the
stormwater drainage systems in the City. Buildout of the General Plan would result in additional
dwelling units and new non-residential development in the City. Subsequent development
associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may contribute to runoff,
which may exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. However, new development would
be required to ensure project-specific and citywide drainage systems have adequate capacity to
accommodate new development. Further, the City has recognized the need to monitor and improve
the storm drain system in order to ensure it is adequately accommodating future development.
Policies and implementation measures to ensure that project-related storm water mitigation
techniques are employed and monitored are proposed in the General Plan pursuant to goals,policies
and implementing actions contained in the Open Space and Conservation and Public Health and
Safety Element. (DEIR p. 156)
4. Result in potential flooding "impacts; or expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam. There are no major dams located within the City. However, the Seven
Oaks Dam is located northeast of the City of Highland. New development projects associated with
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be required to address potential
flooding from on and off-site watersheds, including the watershed of adjacent jurisdictions. The
primary flood hazard in Grand Terrace is the Santa Ana River located along the northwest corner of
the City. This floodplain has been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) which assessed the flooding potential, and FEMA has designated this strip a 100-year
floodplain. In the event that this dam failed, it would eventually enter the Santa Ana River
floodplain thus placing the City within the dam inundation area The City has "identified the
minimization of risk and damage from flood hazards within the City. The proposed Land Use Map
designates this area as Floodplain Industrial. Additionally, proposed goals, policies and
implementing actions contained in the Opens Space and Conservation and Public Health and Safety
Element will minimize potential impacts related to flooding. These policies would ensure less than
significant impacts in regards to flooding, including dam failure and inundation. (DEIR pp. 29, 156-
157)
H. Land Use and Planning
1. Physically divide an established community. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2
of the DEIR the General Plan Update proposes a new Mixed Use designation on approximately 94
acres of land, and a portion of the General Commercial and Industrial land use designations. Twelve
other locations are also proposed to be re-designated, specifically, other larger areas where the land
use designation is proposed to change includes the redesignation of General Commercial and
Industrial land to Public to accommodate a new high school, and the redesignation of approximately
14 acres of land from Industrial to Floodplain Industrial to reflect updated FEMA Maps. These
Page 10 of 36
changes, as well as those identified in Chapter 2 would not physically divide an existing
community. Less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 31-32 and 169-170)
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the Project. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the DEIR the
General Plan Update 13 specific areas are proposed to undergo changes in General Plan land use
designations. Larger changes include a new Mixed Use designation is proposed on approximately
94 acres of land, and an expansion of the Floodplain Industrial designation to cover 14 additional
acres of land that could experience potential for flooding resulting from their proximity to the Santa
Ana River is proposed. These land use changes could result in,approximately 1.6 million square
feet of non-residential uses, 175 dwelling units, and the incorporation of recreation and open space
uses.
The City of Colton borders the City of Grand Terrace to the north, east and west and pockets
of Grand Terrace property intermingle with pockets of Colton property west of I-215. Development
of undeveloped land within the City may result in land uses that are incompatible with existing land
uses in the City of Colton. The proposed General Plan contains goals, policies and actions that will
potential land use, traffic and hazard impacts to a level of below significant. The unincorporated
territory of Highgrove within Riverside County is located immediately south of the City. This area
is projected to experience significant growth that potentially could result in impacts to Grand
Terrace related to land use compatibility, traffic generation, and dispersal and generation of
environmental hazards. The proposed General Plan outlines several goals, policies and
implementing actions that encourage coordination between adjacent municipalities. Therefore, a
less than significant impact will occur.
Additionally, the proposed General Plan contains several goals, policies and actions related
to. environmentally sensitive areas, reduction of traffic congestion, air quality emissions,
development in urban centers, waste reduction and green technologies, which will not conflict with
any applicable land use plan, policy or regulations, and will serve to assure avoidance or mitigation
of significant environmental impacts. (DEIR 31-32, 170-175)
3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. The proposed Project was found not to conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan. A less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR p. 175,
Appendix A).
I. Noise
1. Creates a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project. Implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update would result in the addition of a mixed use land use designation. The mixed use land use
may include both residential and commercial land uses that inherently have the potential to conflict.
Operation of commercial or industrial land uses can cause the exposure of on- or off-site areas to
increased noise associated with mechanical equipment, operation-related traffic, speakers, bells,
chimes, and outdoor. human activity in defined limited areas. However, there are several goals,
Page 11 of 36
policies and implementing actions in the proposed Land Use Element, Circulation Element and
Noise Element that will reduce potential impacts related to stationary noise sources to a level below
significance.
2. Creates a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Construction Noise. Implementation of the General Plan will result in construction activities
associated development activities. The majority of new development will occur in the west and
southwest portions of the City. Therefore, this area is more likely to be affected by temporary
increases in ambient noise from construction as a result of the development of land uses proposed
under the proposed Project. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 8.108.040 which prohibits
construction activities between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including
Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday will reduce impacts to a level below
significance.
Non-Transportation Noise. Intermittent or temporary neighborhood noise from amplified
music, public address systems, barking dogs, landscape maintenance, and stand-by power
generators are disturbing to residents but are difficult to attenuate and control. Adherence to
Municipal Code Section 8.108.020 which states that "It is unlawful for any person to make,
continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary and excessive noise which
disturbs, offends, injures or endangers the peace, quiet, comfort, repose, health or safety of any
neighborhood or person within the limits of the City" would reduce potential nuisance noise
impacts to the extent feasible.
3. Result in a significant impact if it exposes people to excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction. Construction activities typically
result in ground-borne vibration. Development of future land uses would generate vibration from
temporary construction activities, but the vibration levels cannot be determined at this time.
Adherence to Municipal Code Section 8.108.040 which prohibits vibration created by construction
activities between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at
any time on Sunday or a national holiday will reduce impacts to a level below significance
J. Population and Housing
1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. As of
January 1, 2008, the California State Department of Finance estimated the population of the City to
be 12,543. At buildout of the General Plan the residential designations would accommodate up a
population of up to 15,747 at the densities proposed. This growth is not considered significant.
(DEIR pp. 208-209)
2. Displace substantial numbers of people and/or housing units necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. At residential buildout of the proposed General
Plan approximately 3,400 persons will be added to the population under the proposed land uses.
This projected growth in population represents an increase of 21.4 -21.6 percent over the estimated
recent City population. This increase is comparable to the net increase in population growth (3,128
Page 12 of 36
persons; 36.7 percent) that occurred between 1990 and 2000. The displacement of housing is not
anticipated with implementation of the General Plan Update. Therefore, no significant impact will
occur. (DEIR pp. 209-210)
K. Public Services
1. Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities.
Fire Protection. Build out of the proposed General Plan Update would result in additional
demands on existing fire protection services. New developments associated with the build out of the
proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance
requirements relating to fire protection to ensure that new developments would not reduce the
staffing, response times, or existing service levels within the City. In addition, proposed General
Plan goals, policies and actions included in the Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and
Safety and Public Services Elements will support fire protection services, and ensure that new
development is adequately reviewed. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp.
216-217)
Police Protection. The gradual increase in population and development associated with the
proposed General Plan Update would require continued assessment of law enforcement services.
Given the 20-year buildout of the General Plan it is expected that the Sheriffs Department would
effectively plan for services. No service shortfall requiring additional personnel or equipment is
anticipated with implementation of goals, policies and implementing actions contained in the
proposed Public Services Element. A less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR p. 217)
Schools. The three schools in Grand Terrace are at or above capacity. New development
associated with General Plan buildout will increase the student population, thereby impacting
schools. However, the collections of impact fees by the Colton Joint Unified School District to
mitigate impacts resulting from the increase in demand for school related services, and
implementation of General Plan goals, policies and implementing actions included in the Public
Services Element will reduce impacts to less than significant. (DEIR pp. 217-218)
Parks. The State of California has established a standard of four acres of improved park and
recreational facilities per 1,000 population, approximately 70 acres at General Plan buildout.
Approximately 100 acres of developed and undeveloped parks and recreation areas are currently
available throughout the City, through city parks or joint use agreements with the local school
district. Further, the proposed Open Space and Conservation and Public Services Elements include
goals,policies and actions relating to parks and recreation resulting in a less than significant impact.
(DEIR pp. 218-219).
Library. Library services are provided by the County of San Bernardino. Based on the San
Bernardino County Library's Master Facility Plan the City should have approximately 5,000 to
5,500 square feet of physical space. There is currently a deficit in library space which may be
exacerbated with buildout of the General Plan. However, implementation of proposed General Plan
Page 13 of 36
goals, policies and implementing actions included in the Public Services Element will maintain
acceptable service levels and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
L. Recreation
1. Increase use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities, or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The State of California
has established a standard of four acres of improved park and recreational facilities per 1,000
population, approximately 70 acres at General Plan buildout. Approximately 100 acres of developed
and undeveloped parks and recreation areas are currently available throughout the City, through
City parks or joint use agreements with the local school district. Further, implementation of
proposed General Plan goals, policies and actions contained in the proposed Open Space and
Conservation and Public Services Elements would further minimize impacts to recreation to a levels
of less than significant.
M. Traffic/Circulation
1. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system. The Traffic Report (Appendix B of the Draft EIR)
included daily traffic volumes as they exist under the current General Plan and the Proposed
General Plan, and are included as Exhibits 4M-10 and 4M-11 of the DEIR. In general, the daily
traffic volumes are slightly lower than the volumes projected for the Currently Adopted General
Plan scenario. The proposed General Plan will not result in a substantial increase in traffic volumes
i in relation to existing load and capacity because the General Plan incorporates the recommendations
of the Traffic Report, including changing the maximum LOS to LOS D and including a modified
street cross section that allows re-striping at intersections to .accommodate additional turn lanes.
Also, the analysis in the DEIR considered the Final Traffic and Operational Analysis performed by
Iteris, which is a greater detailed operational analysis of the actual operation of roadway segments
and intersections which determined that that segment of Barton Road between the I-215 and
Vivienda Avenue will operate at a satisfactory LOS at its current Major Highway designation.
Therefore, based on these reports and the goals, policies and actions contained in the Circulation
Element of the proposed General Plan, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 255-270)
2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
The City of Grand Terrace is also required to conform to the requirements of the San Bernardino
Congestion Management Program (CMP), administered by the San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG). The City has adopted its current transportation impact fee (TIF)program
in accordance with the CMP Nexus Study, and participates in monitoring the performance of the
CMP roadway system, which are CMP requirements. The proposed policy to adopt an "acceptable
level of service" of "D" is also consistent with CMP requirements regarding LOS. In addition,
policies and implementing actions in the proposed Circulation Element require that new
development projects be reviewed in accordance with the CMP. Therefore, the Project is consistent
the CMP and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp274-275)
Page 14 of 36
3. The project would result in inadequate emergency access. The City is served by
a roadway system that provides emergency access for emergency vehicles. Emergency response
and evacuation procedures would be coordinated through the City in coordination with the police
and fire departments. Additionally, new developments associated with the build out of the proposed
General Plan Update would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance
requirements for construction and access to the site, including review by the San Bernardino County
Fire Protection District to determine project specific fire requirements applicable to the specific
development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. These procedures as well as
implementation of goals, policies and actions contained in the Circulation and Public Health and
Safety Elements of the proposed General Plan,result in less than significant impacts.
4. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Alternative modes of transportation are
promoted in the City and in the proposed General Plan Update. The City participates in the
OmniTrans public transit system, has an extensive sidewalk system along various arterial and
collector roadways, and has an existing and proposed bikeway system. Goals, policies and
implementing actions contained in the proposed General Plan Circulation and Sustainable
Development Element promote the provision of future bikeways and trails, pedestrian travel, transit
oriented development, encourage the use of transit and alternative modes of travel in the proposed
Mixed Use designation, and creation of local jobs. Therefore, implementation of the Project will
not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (i.e., bus
routes), and a less than significant impact would occur. (DEIR pp. 276-277)
N. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board. Implementation of the General Plan would facilitate future land
development in the City and therefore generate increased demands for wastewater treatment
services. Wastewater is treated at the City of Colton Water Reclamation Facility(WRF). The WRF
is subject to RWQCB wastewater regulations and standards. Subsequent projects that would result
from General Plan buildout would be reviewed regarding water quality and wastewater, and would
not receive a permit until it has confirmed that the treatment facility can treat the proposed effluent.
Further, implementation of proposed General Plan goals,policies and implementing action included
in the Public Services Element ensure that applicable wastewater treatment requirements are met,
and that related impacts would be less than significant.
SECTION 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds that the following environmental impacts
identified in the Final EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less than significant
levels through the implementation of mitigation measures and or conditions identified in the Final
EIR and summarized below.
Page 15 of 36
A. Air Quality
1. Increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would significantly hinder or
delay the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. GHGs are typically
reported in CO2. The Project will generate emissions of CO2 primarily in the form of vehicle
exhaust and in the consumption of natural gas for heating as well as some CH4 and N2O. In order to
produce a reasonable estimate of GHG emissions from the City, calculations have been performed
that estimate the CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions and it is estimated that GHG emissions for the
buildout year 2020 is 1,632,429 tonnes per year of CO2 or 1.632 MtCO2 per year.
Because considerable uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global
climate change on California and the City, it is unknown whether these impacts would be
significant. This also includes the uncertainty surrounding to what degree global climate change
may adversely impact future water supply and availability in the City. However, based on
consideration of the recent regional and local climate change studies, and since the City's water
sources are anticipated to largely remain intact (though the form of precipitation is expected to
come from rain rather than snow), in combination with the City's existing and proposed policies
regarding climate change adaptation and resiliency, it is expected that the impacts of global climate
change on the City would be less than cumulatively considerable. Nonetheless, due to the size of the
General Plan project area; there is a potential for significant impacts relating to GHG emissions.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM411-3 will reduce the potential impact
related to GHG emissions to a less than significant level.
MM413-3: The City shall encourage new construction incorporate irrigation designs to
assist in conserving potable water, such as computerized irrigation systems, drought-tolerant
and smog-tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover, and the use of recycled water. (This
mitigation measure shall be included as Action 9.7.2.b of the Sustainable Development
Element.)
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. The mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The General Plan Update proposes several goals, policies and
actions in Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and Safety, Public Services,
and Sustainable Development Elements to minimize impacts to GHG emissions. However, due to
the size of the General Plan project area; there is still the potential for impacts to GHG emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4MB-3 will reduce potential impacts to water by requiring
installation.of irrigation systems and plant material that conserve water; thereby, reducing impacts
to a less than significant with mitigation.
Page 16 of 36
B. Noise
1. Expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General
Plan, Noise Ordinance and applicable standards of other agencies; or create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project. The proposed Mixed Use designation will allow residential and commercial land uses
in close proximity of each other, which may create noise conflicts; however, compliance with
General Plan policies, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Noise Standards would reduce
conflicts. Future train activity along the BNSF railroad is anticipated to increase the year 2025, to
120 freight trains and 100 passenger trains per day, from approximately 55 and 10, respectively.
Future rail noise will increase significantly. Uses in proximity to the rail lines will experience
increased noise from train activity, creating a significant impact.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce the potential
impacts related to railroad noise to less than significant level.
MM4I-1: The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise Element Interior Noise Standards
presented in Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of evidence/documentation showing that
interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA.
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. The mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The General Plan Update proposes many goals, policies and
implementing actions in the Noise Element that address noise related impacts. However, due to the
anticipated increased in future railroad activity there is a potential noise impact to interior noise
levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce potential impacts from train
related noise by requiring that developers demonstrate that interior noise levels will not exceed 45
dBA; thereby, reducing impacts to a less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR pp. 183-192)
2. Expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General
Plan, Noise Ordinance and applicable standards of other agencies; or creates a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project. The proposed Mixed Use designation will allow residential and commercial land uses
in close proximity of each other, which may create noise conflicts; however, compliance with
General Plan policies, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Noise Standards would reduce
conflicts. Future train activity along the BNSF railroad is anticipated to increase the year 2025, to
120 freight trains and 100 passenger trains per day. Future rail noise will increase significantly.
Uses in proximity to the rail lines will experience increased noise from train activity, creating a
significant impact.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce the potential
impacts related to railroad noise to less than significant level.
Page 17 of 36
MM4I-1: The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise Element Interior Noise Standards
presented in Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of evidence/documentation showing that
interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA.
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. The mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The General Plan Update proposes many goals, policies and
implementing actions in the Noise Element that address noise related impacts. However, due to the
anticipated increased in future railroad activity there is a potential noise impact to interior noise
levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce potential impacts from train
related noise by requiring that developers demonstrate that interior noise levels will not exceed 45
dBA;thereby,reducing impacts to a less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR pp. 183-192)
3. Result in a significant impact if it exposes people to excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels related to railroads. Two railroads traverse the western
portion of the City: Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads. Metrolink service is
also provided on the railroad tracks, with nearest stations in the City of Riverside to the south and
the City of San Bernardino to the north. As shown in Table 4I-7 of the DEIR(DEIR p. 195),typical
vibration levels for commuter rail operations can range from 0.0003 to 0.003 in/sec VMS at a
distance of 50 feet. At this distance, vibration levels would not exceed the significance threshold for
Categories 2 and 3, but may exceed the significance threshold for Category 1 land uses (vibration-
sensitive equipment). New development that may occur adjacent to either the BNSF or the UPRR
rail line may be exposed to vibration impacts.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-2 will reduce the potential
impacts related to railroad noise to less than significant level.
MM4I-2: For Land Use Categories defined in Table 4I-6, a ground-borne vibration
technical study shall be required for proposed land uses within the following distances from
the either the UPRR or BNSF rail line rights-of-way and the property line: 600 feet of a
Category 1 Land Use, 200 feet of a Category 2 Land Use, and 120 feet of a Category 3 Land
Use. If necessary, mitigation shall be required for land uses in compliance with the standards
listed in Table 4I-6.
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. The mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The Federal Transit Authority (FTA) provides screening
distances for land use categories to screen projects that may be subject to vibration impacts from a
commuter railroad. For Category 1 land uses (vibration-sensitive equipment), the screening
distance from the railroad right-of-way to the property line is 600 feet. For Category 2 land uses, the
screening distance is 200 feet. The screening distance for Category 3 land uses is 120 feet. New
development that is proposed within the screening distance of the either rail line may require further
Page 18 of 36
analysis to determine potential vibration-related impacts. In addition to the City Municipal Code
standards, the proposed Noise Element of the General Plan contains numerous goals, policies and
implementing actions to mitigate potential noise impacts. Specifically, Policy 6.2.7 requires the
evaluation of ground-borne vibration impacts as part of the land use process. These policies, in
addition to Mitigation Measure MM4I-2, which quantifies when groundborne vibration technical
studies are required, and the standard that for compliance will mitigate potential impacts to a less
than significant levels.
C. Traffic/Circulation
1. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
The Recommended General Plan Road Way System (depicted in Exhibit 4M-14), shows the
southerly alignment of Commerce Way crossing the UPRR line then continuing south to Main
Street. The Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL) of the UPRR runs along Taylor Street. Although there
is not a high level of train activity on this rail line, the alignment of Commerce Way would
potentially result in an incompatible design feature,requiring mitigation.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM4M-1 and MM4M-2 will reduce
potential impacts from design features to a less than significant level.
MM4M-1: The City shall ensure that the design of Commerce Way at the UPRR line is
coordinated with the UPRR Company.
MM4M-2: The City shall evaluate proposed railroad crossing design options with UPRR
Company and the California Public Utility Commission to ensure compliance with all state
design criteria.
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. The mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The alignment of Commerce Way over the UPRR rail line has
the potential to create an adverse design feature. However, Mitigation Measures MM4M-1 and
MM4M-2 will require that the design of the crossing is designed in consultation and coordination
with the UPRR Company so that railroad crossing design options can be considered in accordance
with state design criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM4M-1 and MM4M-2 will
mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.
SECTION 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AFTER
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds that the following environmental impacts.
identified in the Final EIR will have a significant impact on the environment and that even with the
Page 19 of 36
adoption and implementation of mitigation measures, this impact will remain significant, as
summarized below.
A. Air Quality
1 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality
standard. The Project is expected to generate operational air quality emission levels that will
exceed the daily SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PMIo, and PM2.5 in the Basin, which is
classified as a non-attainment area, resulting in a significant impact. (DEIR Table 4B-7,p. 77)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM4B-1 and MM413-2 will reduce potential
impacts related to air quality; however,this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
MM413-1: The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by
implementing transportation systems management techniques, such as synchronized traffic
signals and limiting on-street parking. (This mitigation measure shall be included as Action
4.7.1.b of the Open Space and Conservation Element.).
MM4B-2: The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to
off-peak periods to alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway
efficiency. (This mitigation measure shall be included as Action 4.7.1.c of the Open Space
and Conservation Element).
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. However, even with
incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM4B-1 and MM4B-2,this impact remains significant.
Supporting Explanation: Operational impacts associated with the long-term buildout of
the General Plan are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG,NOx, CO, PMIo, and PM2.5
in the Basin. The proposed General Plan Update contains several goals, policies and actions within
the proposed Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Circulation and Sustainable Development
Element that will facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and SANBAG to achieve
regional air quality improvement goals, promotion of energy conservation design and development
techniques, encouragement of alternative transportation modes, and implementation of
transportation demand management strategies. However, even with Mitigation Measures MM4B-1
and MM4B-2, associated air quality impacts remain significant and.unavoidable. (DEIR pp. 77-80)
B. Noise
1. Creates a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Table 4I-4 of the Draft EIR (DEIR p. 191) shows modeled existing roadway noise, modeled
- General Plan buildout roadway noise and the projected noise level increase due to General Plan
buildout. A noise level increase is considered substantial if 1) the existing noise levels exceed the
Page 20 of 36
objectives presented in Table 4I-2 of the Draft EIR (65 dBA for residential and noise sensitive
areas) and the proposed project would increase this noise level by 3 dBA CNEL (barely noticeable
in an exterior environment) or more; or 2) the noise level with the implementation of the proposed
project would remain within the objectives shown in Table 4I-2, but the project adds 5 dBA CNEL
(noticeable to most people) or more to the pre-proj ect noise levels. General Plan buildout will result
in traffic volumes that result in noise level of increases of 5 dB or greater along most Circulation
Element roadways. Where noise level increases are less than 5 dBA but more than 3 dBA, it is
likely that the projected increase will cause ambient noise levels to exceed objective noise levels in
Table 4I-2, creating a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce potential impacts related to
traffic noise; however, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
MM4I-1: The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise Element Interior Noise Standards
presented in Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of evidence/documentation showing that
interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of
Grand Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. However, even
with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1,this impact remains significant.
Supporting Explanation: Traffic levels associated with buildout of the proposed General
Plan will result in a permanent increase in existing noise levels. In addition to Mitigation Measure
MM4I-1, the Noise Element of the proposed General Plan contains goals, policies, and
implementing actions to mitigate mobile noise impacts, including provisions for noise barriers,
designation of truck routes, and coordinating efforts with the railroad companies. These policies and
Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 would mitigate potential noise impacts to the extents feasible.
Nevertheless, a permanent noise increase would remain along many existing roadways. Therefore,
permanent noise impacts related to future traffic levels remains significant and unavoidable. (DEIR
pp. 187-192)
SECTION 8
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as "two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts . . . ." The following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of
cumulative impacts, as noted in Sections 15130(b) through 15130(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Cumulative impacts may be discussed in terms of the proposed General Plan Update impacts
and impacts associated with growth within the region. The geographic area for each impact varies,
depending on the nature of the impact and whether it is regional such as air quality, or local, such as
noise.
Page 21 of 36
This Program EIR assesses overall environmental effects of the proposed Project at a
program level of detail. This Program EIR evaluates overall (cumulative) effects of development in
accordance with land use designations, land use assumptions and goals, policies, and implementing
measures contained in the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, the environmental analysis in
Chapter 4 of the Draft Program EIR considers project impacts in combination with cumulative,
where applicable. Cumulative Impacts were not considered where no significant impacts were
identified or where mitigation measures were identified that could reduce impacts to levels that
would not be cumulatively considerable.
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds and determines that the discussion of
cumulative impacts in the Draft EIR provides adequate and sufficient discussion of the cumulative
impacts of the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Cumulative impacts are
discussed in Chapters 3, 4 and 8 of the Draft EIR. The City Council further finds that the
cumulative impacts addressed would be less than significant, as set forth in Section 8 herein, or
mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of mitigation measures into the Project, as
set forth in Section 6 herein, with the exception of the following environmental impacts that remain
significant even with the implementation of mitigation measures as set forth in Section 7 herein:
Air Quality and Noise.
Air Quality: Operational impacts associated with the long-term buildout of the General Plan
are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in the Basin.
Even with proposed goals, policies and actions to reduce air quality impacts, and Mitigation
Measures MM4B-1 and MM4B-2, associated air quality impacts remain significant and
unavoidable. (DEIR pp. 77-80, 311)
Noise: Traffic levels associated with buildout of the General Plan would result in permanent
noise increases that would remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable even with the
implementation of proposed General Plan Policies and recommended mitigation measures. (DEIR
pp. 187-192, 313)
SECTION 9
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing
specifically Section 15126.2(d) of State CEQA Guidelines states that EIRs must describe the ways
in which the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional
housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from
commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent
direct forms of growth
The City of Grand Terrace has approximately 420 acres of vacant land available for
development. Therefore, implementation of future projects under the proposed General Plan would
require some long-term commitment of natural resources and land. Actions related to future
j development under the proposed General Plan would result in an irretrievable commitment of
- nonrenewable resources such as energy supplies and other construction-related resources. These
Page 22 of 36
energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings,
transportation of people and goods to and from future project sites, heating and refrigeration of
food,water supplies, lighting and other associated energy needs.
The environmental changes produced by future development projects under implementation
of the proposed General Plan would primarily occur as a result of the alteration of the physical
environment from underdeveloped and vacant land uses, to urban uses. As future projects are
developed, utilities would be expanded to serve the increase in demand for site infrastructure
including parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements.
Fossil fuels currently provide the principle source of energy. Future development under
build out of the proposed General Plan would directly reduce existing supplies of these energy
sources such as fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline. This would result in a long-term commitment to
the consumption of essentially nonrenewable resources.
Future projects that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan
would require the commitment or destruction of other nonrenewable and slowly renewable
resources. These include, but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel,
asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead and water. A marginal increase in
the commitment of social services and public maintenance services (i.e., waste disposal and
treatment, etc.) would also be required. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result
in some irreversible environmental changes. (DEIR pp. 316-317)
! SECTION 10
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
As required by the CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR)must
include a discussion of the ways in which a project could directly or indirectly foster economic
development or population growth, or the construction of additional housing and how that growth
would, in turn, affect the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Growth
can be induced in a number of ways, including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through
the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of removal of obstacles to
growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints that
could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval.
The purpose of a General Plan is to guide growth and development in a community.
Accordingly, the General Plan Update is premised on a certain amount of growth taking place and
the focus of the General Plan Update is to provide a framework in which the growth can be
managed and to tailor it to suit the needs of the community and surrounding area.
During the past several decades, the SCAG region has been one of the fastest growing
regions in the nation. Between 1980 and 1990, the region's population grew by over 25 percent to
14.6 million. Between 1990 and 2000, the region's population grew by nearly 15 percent to 16.5
million and the population of Grand Terrace increased by 6.2 percent. The proposed General Plan
residential designations would be able to accommodate a population of up to 15,747 persons, this is
a 5% decrease from the current general plan.
Page 23 of 36
The General Plan Update contains policies that provide a framework for accommodating the
orderly growth of the planning area; and provides the necessary tools to accommodate future
growth and provides direction for new development projects and establishes the desired mix and
relationship between land use types. The project ensures that the City will have a diversity of land
uses and balanced development, encourages mixed use development, promotes commercial
enterprise, ensures that City interests are achieved through inter jurisdictional and regional
planning, and encourages public involvement in land use planning decisions.
The majority of development under the General Plan Update would occur within or adjacent
to areas already developed in the City. Many of these areas contain underutilized land, land used
previously for industrial or commercial activity, and/or areas in need of revitalization. Additionally,
many of these areas are adjacent to existing employment centers, transit, and services. Some
development will occur on previously undeveloped land. Infrastructure is available in the vicinity of
these sites.
Therefore,the proposed project is not expected to result in a growth inducing impact.
SECTION 11
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL POLICIES
_ The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is the designated
Metropolitan Planning Organization .for six Southern California counties (Ventura, Orange, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, and Los Angeles), is federally mandated to develop plans for
transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. SCAG requires
that "Regionally Significant" projects show consistency with Regional Transportation Plan
Transportation Goals and Compass Growth Visioning Principles.
A. Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP")
SCAG adopted its 2008 RTP on May 8, 2008. The 2008 RTP presents the transportation
vision for the SCAG region through year 2035 and provides a long-term investment framework for
addressing regional transportation and related challenges. The RTP focuses on maintaining and
improving the transportation system through a balanced approach and addresses system
preservation, operation and management, improved coordination between land use decisions and
transportation investments and strategic expansion of the system to accommodate future growth.
The proposed General Plan Update is consistent with the 2008 RTP in that proposed goals,
policies and actions contained within the proposed General Plan address mobility, traffic safety,
environmental concerns, land use and security of the transportation system. Specifically, goals,
policies and implementing actions contained in the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and
Conservation, Public Health and Safety, and Sustainable Development Elements of the General
Plan promote a variety of efficient alternative methods of travel for both people and goods, ensures
ensure safety and reliability; and promote cooperation with SANBAG and Caltrans for highway
expansion projects, support air quality planning through land use policies and participation in
_ regional air quality planning; promote energy efficiency in project design and city facilities,
Page 24 of 36
encourage development of a transportation system which supports planned land uses and improves
the quality of life; encourage mixed land uses for the efficient utilization of transportation facilities,
work with regional agencies in order to mitigate potential impacts from regional traffic; and
designate truck routes in coordination with the County Sheriff, maintain effective emergency
preparedness and response programs; and coordinate with appropriate public agencies to develop a
regional system to respond to natural and man-made emergencies and catastrophes, including
regular review of the City's Emergency Operations Plan and mutual aid agreements, and
maintenance of communication links with San Bernardino authorities and volunteer radio clubs.
B. Compass Growth Vision.
The primary goal of the Compass Growth Visioning effort is to make the SCAG region a
better place to live, work and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity or income status.
Decisions pertaining to growth, transportation, land use and economic development should be made
to promote and sustain for future generations regional mobility, livability and prosperity.
Specifically, the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and
Safety, and Sustainable Development Elements of the proposed General Plan contains goals,
policies and actions that are consistent with "Regional Growth Principles" to promote mobility for
all residents, foster livability in all communities, enable prosperity for all people, and promote
sustainability for future generations. Examples include goals, policies and actions that promote a
regional transportation system, designates Commerce Way for the movement of freeway
commercial and business traffic, encourages housing suitable to the needs of city residents,
encourages mixed use and transit oriented development, infill housing, facilitates pedestrian and
bicyclist movements, encourages the preservation and enhancement of the quality and character of
residential neighborhoods, provides a variety of housing types for all income levels, requires the
preparation of environmental studies, when appropriate, encourages civil engagement, promotes
open space and conservation, encourages infill housing, encourages the efficient use of resources
and reduction of waste, and encourages the utilization of"green" development techniques.
SECTION 12
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or the
location of the Project,which:
1. Offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project Proposal, and
2. May be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable amount of
time considering the economic, environmental, social, and technological factors
involved.
An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly obtain
most the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases,
the consideration of the alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The lead agency is not
required to choose an environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative
y does not provide substantial advantages over the Project, and
Page 25 of 36
A. Through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of the
Project can be reduced to an acceptable level; or
B. There are social, economic, technical or other considerations that make the
alternative infeasible.
The State CEQA guidelines direct agencies to consider the feasibility of alternative
locations. As the Project involves a comprehensive update to the existing Grand Terrace General
Plan, the Alternative Location alternative is not feasible and was not considered.
The objectives for the Project are included in DEIR pp. 2-3, and also stated herein in Section
1. The following alternatives were analyzed in the EIR.
A. Alternative 1 —No Project/No Development Alternative
Description: Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that
no additional development would occur and collection of tax increment revenue would cease; thus,
the City of Grand Terrace would maintain the status quo of existing land use conditions and levels
of development. Any development that would occur as part of build out of the proposed General
Plan Update would not occur under this Alternative. By definition, the No Project/No Development
Alternative prohibits the issuance of any further building permits. This situation would void the
implementation of any current or future General Plan for the City of Grand Terrace. This would be
in direct conflict with California statutes requiring General Plans, the Subdivision Map Act, and the
rights of land owners to develop their property.
Finding: The City Council finds that the No Project/No Development Alternative would
result in no change to the existing conditions within the City. No new or additional environmental
impacts would result directly from this Alternative, and this Alternative is environmentally superior.
However, the No Project/No Development Alternative would prevent the City from making needed
improvements to existing properties, infrastructure, and public services, and overtime, without
project related revenue and improvements, areas would become unimproved and infrastructure will
gradually deteriorate. The No Project/No Development would conflict with the City's existing
plans for build out. Also, regional through traffic in the City would continue to increase and would
impact both roadway capacity and noise levels in the City without the benefit of mitigation.
Overall, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan
Update. However, the No Project/No Alternative does not fulfill the Project objectives and is
rejected as infeasible.
Supporting Explanation: By virtue of no new development occurring under the No
Project/No Development Alternative, this Alternative is environmentally superior in many areas.
The Project results in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air emissions, without
buildout, this significant and unavoidable impact is eliminated under the No Project/No
Development Alternative. No land disturbances, new development, increase in population or
traffic will occur under this Alternative, this Alternative is considered superior in the areas of
biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and
water quality,public services, recreation,transportation/circulation, and utilities/service systems.
Page 26 of 36
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the
Project in the area of aesthetics because the landform and visual character of the Project area would
not change and development to improve areas would not occur; in the area of land use, because
vacant areas would remain undeveloped and the use of underutilized parcels would not be
maximized, and land uses would not be updated to reflect current conditions in the City; regarding
noise because regional traffic would continue to continue to adversely impact City roadways,
thereby increasing noise levels without the benefit of mitigation; and population and housing
because the City would be neglecting its obligation to maintain a current Housing Element, and to
meet its share of the region's future housing needs, as required by State law because no new units
would be constructed. Opportunities to increase and diversify employment in the City would also
be lost through this Alternative.
Although environmentally superior because less environmental impacts would occur from
the lack of development, the No Project/No Development would fail to satisfy the Project objectives
of the General Plan, and it is rejected.
B. Alternative 2—No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
Description: As required by Section 15126.6 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines, the No
Project/Existing General Plan Alternative describes build out of the City of Grand Terrace in
accordance with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations and policies of the current
General Plan, which was adopted in 1988. This Alternative assumes that development would
continue under the existing General Plan and continue to provide outdated information regarding
several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community noise levels, air quality data, and
population and housing. This Alternative assumes that ultimate build out of the existing General
Plan would occur. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative encompasses the same
geographic area as that in the proposed General Plan Update.
Finding: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in build out of the
City under the existing General Plan. This Alternative would prevent the City from making updates
to outdated information regarding several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community
noise levels, air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative would result in the City
neglecting its obligation to maintain a current Housing Element. Regional through traffic in the
City would continue to increase and would impact both roadway capacity and noise levels in the
City without the benefit of mitigation. Overall, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is
considered environmentally inferior in that it has greater impacts to the proposed General Plan
Update, fails to meet Project objectives, and is rejected.
Supporting Explanation: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that
the Project area will continue to develop and buildout under the provisions of the existing General
Plan; thereby, relying on outdated information, and results in a slightly greater population at
buildout than the proposed Project. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative results in
environmentally similar impacts to biological and cultural resources because development will
under both scenarios which could affect these resources. This Alternative would result in the
-_ expansion or development of uses that could impact the health and safety of residents; however, this
Alternative and the Project would implement policies to maintain public health and safety so
Page 27 of 36
environmentally similar impacts will occur relating to hazards/hazardous materials.
Environmentally similar impacts will occur in the area of land use because No Project/Existing
General Plan Alternative does not result in any changes to existing land uses or development levels,
or conflict with existing plans for buildout.
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the
proposed Project in the in the area of aesthetics because the visual character of areas would likely
remain as they are. This Alternative would result in environmentally inferior air quality impacts
because it would result in significant unavoidable air quality impacts, as it would exceed air quality
thresholds. This Alternative results in new development and an increase in population (5% greater
than the proposed Project) increasing the number of structures and/or people that could be
potentially exposed to geologic and hydrology hazards, and impact water quality. The No
Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is also slightly environmentally inferior in terms of public
services, recreation and utilities and service systems due to the slight increase in population. This
Alternative is environmentally inferior in regard to Noise because new potential noise impacts
associated with stationary and mobile noise would occur with buildout without the benefit of
mitigation; in regard to population and housing because the City would be neglecting its obligation
to maintain a current Housing Element to meet its fair share of the region's future housing needs, as
required by State law because no new units would be constructed, opportunities to increase and
diversify employment in the City would also be lost; and in regard to transportation/circulation
because development could increase transportation and circulation impacts that would involve
greater traffic congestion and associated emissions.
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative does not preclude development impacts
and analysis of those impacts, demonstrate that this Alternative is environmentally inferior to the
Project, and fails to satisfy the Project objectives of the General Plan Update, and is rejected.
C. Alternative 3—Reduced Development Intensity Alternative
Description: The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative assumes growth would occur
but at an overall reduced intensity. This Alternative assumes that the General Plan would be revised.
to provide updated information regarding several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions,
community noise levels, air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative assumes that
ultimate build out of the General Plan Update would occur but at an overall reduction of 30%.
Finding: The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in build out of the
City but with an overall reduction of 30%. Because of the reduction in development intensity, the
Reduced Development Intensity Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed .
General Plan Update. This Alternative would allow the City to make updates to outdated
information regarding several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community noise levels,
air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative would result in the City maintaining a
current Housing Element. However, this Alternative does not provide substantial advantages over
the Project and does not meet several Project objectives. Therefore, the Reduced Development
Intensity Alternative is rejected.
Supporting Explanation: The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in
the same amount of land being developed; however, at an overall reduced intensity. This
Page 28 of 36
Alternative results in environmentally similar impacts to Aesthetics as the Project in that
development would be subject to the same standards as the Project. However, because of the
reduced development intensity of the impacts would be reduced, to a degree. This Alternative is
environmentally inferior to the proposed Project because it results in greater Land Use impacts.
Although land use descriptions will be updated, and all goals, policies and actions of the Project
would apply, this Alternative provides opportunities for development of vacant or underutilized
properties to a lower degree than the Project. It is also environmentally inferior to the Project in
terms of Population and Housing because opportunities to increase and diversify employment, and
improve the existing jobs to housing balance would be at a reduced rate.
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project
because the reduction if overall development intensity translates into a reduction in population and
commercial, retail and industrial development. This Alternative would increase Air Quality
impacts,but due to the reduced intensity, a similar reduction in air quality impacts is anticipated and
the Alternative would result in lesser traffic congestion and air emissions. Although vacant and
underutilized land would be developed, it would be developed to a lesser degree than the Project,
and would be environmentally superior in the areas of biological resources and cultural resources.
Development would occur under this Alternative which could create impact in the areas of
recreation, geology, hydrology/water quality, public services, utilities and service systems, and
hazards and hazardous materials; however, impacts can be mitigated as needed, or implementation
of proposed goals, policies and actions minimize potential impacts. Noise impacts. under this
Alternative would be less than that under the proposed Project, and application of the same
mitigation measures would apply. This Alternative would have reduced transportation and
circulation impacts, and would implement proposed Project transportation systems management
techniques,resulting less environmental impacts.
This Alternative would not preclude environmental impacts associated with development.
Due to the assumed overall reduction in development intensity the environmental impacts are less
than that of the proposed Project. However, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative does
not provide substantial advantages over the Project. It does not meet several Project objectives such
as accommodating growth on undeveloped and underdeveloped properties because this Alternative
fails to maximize the use of those properties. Also, it does not meet the Project objective to
continue to promote development of quality housing for all segments of the population and
households with special needs because the overall reduction further limits the availability of
residential land to construct affordable housing; and limits the ability to meet the Project objective
to provide for a balanced growth which seeks to provide opportunities for a wide range of
employment, housing, and maintenance for a healthy, diversified economy. Therefore, the Reduced
Development Intensity Alternative is rejected.
D. Alternative 4—Expanded Mixed Use Alternative
Description: The Expanded Mixed Use Alternative would be similar to the proposed
Project but would result in a larger percentage of land in the City designated as Mixed Use. The
Mixed-Use Designation would be further modified to include two Mixed Use Designations: MU-1
and MU-2. MU-1 would include the area designated as Mixed Use under the proposed Project.
MU-2 would involve approximately 44 acres of existing industrial, general commercial, and low
Page 29 of 36
density residential uses located immediately east of the MU-1 area. Both Mixed Use areas may
include residential, commercial,business park, open space, and recreational uses.
Finding: The Expanded Mixed Use Alternative would result in build out of the City with
slightly greater mixed uses and slightly lower low density residential, general commercial and
Industrial uses than with the proposed General Plan Update. This Alternative would allow the City
to make updates to outdated information regarding several issues, such as land uses, traffic
conditions, community noise levels, air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative
would result in the City maintaining a current Housing Element. Overall, the Expanded Mixed Use
Alternative is considered environmentally similar to the proposed Project and meets Project
objectives; however, the Expanded Mixed Use Alternative does not provide substantial advantages,
nor avoid or lessen environmental impacts over the proposed Project. Therefore, the Expanded
Mixed Use Alternative is rejected.
Supporting Explanation: The Expanded Mixed Use Alternative would result in buildout of
the City at substantially the same level as the Project. This Alternative results in environmentally
similar impacts relating to aesthetics as the Project in that development would be subject to the
same standards as the Project; air quality because it would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts related to the generation of air emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX,
CO, PM10 and PM2.5 in the Basin; and biological and cultural resources because the development of
vacant lands would occur. Development would occur under this Alternative which could create
impacts in the areas of recreation, geology, hydrology/water quality, public services, utilities and
service systems, and hazards and hazardous materials; however, similar to the Project, impacts can
be mitigated as needed, or implementation of proposed goals, policies and actions minimize
potential impacts. Under this Alternative slightly greater mixed uses and slightly lower low density
residential, general commercial and industrial would occur and would be subject to the same land
use interface policies as the Project and would result in environmentally similar impacts.
As with the Project, the Expanded Mixed Use would result in significant and unavoidable
permanent noise impacts associated with increased traffic levels at buildout of the Project.
Environmental impacts are also similar in the area population/housing because population growth
would be similar to that of the Project. Similar transportation and circulation impacts would be
anticipated under this Alternative, and would be subject to the same mitigation measures and
policies of that of the Project.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Expanded Mixed Use Alternate would be rejected in
favor of the project as this Alternative would not reduce the significance of the impacts that were
identified for the Project.
SECTION 13
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Grand Terrace City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of
Page 30 of 36
the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts are considered
"acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects
that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
discussed in the Draft EIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except
for the unavoidable and significant impacts as discussed in Sections 7 and 8 herein (Air Quality and
Noise).
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended
to the City are not incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose
restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other
benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in
the Final EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the Project objectives; do
not provide substantial advantages over the Project, and/or specific economic, social or other
benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental
effects of the Project, to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having
considered the entire administrative record on the Project and having weighed the benefits of the
Project against its unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined
that the social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential
unavoidable significant impacts, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h), and
render those potential significant impacts acceptable based upon the following considerations:
A. Social
1. The Project incorporates a variety of policies to address vehicle dependency. It
provides for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle routes. It provides for mixed use
and transit oriented development.
2. The Project provides for recreational opportunities such as the Blue Mountain
Wilderness Park. Policies call for joint use facilities with the local school district so that recreational
opportunities are enhanced.
B. Economic
1. The Project creates opportunity for new commercial development by designating
sufficient land for commercial uses, including a new mixed use designation. Updated policies
ensure land use compatibility by requiring the use of buffers and setbacks between residential and
commercial and mixed use developments; reducing the potential for environmental and other
impacts, and protecting natural resources.
Page 31 of 36
C. Environmental
1. The project incorporates all feasible project features and mitigation measures to
reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
2. The General Plan includes new policies and actions for climate protection and
sustainability. The promotion of transit oriented and mixed use development, local jobs and bicycle
routes will help lower transportation related emissions. The General Plan promotes energy efficient
building techniques, and site orientation.
3. The General Plan provides updated General Plan policies that protect water resources
and water quality, and that recognize the importance of water conservation.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval and implementation of the Project outweighs the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of
the Project benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the
Final EIR and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 14
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the FEIR in evaluating the
Project, that the FEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines and that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the City after the circulation of the DEIR
that would require recirculation. All of the information added to the FEIR merely clarifies,
amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace hereby certifies the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan is adequate and
complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with the
requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and City of Grand Terrace Local CEQA Guidelines for
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final Environmental Impact
Report is composed of:
a. The backup file material for the Project;
b. The Notice of Preparation;
C. The Initial Study;
Page 32 of 36
d. The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated January 2010;
e. The comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses thereto;
f. The staff reports associated with the Planning Commission and City Council
hearings for the Project;
g. The minutes of the hearing and all documentary and other testimonial evidence
submitted thereat;
h. The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof, and
i. The Statement of Overriding Considerations.
A. Findings
1. CEQA Compliance: As the decision-making body for the Project; the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting
documentation. The City Council determines that the Findings contain a complete and accurate
reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project. The
City Council finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the City Council
has complied with CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements.
2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency: The City retained the independent
consulting firm of Chambers Group,Inc. to prepare the EIR for the Project. The EIR was prepared
under the supervision and directions of the City of Grand Terrace Community and Economic
Development Department staff. The City Council is the final decision making body for the
entitlements listed below. The City Council has received and reviewed the FEIR prior to certifying
the FEIR and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project.
Finding: The FEIR reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised
independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3)in retaining
its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the FEIR as well as
reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.
3. Significant Unavoidable Impacts/Statement of Overriding
Considerations: The Project would have significant adverse impacts even following adoption of all
feasible mitigation measures which are required by the City Council. The following significant
environmental impacts have been identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and would
require mitigation but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in Sections 7 and
8 of these Findings: Operational air quality emissions associated with the long-term buildout of the
General Plan are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in
the Basin and are significant and unavoidable; traffic levels associated with buildout of the General
Plan would result in permanent noise increases that would remain cumulatively significant and
unavoidable. The Project has eliminated or substantially reduced environmental impacts where
feasible-,as described in the Findings, and the City Council determines that the remaining
unavoidable significant adverse impacts are acceptable due to the reasons set forth in the preceding
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Page 33 of 36
B. Conclusions:
1. All potentially significant environmental impacts from
implementation of the Project have been identified in the FEIR and, with the implementation of the
mitigation measures defined herein and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(also referred to as the Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program), will be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve
the basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and
benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives
to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.
SECTION 15
ANNUAL REPORTING
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (b), "Where the project at issue is the
adoption of a general plan, specific plan, community plan, or other plan-level document (zoning,
ordinance, regulation, or policy), the monitoring plan shall apply to policies and any other portion
of the plan that is a mitigation measure or adopted alternative. The monitoring plan may consist of
policies included in plan-level documents. The annual report on the general plan status required
pursuant to the Government Code is one example of reporting program for adoption of a city or
county plan."
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(b), the review and reporting on the adopted
General Plan policies and action items will occur in conjunction with the preparation and submittal
of the annual report on the status of the General Plan that is required by Government Code Section
65400.
SECTION 16
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and material that constitute the final record of proceedings on which these
Findings have been based are located at the City of Grand Terrace. The custodian for these records
is the City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. This information is provided in compliance with
Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
Page 34 of 36
1
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING
- AND
REPORTING PLAN
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the City
of Grand Terrace General Plan. This NEVIRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the
California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and
monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted
in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." An MMRP is required for the
proposed project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have
been identified to mitigate those impacts.
SECTION 2
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The mitigation measures and/or the performance standards of the mitigation measures
identified in the City of Grand Terrace General Plan Update been structured to be incorporated as
policies and/or implementing actions into the General Plan policy document and would be
implemented as part of its consideration of subsequent projects within the City. Implementation
would consist of determining whether subsequent projects are consistent with the General Plan,
utilization of policies and implementing actions as conditions of approval and/or mitigation
measures, and City-initiated planning activities as required by specific policies and implementing
actions.
The City of Grand Terrace will be the primary agency for monitoring the mitigation measure
implementation associated with the implementation of the General Plan.
The MMRP is attached on the following page.
Page 1 of 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation I Measure Mitigation Measure Description Implementation I Verification
Air Quality
The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by
traffic congestion by implementing transportation
MM4B-1 systems management techniques, such as As part of project
review and capital
(Policy action synchronized traffic signals and limiting on-street
4.7.Lb) parking. (This mitigation measure shall be improvement
project
included as Action 4.7.Lb of the Open Space and
Conservation Element.)
The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting
MM413-2 commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to As part of the
(Policy action alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to capital
4.7.1.c) improve roadway efficiency. (This mitigation improvement
measure shall be included as Action 4.7.Lc of the project
Open Space and Conservation Element).
The City shall encourage new construction
incorporate irrigation designs to assist in
MM413-3 conserving potable water, such as computerized
(Policy action irrigation systems, drought-tolerant and smog- As part of project
9 7 2) tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover, and the review
use of recycled water. (This mitigation measure
shall-be included as Action 9.7.2.b of the
Sustainable Development Element.)
Noise
The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise
MM4I-1 Element Interior Noise Standards presented in As a part of
(Policy action Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of
6.2.Lc) evidence/documentation showing that interior project review
noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA
For Land Use Categories defined in Table 4I-6, a
ground-borne vibration technical study shall be
required for proposed land uses within the
MM4I-2 following distances from the either the UPRR or
(Policy action BNSF rail line rights-of-way and the property line: As part of project
6.2.7.a) 600 feet of a Category 1 Land Use, 200 feet of a review
Category 2 Land Use, and 120 feet of a Category
3 Land Use. If necessary, mitigation shall be
required for land uses in compliance with the
standards listed in Table 4I-6.
Page 2 of 3
Mitigation Mitigation Measure Description Implementation Verification
Measure
Traffic/Circulation
MM4M-1 The City shall ensure that the design of As part of project
(Policy.3.3.6) Commerce Way at the UPRR line is coordinated design
with the UPRR Company.
MM4M-2 The City shall evaluate proposed railroad
(Policy action crossing design options with UPRR Company As part of project
3.3.6.a) and the California Public Utility Commission to design
ensure compliance with all state design criteria.
Page 3 of 3