Exhibit H (Part 2)THE GATEWAY AT GRAND
TERRACE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SPECIFIC PLAN 00-17
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 17-01
ZONE CHANGE 17-02
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18-01
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
June 2023
Lead Agency:
City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
Konrad Bolowich
(909) 954-5175
Consultant:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Kari Cano
(951) 543-9869
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 i Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Project Summary ..................................................................................................1-3
1.4 Areas of Controversy ............................................................................................1-3
1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives ..........................................................................1-3
1.6 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ....................................................................1-6
1.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts & Mitigation Measures.................................1-6
2.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report .......................................................2-1
2.2 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................2-6
2.3 EIR Scope, Issues, and Concerns ...........................................................................2-7
2.4 Environmental Review Process .............................................................................2-10
2.5 Report Organization .............................................................................................2-11
2.6 Incorporation by Reference ..................................................................................2-11
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Lead Agency .........................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Project Applicant(s)/Sponsor(s) ............................................................................3-2
3.4 Overview and Background ....................................................................................3-2
3.5 Project Location, Setting, and Surrounding Land Uses...........................................3-2
3.6 Project Characteristics ..........................................................................................3-5
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................4-1
4.0.1 Section Content and Definition of Terms ..............................................................4-1
4.0.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis.................................................................................4-3
4.1 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................4.1-1
4.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.1-1
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 ii Table of Contents
4.1.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.1-2
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.1-3
4.1.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.1-5
4.1.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.1-6
4.1.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.1-12
4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.1-12
4.1.8 References ...............................................................................................4.1-12
4.2 AIR QUALITY .........................................................................................................4.2-1
4.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.2-1
4.2.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.2-2
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.2-6
4.2.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.2-20
4.2.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.2-23
4.2.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.2-40
4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.2-40
4.2.8 References ...............................................................................................4.2-41
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.3-3
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.3-25
4.3.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.3-35
4.3.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.3-37
4.3.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.3-43
4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.3-43
4.3.8 References ...............................................................................................4.3-44
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................4.4-1
4.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.4-1
4.4.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.4-4
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.4-8
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 iii Table of Contents
4.4.4 Significance Criteria under CEQA ..............................................................4.4-12
4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................4.4-14
4.4.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.4-18
4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.4-18
4.4.8 References ...............................................................................................4.4-18
4.5 ENERGY ................................................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.5-1
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.5-4
4.5.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.5-11
4.5.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.5-12
4.5.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.5-19
4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.5-19
4.5.8 References ...............................................................................................4.5-21
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................4.6-1
4.6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.6-1
4.6.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.6-4
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.6-6
4.6.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.6-10
4.6.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.6-11
4.6.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.6-19
4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.6-19
4.6.8 References ...............................................................................................4.6-20
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................................4.7-1
4.7.1 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.7-3
4.7.3 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.7-16
4.7.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.7-19
4.7.5 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.7-30
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 iv Table of Contents
4.7.6 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.7-30
4.7.7 References ...............................................................................................4.7-31
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...............................................................4.8-1
4.8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.8-1
4.8.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.8-4
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.8-7
4.8.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.8-13
4.8.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.8-14
4.8.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.8-21
4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.8-21
4.8.8 References ...............................................................................................4.8-22
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...............................................................4.9-1
4.9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.9-1
4.9.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.9-1
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.9-4
4.9.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.9-9
4.9.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.9-10
4.9.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.9-19
4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.9-19
4.9.8 References ...............................................................................................4.9-20
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................4.10-1
4.10.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.10-1
4.10.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.10-1
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.10-3
4.10.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.10-5
4.10.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.10-6
4.10.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.10-22
4.10.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.10-22
4.10.8 References ...............................................................................................4.10-23
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 v Table of Contents
4.11 NOISE ...................................................................................................................4.11-1
4.11.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.11-1
4.11.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.11-1
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.11-8
4.11.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.11-13
4.11.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.11-16
4.11.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.11-26
4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.11-26
4.11.8 References ...............................................................................................4.11-29
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................4.12-1
4.12.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.12-1
4.12.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.12-1
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.12-5
4.12.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.12-8
4.12.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.12-9
4.12.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.12-12
4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.12-12
4.12.8 References ...............................................................................................4.12-12
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................................4.13-1
4.13.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.13-1
4.13.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.13-1
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.13-5
4.13.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.13-10
4.13.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.13-10
4.13.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.13-15
4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.13-16
4.13.8 References ...............................................................................................4.13-16
4.14 RECREATION.........................................................................................................4.14-1
4.14.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.14-1
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 vi Table of Contents
4.14.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.14-1
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.14-2
4.14.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.14-4
4.14.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.14-4
4.14.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.14-6
4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.14-6
4.14.8 References ...............................................................................................4.14-6
4.15 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................4.15-1
4.15.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.15-1
4.15.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.15-2
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.15-6
4.15.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.15-12
4.15.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.15-14
4.15.6 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................4.15-20
4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.15-20
4.15.8 References ...............................................................................................4.15-20
4.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................4.16-1
4.16.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.16-1
4.16.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.16-1
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.16-4
4.16.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.16-6
4.16.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.16-9
4.16.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.16-13
4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.16-13
4.16.8 References ...............................................................................................4.16-14
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..........................................................................4.17-1
4.17.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.17-1
4.17.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.17-1
4.17.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.17-5
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 vii Table of Contents
4.17.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.17-10
4.17.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.17-11
4.17.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.17-22
4.17.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.17-22
4.17.8 References ...............................................................................................4.17-22
4.18 WILDFIRE..............................................................................................................4.18-1
4.18.1 Introduction .............................................................................................4.18-1
4.18.2 Environmental Setting..............................................................................4.18-1
4.18.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................4.18-2
4.18.4 Significance Criteria Under CEQA .............................................................4.18-6
4.18.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................4.18-7
4.18.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................4.18-12
4.18.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4.18-12
4.18.8 References ...............................................................................................4.18-12
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................5-1
5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ....................................................................5-1
5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ..............................................5-1
5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts......................................................................................5-3
5.4 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................5-5
6.0 ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Range of Alternatives ...........................................................................................6-2
6.3 Project Alternatives ..............................................................................................6-4
6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................................6-22
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT .........................................................................7-1
7.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .....................................................................7-1
7.2 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................7-4
7.3 References ...........................................................................................................7-4
8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PREPARATION ................................................................................8-1
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 viii Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................1-7
Table 3-1: Project Assessor Parcel Numbers ..................................................................................3-3
Table 3-2: Project Site and Surrounding Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning ......................3-5
Table 3-3: Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Statistical Summary by Planning Area ..............3-6
Table 3-4: Land Use Percentages ...................................................................................................3-7
Table 3-5: Projected Maximum Net Development for Residential and Commercial Uses ................3-7
Table 3-6: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses .................................................................3-14
Table 3-7: Prohibited Uses .............................................................................................................3-17
Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects List ................................................................................................4-6
Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns...........................................4.2-3
Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data............................................................................................4.2-5
Table 4.2-3: Sensitive Receptors ....................................................................................................4.2-6
Table 4.2-4: State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................4.2-8
Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ....................................................................4.2-15
Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds ...........................4.2-20
Table 4.2-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations
(Maximum Pounds Per Day) ..............................................................................................4.2-21
Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions .................................................................................4.2-28
Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions ............................................................................4.2-29
Table 4.2-10: Mitigated Operational Emissions ..............................................................................4.2-30
Table 4.2-11: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ............................................................................4.2-31
Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ......................................................4.2-31
Table 4.2-13: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions ........................................................4.2-32
Table 4.3-1: Summary of On-site Vegetation/Land Use Types ........................................................4.3-3
Table 4.3-2: Summary of Off-site Vegetation/Land Use Types ........................................................4.3-3
Table 4.3-3: Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Study Area .........................................4.3-8
Table 4.3-4: Special Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Study Area.......................................4.3-11
Table 4.3-5: Potential USACE Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site) ...........4.3-19
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 ix Table of Contents
Table 4.3-6: Potential USACE Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site) ...........4.3-19
Table 4.3-7: RWQCB Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site) ........................4.3-22
Table 4.3-8: RWQCB Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site) ........................4.3-22
Table 4.3-9: CDFW Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site) ...........................4.3-23
Table 4.3-10: CDFW Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site) .........................4.3-23
Table 4.3-11: CNPS Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, & 4, and Threat Code Extensions ................................4.3-31
Table 4.3-12: Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters Associated with
On-Site Phase 1 Area.........................................................................................................4.3-40
Table 4.3-13: Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters Associated with
Off-Site Phase 1 Area ........................................................................................................4.3-40
Table 4.3-14: Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Land and Riparian Vegetation Associated with
On-Site Phase 1 Area.........................................................................................................4.3-41
Table 4.3-15: Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Land and Riparian Vegetation Associated with
Off-Site Phase 1 Area ........................................................................................................4.3-41
Table 4.5-1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2020) ....................................4.5-2
Table 4.5-2: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2019) ....................................4.5-3
Table 4.5-3: Energy Use During Construction .................................................................................4.5-13
Table 4.5-4: Annual Energy Use During Operations ........................................................................4.5-16
Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases ...............................................................................4.7-2
Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................4.7-19
Table 4.7-3: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................4.7-20
Table 4.7-4: Connect SoCal Consistency .........................................................................................4.7-25
Table 4.10-1: Project Site and Surrounding – Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning ...............4.10-3
Table 4.10-2: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses ............................................................4.10-8
Table 4.10-3: General Plan Consistency Analysis ............................................................................4.10-11
Table 4.10-4: Project Compatibility with Connect SoCal Strategies .................................................4.10-20
Table 4.11-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms ................................................................................4.11-2
Table 4.11-2: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or
Frequent Intermittent Vibrations ......................................................................................4.11-6
Table 4.11-3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................4.11-7
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 x Table of Contents
Table 4.11-4: Existing Noise Measurements ...................................................................................4.11-8
Table 4.11-5: Sensitive Receptors ..................................................................................................4.11-8
Table 4.11-6: Grand Terrace Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................................................4.11-10
Table 4.11-7: Grand Terrace Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix ................................................4.11-10
Table 4.11-8: Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors .....................................................4.11-18
Table 4.11-9: Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................4.11-19
Table 4.11-10: On-Site Traffic Noise Levels - Local Roadways .........................................................4.11-20
Table 4.11-11: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ...................................................4.11-23
Table 4.11-12: On-Site Traffic Noise Levels – I-215 .........................................................................4.11-25
Table 4.11-13: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels..................................................................4.11-27
Table 4.12 1: County of San Bernardino Population .......................................................................4.12-2
Table 4.12-2: City of Grand Terrace Population ..............................................................................4.12-2
Table 4.12-3: County of San Bernardino Housing Characteristics....................................................4.12-3
Table 4.12-4: City of Grand Terrace Housing Characteristics ..........................................................4.12-3
Table 4.13-1: Police Response Times for 2021 ...............................................................................4.13-3
Table 4.13-2: School Enrollment ....................................................................................................4.13-4
Table 4.13-3: Projected Student Population ...................................................................................4.13-14
Table 4.15-1: Project Land Use ......................................................................................................4.15-14
Table 4.15-2: Project Generated VMT Estimates ............................................................................4.15-17
Table 4.15-3: VMT Impact Analysis Results and Threshold Comparisons ........................................4.15-17
Table 4.17-1: RHWC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand...................................................4.17-17
Table 4.17-2: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ......................................................4.17-17
Table 4.17-3: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................4.17-17
Table 6-1: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project .................6-23
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 xi Table of Contents
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 3-1: Regional Vicinity Map..................................................................................................3-19
Exhibit 3-2: Local Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................3-20
Exhibit 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ...............................................................3-21
Exhibit 3-4: Existing Zoning Designations .......................................................................................3-22
Exhibit 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation .............................................................3-23
Exhibit 3-6: Proposed Zoning Designation ......................................................................................3-24
Exhibit 3-7: Project Planning Areas ................................................................................................3-25
Exhibit 3-8: Construction Phasing Plan ...........................................................................................3-26
Exhibit 3-9: Existing Sewer Plan .....................................................................................................3-27
Exhibit 3-10: Conceptual Water Plan..............................................................................................3-28
Exhibit 3-11: Conceptual Storm Drain Plan.....................................................................................3-29
Exhibit 3-12: Conceptual Circulation Plan.......................................................................................3-30
Exhibit 4.3-1: Biological Resources Study Area ...............................................................................4.3-2
Exhibit 4.3-2: Vegetation Map .......................................................................................................4.3-6
Exhibit 4.3-3: Potential USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation..................................................4.3-20
Exhibit 4.3-4: Potential CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation ................................................................4.3-24
Exhibit 4.4-1: Cultural Resources Study Areas ................................................................................4.4-3
Exhibit 4.6-1: Geotechnical Investigation Areas .............................................................................4.6-3
Exhibit 4.8-1: Environmental Site Assessment Areas ......................................................................4.8-3
Exhibit 4.11-1: Noise Measurement Locations ...............................................................................4.11-30
Appendices (Provided under separate cover)
Appendix A | Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments
Appendix B | Biological Technical Report
Appendix C | Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D | Energy Assessment
Appendix E | Geotechnical Investigation Reports
Appendix F | GHG Assessment
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 xii Table of Contents
Appendix G | Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Reports
Appendix H | Hydrology Calculations and Preliminary Water Quality Assessment Reports
Appendix I | Acoustical Assessment
Appendix J | Traffic Impact Assessment/VMT Assessment
Appendix K | Water Supply Assessment/Sewer Study
Appendix L | Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-1 1.0 | Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INT RODUCTION
The environmental impact report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), requires the preparation of an objective, full-disclosure document in order to (1) inform agency
decision-makers and the general public of the direct and indirect potentially significant environmental
effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce or
eliminate potentially significant adverse impacts; and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to
a project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15168 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
[CCR]), this Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 202102011) that has been prepared for The Gateway at
Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) and for the City of Grand Terrace (City).
CEQA requires that projects subject to approval by a public agency of the State of California, and that are
not otherwise exempt or excluded, undergo an environmental review process to identify and evaluate
potential impacts. CEQA Guidelines §15050 states that environmental review shall be conducted by the
Lead Agency, defined in CEQA Guidelines §15367 as the public agency with principal responsibility for
approving a project. The Project is subject to approva l actions by the City, which is, therefore the Lead
Agency for CEQA purposes. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15123, this section of the Draft EIR
provides a brief description of the Project; identifies significant effects and proposed mitigation measures
or alternatives that would reduce or avoid those effects; and describes areas of controversy and issues to
be resolved.
This Draft EIR serves as a “Program EIR” as defined in CEQA Guidelines §to address the overall Specific
Plan at its complete buildout. Any future activities which relate to and follow the Specific Plan must be
examined in light of the Program EIR to determine if additional environmental analysis is warranted. Later
activities which have been adequately analyzed under the Program EIR may not require additional
environmental documentation. If an activity may result in additional effects, or new mitigation measures
are needed, a subsequent or supplemental EIR, or mitigated negative declaration must be prepared
(CEQA Guidelines §15162 and 15163).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising public
agencies, districts, and members of the public that an EIR for the Project was being prepared. The NOP
was distributed on February 8, 2021, to solicit comments related to the construction and operation of the
Project. The NOP was circulated with a 30-day public review period ending on March 9, 2021. This process
and comments submitted in response to the NOP is discussed in Section 2.0, Introduction and Section 1.4,
Areas of Controversy, below.
After receiving public comments on the NOP, the Project was analyzed for its potential to result in
environmental impacts. Impacts were evaluated in accordance with the significa nce criteria presented in
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form.” The criteria in the Environmental Checklist
Form, was used to determine if the Project would result in, “no impact,” “less than significant impact,”
“less than significant impact with mitigation measures,” or “potentially significant impact” to a particular
environmental resource. In some instances, a project may use the checklist to provide an initial discussion
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-2 1.0 | Executive Summary
of a project and to screen out certain topics from a full discussion in the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR discusses
all environmental resources in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A table listing the Project impacts and any
associated mitigation measures is included at the end of this summary in Table 1-1, Summary of
Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures.
This Draft EIR describes the existing environmental resources within and near the Project site and analyzes
potential impacts on those resources that would or could occur upon buildout of the Project . The Draft
EIR also identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the severity of those impacts
determined to be significant. The environmental impacts evaluated in this Draft EIR concern several
subject areas, including but not limited to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
energy/energy conservation, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation, tribal cultural
resources, and utilities and service systems. A total of 18 comment letters (excluding tribal consultation
letters) were received in response to the NOP. The comm ent letters received during the NOP comment
period; along with Scoping Reports for the NOP, providing a more detailed summary of the issues raised
during the public scoping meeting, are included in Appendix L, Notice of Preparation to this Draft EIR.
The comments were used to form the discussion of this Draft EIR and help determine the scope and
framework of certain topical discussions.
This Draft EIR will be subject to further review and comment by the public, as well as responsible agencies
and other interested agencies and organizes for a 45-day period.
Following the public review period, written responses to all comments received on the Draft will be
prepared. Those written responses, and any necessary changes to the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final
EIR and will be submitted to the City of Grand Terrace City Council (City Council) for their consideration.
If the City Council finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete” in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines, the City Council may certify the EIR. The City Council will also consider the adoption of Findings
of Fact concerning to the EIR, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP). Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council would take action
concerning the Project.
Regarding the MMRP, CEQA Guidelines §15097 requires public agencies to set up monitoring and
reporting programs to ensure compliance with mitigation measures, which are adopted or made as a
condition of project approval and designed to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
identified in environmental impact reports. A MMRP incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in
this EIR will be considered and acted upon by the City’s decision-makers concurrent with adoption of the
findings of this EIR and prior to approval of the Project.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located in the southwestern portion of the County of San Bernardino (County) within
the City of Grand Terrace. The Project site is approximately 112 acres and is bounded by Commerce Way
and an existing commercial parking lot to the north ; the northern portion of Grand Terrace High School
to the south; commercial and residential uses to the east; and Interstate 215 (I-215) to the west. The
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-3 1.0 | Executive Summary
southern boundary of the Project is also in close proximity and approximately 0.27 mile north of Main
Street. The location of the Project in both regional and local contexts are further discussed in Section 3.0,
Project Description and illustrated in Exhibit 3-1, Regional Map and Exhibit 3-2, Local Vicinity Map.
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Project proposes the future development of a mixed-use development that would consist of the
following land use areas within 22 Planning Areas (PAs) (refer to Exhibit 3-7, Project Planning Areas in
Section 3.0, Project Description):
• Approximately 43 acres of residential development (up to 695 Dwelling Units) within PAs 11, 12,
14, 15, 16, 19, and 20.
• Approximately 25 acres of general commercial development (up to 335,700 square feet) within
PAs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 square feet).1
• Development and/or improvement of drainage facilities, utilities, and public streets with
enhanced landscaping within PAs 5, 10, 13, 17, and 21.
• A newly constructed park at PA 22 that includes a lighted baseball field with a tot-lot/playground.
• A detention basin with open space overlay in PA 18.
Construction of these land uses and associated features, including recordation of final subdivision map(s);
and design review would be conducted within two phases, provided that vehicular access, public facilities,
and infrastructure are constructed to adequately service the development, or as needed for public health
and safety. However, note that actual phasing sequence and years may vary depending on market
conditions.
The Project also includes various discretionary approvals including applications for a Specific Plan, Zone
Change, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement. These actions are
further described in Section 3.0, Project Description , and in the proposed “The Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan.”
1.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
State CEQA Guidelines §15123 (b)(2) and (3) require that this section of the Program EIR identify areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency, issues raised by agencies and the public, and issues to be resolved,
including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how to mitigate the significant effects. The
following areas of concern identified during the scoping period included: Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Traffic and Vehicle Miles Traveled, Solid Waste, Sewer Infrastructure
and Flood Control. No other areas of controversy are known to the lead agency.
1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines (§15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to
the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project
1 Developable square footage accounts for development standards, site constraints, roads, and infrastructure
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-4 1.0 | Executive Summary
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives.” The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to
reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be significant and unavoi dable for the proposed Project.
The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which
have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but which may avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail
in Section 6.0, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR.
• No Project Alternative
• Reduced Retail by 20 Percent Alternative
• No Commercial Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is
identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an
alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to
the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only
impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an
alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Impacts involving air quality
and greenhouse gas emissions are significant and unavoidable. Section 6.0, Alternatives identifies the
environmentally superior alternative.
1.6.1 No Project Alternative
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the No Project Alternative assumes that the existing
land uses and condition of the Project Site at the time the NOP was published (February 2021) would
continue to exist without the Project. The setting of the Project site at the time the NOP was published is
described as part of the existing conditions within Section 3.0, Project Description and throughout
Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR. The discussion within the respective sections
provides a description of the environmental conditions in regard to the individual environmental issues.
The No Project Alternative assumes the Project would not be implemented and proposed land uses,
Specific Plan, and other improvements would not be implemented related to the Project.
Under this alternative, the adoption of the Specific Plan would not occur, and therefore, no associated
development would be developed. The existing conditions and uses would remain in operation under the
No Project Alternative. Accordingly, the No Project Alternative provides a comparison between the
environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting
from not approving or denying the Project. The No Project Alternative would not develop 695 dwelling
units, the 335,700 square feet (SF) of developable commercial space, utility infrastructure, public roads,
and the public park that would otherwise occur under the Project.
1.6.2 Reduced Retail By 20 Percent Alternative
The Reduced Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative assumes the development of commercial
uses, but at a smaller retail square footage (20 percent less) than what is proposed for the Project. The
Project proposes a projected maximum net development of approximately 335,700 SF of general
commercial uses, which include 232,800 SF of retail space, 11,000 SF of restaurant space, and 91,900 SF
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-5 1.0 | Executive Summary
of self-storage space. Alternative 2 would reduce the Project’s proposed retail space from 232,800 SF to
186,240 SF (or 5.34 to 4.07 acres). This would result in a 20 percent reduction of projected workforce, and
customer base, resulting in a trip generation reduction of 20 percent from 8,616 daily trips to
approximately 6,893 daily trips. Although the overall project area would be built out in a similar manner
as the Project, Reduced Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative would have a smaller development
footprint.
Thus, Reduced Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative would minimize impacts related to the scale
of the Project. However, the Project’s other proposed components would remain consistent under
Reduced Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative.
1.6.3 No Commercial Alternative
The No Commercial Alternative assumes that the Project Applicant would not develop any commercial
development and would limit the Project’s commercial component as a zone change only. Development
under the No Commercial Alternative would only consist of the development of 695 dwelling units, and
would forgo the 335,700 SF of combined retail, restaurant, and self-storage spaces that are proposed by
the Project. Parcels that would be rezoned for commercial use would remain undeveloped or would be
developed by a separate project applicant in the foreseeable future. Additionally, the Specific Plan would
not include entitlements for commercial development and any future commercial development
(by others) would be subject to the Specific Plan’s design standards and provisions. All other Project
components would stay the same.
1.6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of
reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior
Alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives.
Based on the summary of information presented in Table 6-1, Comparison of Project Alternatives
Environmental Impacts with the Project, the environmentally superior alternative is the No Commercial
Alternative; see Section 6.0, Alternatives. Because the No Commercial Alternative would reduce the
Project to only its residential components, this Alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the
Project or any of the other alternatives.
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the “No Project” alternative is found to
be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among
the other alternatives. The No Project Alternative was not found to be environmentally superior.
The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors
including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less than significant level, the Project objectives,
and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the objectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and
surrounding environment. According to Table 6-1, the No Commercial Alternative would be the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-6 1.0 | Executive Summary
environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce some of the potentially significant impacts
of the Project. However, while the No Commercial Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,
it is not capable of meeting all of the basic objectives of the Project.
1.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Projects potentially significant impacts are defined in Sections 4.1, Aesthetics through 4.18, Wildfire.
As noted in these sections, most of the potentially significant impacts identified can be mitigated to a less
than significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures with the exception of air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
1.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS & MITIGATION
MEASURES
Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, provides a summary of
significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the Project as identified in this EIR.
Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.18, for a detailed description of the environmental impacts and mitigation
measures for the Project. As noted above, all impacts of the Project can be mitigated to less than
significant levels with the exception of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-7 1.0 | Executive Summary
Table 1-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Section 4.1, Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-1:
Would the Project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.1-2:
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
No Impact No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.1-3:
In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.1-4:
Would the Project create a new source of
substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.2, Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1:
Would the Project, conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Potentially
Significant
MM AQ-1: Low VOC Paint (Construction). During construction, the Project shall
utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed
the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put
forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low
VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of building permits,
the City of Grand Terrace Building and Safety Division shall confirm that plans
include the following specifications:
▪ All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
▪ Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste
center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
Significant and
Unavoidable
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-8 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
▪ Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC
emissions and excessive odors.
▪ For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not
rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground o r
the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the
hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
▪ Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application
equipment.
▪ Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC
emissions.
▪ Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting
and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable.
▪ Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer
efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with
equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.
MM AQ-2: Vehicle Trip Reduction. Develop a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction
(CTR)/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile GHG
emissions for all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Grand Terrace
prior to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Codes
Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage single-
occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as
carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The following measures shall be
incorporated into the TDM plan.
TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
▪ The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider on
the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services.
Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence
from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing
bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
▪ The portion of the TDM plan for non-residential uses shall include, but not be
limited to the following potential measures: ride-matching assistance,
preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, half-time
transportation coordinators, providing a website or message board for
coordinating rides, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading
and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and including bicycle end of trip
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-9 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
facilities. This list may be updated as new methods become available.
Verification of this measure shall occur prior to building permit issuance for
the commercial uses.
TDM Requirements for Residential Units:
▪ Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling being sold or offered for
sale, the Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective
buyer, as soon as it may be done, materials describing public transit,
ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities available i n the
vicinity of the Project. Such information shall be transmitted no later than the
close of escrow. This information shall be submitted to the City of Grand
Terrace Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the
first certificate of occupancy.
▪ Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being rented or offered for rent, the
Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the tenant or prospective tenant,
materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting
opportunities in the vicinity of the development. The materials shall be
approved by the City of Grand Terrace. The materials shall be provided no later
than the time the rental agreement is executed. This information shall be
submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Division for review and
approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
MM AQ-3: Prohibition of Fireplaces. The installation of wood-burning and natural
gas devices shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of
ROG, NOX, particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural
gas devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat, or ambiance. This prohibition
shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property
owners/tenants to obey.
MM AQ-4: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language
that all landscaping equipment used on-site shall be 100 percent electrically
powered. All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with
exterior electrical outlets to accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall
be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the
building owner and tenants, as applicable.
MM AQ-5: Low VOC Paint (Operations). The Project Applicant shall require by
contract specifications commercial development to use interior and exterior
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-10 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products that
have a volatile organic compound rating of 10 grams per liter (g/L) or less (i.e.,
“Super Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the
regulatory VOC limits). Contract specifications shall be reviewed and approved by
the City of Grand Terrace prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. This measure
shall be made a condition of approval for continued upkeep of the property.
Impact 4.2-2:
Would the Project, 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?
Potentially
Significant
Refer to MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact 4.2-3:
Would the proposed project, expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.2-4:
Would the project result in other emissions
(such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.3, Biological Resources
Impact 4.3-1:
Would the Project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
MM BIO-1: To avoid impacts to nesting migratory and/or special-status birds, the
removal of any vegetation with the potential to support nesting migratory and/or
special-status birds should be performed outside of the nesting season (February 1
through August 31, but potentially earlier if the si te can support nesting raptors). If
vegetation must be removed during the nesting season, then a qualified biologist
should perform a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the removal
of any vegetation. If active nests are identified at the site, then the nests should be
avoided with an adequate buffer as determined by the biologist until the nests are
no longer active and the young can survive independently from the nest.
MM BIO-2: A qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance (pre-construction)
survey of all suitable habitat areas for burrowing owl. The survey shall follow the
2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which indicates that a survey
should be performed 14 to 30 days prior to any disturbance activities, with a follow
up survey within 24 hours prior to the disturbance. If any burrowing owls are present
at the time of the planned disturbance, then the burrowing owls will be passively
excluded or passively relocated from the site to avoid direct harm to individual owls;
however, exclusion/relocation of nesting owls must occur outside of the breeding
season (February 1 to September 15) to avoid impacts to active nests. The
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-11 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
exclusion/relocation of owls must be approved by CDFW. If applicable, a Burrowing
Owl Exclusion/Relocation Plan should be prepared and submitted to CDFW for
review and approval.
Impact 4.3-2:
Would the Project have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Potentially
Significant
MM BIO-3: In addition to obtaining permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW,
impacts to CDFW jurisdiction will require a Streambed Alternation Agreement and
the Project shall implement mitigation consisting of one or more of the following
options (mitigation would be required at a minimum 1:1 ratio to offset impacts):
1) Avoidance and conservation of on-site waters;
2) Establishment and/or enhancement of wetlands/riparian habitat on-site;
3) Establishment and/or enhancement of wetlands/riparian ha bitat off-site;
4) Purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program.
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.3-3:
Would the Project have a substantial
adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Potentially
Significant
See MM BIO-3 above. Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.3-4:
Would the Project interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.3-5:
Would the Project conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.3-6:
Would the Project conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation
plan?
No Impact No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-12 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4-1:
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
MM CUL-1: Applications for future development facilitated by the Project, shall be
required to comply with the following mitigation measure that established the
framework for evaluating any buildings to be impacted that may be in excess of 50
years.
For any buildings/structures in excess of 50 years of age having its original structural
integrity intact and not already fully evaluated in Appendices C2 through C5, the
applicant shall retain a qualified professional historian to determine whether the
affected building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation of historic
architectural resources shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context,
association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity,
as indicated in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. A historical resource report shall be
submitted by the applicant to the City for approval and shall include the methods
used to determine the presence or absence of historical resources, evaluate the
significance of any historical resources identified, identify potential impacts from
the proposed project, and propose measures to mitigate any impacts. The City shall
require implementation of appropriate measures based on the report to reduce
impacts to less than significant, if possible. If not possible to reduce impacts to less
than significant, additional CEQA review shall be required.
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.4-2:
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
MM CUL-2: If unanticipated archaeological resources are exposed or encountered
during construction of the Project, all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of
the potential resource(s) shall be suspended. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall evaluate the
significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted
based on significance under CEQA. The evaluation may require preparation of a
treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical
Resources eligibility. The treatment plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
qualified archaeologist and submitted to the City for approval.
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.4-3:
Would the Project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outsides
of dedicated cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
See MM TCR-3 in Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources below. Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Section 4.5, Energy
Impact 4.5-1:
Would the Project result in potentially
significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during
Project construction or operation?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required.
N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-13 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Impact 4.5-2:
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct
a State or Local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils
Impact 4.6-1:
Would the Project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
▪ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.6-2:
Would the Project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
▪ Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.6-3:
Would the Project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
▪ Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.6-4:
Would the Project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
▪ Landslides?
No Impact No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-14 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Impact 4.6-5:
Would the Project result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Potentially
Significant
MM GEO-1: Construction Monitoring. No clearing and/or grading activities will be
performed without the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Construction
monitoring, including testing for on-site pavement design, would be performed
during and after the site rough grading operations. During and/or near the
completion of site grading, additional expansion index testing woul d be conducted
to characterize selected areas and to develop lot-specific recommendations for
foundation design as related to the expansion potential of the graded site soils.
During construction, the qualified geotechnical engineer will perform additional
observation and testing in correlation of the findings of the City-approved final
geotechnical investigations, and if applicable, provide supplemental investigation,
with the actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction.
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.6-6:
Would the Project be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the Project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Potentially
Significant
Refer to MM GEO-1 above. Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.6-7:
Would the Project be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
Potentially
Significant
Refer to MM GEO-1 above. Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.6-8:
Would the Project have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Less than Significant No mitigation required. N/A
Impact 4.6-9:
Would the Project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant
MM GEO-2: All earth moving operations reaching beyond the disturbed surface
soils, generally below the depth of two feet, should be monitored for
paleontological resources. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossil
remains as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and should also collect
samples of sediments that are likely to contain fossils of small invertebrates and
vertebrates. However, the monitor must have the power to temporarily halt or
divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens.
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-15 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Collected samples of sediments should be processed to recover small invertebrate
and vertebrate fossils, and the recovered specimens should be identified and
prepared for curation at a repository with permanent retrievable storage.
A report of findings, including as itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should
be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. Approval of the report
by the City of Grand Terrace would signify the completion of the mitigation program.
After Project design has been finalized to determine the precise extent and location
of planned ground disturbances, and prior to construction activity, a qualified
paleontologist (to be retained by the Applicant) will prepare a paleontological
resource monitoring plan (PRMP) for approval by the City.
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.7-1:
Would the Project generate GHG emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that could have
a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 in Section 4.2, Air Quality above. The
following additional mitigation is also required.
MM GHG-1: Residential Renewable Energy Generation. Prior to issuance of each
residential building’s permit for each development phase, residential development
within the Project site shall be required to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or
other source of renewable electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum
roof area available for solar (i.e., solar -ready zone). The solar-ready zone shall
comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and meet with
access, pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and exclude skylight ar ea.
Each residential building shall include an electrical system and other infrastructure
sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The electrical system and
infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage. The
schedule of photovoltaic system locations may be updated as needed.
MM GHG-2: Building Energy Efficiency. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
future development within the Project shall be designed to achieve Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (L EED) standards or meet or exceed CALGreen
Tier 2 standards in effect at the time in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy
efficiency standards by a minimum of 15 percent. Alternatively, the Project design
shall include on-site renewable energy for future commercial development, for
example the incorporation of solar panels into future Project commercial
development, such that 15 percent of the on-site energy consumption is offset.
MM GHG-3: Energy Efficient Appliances. For residential projects, all major
appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, water
heaters, and equipment for space heating) provided/ installed shall be electric (i.e.,
appliances that do not use natural gas, propane, or other fossil fuels) and Energy
Significant and
Unavoidable
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-16 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Star certified or of equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. Prior to the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Grand Terrace shall verify
implementation of this requirement.
MM GHG-4: Solid Waste Diversion. Each future development within the Project
shall divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate
of occupancy, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in
compliance with City standards for recyclable collection and loading areas.
Impact 4.7-2:
Would the Project conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing
GHG emissions?
Less than Significant Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 in Section 4.2, Air Quality and MM GHG-1
through MM GHG-4, above.
N/A
Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-1:
Would the Project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.8-2:
Would the Project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Potentially
Significant
MM HAZ-1: Applicable to future development projects within the parcels assessed
in the Phase I ESA and Limited Site Characterization (ESA2) included as DEIR
Appendix G2, if signs of soil contamination, including staining or odor are
encountered during ground-disturbance activities, construction shall halt, and the
project-specific applicant/contractor is required to prepare a Phase II ESA to
evaluate the potential environmental concern. If test results are positive for a
potential impact, then remediation would be required to clean and detoxify the site,
prior to continuing ground-disturbing activities.
MM HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit of the on-site structures,
preparation of a demolition plan for the safe dismantling and removal of building
components and debris including a plan for lead and asbestos abatement shall be
prepared. The demolition plan shall be submitted to the City’s (Buildi ng and Safety
Department) for review and approval prior to commencement of demolition
activities.
Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupati onal
Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the presence
or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). If ACMs are located,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-17 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb
ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard.
Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment
contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1403.
MM HAZ-3: If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically)
during demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated
independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional.
If lead-based paint is found, abatement shall be compl eted by a qualified Lead
Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard.
Contractors performing lead-based paint removal shall provide evidence of
abatement activities to the Building Official.
MM HAZ-4: If old cesspools and/or septic systems are encountered during the
future development of parcels identified in the Phase I ESA included as DEIR
Appendix G3 the landowner/developer shall provide for the removal and disposal
of septic tank(s) in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
MM HAZ-5 Applicable to future development projects, prior to development of an
area not documented in the Phase I ESAs included as DEIR Appendices G1 through
G3, project applicants shall be required to conduct a site-specific Phase I ESA to
determine if any potential for significant impact exists. If the Phase I ESA identifies
new environmental concerns on-site, a Phase II ESA shall be conducted. If the Phase
II ESA identifies that remediation is necessary, such remediation s hall occur in
consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CUPA) prior to any site
disturbing activities.
Impact 4.8-3:
Would the Project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.8-4:
Would the project be located on a site which
is included on a list of hazardous materials
Project sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-18 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Impact 4.8-5:
For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project
area?
No Impact No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.8-6:
Would the Project impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.8-7:
Would the project expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
No impact No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.9-1:
Would the Project violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.9-2:
Would the Project substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.9-3:
Would the Project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-19 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
▪ Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
Impact 4.9-4:
Would the Project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would?
▪ Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.9-5:
Would the Project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would?
▪ Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.9-6:
Would the Project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would?
▪ Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.9-7:
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
would the Project risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-20 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Impact 4.9-8:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.10-1:
Would the Project physically divide an
established community?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.10-2:
Would the Project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.11, Noise
Impact 4.11-1:
Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the Project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Potentially
Significant
MM NOI-1: On-Site Noise Attenuation. As part of the Site Development Review
Permit process for the proposed residential developments, a detailed acoustical
study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
consultant and submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Community Development
Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA
exterior noise standard for all common outdoor living areas. In addition, the
acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior noise levels at all residential units at
the Project site would meet the City’s 45 dBA threshold. This mitigation measure
complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations). The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by
implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. Where closed
windows are required to achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit, Project plans and
specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building Code.
The final grading and building plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers
(patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall/berm), and the property
owner/developer shall install these barriers and enclosures .
MM NOI-2: Stationary Noise Sources. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Noise
Assessment shall be prepared, for submittal and approval of the City of
Grand Terrace City Planner, which demonstrates on-site placement of stationary
noise sources at commercial uses would not exceed noise standards established in
the City of Grand Terrace General Plan and City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
Chapter 8.108, Noise. The Noise Assessment shall verify that stationary noise
sources (e.g., loading dock facilities, mechanical equipment, and parking lots) are
adequately shielded and/or located at an adequate distance from on-site and off-
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-21 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
site sensitive receptors and residences in order to comply with noise regulations
established by the City of Grand Terrace.
Impact 4.11-2:
Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
MM NOI-3: Construction Vibration. Future development projects with construction
activities requiring operation of vibratory rollers within 26 feet of a structure shall
be required to prepare a project-specific vibration impact analysis to evaluate
potential construction vibration impacts associated with the project, and to
determine any specific vibration control mechanisms that shall be incorporated into
the project’s construction bid documents to reduce such impacts. Contract
specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact 4.11-3:
For a Project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the Project
area to excessive noise levels?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.12, Population and Housing
Impact 4.12-1:
Would the Project induce substantial
unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.12-2:
Would the Project displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.13, Public Services
Impact 4.13-1:
Would the Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-22 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
▪ Fire Protection?
▪ Police Protection?
▪ Schools?
▪ Other Public Facilities?
Section 4.14, Recreation
Impact 4.14-1:
Would the Project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.14-2:
Does the Project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.15, Transportation
Impact 4.15-1:
Would the Project conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.15-2:
Would the Project, conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
§15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.15-3:
Would the Project substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-23 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
Impact 4.15-4
Would the Project result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.16-1:
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code §21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Would the Project be developed in an
area listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code §5020.1(k)?
ii. Would the Project contain a resource
determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code §5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
§5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe?
Potentially
Significant
Refer to MM CUL-2 above.
MM TCR-1: Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that Native
American cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the
find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may
continue during this assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and
permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes his/her
assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. The archaeologist shall complete an isolate
record for the find and submit this document to the applicant and Lead Agency for
dissemination to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
MM TCR-2: Treatment and Disposition of TCRs. If significant Native American
historical resources are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-
qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop an cultural resources Treatment
Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be
provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment.
All in-field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to
the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians Tribal Participant(s).
The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural
materials encountered during the project.
After the notification of discovery to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and
assessments/evaluations have occurred, the following treatment/disposition of the
TCRs shall occur:
▪ Preservation-In-Place of the TCRs, if feasible as determined through
coordination between the project archeologist, Master Developer or Site
Developers, as applicable, and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, is the
preferred method of treatment. Preservation in place means avoiding the
resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no
development affecting the integrity of the resources in perpetuity.
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-24 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
▪ Should Preservation-In-Place not be feasible, the landowner shall
accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. This shall include measures and provisions
to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. During the course
of construction, all recovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure
location on site. The removal of any artifacts from the project site shall require
the approval of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and all resources
subject to such removal must be thoroughly inventoried with a tribal
representative from San Manuel Band of Mission Indians to oversee the
process. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have
been completed.
▪ If Preservation-In-Place and reburial are not feasible, the landowner(s) shall
relinquish ownership of all TCRs and a curation agreement with an appropriate
qualified repository within San Bernardino County that meets federal standards
per 36 CFR Part 79 shall be established. The collections and associated records
shall be transferred, including title, to said curation facility by the landowner,
and accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
▪ Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non -
TCRs) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest
in the materials within the County of the discovery, if such an institution agrees
to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it
shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area f or educational
purposes.
▪ If discoveries were made during the project, a Monitoring Report shall be
submitted to the County by the Archaeologist at the completion of grading,
excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site. Said report will
document monitoring and archaeological efforts conducted by the
archaeologist and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians within 60 days of
completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known
resources on the property, describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled,
document the type of cultural resources recovered, and outline the treatment
and disposition of such resources. All reports produced will be submitted to the
County of San Bernardino, appropriate Information Center, and San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians.
MM TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains. In accordance with
California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, if human remains or funerary objects are
encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-25 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County
Coroner shall be contacted within 24 hours of the discovery. The project
lead/foreman shall designate an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical
demarcation/barrier 100 feet around the resource and no further excavation or
disturbance of the site shall occur while the County Coroner makes his/her
assessment regarding the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to
be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with Public
Resources Code §5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it
believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native
American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted
access to the site. The designated Native American representative will then
determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human
remains.
Reburial of human remains and/or funerary objects (those artifacts associated with
any human remains or funerary rites) shall be accomplished in compliance with the
California Public Resources Code §5097.98 (a) and (b). The MLD in consultation with
the landowner, shall make the final discretionary determination regarding the
appropriate disposition and treatment of human remains and funerary objects. All
parties are aware that the MLD may wish to rebury the human remains and
associated funerary objects on or near the site of their discovery, in an area that
shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The
applicant/developer/landowner should accommodate on-site reburial in a location
mutually agreed upon by the Parties. It is understood by all Parties that unless
otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human
remains or cultural artifacts shall not be dis closed and shall not be governed by
public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The coroner,
parties, and Lead Agencies will be asked to withhold public disclosure information
related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California
Government Code §6254 (r).
Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.17-1:
Would the Project require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-26 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Impact 4.17-2:
Would the Project have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.17-3:
Would the Project result in a determination
by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the Project that
it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.17-4:
Would the Project generate solid waste in
excess of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.17-5:
Would the Project comply with federal,
state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Section 4.18, Wildfire
Impact 4.18-1:
If located in or near SRA or lands classified
as Very High FHSZ, would the Project
substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.18-2:
If located in or near SRA or lands classified
as Very High FHSZ, would the Project, due to
slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby
expose Project occupants to pollutant
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 1-27 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of
Significance Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Implemented
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Impact 4.18-3:
If located in or near SRA or lands classified
as Very High FHSZ, would the Project require
the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
Impact 4.18-4:
If located in or near SRA or lands classified
as Very High FHSZ, would the Project expose
people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Less than Significant No mitigation is required. N/A
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-1 2.0 | Introduction
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 P URPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Grand Terrace (City
or Lead Agency) for The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), found at Public Resources Code (PRC) §§21000-21189.57. CEQA is a
statute that requires local and state agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their
actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. The regulations for CEQA, known as the CEQA
Guidelines, are located within the California Code of Regulations (CCR) at Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,
§§15000-15387. This Project entails the buildout of residential, commercial, and public facility
development divided amongst 22 Planning Areas (PAs), on approximately 112 acres of land within the
southwest portion of the City.
This Draft EIR evaluates the potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation
of the Project (refer to the Discretionary Actions and Approvals section in Section 3.0, Project Description
for a list of anticipated responsible and trustee agencies and Project approvals). Section 3.0, Project
Description, provides detailed descriptions of the construction and operational components of the
Project. Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, discusses the regulatory environment, existing
conditions, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for the Project. Following public review of
the Draft EIR, a Final EIR will be prepared, in which the City will respond to public comments on the
Draft EIR.
According to §15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an informational document which will inform public
agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project. The
purpose of this Draft EIR for the Project is to review the existing conditions at and in the vicinity of the
Project site; identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts; and suggest feasible mitigation
measures to reduce significant adverse environmental effects where warranted, as described in
Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.18, Wildfire. Additionally, Section 6.0, Alternatives, analyzes
alternatives to reduce significant adverse environmental effects. The potential impacts analyzed include
both temporary construction-related effects and the long-term effects of development, operation, and
maintenance of the Project.
Lead Agency
City of Grand Terrace
This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires lead
agencies to consider potential environmental effects that may occur with implementation of a project and
to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects to the environment when feasible. When a project may
have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency with primary responsibility for carrying out
or approving the project is required to prepare an EIR.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-2 2.0 | Introduction
This Draft EIR is being prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with §15168 and §15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines, which states the following:
a) General. A program EIR is an EIR, which may be prepared on a series of actions that can
be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically,
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitiga ted
in similar ways.
b) Advantages. Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages. The Program EIR
can:
1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives
than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case
analysis,
3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal
with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
5) Allow reduction in paperwork.
c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the
light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document
must be prepared.
1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a
new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative
Declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in
Section 15152.
2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be
required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project
covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that
the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that
an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to,
consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-3 2.0 | Introduction
density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts,
and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.
3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed
in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
4) Where the subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should
use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the
activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were
covered in the program EIR.
5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with
the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a
good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found
to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further
environmental documents would be required.
d) Use with Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. A program EIR can be used to
simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later activities in the program.
The program EIR can:
1) Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may
have any significant effects.
2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects,
cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program
as a whole.
3) Focus an EIR on a later activity to permit discussion solely of new effects which had
not been considered before.
e) Notice with Later Activities. When a law other than CEQA requires public no tice when the
agency later proposes to carry out or approve an activity within the program and to rely
on the program EIR for CEQA compliance, the notice for the activity shall include a
statement that:
1) This activity is within the scope of the program appr oved earlier, and
2) The program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA.
Additionally, §15164 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-4 2.0 | Introduction
c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or a ttached
to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted
negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency‘s findings on
the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial
evidence.
Therefore, this Draft Program EIR will act as the primary environmental document for all entitlements
associated with the Specific Plan, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement
the Project. The City as Lead Agency can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental
documentation unless otherwise required by §21166 of CEQA and §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 21166 of CEQA states that:
When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this
division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the
lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
environmental impact report.
b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.
Additionally, §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on
the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the
following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revision s of
the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative
declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-5 2.0 | Introduction
certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows a ny of the
following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR
or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
Trustee, Responsible, and Cooperating Agencies
Under CEQA, a trustee agency is a State agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected
by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. A responsible agency is an
agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.
Responsible and trustee agencies are consulted by the CEQA lead agency to ensure the opportunity for
input and also review and comment on the Draft EIR. Responsible agencies also use the CEQA document
in their decision-making. Several agencies other than the City may require permits, approvals, and/or
consultation in order to implement various elements of the Project, as listed in th e Discretionary Actions
and Approvals section in Section 3.0, Project Description.
Compliance with CEQA
According to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15064[f][1]), preparation of an EIR is required whenever a
project may result in a significant effect on the environment. An EIR is an informational document used
to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects
of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable
alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while
substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts. Public agencies are
required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a
project. CEQA requires that state and local government agencies consider the environmental effects o f
projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects.
This Draft EIR identifies and analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity
appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by §15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis
considers the activities associated with the Project in order to determine the short-term and long-term
environmental effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both temporary and
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-6 2.0 | Introduction
permanent impacts and direct and indirect impacts of the Project, in addition to cumulative impacts
associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Based on significance criteria, the effects of the Project are categorized a s either “no impact,” “less than
significant impact,” “less than significant with mitigation incorporated,” or “significant unavoidable
impact” (refer to Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis). Mitigation measures are recommended
for potentially significant impacts, to avoid or lessen, to the extent feasible and possible, the Project’s
environmental impacts. In the event the Project results in significant unavoidable impacts even with
implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the decision-makers may approve the Project based on
a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”; see CEQA Guidelines §15093. This determination requires
the decision-makers to balance the benefits of the Project to determine if they outweigh identified
unavoidable impacts.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required by CEQA Guidelines §15093 which provides, in part,
the following:
(a) CEQA requires that the decision-maker balance the benefits of a proposed project against
its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the
benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened,
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the
final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding
considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
The City previously prepared an Initial Study (IS) and a Notice of Preparation (NOP ) for the Project. The
documents were made available for public review from April 26, 2018 through May 25, 2018. Since then,
the description and characteristics of the Project have evolved. As part of the updated Project, the City
revised the NOP and circulated it for a 30-day public review period from February 8, 2021, through
March 9, 2021. This Draft EIR is based on the revised NOP.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future develo pment
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s PAs will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and approval.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-7 2.0 | Introduction
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement. A summary of each of these discretionary approva ls that are sought by the
Project Applicant is provided below.
1. Specific Plan (SP 00-17) – The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan document (Project)
establishes the necessary plans, development standards, regulations, zoning, infrastructure
requirements, design guidelines and implementation programs on which subsequent project-
related development activities (i.e., future implementing development projects) are to be
founded.
2. General Plan Amendment (GPA 17-01 ) – A General Plan Amendment is required in order to
amend the existing Mixed Use (MU) land use designation to a new General Plan land use
designation – The Gateway at Grand Terrance Specific Plan (GSP) for the entire Project site. The
proposed land uses within the proposed GSP land use designation would include Residential 4 –
20 dwelling units per acre (R 4-20), General Commercial (GC), Park, Open Space, drainage
facilities, utilities, and roads. In addition, the Project area would also include Utility/R 4-20,
Utility/GC, and Open Space Overlays.
3. Zone Change (ZC 17-02) - The City’s zoning map currently designates the Project site as
Commercial Manufacturing (CM), Restricted Manufacturing (MR), and Industrial (M2). The Project
proposes a Zone Change to amend the existing CM, MR, and M2 zoning designations to a new
Zoning Designation – The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (GSP) to implement a horizontal
mixed-use development of residential, commercial, public facilities, and public park as set forth
in the proposed Specific Plan.
4. Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01) for Conveyance Purposes - In order to facilitate
development of the PAs with the Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map for Conveyance Purposes is
proposed in order to establish legal parcels for the PAs, dedicate right of way for public roadway
construction, and establish easements for public utilities and other facilities. Su bsequent maps
will be required for any future development on the PAs to occur.
5. Development Agreement - A Development Agreement is proposed to identify parties responsible
for the construction of major infrastructure improvements, phasing schedule of development and
infrastructure improvements, financial commitments for the construction of the infrastructure
improvements, vesting of applicable codes and standards, and vesting of development impact
fees for a specified term and appropriate extension metrics.
2.3 EIR SCOPE , I SSUES , AND C ONCERNS
The City took the previous actions:
1. Prepared an IS for the proposed Project to provide an evaluation of the potentially significant
impacts that could result from the Project which was made available for public review from April
26, 2018 through May 25, 2018.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-8 2.0 | Introduction
The City also undertook the following action for the proposed Project:
1. Distributed an NOP and IS for the initial proposed Project to request input from interested parties
on the scope of the evaluation to be undertaken in the Draft EIR. The NOP, along with the IS were
distributed for a 30-day public review period from February 8, 2021, through March 9, 2021.
2. The City held a public scoping meeting on February 22, 2021, to request input from interested
parties on the scope of the evaluation to be undertaken as part of the Draft EIR.
The baseline conditions for the environmental impacts which this Draft EIR evaluates to determine
significance were established at the time the NOP and IS were released. Note that since then, the
description and characteristics of the Project have evolved and are addressed in this Draft EIR.
The NOP and IS identified the following environmental resource categories from CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G to be addressed in the Draft EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities & Service Systems
• Wildfire
The NOP also noted that the Draft EIR would evaluate the potential for the Project to cause direct and
indirect growth inducing impacts, and alternatives would be considered.
Public Participation
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has provided opportunities for various agencies and the
public to participate in the environmental review process. During preparation of the Draft EIR, various
Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and other interested partie s were contacted to
solicit comments on the scope of review in this document. The NOP was sent to various responsible
agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15082, the City
circulated the NOP directly to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and
Research), special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice. A total of 16
comment letters were received in response to the NOP during the comment period (see Appendix L, NOP
and Scoping Meeting Materials). Comment letters were received from agencies, organizations, and
individuals.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-9 2.0 | Introduction
Native American Consultation
The City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a review of the
Sacred Lands File (SLF). On February 22, 2021, the NAHC responded stating that a tribal sensitive area was
located within the Project area. The NAHC suggested that 30 individuals representing 21 Native American
tribal groups or individuals be contacted who may have knowledge of cultural resources within the Project
area. The City mailed letters to each of these contacts requesting any information they may have
regarding Native American cultural resources within the Project area. AB 52 and SB 18 consultation and
correspondence (including the aforementioned response letter) is included as Appendix C3. Refer to
Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources for more details.
Public Review of Draft EIR
The Draft EIR is available to the general public for review at the locations listed below and on the City’s
website at:
https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§15087 and 15105, this Draft EIR will be circulated for a 45-day
public review period. The public is invited to comment in writing on the information contained in this
document. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on
the Draft EIR and are encouraged to provide information that they believe should be included in the EIR.
Comment letters should be sent to the City of Grand Terrace to:
Konrad Bolowich, City Manager/Acting Planning Director
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
Final EIR
Upon completion of the 45-day Draft EIR public review period, the City will evaluate all written comments
received during the public review period on the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088, the City
will prepare written responses to comments relating to environmental issues. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15132 (Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report), the Final EIR will be prepared and
will include:
a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
d) The responses of the Lead Agency’s to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-10 2.0 | Introduction
Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088 (Evaluation of and Response to Comments), after the
Final EIR is completed, the City of Grand Terrace will provide a written proposed response to each public
agency on comments made by that public agency at least ten days prior to certifying the EIR.
Certification of the Final EIR
The Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, will be considered by the City of Grand Terrace City Council for
certification, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15090, which states:
(a) Prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that:
1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that
the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the
final EIR prior to approving the project; and
3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
Regarding the adequacy of an EIR, according to CEQA Guidelines §15151, “An EIR should be prepared with
a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make
a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the
environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be
reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts
have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
This Draft EIR, with an accompanying Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA), is
circulated to the State Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, other government agencies,
and interested members of the public for a 45 -day review period as required by CEQA. During this period,
public agencies and members of the public may provide written comments on the analysis and content of
the Draft EIR. In reviewing a Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in
identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and on ways in which the significant
effects of the proposed Project might be avoided or mitigated. Following the close of the public comment
period, a Final EIR will be prepared to respond to all substantive comments raising environmental issues
surrounding the proposed Project. The Final EIR will be completed prior to the final public hearing to
consider certification of the EIR and approval of the proposed Project. Concurrent with the City’s
consideration of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission will also consider the merits of the proposed
Project itself. This consideration may render a request to revise the propos ed Project, or an approval or
denial. If the proposed Project is approved, the Planning Commission may require mitigation measures.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-11 2.0 | Introduction
2.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIR is organized into the following nine Sections:
Section 1.0 Executive Summary, provides a Project summary and summary of environmental
impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives.
Section 2.0 Introduction, provides CEQA compliance information.
Section 3.0 Project Description , provides Project history, as well as the existing environmental
setting, Project characteristics and objectives, phasing, and anticipated permits and
approvals that may be required for the Project.
Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis, provides a discussion of the existing conditions for each
of the environmental resource categories. This section also describes methodologies for
significance determinations, identifies both short-term and long-term environmental
impacts of the Project, recommends mitigation measures to reduce the significance of
environmental impacts, and identifies any areas of potentially significant and unavoidable
impacts. This section includes a discussion of cumulative impacts that could arise as a
result of the implementation of the proposed Project.
This analysis of impacts for each resource examines the Project’s temporary
(i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the
significance criteria/thresholds outlined in each resource section. For each criterion, the
analyses are generally divided into two main categories: (1) temporary impacts; and
(2) permanent impacts. Each criterion is discussed in the context of Project components
that share similar characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the
potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the
regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
Section 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations, discusses significant and irreversible environmental changes
and growth-inducing impacts.
Section 6.0 Alternatives, describes potential Project alternatives, including alternatives considered
but rejected from further consideration, the No Project Alternative and two Project
Alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Section 7.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant, describes potential impacts that have been
determined not to be significant throughout the EIR process.
Section 8.0 Organizations and Preparation, identifies the CEQA Lead Agency and EIR preparation
team, as well as summarizes the EIR consultation process.
2.6 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15148 or
have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15150, which encourages
incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length of environmental reports.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-12 2.0 | Introduction
The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available for review
online. Information contained within these documents has been utilized for various sections of this EIR.
City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Adopted April 27, 2010). The City of Grand Terrace General Plan
(Grand Terrace GP) constitutes the City’s long-term plans, goals, and objectives for development within
the City’s jurisdiction. The Grand Terrace GP addresses a broad range of issues relating to the City’s
physical, economic, and social development. It contains an evaluation of existing conditions and provides
the long-term goals and policies necessary to guide growth and development in the direction that the
community desires. The Grand Terrace GP serves as a decision-making tool to guide future growth and
development decisions. The Grand Terrace GP addresses the following elements: Land Use Element,
Circulation Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, Public Health and Safety Element, Noise
Element, Public Services and Facilities Element, Housing Element, and Sustainable Development Element.
The Grand Terrace GP is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning
City of Grand Terrace General Plan Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report s (Certified
January 2010 and March 2010, respectively). The Grand Terrace GP Draft Program EIR was prepared to
assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Grand Terrace GP. The Program
EIR summarizes potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Grand Terrace
GP, including growth inducing and cumulative impacts. Information from the Grand Terrace GP EIR is
incorporated herein, since it contains extensive information pertaining to impacts associated with the
implementation of City policies and objectives. The Grand Terrace Final Program EIR contained comments
and the City’s response to comments on the Draft FEIR, the revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, containing all the mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR.
The General Plan EIR documents are available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning
City of Grand Terrace Active Transportation Plan (October 2018). The comprehensive Active
Transportation Plan (ATP) provides recommended actions to; support increasing bicycling and walking in
the City; support non-motorized travel infrastructure and options to support the projected population
growth; and provide safer, walkable streets for the students into the City for school.
The City’s ATP is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code (updated January 12 , 2023). The City of Grand Terrace Municipal
Code (Grand Terrace MC) is organized to make the laws of the City as accessible as possible to City officials,
City employees, and private citizens. The Grand Terrace MC is referenced throughout this Draft EIR to
establish the Project’s baseline requirements according to the Specific Plan and Grand Terrace MC
regulations.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 2-13 2.0 | Introduction
The Grand Terrace MC can be accessed on the City’s website at:
https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning
Southern California Association of Governments 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or “Connect SoCal”
was adopted on September 2, 2020. Connect SoCal is SCAG’s long-range visioning plan that builds upon
and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase
mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile,
sustainable, and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between
planning strategies, and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for
southern Californians. Connect SoCal addresses the cumulative impact of future development and
associated infrastructure improvements for the SCAG region, which includes San Bernardino County and
the City of Grand Terrace.
SCAG’s Connect SoCal can be accessed online at:
https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-1 3.0 | Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PURPOSE
The City of Grand Terrace (City), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for The Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (Project).
The following Project Description is provided in conformance with CEQA Guidelines §15124
(14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15124) which discusses the geographic setting, Project location,
Project setting, current City land use and zoning designations, Project characteristics, Project objectives,
and discretionary actions required to implement the Project. This information will be the basis for
analyzing the Project’s impacts on the existing physical environment in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact
Analysis of this EIR. The Project Description contains the following:
1. The precise location and boundaries of the Project shown on a detailed map, along with a regional
location map;
2. A statement of the objectives sought by the Project including the underlying purpose of the
Project and Project benefits;
3. A description of the Project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics along with
engineering and public service facilities details; and
4. A statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of all necessary approvals and
permits, a list of agencies that may use the document in their decision-making, and a list of related
consultation and environmental review necessary under local, state, and federal laws,
regulations, and policies.
The information presented within the Project Description will both accurately describe the Project and
assist in further review and assessment of its potential environmental impacts.
3.2 LEAD AGENCY
The lead agency is the public or responsible agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project.
Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA Guidelines §15051 establishes
criteria for identifying the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), “The Lead
Agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather
than an agency with a single or limited purpose...” Based on the criterion above, the City is the lead agency
for the Project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out
or approving a project.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-2 3.0 | Project Description
3.3 P ROJECT APPLICANT(S)/SPONSOR(S)
Project Applicant(s):
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Contact: Adam Collier, Project Manager
3.4 OV ERVIEW AND B ACKGROUND
During the early years of the City, most of the Project area was used for orchards. Over the years, some
land was converted to dry farming or left vacant. For more than two decades, the City has attempted to
foster development in the Specific Plan area (also known as the Southwest Commercial area). However,
the lack of local and regional drainage facilities and roadway access has hampered development.
In 2010, the City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) was updated to re-designate most of
the Project site to Mixed Use. Approximately 53 acres of the Project’s total acreage was acquired by the
Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Agency (RDA) between 2000 and 2011 with RDA tax increment
funds. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2011, the City, as the Successor Agency for the
RDA, developed a Long-Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP) to control the disposition of its real
property assets.
In December 2016, the City and Lewis Land Developers, LLC, (Project Applicant) entered into a Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) in which Lewis purchased approximately 55 acres of land from the
City. The vision was to incorporate the 55 acres of land to the rest of the adjacent Lewis property. With
the incorporation of the 55 acres, the Project site totals approximately 112 acres. As part of the DDA,
Lewis agreed to prepare The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan document (Specific Plan).
Memorandum of Understanding
In April 2017, the City and Lewis entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), identifying the
obligations of the parties relative to the street improvements, storm drain improvements, and fee
credits/reimbursement, amongst other things. Subsequently, the City and Lewis entered into a
1st Amendment to the MOU in January 2020, clarifying the terms of the obligations and providing
additional detail.
3.5 P ROJECT LOCATION, S ETTING, AND S URROUNDING L AND U SES
Regional Setting
The City is located in the San Bernardino Valley within San Bernardino County approximately 60 miles east
of Los Angeles; refer to Exhibit 3-1, Regional Map. The City occupies approximately 3.6 square miles and
is bounded by the Santa Ana River to the northwest, Blue Mountain to the east, and the City of Colton to
the north, east, and west. The City is located within Section 5 of Township 2 South, Range 4 West, of the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-inch quadrangle map San Bernardino South. Main Street within the City
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-3 3.0 | Project Description
marks the southern limit of the City and coincides with the boundary between San Bernardino and
Riverside counties. Interstate 215 (I-215) traverses the northwest portion of the City. The City’s Sphere of
Influence encompasses the current City limits.
Project Location
The Project consists of 32 parcels on approximately 112 acres. Table 3-1, Project Assessor Parcel
Numbers, below identifies 32 parcels within the Project boundary.
Table 3-1: Project Assessor Parcel Numbers
1167-151-78 1167-151-12 1167-151-21 1167-151-64
1167-151-79 1167-151-13 1167-151-23 1167-151-73
1167-161-33 1167-171-11 1167-181-01 1167-151-71
1167-161-02 1167-171-12 1167-151-18 1167-151-11
1167-161-03 1167-151-20 1167-151-68 1167-151-14
1167-161-04 1167-151-22 1167-151-65 1167-151-24
1167-161-05 1167-181-12 1167-151-74 1167-151-17
1167-151-09 1167-181-13 1167-151-75 1167-151-10
The Project site is located in the southwest portion of the City and bounded by Commerce Way and an
existing commercial parking lot to the north; the northern portion of Grand Terrace High School to the
south; commercial and residential uses to the east; and I-215 to the west. The southern boundary of the
Project is also in close proximity and approximately 0.27 mile north of Main Street.
Regional access is available via I-215 at Main Street and Barton Road. Local access is available via
Taylor Street-Commerce Way, Michigan Street, Van Buren Street, De Berry Street, and Main Street.
Refer to Exhibit 3-2, Local Vicinity Map.
Existing Conditions
The Project site’s geography is relatively flat elevation ranges from approximately 975 feet on the
northeastern end of the site to approximately 945 feet on the southwestern corner. The Project site
consists predominately of vacant land, as well as storage commercial uses, and six non-conforming
residences. A concrete-lined storm channel carries runoff from a storm drain at the western end of
De Berry Street, southwest beneath the Gage Canal and into the westward-flowing drainage way that
crosses the Project area from the western end of Van Buren Street. This drainageway drains beneath I-215
in a concrete-lined channel, continues to the southwest beneath La Cadena Drive and flows into a debris
basin approximately 0.8 mile off-site.
There is a decommissioned Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) line that traverses the Project site in a
north/south direction that has been acquired by the City and would be used as part of the extension of
Commerce Way from its existing terminus point south to the existing Taylor Street, and subsequent
widening of the existing Taylor Street portion all the way south to its connection at Main Street. There are
three wells owned by the City of Riverside located in the Project site that would remain but may be
modified or relocated.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-4 3.0 | Project Description
The existing non-lighted ball field northwest of Veterans Freedom Park is proposed to be relocated
northwest of the Grand Terrace High School sports fields and constructed as a new lighted baseball field
and a public playground. An existing Southern California Edison (SCE) substation located south of the
Project site would remain in addition to the SCE power lines that cross the Project site north of the
substation. Riverside Canal Power Company owns the property where a decommissioned power station
was located. Two billboard signs adjacent to I-215 would remain. There is a total of six existing
single-family residences with associated accessory structures along De Berry Street and Van Buren Street.
Five out of the six residences are currently occupied. The remaining building is vacant.
Existing and Proposed Land Use Designation and Zoning
The City’s General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) currently designates the Project site as Mixed Use (MU). The
MU designation allows for multiple types of land uses which include commercial, business park,
residential, open space, and recreational uses. Compatible uses should be placed horizontally or vertically
on the site. All mixed-use projects are required to submit a specific plan or planned development to
demonstrate compatibility between the proposed uses as well as buffering from adjacent properties. The
proposed Specific Plan (SP 00-17) has been prepared pursuant to California Government Code §65454.
Although the existing MU land use designation would allow for a variety of uses on a single site, a General
Plan Amendment (GPA 17-01) is required to accommodate the higher density residential developments.
Accordingly, the proposed GPA would amend the existing MU land uses designation to a new General Plan
land use designation - the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (GSP) for the entire Project site.
According to the City’s zoning map, the Project site is currently zoned as Commercial Manufacturing (CM),
Restricted Manufacturing (MR), and Industrial (M2). The Project proposes a Zone Change (ZC 17-02) to
amend the existing CM, MR, and M2 zoning to a new zoning – Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
(GSP) to implement a horizontal mixed-use development of residential, commercial, public facilities, and
public park as set forth in the proposed Specific Plan.
The following Table 3-2, Project Site and Surrounding Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
describes the current land use designations and zoning for both the Project and surrounding areas. In
addition, refer to Exhibit 3-3, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, Exhibit 3-4, Existing Zoning
Designation, Exhibit 3-5, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation, and Exhibit 3-6, Proposed Zoning
Designation for more details.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-5 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-2: Project Site and Surrounding Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
Location Existing Land Use1 Existing Zoning2 Proposed Land
Use Proposed Zoning
Project Site Mixed Use
Commercial Manufacturing (CM)
Restricted Manufacturing (RM)
Industrial (M-2)
Gateway at
Grand Terrace
Specific Plan
(GSP)
Gateway at
Grand Terrace
Specific Plan
(GSP)
North General Commercial
Industrial
General Commercial (C2)
Commercial Manufacturing (CM)
- -
South Industrial
Public
Restricted Manufacturing (MR)
Industrial (M-2)
Public Facilities (PUB)
- -
East
General Commercial
Low Density Residential
Industrial
Public
Single Family (R1-7.2)
Commercial Manufacturing (CM)
Restricted Manufacturing (MR)
Public Facilities (PUB)
- -
West* Industrial Park
Light Industrial
Industrial Park (I-P)
Light Industrial (M-1)
- -
*City of Colton General Plan – Land Use Plan and Zoning Map
Source: City of Grand Terrace. (2011). General Plan Land Use Map. Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/general_plan_land_us
e_map_9-1-2017.pdf (accessed April 2023).
City of Grand Terrace. (2017). Zoning Map . Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/zoning_map__sep_20
17.pdf (accessed April 2023).
3.6 PROJECT C HARACTERISTICS
The Project being evaluated in this Program Draft EIR is a Specific Plan that serves as the regulatory
mechanisms to guide all future development proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site.
Currently, there are no development projects proposed. All subsequent development projects, including
construction and operations, undertaken within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to
project-specific City discretionary review and approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00-17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Overview
Upon adoption, the Specific Plan would serve as the new GP land use and zoning designations and as the
regulatory document for future development within the Project site. While the Grand Terrace Municipal
Code (Grand Terrace MC) Title 18 establishes development standards for the entire City’s overall zones,
1 City of Grand Terrace. Amended September 27, 2016. General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved from
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/general
_plan_land_use_map_9-1-2017.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022.
2 City of Grand Terrace. Amended October 11, 2016. Zoning Map. Retrieved from:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/zoning_
map__sep_2017.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-6 3.0 | Project Description
the proposed GSP zone designation establishes the necessary plans, land uses, development standards,
regulations, zoning, infrastructure requirements, design guidelines and implementation programs
subsequent development activities. It is intended that site and architectural review, grading permits and
building permits, or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to this area
be consistent with this Specific Plan. Some elements of the development program may be enforced
through conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) established in conjunction with the subdivision
maps for the property.
Planning Areas and Land Uses
The proposed Specific Plan would be adopted by resolution by the City and would allow a mix of
commercial, residential, public utilities and public park development within 22 Planning Areas (PA[s]). As
shown in Table 3-3, Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Statistical Summary by Planning Area below,
each PA has been assigned a number and a designated land use with maximum density and intensity.
Although the proposed Specific Plan would allow up to a maximum of 786 dwelling units and a maximum
of 455,049.50 square feet of commercial development, the development standards, site constraints,
roads, and infrastructure, limit the potential number of dwelling units to 695 and the commercial square-
footage to 335,700 square-feet. Table 3-3 summarizes the maximum assigned density units (DUs) that
would be developed within the Project area. Table 3-4, Land Use Percentages below provides a summary
of the distribution of land uses within the Project site. Table 3-5, Error! Reference source not found.
summarizes the projected maximum net development when taken into account the development
standards, site constraints, roads, and infrastructure. Exhibit 3-7, Project Planning Areas visualizes the
land uses within the Project area.
Table 3-3: Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Statistical Summary by Planning Area
Planning
Area
Land Use
Designation
Gross
Acres
Dev.
Acres
Probable
Density
(Max FAR)
Max Dev.
SF per
Dev. Acre
Max
Residential
Density du/ac
Max
Assigned
DUs
1 General Commercial 9.18 6.4 0.35 97,574.4
2 General Commercial 3.05 3 0.35 45,738 - -
3 Utilities with General
Commercial Overlay 3.3 0.09 0.35 1,372.14 - -
4 General Commercial
(Billboards) 2.83 0 N/A 0 - -
5 Drainage Facilities 4.36 0.03 N/A - - -
6 General Commercial 8.4 6.42 0.35 97,879.32 - -
7 General Commercial 0.4 0.4 0.35 6,098.4 - -
8 General Commercial 4.6 3.68 0.35 56,105.28 - -
9 General Commercial 4.6 4.6 0.75 150,282 - -
10 Utilities 0.62 0 N/A - - -
11 Residential 14.55 12.38 N/A - 20 du/ac 248 DUs
12 Residential 8.64 7.7 N/A - 20 du/ac 154 DUs
13 Utilities 1.26 0 N/A - - -
14 Utilities with
Residential Overlay 0.58 0.4 N/A - 20 du/ac 8 DUs
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-7 3.0 | Project Description
Planning
Area
Land Use
Designation
Gross
Acres
Dev.
Acres
Probable
Density
(Max FAR)
Max Dev.
SF per
Dev. Acre
Max
Residential
Density du/ac
Max
Assigned
DUs
15 Utilities with
Residential Overlay 0.37 0.37 N/A - 20 du/ac 7 DUs
16 Residential 0.52 0.52 N/A - 20 du/ac 10 DUs
17 Utilities 2.51 0 N/A - - -
18 Drainage Facilities 9.24 1.07 N/A - - -
19 Residential 16.05 15.46 N/A - 20 du/ac 309 DUs
20 Residential 2.51 2.5 N/A - 20du/ac 50 DUs
21 Utilities 2.38 0 N/A - - -
22 Park 4.97 4.97 N/A - - -
Open Space 1.90 N/A
Van Buren
Street 1.94 - N/A - - -
De Berry
Street 1.95 - N/A - - -
Taylor
Street 1.19 - N/A - - -
Total Area 111.90 69.99 455,049.5 - 786
Table 3-4: Land Use Percentages
Land Use Gross AC Max Dev SF Max Assigned DU %
Residential 43.22 - 786 38.6%
Commercial 36.36 455,059.5 - 32.5%
Park 4.97 - - 4.4%
Riverside Canal and Open Space 4.36 - - 3.9%
Drainage Facilities 11.15 - - 10%
Utilities 6.77 - - 6.1%
Roads 5.08 - - 4.5%
Total 111.9 455,059.5 786 100%
Table 3-5: Projected Maximum Net Development for Residential and Commercial Uses
Planning
Area Land Use Designation Gross
Acres
Dev.
Acres
Max Dev.
SF
Max
Assigned DUs
Projected Max Net
Development
Residential Development
11 Residential 14.55 12.38 - 248
695 DUs
12 Residential 8.64 7.7 - 154
14 Utilities with Residential
Overlay 0.58 0.4 - 8
15 Utilities with Residential
Overlay 0.37 0.37 - 7
16 Residential 0.52 0.52 - 10
19 Residential 16.05 15.46 - 309
20 Residential 2.51 2.5 - 50
Total Area 43.22 39.33 - 786 695 DUs
Commercial Development
1 General Commercial 9.18 6.4 97,574.4 - 243,800 SF 2 General Commercial 3.05 3 45,738 -
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-8 3.0 | Project Description
Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR should include “a statement of objectives
sought by the proposed Project.” The Specific Plan was prepared to achieve the following Project
objectives.
1. Authorize the redevelopment of a blighted and under-utilized property.
2. Organize a mix of land uses which will provide a variety of housing and businesses, spurring new
jobs and services.
3. Implement development standards and design guidelines establishing a vibrant community.
4. Provide diversity of high-quality architecture and landscape with appropriate open space areas.
5. Provide for the distribution, location and extent, and intensity of major components of public and
private roads, sewage, water, drainage, dry utilities, and other essential facilities within the
Project area and/or needed to support the proposed land uses.
6. Establishes compatibility standards and guidelines to minimize negative impacts on adjacent
properties.
7. Include operational and maintenance plans for financing improvements.
8. Provide the extension of Commerce Way from its current terminus point southward to
Taylor Street and then Main Street.
9. Provide public recreational facilities to meet the needs of the community by incorporating a public
park with a new baseball field and playground.
Construction Phasing
Residential and commercial developments within the Project site are dependent upon market factors and
the ability to attract future end-users. Where possible, infrastructure and physical improvements within
the Project boundary may be installed in two overlapping or consecutive phases. As such, construction of
the Project would be phased in a logical sequence, in response to market demands. The Specific Plan
incorporates two phases, as shown in Exhibit 3-8, Construction Phasing Plan.
Phase One encompasses the southern half of the Specific Plan area that includes residential, a new public
park with a lighted baseball field and a playground, a detention basin, and a new road - Commerce Way,
Planning
Area Land Use Designation Gross
Acres
Dev.
Acres
Max Dev.
SF
Max
Assigned DUs
Projected Max Net
Development
3 Utilities with General
Commercial Overlay 3.3 0.09 1,372.14 -
6 General Commercial 8.4 6.42 97,879.32 -
7 General Commercial 0.4 0.4 6,098.4 -
8 General Commercial 4.6 3.68 56,105.28 -
9 General Commercial 4.6 4.6 150,282 - 91,900 SF
4 General Commercial
(Billboards) 2.83 0 0 - 0
Total Area 36.36 24.59 455,049.5 - 335,700 SF
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-9 3.0 | Project Description
and associated improvements, starting from the connection point of Taylor Street and Main Street and
continuing north to the northern boundary of the residential portion. In addition, Phase One will also
include improvements of portions of De Berry and Van Buren streets, construction of the Phase One storm
drain plan, new water lines, and connection to existing sewer lines.
The development of the proposed detention basin, the new Commerce Way improvements, and the new
public park and trail in Phase One would also include obtaining Consent Agreements and right-of-way and
drainage easements from Southern California Edison (SCE) for the outlet facility into the native channel.
In return, the Project would grant SCE an access easement via a new maintenance road and turnaround
area to their facilities located within PAs 10, 13, 17, and 21.
Phase Two includes the development of the commercial portion located in the northern half of the
Specific Plan area and includes the extension of Commerce Way from Phase One terminus point north to
the current terminus point of the existing Commerce Way, and construction of Phase Two storm drain.
The planning and design of each PA would address construction issues such as drainage, storm water
management, utilities and parking, as described in this Specific Plan and required by mitigation measures
adopted as part of this EIR.
Construction and implementation of any development project within the Project site would demonstrate
that all required infrastructure and facilities would be timed to adequately service each individual
development project. This may require construction of the facilities both on-site (within or adjacent to
the PA) and/or off-site (within other PAs or outside of the Project site) to connect with existing facilities
that would service that development. Therefore, these PAs are not symbolized in Exhibit 3-8.
Proposed Land Use Components
As noted above, the Specific Plan land uses would allow the development of commercial, residential,
public utilities and public park uses. At this time, no specific development plans are available for the
Project; therefore, analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts in this Draft EIR are addressed at a
program level.
Residential
The Project’s residential component, located in PAs 11, 12, 14 through 16, 19, and 20, encompasses
approximately 43 acres and could potentially comprise of a variety of residential product types (small-lot
single-family development, attached or detached cluster-type or motor court residential development,
townhomes, duplexes, and/or multi-level apartments), with an overall maximum density of 20 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac). The residential use in the Project site accounts for approximately 39 percent of the
total land uses in the Project site and allows up to a maximum of 786 dwelling units. However, as noted
in Table 3-5, when considering the development standards, site constraints, roads, and infrastructure, the
potential number of dwelling units to be developed is projected to be approximately 695 DUs, which
would not exceed the maximum allowable number of 786 DUs. The residential portion would include a
variety of housing types within the density range of 4 – 20 dwelling units per acre under the proposed
Residential 4-20 DU/AC (R 4-20) land use.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-10 3.0 | Project Description
General Commercial
The General Commercial (GC) land use designation allows for the development of general commercial not
limited to, retail, personal service, entertainment, office, and restaurants in PAs 1 through 3, and
6 through 9. PA 4 currently contains existing billboards that would continue to be utilized in the same
manner and not be developed. The commercial uses in GC would serve as an enhanced continuation of
the Barton Road Specific Plan and the I-215’s commercial corridor.
The developable acreage in the commercial portion of the Specific Plan is approximately 25 acres and
could be developed with up to 455,049.50 square feet of commercial uses. However, when considering
the development standards, site constraints, roads, and infrastructure, the potential maximum square
footage that could be developed is approximately 335,700 square feet.
Drainage Facilities, Utilities, and Public Streets
Drainage facilities are located in PAs 5 and 18. Utilities are located in PAs 10, 13, 17, and 21. Public streets
include the new Commerce Way, Van Buren, and De Berry. Drainage facilities, utilities, and public streets
will be maintained by the City and/or other municipal agencies, special districts, or purveyors. The
development of the proposed detention basin would also include obtaining consent agreements and
right-of-way and drainage easements from SCE. In return, the Project would grant SCE access via a new
maintenance road and turnaround area to their facilities located within PAs 10, 13, 17, and 21.
Public Park and Open Space
The Park and Open Space designations apply to parcels within PAs 18 and 22 as well as the narrow strip
of pedestrian and bicycle trail that provides connectivity between PA 22 development and the existing
Veterans Freedom Park. PA 22 would include a City-owned and operated lighted baseball field with a tot-
lot/playground within a tree-lined and “park-like” setting. Public Park Facilities can be joint use, providing
for use by the Colton Joint Unified School District (CJUSD), and the City.
PA 18 would primarily serve as a detention basin for the entire Project site as part of the overall drainage
facilities. It would also have an open space overlay which would not permit any building or structure to
be constructed in the area. Due to its primary use as a detention basin, PA 18 would not have public
access.
Utilities
Sewer
Sanitary sewer service is provided by the City through various agreements between the cities of
Grand Terrace and Colton. The City of Colton leases the sewer lines to the City, maintains the sewer lines,
and treats the wastewater. There are a number of existing gravity sewer lines in the vicinity of the Project
site. The main sewer line in the area is an existing 12-inch trunk sewer line in De Berry Street that conveys
flow from east to west through the Project and then increases to an 18-inch trunk sewer line before it
crosses I-215. After crossing I-215, the sewer line flows north and increases in size before reaching the
Colton Water Reclamation Facility. There is also a 10-inch gravity sewer line in Commerce Way that
conveys flows south to the 18-inch trunk sewer line. A 10-inch sewer line in Taylor Street conveys flows
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-11 3.0 | Project Description
north to the 18-inch trunk sewer line. There are 8-inch gravity sewer lines in Van Buren Street and Pico
Street that convey flows from east to west to the 10-inch gravity sewer line in Taylor Street. Exhibit 3-9,
Existing Sewer Plan shows the existing sewer facilities.
Sewer improvements would be designed and sized to tie into the existing/backbone infrastructure to
serve all future development within the Project site. Based on Exhibit 3-9, the existing backbone sewer
infrastructure is adequately sized to accommodate these flows. Wastewater collected from the Specific
Plan area would continue to be conveyed in the existing 18-inch sewer trunk line to the treatment plant
in City of Colton.
A Sewer System Analysis was prepared to evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer system. The analysis
concluded that the existing local collector sewers have adequate capacity to serve the developments
within the Project site. All proposed improvements would be constructed to the requirements of the City
of Grand Terrace and the City of Colton.
The sewer capacity analysis and proposed sewer facilities are further analyzed in Section 4.17, Utilities
and Service Systems.
Water
Domestic and irrigation water service for the City is provided by Riverside Highland Water Company
(RHWC). RHWC is a private water company owned by its shareholders. The company maintains water
main transmission lines, wells, reservoirs and service laterals throughout the City, portions of Colton, and
portions of unincorporated San Bernardino and Riverside Counties and is directly responsible for their
ongoing maintenance.
The Project site would rel y on both existing and new water lines which are proposed along the eastern
border of the Riverside Canal; southern border of P As 11, 14 and 15; and south from PA 21 to the
Taylor Street/Main Street intersection. Exhibit 3-10, Conceptual Water Plan shows the existing and
proposed water facilities.
All proposed site-specific water improvements would be designed and analyzed as future development
projects are reviewed and entitled. Hydraulic analysis of the proposed water lines would also be analyzed
and improvements would be constructed to meet requirements of the City and RHWC.
All areas proposed for development would be equipped with fire suppression systems. Major
development areas would be equipped with looped on-site mains to ensure adequate pressure for fire
suppression. Fire hydrants would be installed at locations approved by the San Bernardino County Fire
Protection District (SBCFPD). RHWC lines would be extended to loop around the Project site.
Storm Drainage
The Project site is traversed by three major drainage courses that originate at the base of the foothills at
De Berry Street, Van Buren Street, and Pico Street. The northern drainage course enters the site at the
westerly end of De Berry Street. It then travels in a southwesterly direction and enters the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) channel that eventually directs flows off-site under I-215. The
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-12 3.0 | Project Description
second drainage course enters the Project area on the north side of Van Buren Street near the easterly
edge of PA 11. These storm water flows travel west and join the SBCFCD channel at the western edge of
the Project area. A portion of this drainage course has been identified as a possible wetlands area. The
third drainage course enters the Project area through the existing Grand Terrace High School near the
southeasterly edge of PA 20. The westerly terminus of Pico Street overflows with storm water during large
storm events and the storm water travels through the existing Grand Terrace High School towards Taylor
Street and ultimately joins the Gage Canal at the western edge of the Project site.
The off-site tributary area consists of a watershed of approximately 32,320 acres including the majority
of the City. All flows are directed to the low point within the Specific Plan area. Ultimately, drainage from
the Project site flows to the Santa Ana River, excluding those flows directed to the Gage Canal.
Drainage improvements would be constructed in phases and throughout the Project site. Refer to the
following information and Exhibit 3-11, Conceptual Storm Drain Plan, which shows the existing and
proposed drainage facilities.
Phase One:
One large regional detention basin within PA 18 with approximately 65-acre-feet of capacity would be
constructed west of Taylor Street to provide regional storm water detention and treatment of the
proposed storm drain systems in Van Buren and Pico Streets, as well as opportunities for groundwater
recharge. The basin would be hydraulically connected, and two outfalls with one providing outlet to the
San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) drainage area and another providing a secondary
outlet to the Gage Canal. The development of the proposed detention basin in Phase One would also
include obtaining consent agreements and right-of-way and drainage easements from SCE. In return, the
Project would grant SCE access via a new maintenance road and turnaround area to their facilities located
within PAs 10, 13, 17, and 21.
At De Berry Street, a local storm drain system at the intersection of De Berry Street and Commerce Way
will capture flows from De Berry and connect to the existing SBCFCD storm drain line under
Commerce Way, draining to the basin.
Within Van Buren Street, the proposed facilities include a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) from the
regional basins to the Michigan Street intersection, with a local storm drain system and catch basins to
protect the intersection from flooding and storm water velocity. Additional work will include installation
of new curbs and driveways at sump conditions east of Michigan Street to protect property from flooding
during major storms. The installation of the storm drain in Van Buren Street will de-water the existing
natural drainage area.
Phase Two:
In Pico Street, the proposed facilities include a 54-inch RCP from the regional basins along the northerly
edge of Grand Terrace High School and stubbed to the westerly cul-de-sac in Pico. In the future, a 48-inch
storm drain would be extended east to the intersection of Michigan Street, with a local storm drain system
and catch basins to protect the intersection from flooding and storm water velocity and to alleviate
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-13 3.0 | Project Description
additional flooding. Along with the future 48-inch storm drain extension, new raised curbs would also be
required at various sections along Pico Street to prevent flooding.
All proposed site-specific drainage improvements would be designed and analyzed as future projects are
reviewed and entitled. All site drainage would ultimately discharge at the existing low point of Project site
and then under I-215. All proposed improvements would be constructed to the requirements of the City
and the SBCFCD.
Dry Utilities
Electricity
Electrical power service is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) which maintains a system of above
and below-ground transmission and distribution lines throughout the City. SCE also maintains a major
substation within the City. The Val Vista Substation on Newport Road is a major switching station for SCE’s
Southern California grid. All new on-site lines would be placed underground, except when they relate to
the existing electrical substation, and the existing transmission lines that cross the site at various locations.
Natural Gas
Natural gas service is provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company who maintains a system
of natural gas mainlines and laterals throughout the City, primarily within public rights-of-way. Any
additional necessary lines would be identified and constructed to meet the Project’s future development
demands.
Cable Television
The cable service franchisee in the Project site is currently Time Warner; other cable companies may
provide service if permitted by the City in the future. Time Warner maintains a system of above and below-
ground lines throughout the City, primarily within public rights-of-way. All new on-site cable lines would
be placed underground.
Waste Management
The City maintains a franchise agreement with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. (Burrtec) for the collection
and disposal of municipal solid wastes, organic, and recyclable materials generated by residences and
businesses within the City. Burrtec provides weekly residential collection services for municipal solid
waste, organic and mixed recyclables, and green waste. Collection services to commercial and industrial
uses are provided from one to six times per week and include a wide range of waste and recyclable
collection services. Additionally, there would be organic waste options to comply with current state
mandates. All municipal solid waste collected in the City is taken to the San Bernardino County landfill
system for disposal. The nearest landfills to the Project site are the San Timoteo Landfill and the Mid-Valley
Landfill.
All residents and businesses in the Project site w ould comply with ongoing waste management
programs/requirements implemented by the City (e.g., hazardous waste disposal, electronic and universal
waste). The City has multiple waste events throughout the year to help residents with non-typical waste
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-14 3.0 | Project Description
needs. It is the responsibility of each property owner and/or tenant to start service for solid waste
collection. Appropriate space would be provided for storage of solid waste on each Project-specific site.
Mobility and Circulation
The Project’s proposed circulation improvements would enhance local circulation and provide for new
development. Commerce Way would be extended south from the existing terminus point to Taylor Street.
As part of the Commerce Way extension, the existing Taylor Street roadway portion within the Project
area would also be improved and widened all the way south to its connection at Main Street. The Specific
Plan reinforces a pedestrian-friendly environment that includes new Class II on-street bike lanes,
sidewalks and streets connecting the commercial area with the residential neighborhoods, parks, and
schools. Refer to Exhibit 3-12, Conceptual Circulation Plan and Section 4.15, Transportation for the
location of these streets. Additionally, public or private streets and alleys would provide circulation within
the residential communities. The alignment of these internal streets and alleys would be established as
part of the tentative tract map approval.
Permitted Uses
The Specific Plan could be developed according to the uses listed in Table 3-6, Permitted and
Conditionally Permitted Uses. Table 3-5 provides a comprehensive list of allowable uses and establishes
the Permitted (P), Temporarily Permitted (T), Conditionally Permitted (C), and Specially Event (SE)
permitted land uses within each land use designation throughout the Project site.
Table 3-6: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
Open
Space Park Commercial Residential
(R 4-20)
Drainage
Facilities
Residential Uses
Single-family (including small-lot, detached/attached,
cluster, and motor court) - - - P -
Multi-family units (including duplexes, condominiums,
and apartments) - - - P -
Senior citizen housing - - - P -
Residential Accessory Uses
Home occupation (as permitted per chapter 5.06) - - - P -
Second-Family Unit (as permitted per Chapter 18.63) - - - P -
Leasing offices - - - P -
Residential community recreation facility - - - P -
Other accessory uses directly related to primary
Residential use (as approved by the Planning Director) - - - P -
Automotive related services (includes motorcycles, boats, recreational vehicles, trailers and campers)
Retail sales of parts and supplies (No Wholesale) - - P - -
Retail sales of heavy equipment and trucks - - C - -
Rental agency - - C - -
Sales (used vehicle sales, repair and maintenance
activities only in conjunction with new dealers) - - C - -
Sales (New vehicle sales) - - C - -
New tire sales (inside tire storage only) - - C - -
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-15 3.0 | Project Description
Open
Space Park Commercial Residential
(R 4-20)
Drainage
Facilities
Indoor Storage - - C - -
Showrooms - - C - -
Research & Development
Laboratories, research and development facilities - - P - -
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Bars, cocktail lounges, nightclubs, live entertainment - - C - -
Catering - - P - -
Microbrewery - - C - -
Restaurants - With the incidental serving of beer and
wine (without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment or
dancing)
- - P - -
With entertainment and/or serving of alcoholic beverages
(other than beer and wine) - - C - -
Fast food (without a drive-thru) - - P - -
Fast food (with a drive-thru) - - C - -
Medical
Clinics, urgent care - - P - -
Medical laboratories - - P - -
Medical/dental offices - - P - -
Optician and optometric shops - - P - -
Office and Administrative Uses
Banks, financial services and institutions - - P - -
Business and office services - - P - -
(Interior showroom - - P - -
Realtors and real estate offices - - P - -
Travel agencies - - P - -
Professional office - - P - -
Recreation/Entertainment
Amusement arcades - - C - -
Auditoriums - - C - -
Bowling centers - - C - -
Indoor fitness and sports facilities (health clubs,
gymnasiums, fitness centers) 4,000 square feet or less - - C - -
Greater than 4,000 square feet - - C - -
Movie theaters - - C - -
Museums - - P - -
Music, exercise and dance studios - - P - -
Retail-Commercial Uses
Apparel stores (including jewelry stores) - - P - -
General retail (i.e., art, music, collectibles, and video
games stores) P
Building materials, garden equipment and supplies
(without outside storage) (including Nurseries & garden
supply stores within enclosed area)
- - P - -
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-16 3.0 | Project Description
Open
Space Park Commercial Residential
(R 4-20)
Drainage
Facilities
Building materials, garden equipment and supplies (with
outside storage) - - C - -
Convenience stores (including Liquor/Alcohol sales) - - C - -
Daycare centers (child or adult) and Nursing and
residential care facilities - - C - -
Electronic, appliance, and office stores (including small
electronic, appliance, and office repair shops) - - P - -
Food and beverage stores (including Farmers Markets
and bakeries) - - P - -
Furniture and home furnishing stores (including
household goods stores and antique stores) - - P - -
General merchandise stores (including Leather goods
and luggage stores) - - P - -
Health and personal care stores and services (including
Drug stores and pharmacies) - - P - -
Hardware stores (including locksmith shops) - - P - -
Hobby and craft shops (including costume design, art,
music and photography supply stores) - - P - -
Pet shops - - P - -
Publishing, printing, blueprinting, and reproduction
services - - P - -
Schools, business, hospitality, & professional (including
art, barber, beauty, performing arts, and hotels) - - C - -
Showroom (room used to display goods for sale) - - C - -
Smoke shops - - C - -
Sporting goods stores - - P - -
Veterinary (domestic, no boarding) (w/boarding requires
CUP) - - P - -
Veterinary w/boarding - - C - -
Personal Services
Barbers, hair salons, nail shops - - P - -
Dry cleaners, tailor shops - - P - -
Laundromats, self-service - - C - -
Message centers and PO boxes - - P - -
Photography or portrait studio, by appointment only - - P - -
Public and Quasi Public Facilities (places of worship and
non-profit organizations) - - C - -
Government offices and facilities
(administration buildings) P P P P -
Police and fire stations P - P P -
Rail Transit Station - - - - -
Utilities
Public Utilities, distribution and support facilities P P P P -
Other Uses
Wireless telecommunications facilities C - - - C
Other uses which are determined by the planning
commission to be similar in nature to a use listed in this
section;
- - C - -
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-17 3.0 | Project Description
Open
Space Park Commercial Residential
(R 4-20)
Drainage
Facilities
Temporary Uses
Food trucks (recurrent) – 1 year permit maximum C
Mobile food services including food trucks (special event)
- Special Event Permit - - SE - -
Temporary uses which are determined by the Director
not to have significant long-term impact on the
environment. (Uses such as parking lot sales, Christmas
tree sales, seasonal sales, rummage sales, and others
with review through the land use approval or
administrative site and architectural approval process in
accordance with Chapter 18.63, Site and Architectural
Review.)
P P - -
Temporary construction offices (as approved by Director) P P P P -
Outdoor displays/uses may take place in front of
business on-site, which have been approved with a
conditional use permit. Temporary special event permits
will be required for display of associated balloons,
banners and special event signs.
C - C - -
Notes:
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit
T = Temporary Use Permit
SE= Special Event Permit
Prohibited Uses
Table 3-7, Prohibited Uses establishes a list of land uses, activities and facilities throughout the Project
site that are not allowed. All prohibited uses are prohibited in every land use designation.
Table 3-7: Prohibited Uses
Prohibited Uses in the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Area
Adult-oriented retail/exotic dance clubs
Check cashing services
Marijuana sales and cultivation
Massage parlors and/or massage related uses
Motels (temporary lodging with exterior doors and halls)
Pallet yards
Pawn Shops
Recycling collection services
Tattoo and piercing parlors
Thrift stores
Tire storage (outdoor)
Uses that include the storage of hazardous and/or flammable materials
Unlisted uses as defined by GTMC Section 18.79 “Unlisted Uses”
Discretionary Actions and Approvals
The following approvals and permits are required from the City to implement the Project:
• Certify the EIR with the determination that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA (SCH No. 2021020110).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 3-18 3.0 | Project Description
• Adopt the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (00-17).
• Introduce and subsequently adopt an Ordinance for a General Plan Amendment (17-01) to change
existing General Plan land use designation from Mixed Use to GSP. The land use designations
within the GSP Zone would include Residential 4 – 20 dwelling units per acre (R 4-20), General
Commercial (GC), Park, Open Space, Drainage Facilities, Utilities, and Roads. In addition, the
Project area would include Utility/ R 4-20, Utility/GC, and Open Space Overlays.
• Introduce and subsequently adopt an Ordinance for a Zone Change (17-02) to change the existing
zones from CM – Commercial Manufacturing, M2 – Industrial, and MR – Restricted Manufacturing
to Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (GSP).
• Approve the Tentative Tract Map (18-01) for is for conveyance purposes and to establish legal
parcels for the PAs 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 22 within the proposed Specific Plan, dedicate
right of way for public roadway construction, and establish easements for public utilities and other
facilities. Subsequent maps will be required for any future development on all other PAs within
the Specific Plan to occur.
• Adopt a Development Agreement.
Approvals and permits that may be required by other agencies include:
• A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ensure that construction site drainage velocities are equal to
or less than the pre-construction conditions and downstream water quality is not worsened.
• Approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
• Approval of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA).
• Issuance of a Water Will Serve Letter and approval of water improvement plan by the RHWC.
• Issuance of a Sewer Will Serve Letter and approval of sewer improvement plan by the City of
Colton.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement.
• Approval of fugitive dust control plan by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
• Approval of an encroachment permit from the County of Riverside for roadway and traffic signal
improvements at the intersection of Main Street and Taylor Street.
• Approval of a construction permit from the SBCFCD for storm drain connections to the existing
SBCFCD channel.
• Approval of an encroachment permit from Caltrans for storm drain connections/improvements
within Caltrans right-of-way.
• Approval of Consent Agreements and right-of-way and drainage easements from Southern
California Edison (SCE).
Exhibit 3-1: Regional Vicinity Map
Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
City of Grand Terrace
Source: Google Maps
Source: ESRI, 2022
Exhibit 3-2: Local Vicinity Map
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Streets
Railroad
City Boundary
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
Hillside Low Density Residential
Office Commercial
General Commercial
Industrial
Floodplain Industrial
Public
Hillside Open Space
Mixed Use
.
General Plan Land Use Map
R3-24 Overlay
VAN BUREN
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
RO
TA
Y
L
O
R
RENE
TANAGER
TE
R
R
A
C
E
RO
Y
A
L
FRE
M
O
GA
R
D
E
N
COMMERCE
ROSA
LINDA
A
MARIA
SA
N
D
B
U
R
G
EMERAL
ST
O
N
E
W
O
O
D
LMAR
SHIRLEY
DI
C
K
E
N
S
TH
O
M
A
S
DE SO
CARDINAL
DE BERRY
CAR
KEN
MAVIS
SA
N
D
B
U
R
G
PA
S
C
A
L
FLAMINGO
I 21
5
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
DE BERRY
TH
O
M
A
S
LARK
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
RAVEN
DE BERRY
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
PA
S
C
A
L
V
PA
S
C
A
L
DA
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
The Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan
Boundary
Source: Grand Terrace General Plan (2017). Land Use Map
Exhibit 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Exhibit 3-4: Existing Zoning Designations City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
DI
C
K
E
N
S
C
T
AT
&
S
F
R
R
MAIN ST
CA
FL
PICO STREET
RO
Y
A
L
A
V
E
.
SP
R
R
MIC
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
DE BERRY STREET
CO
M
M
E
R
C
E
W
A
Y
(
P
R
O
P
)
TA
Y
L
O
R
S
T
VAN BUREN STREET
TA
Y
L
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
RO
Y
A
L
A
V
E
TANAGER STREET
RO
S
E
D
A
L
E
A
V
SA
N
B
U
R
G
W
A
Y
BARTON RD
COMMER
C
E
W
A
Y
GA
R
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
SA
N
B
U
R
G
W
A
Y
AT
&
S
F
R
R
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
AT
&
S
F
R
R
MAIN ST MAIN STREET
SP
R
R
BARTON RD
VAN BUREN STREET
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
COM
M
E
R
C
E
W
A
Y
(
P
R
O
P
)
.
The Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan
Boundary
Legend
RH-Hillside Residential
R1-10-Low Density Single Family
R1-20-V. Low Density Single Family
R1-7.2-Single Family
R2-Low Med. Density Residential
R3-Medium Density Residential
R3-High Density Residential
R3-S(Multiple Family Senior Citizen)
R3-24-High Density Residential
BRSP-General Commercial
BRSP-Village Commercial
BRSP-Office Professional
AP-Administrative Professional C2-
General Commercial
CM-Commercial Manufacturing MR-
Restricted Manufacturing
M2-Industrial
PUB-Public Facilities
FP-Floodplain Overlay District AG-
Agricultural Overlay District
R3-24-High Density Residential
Overlay
Source: City of Grand Terrace. (2017). Zoning Map
VAN BUREN
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
RO
TA
Y
L
O
R
RENE
TANAGER
TE
R
R
A
C
E
RO
Y
A
L
FRE
M
O
GA
R
D
E
N
COMMERCE
ROSA
LINDA
A
MARIA
SA
N
D
B
U
R
G
EMERAL
ST
O
N
E
W
O
O
D
LMAR
SHIRLEY
DI
C
KE
N
S
TH
O
M
A
S
DE SO
CARDINAL
DE BERRY
CAR
KEN
MAVIS
SA
N
D
B
U
R
G
PA
S
C
A
L
FLAMINGO
I 21
5
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
DE BERRY
TH
O
M
A
S
LARK
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
RAVEN
DE BERRY
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
PA
S
C
A
L
V
PA
S
C
A
L
DA
VI
V
I
E
N
D
A
Streets
Railroad
City Boundary
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
Hillside Low Density Residential
Office Commercial
General Commercial
Industrial
Floodplain Industrial
Public
Hillside Open Space
Mixed Use
.
General Plan Land Use Map
R3-24 Overlay
The Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan Boundary
Source: Grand Terrace General Plan (2017). Land Use Map
Exhibit 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Proposed Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan (GSP)
Land Use Designation
The Gateway at
Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (GSP)
DI
C
K
E
N
S
C
T
AT
&
S
F
R
R
MAIN ST
CA
FL
PICO STREET
RO
Y
A
L
A
V
E
.
SP
R
R
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
DE BERRY STREET
CO
M
M
E
R
C
E
W
A
Y
(
P
R
O
P
)
TA
Y
L
O
R
S
T
VAN BUREN STREET
TA
Y
L
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
RO
Y
A
L
A
V
E
TANAGER STREET
RO
S
E
D
A
L
E
A
V
SA
N
B
U
R
G
W
A
Y
BARTON RD
COMMER
C
E
W
A
Y
GA
R
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
SA
N
B
U
R
G
W
A
Y
AT
&
S
F
R
R
MIC
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
AT
&
S
F
R
R
MAIN ST MAIN STREET
SP
R
R
BARTON RD
VAN BUREN STREET
MIC
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
MIC
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
COM
M
E
R
C
E
W
A
Y
(
P
R
O
P
)
.
Legend
RH-Hillside Residential
R1-10-Low Density Single Family
R1-20-V. Low Density Single Family
R1-7.2-Single Family
R2-Low Med. Density Residential
R3-Medium Density Residential
R3-High Density Residential
R3-S(Multiple Family Senior Citizen)
R3-24-High Density Residential
BRSP-General Commercial
BRSP-Village Commercial
BRSP-Office Professional
AP-Administrative Professional C2-
General Commercial
CM-Commercial Manufacturing MR-
Restricted Manufacturing
M2-Industrial
PUB-Public Facilities
FP-Floodplain Overlay District AG-
Agricultural Overlay District
R3-24-High Density Residential
Overlay
Proposed Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (GSP) Zoning
Designation
Source: City of Grand Terrace. (2017). Zoning Map
The Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan Boundary
Exhibit 3-6: Proposed Zoning Designation
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
The Gateway at
Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (GSP)
Exhibit 3-7: Project Planning Areas
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Source: The Gateway at Grand Terrace. (2023). Figure 3.1-2
19
6
11
1
8 9
12
5
18
2
22
4
20
17
7
13 21
10
3
LAN BOUNDARY
OMMERCIAL (GC)
AL 4-20 DU/AC (R 4-20)
FACILITIES
E
ROADS
OADS
4-20
C
E
0 400 800200
Feet
COMMERCE WAY
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
DE BERRY STREET
VAN BUREN STREET
PICO STREET
TA
Y
L
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
I-21
5
I-21
5
RIV
E
R
S
I
D
E
C
A
N
A
L
14 15 16
LEGEND
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC)
RESIDENTIAL 4-20 DU/AC (R 4-20)
PARK
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
OPEN SPACE
UTILITIES
PROPOSED ROADS
EXISTING ROADS
OVERLAYS
UTILITY / R 4-20
UTILITY / GC
OPEN SPACE
Source: The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (2022).
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
A
v
e
DeBerry St
Legend
Phase I
Phase II
*Please note this exhibit is
conceptual in nature and
subject to change based on
market conditions, etc.
Exhibit 3-8: Construction Phasing Plan
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Specific Plan
Boundary
Source: The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan. (2022). Figure 3.4-1
Exhibit 3-9: Existing Sewer Plan
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Main St
Pico St
Tanager St
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
A
v
e
DeBerry St
Legend
Existing Sewer Lines
Specific Plan Boundary
EX 8" SS
EX
1
0
"
S
S
EX 8" SS
EX
1
0
"
S
S
EX 12" SS
EX
1
8
"
S
S
EX 1
2
"
S
S
Source: The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan. (2022). Figure 3.5-1
Exhibit 3-10: Conceptual Water Plan
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Main St
Pico St
Tanager St
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
A
v
e
DeBerry St
Legend
Existing RPU Transmission Line
Proposed Phase I Domestic
Water Lines
Existing Domestic Water Lines
Specific Plan Boundary
EX 6"
EX
6
"
EX
6
"
EX 12"
EX 12"
EX 12"
EX
1
2
"
EX 12"
EX 12"
PR
O
P
1
2
"
PR
O
P
1
2
"
PROP 12"
PR
O
P
1
2
"
EX
4
8
"
EX 48"
EX
4
8
"
Proposed Phase II Domestic
Water Lines
Source: The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan. (2023). Figure 3.3-1
Exhibit 3-11: Conceptual Storm Drain Plan
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
17
20
2
1213
7
5
4
3
10
19
6
11
8 9
1
22
21
18
LEGEND
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
PLANNING AREAS
CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
PHASE I STORM DRAIN - BY LEWIS PA 11 & 12 DEVELOPMENT
PHASE II STORM DRAIN - BY LEWIS PA 19 & 20 DEVELOPMENT
PHASE III STORM DRAIN - BY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
PHASE III STORM DRAIN - BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
DETENTION BASIN
I-21
5
I-21
5
COMMERCE WAY
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
DE BERRY STREET
VAN BUREN STREET
PICO STREET
TA
Y
L
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
RIV
E
R
S
I
D
E
C
A
N
A
L
14 15 16
PROP 48" SD
TANAGER STREET
PR
O
P
2
4
"
S
D
PROP 54" SD
PROP 60" SD PROP 48" SD
PRO
P
4
8
"
S
D
PRO
P
3
6
"
S
D
PROP 36" SD
Main St
Pico St
Tanager St
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
A
v
e
DeBerry St
Legend
Phase I Proposed Secondary
Highway
Existing Street - Public
Existing Street - Partial
Improvements
Specific Plan Boundary
New Collector Roadway
Phase II Proposed Secondary
Highway
Exhibit 3-12: Conceptual Circulation Plan
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Source: The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan. (2022). Figure 3.2.3
Existing OmniTrans
Route 305
Existing RTA Route 14
Michigan Ave/Center St
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4-1 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Organized by environmental resource category, this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines The
Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project)’s impact on the existing environmental conditions,
analyzes the Project's effects and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigation measures to
reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project. Section 5.0,
Other CEQA Considerations, discusses significant and irreversible environmental changes and growth
inducing impacts and Section 7.0 , Effects Not Found to Be Significant, discusses environmental resource
categories not discussed in detail.
4.0.1 SECTION CONTENT AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
This section contains separate subsections for each environmental resource categories that was
determined through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping process with a Public Scoping Meeting held
on February 22, 2021. Sixteen public and agency comments were received during the NOP public review
period which extended from February 8, 2021, to March 9, 2021. Environmental resource categories
evaluated, and their corresponding EIR sections are:
• Section 4.1: Aesthetics
• Section 4.2: Air Quality
• Section 4.3: Biological Resources
• Section 4.4: Cultural Resources
• Section 4.5: Energy
• Section 4.6: Geology and Soils
• Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
• Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning
• Section 4.11: Noise
• Section 4.12: Population and Housing
• Section 4.13: Public Services
• Section 4.14: Recreation
• Section 4.15: Transportation
• Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
• Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems
• Section 4.18: Wildfire
Environmental resource categories that are not discussed in detail in this EIR because the Project would
not impact these resources are Agricultural and Forestry Resources, and Mineral Resources (refer to
Section 7.0, Effects Not Found to Be Significant).
Each potentially significant environmental resource category is addressed in a separate EIR Section
(4.1 through 4.18) and is organized into the following Subsections:
• “Introduction” establishes the baseline conditions on the Project’s impacts to each specific
environmental resource category.
• “Environmental Setting” provides an overview of the existing physical environmental conditions
in the study area that could be affected by implementation of the Project (i.e., the “affected
environment”).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4-2 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
• “Regulatory Setting” identifies the plans, policies, laws, and regulations that are relevant to each
resource area and describes permits and other approvals necessary to implement the Project. The
EIR addresses possible conflicts between the Project and the requirements of Federal, State,
regional, or local agencies, including consistency with adopted land use plans, policies, or other
regulations for the area. Therefore, this subsection summarizes or lists the potentially relevant
regulations, as well as policies and objectives such as from the City of Grand Terrace General Plan
and Municipal Code.
• “Significance Criteria Under CEQA” provides the criteria used in this document to define the level
at which an impact would be considered significant in accordance with CEQA . Significance criteria
used in this EIR are based on the checklist presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines,
factual or scientific information and data, and regulatory standards of Federal, State, and local
agencies.
• “Project Impacts and Mitigation” provides impact thresholds pursuant to Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines followed by an analysis of the specific environmental resource categories that
the Project may impact. Following the analysis, a conclusion is presented regarding the level of
significance of each impact. Mitigation Measures” are recommended as feasible to avoid,
minimize, offset, or otherwise compensate for significant and potentially significant impacts of
the Project. Each mitigation measure is identified by resource area, numerically, and sequentially.
For example, mitigation measures in Section 4.2, Air Quality, are numbered AQ-1, AQ 2, AQ-3 and
so on. Pursuant to CEQA, the EIR provides a brief discussion of potentially significant impacts
resulting from a given mitigation measure, if applicable.
• “Significant Unavoidable Impacts” identifies environmental impacts that may remain significant
even with implementation of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures.
• “Cumulative Impacts” identifies potential environmental impacts of past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, in combination with the Project; and
• “References” that were used for content and analysis purposes are listed in this Subsection.
The level of impact of the Project is determined by comparing estimated effects with baseline conditions,
in light of the thresholds of significance identified in the EIR. Under CEQA, the existing environmental
setting normally represents baseline conditions against which impacts are compared to determine
significance. The environmental baseline is typically set as the date of NOP distribution, unless more
recent data is determined appropriate for utilization in the EIR. Project component -specific analyses are
conducted to evaluate each potential impact on the existing environment. In cases where properties
within the Project were not surveyed due to ownership issues and lack of accessibility, the Project’s
impacts to those properties are discussed at a programmatic level. The analyses also specify why impacts
are found to be significant, potentially significant, or less than significant, or why there is no environmental
impact.
14 CCR §15382 and Public Resources Code (PRC) §21068 defines a significant effect on the environment
as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the
area affected by the Project. A potentially significant effect is one that, if it were to occur, would be
considered a significant impact; however, the occurrence of the impact is uncertain. PRC §21100(b)(3)
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4-3 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
states that mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including,
but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy,
shall be included in the EIR. Subsection (d) of PRC §21100 adds that for the purposes of this section
(PRC §21100), any significant effect on the environment shall be limited to substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions which exist within the area as defined in PRC §21060.5.
Therefore, a “potentially significant” effect and “significant” effect are treated the same under CEQA in
terms of procedural requirements and the need to identify feasible mitigation. 14 CCR §15364 and PRC
§21061.1 states that “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
A mitigation measure is determined to be feasible if it would avoid or substantially lessen a significant
effect on a resource (PRC §21082.3). A “less than significant” impact is one that would not result in a
substantial adverse change in the physical environment (applicable significance thresholds would not be
exceeded in consideration of existing laws, ordinances, standards, or regulations).
Both direct and indirect effects of the Project are evaluated for each environmental reso urce category
(14 CCR §15126.2 and PRC §21065.3). Direct effects are those that are caused by the action and occur at
the same time and place. Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable consequences that may occur at a
later time or at a distance that is removed from the Project area, such as growth-inducing effects and
other effects related to changes in land use patterns, population density, or growth rate, and related
effects on the physical environment.
Cumulative impacts are discussed below and at the end of each individual environmental resource
category.
There are no mitigation measures proposed when there is no impact, or the impact is determined to be
“less than significant” prior to mitigation (14 CCR §15126.4(a)(3)). Where sufficient feasible mitigation is
not available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the impacts are identified as remaining
“significant and unavoidable.”
4.0.2 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
CEQA Requirements
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the
combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts”
(14 CCR §15130(a)(1)). According to CEQA, an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts if the incremental
effect of a project, combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable”
(14 CCR §15130(a)). Together, these projects compose the cumulative scenario which forms the basis of
the cumulative impact analysis.
Cumulative impacts analysis should highlight past actions that are closely related either in time or location
to the project being considered, catalogue past projects, and discuss how they have harmed the
environment and discuss past actions even if they were undertaken by another agency or another person.
Both the severity of impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence are to be reflected in the discussion,
“but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4-4 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
Project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness and should
focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes
of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact” (14 CCR §15130(b)).
For purposes of this EIR, the proposed Project would cause a cumulatively considerable and therefore
significant cumulative impact if:
• The cumulative effects of other past, current, and probable future projects without the Projec t
are not significant and the Project’s incremental impact is substantial enough, when added to the
cumulative effects, to result in a significant impact.
• The cumulative effects of other past, current, and probable future projects without the Project
are already significant and the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
the already significant effect. The standards used herein to determine whether the contribution
is cumulatively considerable include the existing baseline environmental conditions, and whether
the Project would cause a substantial increase in impacts, or otherwise exceed an established
threshold of significance.
The approach and geographic scope of the cumulative impact evaluation vary depending on the
environmental topic area being analyzed. Each section of the DEIR introduces a brief summary of the
approach relevant to that environmental resource category. For most environmental resource categories,
the list approach is used. The list of potentially relevant projects as well as methodology and relevant
planning documents are discussed in each impact section’s discussion of “Cumulative Impacts.”
The cumulative analysis must be in sufficient detail to be useful to the decision maker in deciding whether,
or how, to alter the Project to lessen cumulative impacts. Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List provides a
list of projects that were used in assessing the potential for cumulative impacts from the proposed Project.
Most of the projects included in the cumulative analysis are undergoing, or will be required to undergo,
their own independent environmental review under CEQA. Significant adverse impacts of the cumulative
projects would be required to be reduced, avoided, or minimized through the application and
implementation of mitigation measures. The net effect of these mitigation measures is assumed to be a
general lessening of contribution to cumulative impacts. This discussion, found at the end of each impact
section, provides an analysis of overall cumulative effects of the Project taken together with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
Geographic Scope
In respect to this EIR analysis, cumulative effects can generally be geographically classified as localized,
site-specific resource issues, regional, watershed level resource issues and global resource issues. At the
localized, site-specific resource scale, the Project’s cumulative impacts have been analyzed for all
18 resource topics.
Each of the cumulative impact categories is analyzed and regulated by different agencies and associated
regulatory or policy documents, in order to best protect the resource in question. The analysis of
cumulative effects considers a number of variables, including geographic (spatial) limits, time (temporal)
limits, and the characteristics of the resource being evaluated. The geographic scope of each analysis is
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4-5 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
based on the topography surrounding the Project site and the natural boundaries of the resource affected,
rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The geographic scope of cumulative effects will often extend
beyond the scope of the direct effects, but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects of th e
Project. The EIR addresses the Project’s potentially significant impacts, recommends Project -specific
mitigation measures, and then also identifies existing or recommended measures to addres s potential
cumulative impacts.
Cumulative Approach
There are two commonly used approaches, or methodologies, for establishing the cumulative impact
setting or scenario. One approach is to use a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, …”
(14 CCR §15130(b)(1)(A) and PCR §21083(b)(2)). The other is to use a “summary of projections contained
in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates
conditions contributing to the cumulative effect” (14 CCR §15130(b)(1)(B) and PCR §21100(e)). This EIR
uses the list-based approach to provide a broad understanding and context for analyzing the cumulative
effects of a project.
From a broad perspective, the Project is located in the southwest portion of the City, east of I-215 within
San Bernardino County (County). The Project would establish necessary plans, development standards,
regulations, infrastructure requirements, design guidelines and implementation programs for the
development of commercial, residential, public utilities, and public park and open space uses, including
associated on- and off-site infrastructure improvements, on 112 gross acres of land.
Specific cumulative projects were developed in consultation with City staff and incorporated into the
Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (refer to Section 4.15, Transportation, and Appendix J1,
Traffic Impact Analysis). Appendix B: Cumulative Projects of Appendix J1 , shows the cumulative projects
used in the traffic study from the City of Riverside, City of Rialto, City of Grand Terrace, City of Jurupa
Valley, City of Colton, and County of Riverside which were then factored into the cumulative analysis for
related quantitative environmental issues such as air quality and noise.
Taken together, the projects identified below and included in the TIA cumulative analysis, together with
previously certified local planning program EIR, provide context as to the nature of potential cumulative
projects. The intent of the cumulative impact discussions is to provide sufficient information to inform
decision-makers and the public, rather than “tiering” off of prior CEQA documents for cumulative impacts.
Types of Projects Considered
Impacts associated with implementation of the Project would be near - and long-term as the proposed
Project would include future construction and operational activities associated with the Project buildout.
The following projects represent past, present and probable future projects that could result in cumulative
impacts when combined with the Project. Related projects and other possible development in the Project
area determined as having the potential to interact with the proposed Project to the extent that a
significant cumulative effect may occur are outlined in Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4-6 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects List
Project/Case Number ITE Land Use Jurisdiction
P14-1033 P14-1034 (150) - Warehousing City of Riverside
P17-0506 P17-0507 (710) - General Office Building
(150) - Warehousing City of Riverside
P18-0020 P18-0021 P18-0022 P18-0023 (240) - Mobile Home Park City of Riverside
P18-0595 (110) - General Light Industrial City of Riverside
P19-0325 (710) - General Office Building
(151) - Mini-Warehouse City of Riverside
P20-0482 P20-0483 (150) - Warehousing City of Riverside
PR-2021-000932 (150) - Warehousing City of Riverside
PR-2021-000708 (150) - Warehousing City of Riverside
PR-2021-001122 (150) - Junior/Community College City of Riverside
PR-2022-001255 (937) - Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-
Through Window City of Riverside
Angelus Block (140) -Manufacturing
(710) - General Office Building City of Rialto
Conditional Use 21-01, Site and Architectural
20‐08, Variance 20‐01, Sign Program 20‐05 (822) - Strip Retail Plaza City of Grand Terrace
Conditional Use Permit 19-01 , Site and
Architectural 19‐03, and Environmental 19‐05 (130) - Industrial Park City of Grand Terrace
Tentative Tract map 21-01, Site and
Architectural Review 21‐005, and
Environmental 21‐03
(210) - Single-Family Detached Housing City of Grand Terrace
Site and Architectural Review 19‐05,
Conditional Use Permit 19‐04, Minor
Deviation 19‐01, and
(130) - Industrial Park
City of Grand Terrace
General Plan Amendment 20‐02, Specific Plan
Amendment 20‐02, Conditional Use Permit
20‐01, Site and Architectural Review 20‐03
and Environmental 20‐03
(220) - Multifamily Housing - Low Rise
(310) – Hotel
(822) - Strip Retail Plaza
City of Grand Terrace
General Plan 20‐01, Zoning Code Amendment
20‐01, Specific Plan 20‐01, Tentative Tract
Map, Site
(210) - Single-Family Detached Housing
City of Grand Terrace
Site and Architectural Review 18‐09, Variance
18‐001, and Environmental 18‐08 (220) - Multifamily Housing - Low Rise City of Grand Terrace
Conditional Use Permit 17‐08, Site and
Architectural 15‐04 and Environmental 15‐07 (710) - General Office Building City of Grand Terrace
PP10269R1 (710) - General Office Building County of Riverside
PP25125 (932) - High-Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant
County of Riverside
CUP03763 (945) - Convenience Store/Gas Station County of Riverside
PP23256 (150) – Warehousing
(710) - General Office Building
County of Riverside
TR24410 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR28957 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
PPT210011 (220) - Multifamily Housing - Low Rise County of Riverside
PP24778 (220) - Multifamily Housing - Low Rise County of Riverside
PUP00884 (560) - Church County of Riverside
TR29170 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR29168 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR32291 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4-7 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
Project/Case Number ITE Land Use Jurisdiction
TR30909
(522) - Middle School/Junior High School
(520) - Elementary School
(210) - Single-Family Detached Housing
County of Riverside
TR30908 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR34592 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR29741 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR29597 (520) - Elementary School
(210) - Single-Family Detached Housing
County of Riverside
TR29598 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR29599R1 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR29740M1 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR29600 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR29740 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
TR33410 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing County of Riverside
SP00208
(210) - Single-Family Detached Housing
(522) - Middle School/Junior High School
(820) Shopping Center
County of Riverside
CUP210007 (882) - Marijuana Dispensary County of Riverside
CUP210012 (190) Marijuana Cultivation and Processing
Facility
County of Riverside
CUP210001 (882) - Marijuana Dispensary County of Riverside
CUP190007 (882) - Marijuana Dispensary County of Riverside
CUP200007 (190) Marijuana Cultivation and Processing
Facility
County of Riverside
PPT200017 (220) - Multifamily Housing - Low Rise County of Riverside
PPT200016 (945) - Convenience Store/Gas Station County of Riverside
Agua Mansa Road Development (110) - General Light Industrial City of Jurupa Valley
DAP‐001‐668 (130) - Industrial Park City of Colton
DAP‐001‐706 (944) - Gasoline/Service Station City of Colton
DAP‐001‐654 (942) - Automobile Care Center City of Colton
DAP‐001‐667 (310) - Hotel City of Colton
DAP‐001‐602 (130) - Industrial Park City of Colton
DAP‐001‐378 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing City of Colton
DAP‐001‐548 & 535 (110) - General Light Industrial City of Colton
DAP‐001‐646 (220) - Multifamily Housing - Low Rise City of Colton
DAP‐001‐743 (150) - Warehousing City of Colton
DAP‐001‐740 (942) - Automobile Care Center City of Colton
DAP‐001‐730 (254) - Assisted Living City of Colton
DAP‐001‐725 (253) - Congregate Care Facility City of Colton
DAP‐001‐713 (650) - Free-Standing Emergency Room City of Colton
DAP‐001‐707 (842) - Recreational Vehicle Sales City of Colton
DAP‐001‐756 (150) - Warehousing City of Colton
DAP‐001‐754 (942) - Automobile Care Center City of Colton
DAP‐001‐748 (210) - Single-Family Detached Housing
(215) - Single-Family Attached Housing
City of Colton
DAP‐001‐722 (220) - Multifamily Housing - Low Rise City of Colton
DAP‐001‐745 (890) - Furniture Store City of Colton
DAP‐001‐623 (150) - Warehousing City of Colton
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-1 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to
aesthetics and other visual resources located in the vicinity of The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
(Project), within the City of Grand Terrace (City), and identify how Project implementation could result in
potential environmental impacts. This section also recommends mitigation measures, as necessary, to
avoid or reduce the significance of impacts. Aesthetic and other visual resources include both natural and
built-up environments. Impacts could result from substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista, substantial
damage to scenic resources (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic
highway, and/or substantial degradation of the site and/or its surroundings’ visual character, and/or from
the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associa ted on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
The affected environment discussion is based largely on the following documentation:
• City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP)
• City of Grand Terrace General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
• City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC)
• The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (proposed Specific Plan)
Visual Resource Concepts
The visual sensitivity of a landscape can be affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen and the
type of viewshed. There are two types of viewsheds – static and dynamic. Static viewsheds can be seen
from a single viewpoint and are frequently spotty with foreground and background views visible and the
middle-ground obscured by landform, vegetation, or structures. However, most landscapes contain some
vegetation or structures that obscure views and restrict the potential viewshed. Dynamic viewsheds are
presented as a continuously unfolding series of viewsheds, such as from a commuter traveling on a
highway. The faster a person moves the smaller the area on which they are able to focus their attention.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-2 4.1 | Aesthetics
At 25 miles per hour (mph), a driver can see a view approximately 100 degrees wide; at 45 mph, the view
drops to 65 degrees; and at 65 mph, it drops to a narrow 40 degrees, substantially reducing what is seen.
Proximity affects visual sensitivity as well. The further away a scene or object is from a viewer, the less
exposure that viewer has. Conversely, the closer the viewer is to a scene or object, the more exposure the
viewer has. The closer a resource is to the viewer, the more dominant it is and the greater its importance
to the viewer. Distance zones can be used to determine the importance of views. There are three different
distance zones; the foreground – views are 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the viewer; middle ground – views extend
from the foreground zone to 3 to 5 miles from the viewer; and background – views extend from the middle
ground zone to the limit of visibility. Additionally, fewer viewers means less exposure, and many viewers
means more exposure. Furthermore, the duration viewers are exposed to the scene or object have an
effect on viewer sensitivity as well. The more narrow the view and faster one travels, the shorter the
duration and lessen the impact.1
4.1.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The total Project area encompasses approximately 112 acres. The Project site’s geography is relatively flat
and consists of elevations ranging from approximately 975 feet on the northeastern end of the site to
approximately 945 feet on the southwestern corner. The Project site consists predominately of vacant
land, as well as storage commercial uses, and six non-conforming residences. A concrete-lined storm
channel carries runoff from a storm drain at the western end of De Berry Street, southwest beneath the
Gage Canal and into the westward-flowing drainage way that crosses the Project area from the western
end of Van Buren Street. This drainageway drains beneath Interstate 215 (I-215) in a concrete-lined
channel, continues to the southwest beneath La Cadena Avenue, and flows into a debris basin
approximately 0.8 mile off-site.
There is a decommissioned Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) line that traver ses the Project area in a
north/south direction that has been acquired by the City and will be used as part of the extension of
Commerce Way from its existing terminus point south to the existing Taylor Street, and subsequent
widening of the existing Taylor Street portion all the way south to its connection at Main Street. There are
three wells owned by the City of Riverside located in the Project area that would remain but may be
modified or relocated.
The existing non-lighted ball field northwest of Veterans Freedom Park is proposed to be relocated
northwest of the Grand Terrace High School sports fields and constructed as a new lighted baseball field
and a public playground. An existing Southern California Edison (SCE) substation located adjacent to the
Project’s southern boundary would remain in addition to the SCE power lines that cross the Project north
of the substation. Riverside Canal Power Company owns the property where the decommissioned power
station was located. Two billboard signs adjacent to I-215 would remain. There is a total of five occupied
and one vacant residential structure with associated accessory structures on De Berry Street and Van
Buren Street.
1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. 2015. Retrieved from:
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/other_topics/VIA_Guidelines_for_Highway_Projects.aspx . (accessed February 2023)
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-3 4.1 | Aesthetics
Scenic Views
The City is located between two hillsides, Blue Mountain (elevation approximately 2,495 feet) to the east
and the La Loma Hills (elevation approximately 1,400 feet) to the west, both offering scenic views that
attract its residents.2 Blue Mountain is a scenic resource which has become the sym bol of the City,
providing it with a scenic backdrop. Scenic views are also offered to the City by the San Gabriel and the
San Bernardino Mountains to the north.
Scenic Highways
Scenic highways and routes are a unique component of the circulation system as they traverse areas of
unusual scenic or aesthetic value. No highways within the City are eligible or officially designated state or
county scenic highways.3 Therefore, the provisions of the California Scenic Highway Program (CSHP) do
not apply.
Light and Glare
Light and glare in the Project area are typical of that found in urban environments. Sources of light and
glare adjacent to the Project site include commercial, industrial, and residential land uses. Stationary
sources of light and glare in the Project area is generated from building interiors and exterior sources
(i.e., building illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting). The Project area
is also influenced by light and glare from vehicle headlights, streetlights, and ot her sources that are
present throughout the City.
4.1.3 REGULATORY SETTING
State
California Department of Transportation
The CSHP was created in 1963 to preserve and protect highway corridors in areas of outstanding natural
beauty from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of the adjacent lands. The California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designates highways based on how much of the landscape can
be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which views are compromised
by development.
Caltrans manages the CSHP, which is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from
changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State laws governing State
Scenic Highways are found in Streets and Highways Code §§260 to 263. A highway may be designated as
scenic based on certain criteria, including how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers,
the landscape’s scenic quality, and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler’s enjoyment
of the view. The CSHP’s Scenic Highway System List identifies scenic highways that are either eligible for
2 City of Grand Terrace. History. (2022). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/visitors/history (accessed November 4, 2022).
3 Caltrans. (2018). State Scenic Highway Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (accessed November 4, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-4 4.1 | Aesthetics
designation or have already been designated as such. Section 261 requires local government agencies to
take the following actions to protect the scenic appearance of a scenic corridor:
• Regulate land use and density of development
• Provide detailed land and site planning
• Prohibit off-site outdoor advertising and control on-site outdoor advertising
• Pay careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping
• Scrutinize the design and appearance of structures and equipment
Official designation requires a local jurisdiction to enact a scenic corridor protection program that protects
and enhances scenic resources.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The purpose of the Grand Terrace GP Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element is to
define and establish a system which ensures a balance between economic growth and environmental
protection for the City. These elements combined provide conservation, management policies, and action
programs that will preserve the highest priority resources, while balancing the land needs of an ever -
expanding population. The element’s goals and policies applicable to the Project are listed below.
Land Use Element
This Element provides overall guidance to all properties within the City through the distribution of land
uses, by type, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and open space. The Land Use
Element identifies each land use designation's location and intensity, and its interrelationship with other
land uses. The Land Use Element translates the City's long -range vision for development in the City and
provides a Land Use Plan, goals, policies, and implementation programs to achieve that vision.
Goal 2.1: Provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment
and housing opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community.
Policy 2.1.5 Enhancement of the City’s image shall be undertaken by the establishment of City
entrances and development of unified streetscapes.
Policy 2.1.6 Mixed use development which can demonstrate superior use of land, more efficient
utilization of public facilities, and more effective conservation of natural resources
shall be strongly encouraged by the City of Grand Terrace.
Goal 2.5: Provide for the preservation of natural resources and open space.
Policy 2.5.2 Areas designated as Open Space shall be preserved to provide long term recreation
opportunities as well as the preservation of scenic and environmental resources and
the protection of public health and safety.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-5 4.1 | Aesthetics
Open Space and Conservation Element
This Element focuses on attributes that contribute to the preservation of natural resources, such as the
protection of sensitive habitat, the management of production resources, such as mineral deposits,
agriculture, or groundwater recharge, and recreation and visual aesthetics. Concurrently, open space may
be used to manage public safety hazards such as seismic activity, high fire hazards, and flood hazards. and
quality of life in the communities and neighborhoods where people live. The following goal and policies
are applicable to aesthetics.
Goal 4.2: Natural resources in the City of Grand Terrace shall be protected and preserved by
utilizing open space designations or related regulations.
Policy 4.2.2 The City shall establish land use regulations to preserve and protect any identified
natural resources.
Policy 4.2.3 The City shall cooperate with the County of San Bernardino and other participating
cities in identifying regional natural resource areas and developing appropriate
mitigation measures to protect these resources.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code 4
The purpose of this Title is to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and
protect the public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare.
Title 18 §18.60.040 Design Standards, Lighting:
• Lighting shall be designed to reflect away from residential districts and public roadways.
• Light standards shall not exceed eighteen feet in height measured from the finished grade of the
parking surface.
• No lighting shall create illumination on an adjacent property which exceeds five foot-candles
(measured at ground level).
Title 18 §18.74.080 Illumination5:
• No operation, activity, sign, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on adjacent property that
exceeds three foot-candles, whether the illumination is direct or indirect light from the source, as
measured from the property line.
4.1.4 S IGNIFICANCE C RITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning aesthetics. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized
4 City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.60OR EPA_18.60.040DEST. (accessed
February, 2023)
5 Grand Terrace MC. Title 18. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.74PEST_18.74.080IL
(accessed November 4, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-6 4.1 | Aesthetics
as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
• In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned sig nificance criteria, as the basis for determining the
impact’s level of significance concerning aesthetics. This analysis considers the existing regulatory
framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoids or reduces the potentially
significant environmental impact. Where impacts remain significant despite compliance with the
regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce the Project’s
potentially significant environmental impacts.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on a site visit conducted by Kimley-Horn personnel
in March 2022, a review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs;
and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The
determination that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on
scenic resources or visual character considers the site’s aesthetic resource value and the severity of the
Project component’s visual impact (e.g., the nature and duration of the impact). For example, a Project
component resulting in a severe impact on a site with a low aesthetic resource value would result in a less
than significant impact concerning scenic or visual character. In other words, new conspicuous structures
or visual changes in areas with a low aesthetic resource value may not necessarily result in substantial
adverse effects on visual resources.
As previously discussed, the visual sensitivity can be impacted by viewing distances, number of viewers,
duration of exposure, and speed at which viewers travel. The Project site is visible to various users. The
sensitivity of those viewers changes with the length of time that the viewer would be within a Project
site’s static or dynamic viewpoints. Viewers of a Project site include nearby residents, recreational users,
travelers, and commuters.
4.1.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-7 4.1 | Aesthetics
Construction and Operations
Scenic views from the Project site includes the Blue Mountain to the east as well as views of the
San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north. As previously discussed, the City is located
between two hillsides with elevations peaking at less than 2,495 feet, Blue Mountain to the east and
La Loma Hills to the west, which both offer scenic views that attract its residents.6 Although Blue Mountain
provides terrain that offers scenic views that attract residents and visitors to the City, it is not officially
designated as a scenic vista. Furthermore, the Grand Terrace GP does not officially designate any scenic
vistas near the Project site. The Project site is predominately vacant with six non-conforming residences
and existing public facilities. The surrounding area is currently developed with varying intensities of
residential, commercial, institutional, and public park uses.
Due to the lack of officially designated scenic vistas, the Project site is not considered a visually sensitive
area. The Project site is located approximately 1.4 miles west from Blue Mountain, and although Project
buildout has the potential to obstruct dynamic views of Blue Mountain for motorists on I-215, the Project
site would not significantly alter this condition; the existing view is already partially obstructed by trees,
the hills adjacent to the east of Barton Road, a railroad bridge, concrete walls, and various other structures
along I-215. For those traveling on I-215, changes to the scenic view would be less than significant, due to
the existing partial obstruction as noted. Also those using I-215 are traveling at high speeds and as
previously discussed, those traveling at high speeds on a freeway are likely have a low visual sensitivity
for the landscape. Additionally, the Project would be located at a lower grade than I-215, and all buildings
constructed within the Project site would be designed to not exceed maximum height standards for
nonresidential and residential development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan and Grand Terrace
MC. Adherence to height standards of the Specific Plan and Grand Terrace MC would ensure Project
buildout would not substantially degrade views of scenic resources surrounding the Project site, including
Blue Mountain or the background ridgelines.
While development pursuant to the Grand Terrace GP Update may be visible to some observers, it would
not substantially degrade views of Blue Mountain or the background ridgelines. Furthermore, there are
no officially designated scenic vistas within the Project vicinity and compliance with Grand Terrace GP
Policies that protect the scenic value of the Project area would also reduce impacts related to scenic vistas
and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.1-2: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway?
Level of Significance: No Impact
6 City of Grand Terrace. History. (2022). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/visitors/history. (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-8 4.1 | Aesthetics
Construction and Operations
Scenic highways and routes are a unique component of the circulation system as they traverse areas of
unusual scenic or aesthetic value. As previously mentioned, no State Designated Scenic Highway traverses
the Project site nor is the Project in the vicinity of a State Designated Scenic Highway.7 Therefore, the
provisions of the CSHP do not apply. Scenic Route 38 (SR-38) is the nearest route eligible to be a
State Designated Scenic Highway, and is located approximately nine miles northeast of the Project site.
Due to distance and topography, the Project is not visible from the Eligible State Designated Scenic
Highway portion of SR-38.
As previously mentioned, the Project site is relatively flat and consists predominately of vacant lands.
Project development would most likely remove the existing trees and vegetation on-site and add new
vegetation as proposed in the landscaping plan. The existing trees on site are not considered a landmark
and do not consist of a group of distinctive trees accented in a setting as a focus of attention and are
therefore not considered a scenic resource.8 The Project area is not within a State Scenic Highway, and
therefore, the Project would not damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings). No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.1-3: Would the Project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Public Resources Code (PRC) §21071 defines an urbanized area as:
A. An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
1. Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
2. Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than
two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.
The current population of the City is 13,372 persons and therefore does not meet criterion A-19. However,
the City is contiguous with the City of Riverside (population 317,224) and the City of San Bernardino
7 Caltrans. (2018). State Scenic Highway Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa . (accessed November 4 2022).
8 Caltrans. Chapter 27 – Visual & Aesthetics Review. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/standard-
environmental-reference-ser/volume-1-guidance-for-compliance/ch-27-visual-aesthetics-review. (accessed February, 2023)
9 World Population Review, City of Grand Terrace. (2022). Retrieved from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us -cities/grand-terrace-ca-
population. (accessed November 4, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-9 4.1 | Aesthetics
(population 224,537), which combined, far exceeds 100,000 persons, meeting criterion A-2.10,11 This
discussion will therefore analyze whether or not the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality for a project within an urbanized area.
Construction and Operations
The Project proposes several entitlements that include a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan adoption, Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement. The City’s zoning map
currently designates the Project site as Commercial Manufacturing (CM), Restricted Manufacturing (MR),
and Industrial (M2). The Project proposes a Zone Change (ZC 17-02) to amend the existing zoning from
CM, MR, and M2 to Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (GSP). The Project also proposes a General
Plan Amendment (GPA; 17-01) to change the existing land use designation from Mixed Use (MU) to
Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (GSP) to accommodate for horizontal mixed-use development of
residential, commercial, public facilities, and public park. Project construction and operations would be in
compliance with the land use plan, policies, development standards, and design guidelines outlined in the
Specific Plan and would provide the site-specific requirements for future development within the area.
The Project would also comply with the general standards, lighting standards, and the policies represented
in the Grand Terrace GP (refer to Section 4.1.3 , Regulatory Setting above). For a consistency analysis with
general plan goals and policies, refer to Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis in Section 4.10,
Land Use and Planning. Furthermore, the City’s Zoning Code shall apply to all properties within the Project
area, including but not limited to design review, use permits, appeals, amendments, and public notice and
hearing provisions. The City’s Zoning Code12 also provides density ranges and development standards
which would contribute to consistency in visual quality and character. With application of the Grand
Terrace GP goals and policies and the City’s Zoning Code, development would not substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of the City and its surroundings.
Consistent with standard construction practices, equipment, vehicles, and materials are expected to be
staged within a designated area on the Project site during construction. Although equipment staging could
potentially be viewed from adjacent properties, this would be temporary and would cease upon
completion of construction. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with the existing visual
character and quality would be less than significant.
Additionally, the Project site includes a Southern California Edison (SCE) electrical substation and basins
in the southern portion of the site, a public storage facility and a materials stockyard in the northern
portion of the site, and the Gage Canal along the northwestern portion of the site. There is a
decommissioned Union Pacific Railroad line that traverses the Project area in a north/south direction that
has been acquired and would be used as part of the extension of Commerce Way. The existing
SCE substation would remain in addition to the SCE power lines that cross the Pro ject site north of the
10 World Population Review, City of Riverside (2022). Retrieved from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us -cities/riverside-ca-population.
(accessed November 4, 2022).
11 World Population Review, City of San Bernardino (2022). Retrieved from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-bernardino-ca-
population. (accessed November 4, 2022).
12 City of Grand Terrace Zoning Map. (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20D evelopment/Planning/zoning_map__sep_2017.pdf.
(accessed November 4, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-10 4.1 | Aesthetics
substation. All new on-site lines would be placed underground, except when they relate to the existing
electrical substation and the existing transmission lines that cross the site at various locations. Two
billboard signs adjacent to I-215 would remain. There is a total of five occupied and one vacant residential
structure with associated accessory structures on De Berry Street and Van Buren Street which would be
removed prior to Specific Plan development occurring in those areas. Although the Project would alter
the current visual character or quality of the Project site and its surroundings, the changes would not
result in degradation, nor would they impact significant resources with proper guidelines and standards
implemented.
The proposed Specific Plan provides general standards that would ensure landscaping design to be
incorporated to soften the feel of the buildings and parking lots while enhancing the visual aspect of the
Project area. Furthermore, landscape design would promote the aesthetic character value of the
community by defining, unifying, and enhancing the pedestrian-friendly areas. Commercial parking areas
would be designed to create aesthetically pleasing spaces throughout the Project area as well, and
commercial development would incorporate strong entry treatments, exceptional visitor access,
attractive landscaping, and clear graphics and signage to further enhance the aesthetic quality.
Additionally, commercial development would include plazas and courtyards to enhance the visual interest
of the Project site. Residential neighborhoods would be developed to create aesthetically pleasing
elements that would be consistent with the selected overall architectural character for the neighborhood.
Therefore, through compliance of development standards, design standards and guidelines, Grand
Terrace GP policies, Specific Plan standards, and the City’s Zoning Code, the Project would not conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in an urbanized area. Therefore, a
less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.1-4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Lighting effects are associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. Light
and glare in the Project area are typical of that found in urban environments. Sources of light and glare
adjacent to the Project Site include commercial, industrial, and residential land uses. Stationary sources
of light and glare in the Project area is generated from building interiors and exterior sources (i.e., building
illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting). The Project area is also
influenced by light and glare from vehicle headlights, streetlights, and other sources that are present
throughout the City. Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent residential areas, diminish the clear
night sky’s view and, if uncontrolled, can cause disturbances. The Project is analyzed below for its potential
to generate obtrusive light infusing spill light, glare, and sky glow. With respect to obtrusive lighting, the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-11 4.1 | Aesthetics
degree of impact would vary widely depending on the amount of light generated, light sources heat,
presence of barriers/obstructions, type/design of light source, and weather conditions.
The Project would consist of residential, commercial, public facilities, and public park land uses which
would create a new source of substantial light to the surrounding areas by converting predominately
vacant land to mixed-use development. The Project would provide a public park facility that would include
a new lighted baseball field with a public playground, pedestrian and bike trails, a detention basin, and a
mix of commercial/retail and restaurant development. Although the Project would require lighting for
parking areas, pedestrian walkways, architectural and landscape features to provide safety , security, and
ambiance, the Project would also be required to use anti-glare materials to minimize glare impacts in the
surrounding area (refer to lighting standards in Section 4.1.3, Regulatory Setting above).
Grand Terrace MC Title 18 §18.60.040 Design Standards requires lighting be designed to reflect away from
residential districts and public roadways and not exceed 18 feet in height measured from the finished
grade of the parking surface. Additionally, Grand Terrace §18.74.080 Illumination requires lighting not
create illumination on an adjacent property which exceeds five foot-candles (measured at ground level).
Additionally, no operation, activity, sign, or lighting fixture would create illumination on adjacent property
that exceeded three foot-candles, whether the illumination is direct or indirect light from the source, as
measured from the property line (refer to Section 4.1.3, Regulatory Setting). All future Project
development would be subject to Grand Terrace MC §§18.60.040, 18.74.080, and 18.80.140 which
establish lighting standards and illumination requirements that would reduce the impacts from light and
glare. Lighting for the proposed public park would be regulated by Grand Terrace MC §12.32.140 which
would limit park use to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., unless a special permit is acquired.
Additionally, the Project would comply to the lighting standards presented in the Specific Plan which
ensure exterior lighting would be located and designed to minimize direct glare out side of the specific
area of use and lighting sources would be shielded, diffused, or directed to avoid glare to pedestrians and
motorists. Light standards within the public right-of-way used for lighting the sidewalks and streets would
be designed to be 24 feet in height and pedestrian paths that are separate from sidewalks would be
lighted by pole, string lights, directed uplighting, urban art, or bollard-type fixtures which would be
pedestrian-scaled (typically limited to a maximum height of 18 feet for pole lights, or six feet for bollards).
Additionally, all development would be required to prepare a comprehensive lighting plan, in conjunction
with other site plans, for City review and approval. Although the Project would create a new source of
light and glare in the area, all development within the Project area would be subject to the applicable
urban lighting design standards set forth in the Specific Plan and Grand Terrace MC. Therefore, adherence
with applicable Specific Plan and Grand Terrace MC design standards would ensure that the Project’s light
and glare impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-12 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts have been identified.
4.1.7 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, several factors must be considered. The cumulative study
area for aesthetic impacts is the viewshed that includes the Project area and its surroundings (refer to
Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List located in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis). The context
in which a project is being viewed would also influence the aesthetic impact’s significance. The contrast a
project has with its surrounding environment may be reduced by the presence of other cumulat ive
projects. If most of an area is or is becoming more urbanized, the contrast of a project with the natural
surrounding may be less since it would not stand out in contrast as much.
A significant cumulative impact would occur if cumulative projects would adversely impact views of a
scenic vista or scenic resources within a designated State Scenic Highway. Although the Project would
change the current visual quality of the Project site, changes do not necessarily result in degradation, nor
would it impact resources within a State Scenic Highway.
In order for a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the cumulative nature of the Project site taken with
other projects, as seen together or in proximity to each other must be cumulatively considerable. In the
case of the Project, the potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are
less than significant. Mitigation measures beyond the required conformance to applicable policies and
guidance in the Specific Plan and Grand Terrace GP, are not required. Project-related and cumulative
impacts would be less than significant.
4.1.8 REFERENCES
Caltrans. (2018). State Scenic Highway Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805
7116f1aacaa.
Caltrans. (2023). Chapter 27- Visual & Aesthetics Review. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-
analysis/standard-environmental-reference-ser/volume-1-guidance-for-compliance/ch-27 -
visual-aesthetics-review.
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan – Draft EIR. https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/
Planning/draft_eir.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan - Final EIR. https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/
Planning/final_eir.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan - Land Use Element. Retrieved from:
https://www.grandterrace-
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.1-13 4.1 | Aesthetics
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/
city_of_gt_general_plan.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. (2019). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code - Section 15.08 Building Code.
Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_CH
15.08BUCO_15.08.010AD.
City of Grand Terrace. (2021). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code - Title 18. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.
74PEST_18.74.080IL.
City of Grand Terrace. (2022). History. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterr ace-
ca.gov/visitors/history.
City of Grand Terrace. (2022). World Population Review.. https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-
cities/grand-terrace-ca-population.
City of Riverside. (2022). World Population Review.https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-
cities/riverside-ca-population.
City of San Bernardino. (2022). World Population Review. https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-
cities/san-bernardino-ca -population.
City of Grand Terrace (2017). Zoning Map. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/
Planning/zoning_map__sep_2017.pdf.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2015). Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of
Highway Projects.
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/other_topics/VIA_Guidelines_for_Highway
_Projects.aspx.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-1 4.2 | Air Quality
4.2 AIR Q UALITY
4.2.1 INTRODUCTION
The section identifies existing conditions in The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) area and
evaluates the Project’s potential to conflict with an air quality plan; violate any air quality standards; result
in a cumulative increase of a criteria pollutant; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; and create
objectionable odors. Mitigation to avoid/reduce impacts is identified, as needed. This section describes
the existing air quality setting and evaluates potential impacts on air quality as they relate to the Project.
Information given in this section is based on:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Air Quality Assessment.
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022). Health Risk Assessment
The air quality and health risk assessments and associated calculations are provided in Appendix A.
The City received comments on the Project during the NOP public comment period in regard to air quality
impacts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requested that the Project utilize
AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook when preparing the air quality assessment and use CalEEMod’s land
use emissions software, to identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from the
Project. The SCAQMD also recommended that mitigation measures be implemented to reduce any
significant adverse air quality impacts and that the Project utilize health risk reduction strategies to reduce
significant exposure to people. In addition, the Colton Joint Unified School District (CJUSD) requested that
the EIR analyze short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts from all phases of the Project.
In addition, the CJUSD requested that the Project prepare a health risk assessment (HRA) to address
potential exposure of students and staff at nearby schools to risks related to increased pollutant
concentrations. Impacts concerning air quality are further discussed in Section 4.2.4 of this Draft EIR
Section.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00-17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-2 4.2 | Air Quality
4.2.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Climate and Meteorology
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar
meteorological and topographical features. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB),
which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as
all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded
by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.1 Air
quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in
addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with
applicable regulations are discussed below.
The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is
mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by
periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The a nnual average temperature
throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little
variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and
maximum temperatures than inland areas.
Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost
all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely
scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.
Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because
of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is
brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are
frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast.
Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB.
Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the
day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer
months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the
morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on
any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other
meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally
continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are re-established.
The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of
pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of
coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during
prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.
1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Air Quality Assessment. Page 6. See Appendix A.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-3 4.2 | Air Quality
In addition to the characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant
transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which air
pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of
the base of the inversion at any given time is called the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and
inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality for the SCAB in the summer and
generally good air quality in the winter.
Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state
and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized
into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases
(ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NO X, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.
ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical
and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O 3) is formed
by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria
pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2-1, Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.
Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood -
burning stoves and fireplaces,
automobiles and others.
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular
heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and
premature death in people with heart or lung
disease. Impairs visibility.
Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.
Motor vehicle exhaust industrial
emissions, gasoline storage and
transport, solvents, paints and landfills.
Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous
membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing,
coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply;
decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and
heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop
yield.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas formed when fuel
containing sulfur is burned and when
gasoline is extracted from oil. Exa mples
are petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal processing
facilities, locomotives, and ships.
Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and
oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid
which can damage marble, iron and steel.
Damages crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to
vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness,
and can lead to unconsciousness or death.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to O3. Contributes to global
warming and nutrient overloading which
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-4 4.2 | Air Quality
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
vehicles, electric utilities, and other
sources that burn fuel.
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.
Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead
emissions have historically been motor
vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and
industrial sources. Due to the phase out
of leaded gasoline, metals processing is
the major source of lead emissions to the
air today. The highest levels of lead in air
are generally found near lead smelters.
Other stationary sources are waste
incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid
battery manufacturers.
Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food,
water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood,
bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect
the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other
organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as seizures,
mental retardation, and behavioral disorders.
Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated
with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses
and young children, resulting in learning deficits
and lowered IQ.
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hy drogen
and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the inco mplete
combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon -based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries,
and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
Source: Ibid. pages 6-7 – Table 1
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term
(i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs
include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common
sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting
operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate
emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a
single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex
mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it
causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-
phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between
different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate),
fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short -term (acute) effects of
diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs,
headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all
diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these
particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.
Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state. These
stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is
often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical
trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD, the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-5 4.2 | Air Quality
air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which proc ess
ambient air quality measurements.
Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O 3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the
Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Mira Loma Van Buren Monitoring
Station (located approximately 9 miles from the Project). Local air quality data from 2019 to 2021 are
provided in Table 4.2-2, Ambient Air Quality Data, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations
and number of exceedances of state or national air quality standards for each year.
Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.131 0.140 0.116
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.099 0.117 0.094
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 26 51 20
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 64 89 53
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.98 1.83 1.96
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.0581 0.0533 0.0533
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM 10) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 118.8 162.5 98.7
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 115.7 158.2 96.1
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20 µg/m3) — — —
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 1 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) 14 16 15
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM 2.5) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 54.7 60.9 77.6
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 58.2 66.4 86.4
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 10 12 13
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured
1 Measurements taken at the Mira Loma Van Buren Monitoring Station at 5130 Poinsettia Place, Mira Loma, California 92220 (CARB# 33165)
Source: Ibid. page 9 – Table 2
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.
Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of TACs are of particular concern. Land uses
considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term
health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The Project site
is mainly surrounded by undeveloped/commercial land uses to the north and commercial/r esidential to
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-6 4.2 | Air Quality
the east, south, and west. Planning Area (PA) 22 is bounded by the Grand Terrace High School parking lot
to the south, and 90 feet from the nearest sensitive use area (i.e., tennis courts and baseball fields).
Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 4.2-3, Sensitive Receptors. Each sensitive
receptor listed in Table 4.2-3, was analyzed in the Project’s Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments for
NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 and is further discussed in Impact 4.2-3 below.
Table 4.2-3: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project
Single-family Residences Adjacent to the east
Veterans Freedom Park Adjacent to the southeast
Single-family Residences 240 feet to the southeast
Grand Terrace High School 90 feet to the south from nearest sensitive use area
(i.e., tennis courts and baseball fields)
Source: Ibid. page 10 – Table 3
4.2.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Air quality within the Project area is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), CARB, and the SCAQMD. Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations,
and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although U.S. EPA
regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent.
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA,
the U.S. EPA developed the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Proposed projects in or near
nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-permitting requirements. The FCAA requires
each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS
within the federally imposed deadlines.
The U.S. EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning
requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal
notification, the U.S. EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified
nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93 apply
in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the
area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. Applicable federal standards are
summarized in Table 4.2-4, State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The FCAA was amended in 1990 to address the numerous air pollutants that are known to cause or may
reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.
188 specific pollutants and chemical groups were initially identified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),
and the list has been modified over time. The FCAA Amendments included new regulatory programs to
control acid deposition and for the issuance of stationary source operating permits.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-7 4.2 | Air Quality
In 2001, the U.S. EPA issued its first Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule, which identified 21 mobile source air
toxic (MSAT) compounds as being HAPs that required regulation. A subset of six of these MSAT
compounds were identified as having the greatest influence on health and included benzene,
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and DPM. More recently, the U.S. EPA issued a
second MSAT Rule in February 2007, which generally supported the findings in the first rule and provided
additional recommendations of compounds having the greatest impact on health. The rule also identified
several engine emission certification standards that must be implemented. Unlike the criteria pollutants,
toxics do not have NAAQS making evaluation of their impacts more subjective.
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) were incorporated into a greatly
expanded program for controlling toxic air pollutants. The provisions for the attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS were substantially modified and expanded. Other revisions included provisions regarding
stratospheric O3 protection, increased enforcement authority, and expanded research programs.
Section 112 of the FCAA Amendments governs the federal control program for HAPs. NESHAPs are issued
to limit the release of specified HAPs from specific industrial sectors. These standards are technology-
based, meaning that they represent the best available control technology an industrial sector could afford.
The level of emissions controls required by NESHAPs are not based on health risk considerations because
allowable releases and resulting concentrations have not been determined to be safe for the general
public. The FCAA does not establish air quality standards for HAPs that define legally acceptable
concentrations of these pollutants in ambient air.
Emission Standards for Off-Road Diesel Engines
To reduce emissions from off-road diesel equipment, the U.S. EPA established a series of cleaner emission
standards for new off-road diesel engines. Tier 1 standards were phased in from 1996 to 2000 (year of
manufacture), depending on the engine horsepower category. Tier 2 standards were phased in from 2001
to 2006. Tier 3 standards were phased in from 2006 to 2008. Tier 4 standards, which generally require
add-on emission control equipment to attain them, were phased in from 2008 to 2015.
Federal Emissions Standards for On -Road Trucks
To reduce emissions from on-road, heavy-duty diesel trucks, the U.S. EPA established a series of
increasingly strict emission standards for new engines, starting in 1988. The U.S. EPA promulgated the
standards with the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule.2 The particulate matter (PM ) emission standard of
0.01 gram per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) is required for new vehicles beginning with model year 2007.
Also, the NOX and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standards of 0.20 g/hp-hr and 0.14 g/hp-hr,
respectively, were phased in together between 2007 and 2010 on a percent of sales basis: 50 percent
from 2007 to 2009 and 100 percent in 2010.
On December 20, 2022, the U.S. EPA adopted the Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards. The standards further reduce air pollution, including pollutants
that create O3 and PM, from heavy-duty vehicles and engines starting in model year 2027. The final
2 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022). Health Risk Assessment. Page 10. See Appendix A.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-8 4.2 | Air Quality
program includes new and more stringent emissions standards that cover a wider range of heavy-duty
engine operating conditions when compared to today's standards, and it also requires these more
stringent emissions standards to be met for a longer period of time of when these engines operate on the
road. Specifically, the standards include emission-related warranty requirements and a longer regulatory
useful life to ensure that more stringent standards are met for a longer period of time while the engines
are in use.
State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) consists of the CARB, the Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR), the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)
were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS
in Table 4.2-4, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to
the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide,
and sulfates.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for
the preparation of the SIP for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the
U.S. EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each
criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated
as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was
violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly
irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a state
standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment. The applicable State
standards are summarized in Table 4.2-4.
Table 4.2-4: State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2
Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.10 ppm11
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6 24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9 24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-9 4.2 | Air Quality
Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA
Notes:
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m 3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available.
1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended
particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe
carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1 -hour, 8-hour or
24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM 10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded.
Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon mono xide
standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.
2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates
and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1 -hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most
recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less
than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-
hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m 3. The 24-
hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3.
3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at eve ry site. The
national annual particulate standard for PM 10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM 2.5 standard
is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
NAAQS are set by the EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.
4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet
the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070
ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 201 7.
Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in
the area.
5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the EPA on June 15, 2005.
6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM 2.5 and PM10.
7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006.
8 On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24 -hour SO2 NAAQS however
must continue to be used until one year following EPA initial designations of the new 1 -hour SO2 NAAQS.
9 In December 2012, EPA strengthened the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the EPA issued final area
designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to
prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.
10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no a dverse
health effects determined.
11 National lead standards, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.
Sources: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Air Quality Assessment. Page 12 – Table 4. See Appendix A
CARB’s statewide comprehensive air toxics program was established in 1983 with Assembly Bill (AB) 1807
the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Air Toxics Act of 1983). AB 1807 created
California's program to reduce exposure to air toxics and sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to
designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an airborne toxics control measure
(ATCM) for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there
is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is n o safe
threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology (T -BACT) to minimize
emissions. CARB also administers the state’s mobile source emissions control program and oversees air
quality programs established by state statute, such as AB 2588. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from
individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution
control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a HRA and, if specific thresholds are
exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-10 4.2 | Air Quality
In September 1992, the AB 2588 was amended by Senate Bill (SB) 1731 which required facilities that pose
a significant health risk to the community to reduce their risk through a risk management plan.
SB 535, Disadvantaged Communities, passed in 2012 and updated June 2017, specifically targeted
disadvantaged communities in California for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade
program to improve public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened
communities, while also reducing pollution. SB 535 directed that 25 percent of the proceeds from the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities. The
legislation gave CalEPA responsibility for identifying those communities. In 2016, the Legislature passed
AB 1550, which now requires that a minimum 25 percent of proceeds from the fund be spent on projects
located in disadvantaged communities. CalEPA has prepared a list of disadvantaged communities for the
purpose of SB 535 and CalEnviroScreen is a general mapping tool developed by OEHHA to help identify
California communities that are most affected by sources of pollution.
Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate
Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (DRRP) in October 2000. The DRRP's goals
include an 85 percent reduction in DPM by 2020 from the 2000 baseline.3 CARB estimates that emissions
of DPM in 2035 will be less than half those in 2010, further reducing statewide cancer risk and non-cancer
health effects.4 The DRRP includes regulations to establish cleaner new diesel engines, cleaner in-use
diesel engines (retrofits), and cleaner diesel fuel.
Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles
On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to significantly reduce PM and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California. The regulation
requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Heavier
trucks must be retrofitted with PM filters beginning January 1, 2012, and older trucks must be replaced
starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses would need to have 2010 model
year engines or equivalent.
The regulation applies to most privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and to
privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than
14,000 pounds. Small fleets with three or fewer diesel trucks can delay compliance for heavier trucks and
there are several extensions for low-mileage construction trucks, early PM filter retrofits, adding cleaner
vehicles, and other situations. Privately and publicly owned school buses have different requirements.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program
The purpose of the CARB ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling is to reduce public
exposure to DPM and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of diesel-fueled commercial vehicles. The
driver of any vehicle subject to this ATCM is prohibited from idling the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for
3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022). Health Risk Assessment. Page 10. See Appendix A.
4 Ibid. Page 10.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-11 4.2 | Air Quality
greater than five minutes at any location and is prohibited from idling a diesel -fueled auxiliary power
system (APS) for more than five minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment
on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes
and schools).
CARB Final Regulation Order, Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In -Use Trucks,
beginning in 2008, requires that new 2008 and subsequent model-year heavy-duty diesel engines be
equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds
of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park ,”
and the parking brake is engaged.
CARB 2017 Technical Advisory (Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High -Volume
Roadways)
CARB published a Technical Advisory in 2017 to provide planners and other stakeholders involved in land
use planning and decision-making with information on scientifically based strategies to reduce exposure
to traffic emissions near high-volume roadways. Near-roadway development is a result of a variety of
factors, including economic growth, demand for built environment uses, and the scarcity of developable
land in some areas. The Technical Advisory notes that research has demonstrated the public health,
climate, financial, and other benefits of compact, infill development along transportation corridors, and
demonstrates that planners, developers, and local governments can pursue infill development while
simultaneously reducing exposure to traffic-related pollution. On-site strategies to remove air pollution
identified in the Technical Advisory include the use of particle filtration systems (i.e., high effici ency
filtration in mechanical ventilation systems), solid barriers, and vegetation.
California Energy Commission - Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6, were established in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are conceptually divided into three
basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there
is a set of performance standards the energy budgets - that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in
California) and building type; thus, the Standards are tailored to local conditions, and provide flexibility in
how energy efficiency in buildings can be achieved. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the
performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that provide a recipe or a checklist
compliance approach.
The 2019 Energy Standards include requirements for mandatory mechanical ventilation intended to
improve indoor air quality in homes, and requirements for Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV)
13 air filtration on space conditioning systems, and ventilation systems that provide outside air to a
dwelling’s occupiable space. The Residential Compliance Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards notes that air filter efficiencies of at least MERV 13 protect occupants from exposure to the
smaller airborne particles (i.e., PM 2.5) that are known to adversely affect respiratory health. CCR Title 24
Part 6 requires a particle size efficiency rating equal to or greater than 85 percent in the 1.0 to 0.3 μ m
range.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-12 4.2 | Air Quality
These standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy
efficiency technologies and methods. On August 11, 2021, the California Energy Commission (CEC)
adopted the 2022 Energy Code which encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready
requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens
ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after
January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
CalEnviroScreen
The OEHHA has developed CalEnviroScreen 4.0, which is a mapping tool that helps identify California
communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially
vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic
information to produce scores for every census tract in the State. The scores are mapped so that different
communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution
burden than areas with low scores.
According to CalEnviroScreen, the Project site and the surrounding residences are located within Census
Tract 6071007106, which is within the 70th percentile.5 It should be noted that the CalEnviroScreen scores
are not an expression of health risk, and do not provide quantitative information on increases in
cumulative impacts for specific sites or projects. Further, as a comparative screening tool, the results do
not provide a basis for determining when differences between scores are significant in relation to public
health or the environment.
CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020, requiring truck manufacturers to
transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every
new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate
risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul
drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by
2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero -emission medium-and
heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer
sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete
vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing
percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero -emission truck/
chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight
truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.
• Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers, and
others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet
owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.
5 Ibid. Page 12.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-13 4.2 | Air Quality
This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available
zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.
Executive Order N-79-20
Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new
passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold
in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all
medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045, where feasible. It also directs CARB to
develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where
feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero
emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the CalEPA, the
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency
to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045.
Executive Order N-79 -20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by
CARB in July 2020.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that state and
national ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also
responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing
permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, resp onding
to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to
reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All
projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
The CCAA provides the SCAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources
and regulate stationary source emissions. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources
collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. An example of this would be the motor vehicles at an
intersection, a mall, and on highways. As a State agency, CARB regulates motor vehicles and fuels for their
emissions.
The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes
control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources.
SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and
implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies,
provides the control element for mobile sources.
The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the
AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-14 4.2 | Air Quality
with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s
commitments towards meeting the national 8-hour O3 standards. Specifically, the 2016 AQMP covers the
following federal standards: 1979 1-hour O3 NAAQS, 1997 8-hour O3 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
2008 8-hour O3 NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted
by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for
meeting the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from
previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated
deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and
feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, co -benefits from
existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve
the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological
information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for
various source categories. The 2022 AQMP requires CARB’s adoption before submittal for the U.S. EPA’s
final approval, which is expected to occur sometime in 2023.
The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board
in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD
guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required
by CEQA and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both
construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and
document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the
CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the
handbook on their website.
The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Imperial counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy,
community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan
Planning Organization and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of
Governments.
The state and national attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 4.2-5, South
Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect
to the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The
SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining state and national standards.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-15 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State National
Ozone (O3)
(1 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme)
Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) – Non-Attainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Moderate)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) – Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) Attainment –
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Unclassified –
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Air Quality Assessment. Page 14 – Table 5. See Appendix A
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the
Project:
• Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the
comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to
odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of
fowl or animals.
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available
control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible PM are prohibited from crossing any
property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling,
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-16 4.2 | Air Quality
construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM 10 suppression
techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be
seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically
stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be
minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be
swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved
surface.
• Rule 445 (Wood Burning) – Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood-burning devices into
any new development. A wood-burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or
pellet-fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor
device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of
less than one million British thermal units per hour.
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users
of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of
these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.
Air Toxics Control Plan
The Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2000, revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to
examine the overall direction of the SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. It includes development and
implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that
are deemed viable and are within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board
for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented
by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the
Board periodically.
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
The SCAQMD conducted an in-depth analysis of the TACs and their resulting health risks for all of southern
California. The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the SCAB (MATES V) (August 2021) shows that
carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the SCAB, based on the average concentrations at the 10 monitoring
sites, is approximately 40 percent lower than the monitored average in MATES IV and 84 percent lower
than the average in MATES II.
MATES V is the most comprehensive dataset documenting the ambient air toxic levels and health risks
associated with the SCAB emissions. Therefore, MATES V study represents the baseline health risk for a
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-17 4.2 | Air Quality
cumulative analysis. MATES V estimates the average excess cancer risk level from exposure to TACs is 424
in one million basin-wide. In comparison, the MATES IV basin average risk was 897 per million. These
model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at ten fixed sites within the SCAB. None of the
fixed monitoring sites are near the Project site. However, MATES V has extrapolated the excess cancer
risk levels throughout the SCAB by modeling the specific grids. MATES V modeling predicted an excess
cancer risk of 410 in one million for the Project area.6 DPM is included in this cancer risk along with all
other TAC sources. DPM accounts for 72 percent of the total risk shown in MATES V in this area.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The City of Grand Terrace General Plan contains the following goals and policies from the Open Space &
Conservation Element that address air quality and are pertinent to the Project:
Goal 4.7: Support air quality planning through land use policies, outreach efforts, and
participation in regional air quality planning.
Policy 4.7.1 The City shall evaluate and implement traffic flow improvements and construction
management practices that reduce locally generated vehicle emissions.
Policy 4.7.2 The City shall encourage the use of public transportation through coordination wit h
local and regional transit providers.
Policy 4.7.3 The City shall encourage land use planning and urban design that reduces vehicle trips
through mixed use development, consolidation of commercial uses along arterial
highways, and pedestrian connection between residential and commercial uses.
Policy 4.7.5 The City shall encourage employers to develop and implement trip reduction plans
including alternate work schedules, rideshare programs, telecommuting, and
employee education programs.
Policy 4.7.6 The City shall implement policies and procedures designed to reduce emissions
generated by construction activities including enforcement of SCAQMD Rule 403.
Policy 4.7.7 The City shall promote energy conservation efforts in new and existing residences and
businesses.
The City of Grand Terrace General Plan contains the following goals and policies from the Sustainable
Development Element that address air quality and are pertinent to the Project:
Goal 9.3: Support sustainable development through good urban design practices.
Policy 9.3.1 Incorporate “green” building practices into the review of all new or renovated
development projects.
6 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022). Health Risk Assessment. Page 14. See Appendix A.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-18 4.2 | Air Quality
Grand Terrace Municipal Code
The Grand Terrace Municipal Code establishes the following air quality provisions relative to the Project.
Section 18.74.040 – Odor.
No operation or activity shall be permitted to emit odorous gases or other odorous matter in such
quantities as to be dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable which is detectable with or
without the aid of instruments at or beyond the property line.
Section 18.74.050 – Particulate matter and air contaminants standards.
The operation of facilities shall not directly or indirectly discharge air contaminants into the atmosphere,
including smoke, sulfur compounds, dust, soot, carbon, noxious acids, gases, mist, odors, or PM, or other
air contaminants or combinations which exceed any local, state, or federal air quality standards or which
might be obnoxious or offensive to anyone residing or conducting business either on-site or abutting the
subject site. Particulate matter shall not be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of the standards of
Federal and State requirements.
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations (LORs)
LORs are existing requirements that are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are
frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical LORs include compliance with the provisions
of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the a pproval
process, as appropriate.
LOR AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to
comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and
403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures
include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized.
▪ All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
▪ All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations
will be minimized at all times.
▪ Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove
soil tracked onto the paved surface.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-19 4.2 | Air Quality
LOR AQ-2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project Applicant shall require by contract
specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer
including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound
(VOC) rating of 50 grams per liter or less.
LOR AQ-3 Require diesel-powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §2449.
LOR AQ-4 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient
Landscape requirements (Chapter 15.56 of the City’s Municipal Code).
LOR AQ-5 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6).
These standards are updated, normally every three years, to incorporate improved
energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall
ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards (§110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of
the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of
rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar
panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.
LOR AQ-6 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green
Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or
designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These
requirements include, but are not limited to:
▪ Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in
accordance with §4.303 (residential) and §5.303 (nonresidential) of the California
Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste in accordance with §4.408.1 (residential) and
§5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling
containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with §4.410
(residential) and §5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient
and carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces
are required to be designated in accordance §5.106.5.2 (nonresidential),
Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11
To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential
construction shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric vehicle charging) of the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-20 4.2 | Air Quality
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential construction
shall comply with §5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
4.2.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally would have
a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is in nonattainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard.
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people.
• Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds.
SCAQMD Thresholds
The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations.
According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any
ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established
thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use
development projects, as shown in Table 4.2-6, South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions
Thresholds. In addition, SCAQMD also established thresholds for cumulative construction and operational
activities, which is further discussed in Section 4.2.5 below.
Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Air Quality Assessment. Page 17 – Table 6. See Appendix A
Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be
subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO
impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project site
are above state and national CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 parts per
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-21 4.2 | Air Quality
million (ppm) for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as attainment under the
1-hour and 8-hour standards.
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed LSTs in response to SCAQMD Governing
Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology
assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions. The
SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites
(off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum
emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent state or national ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the
ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by
the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable
for all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single day. The City of Grand Terrace is located within
SCAQMD SRA 34. Table 4.2-7, Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations (Maximum
Pounds Per Day) shows the LSTs for a 1-acre, 2-acre, 4-acre (interpolated), and 5-acre project in SRA 34.
Because the nearest sensitive receptors are adjacent to the east of the Project site, the thresholds for
distances of 25 meters or less are listed below.
Table 4.2-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Project Size Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse Particulates
(PM10)
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5)
1 Acre 118/118 667/667 4/1 3/1
2 Acres 170/170 972/972 7/2 4/1
4 Acres 207/207 2,392/2,392 17/5 9/3
5 Acres 270/270 1,746/1,746 14/4 8/2
Source: Ibid. Page 18 – Table 7
LSTs associated with all acreage categories are provided in Table 4.2-7 for informational purposes.
Table 4.2-7 shows that the LSTs increase as acreages increase. It should be noted that LSTs are screening
thresholds and are therefore conservative. The construction LST acreage is determined based on daily
acreage disturbed. The operational LST acreage is based on the total area of the Project site. Although the
Project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the
Project.
Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the
Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2020.4 (current adopted version at time of preparing
impact analysis). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify
potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of
land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recomm ended by CARB
and the SCAQMD.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-22 4.2 | Air Quality
Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project
construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional
construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date
(i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and on-road
emissions factors in CalEEMod. The Project is a Specific Plan, and no development proposals are included
at this time. Build out of the Specific Plan would occur in multiple phases over several years and future
development would be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and approval. However, for
analysis purposes construction was conservatively analyzed to be completed within two phases.7
Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products, architectural coating,
and landscape equipment), energy sources (natural gas usage), mobile sources (motor vehicles from
Project generated vehicle trips), and off-road equipment. Project-generated operational emissions would
be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. Emissions from each of these categories are
discussed below.
• Area Sources. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products, on -site
equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site.
Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications, which emit VOCs
during product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and
toiletries. It should be noted that the default area source VOC emission factor developed for
CalEEMod is based on a statewide factor. The CalEEMod default emissions rates were used.
• Energy Sources. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas
usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would
be from space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and
electronics. Energy source emissions were calculated in CalEEMod. No changes were made to the
default energy usage consumption rates or emissions factors.
• Mobile Sources. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and
evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality
impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NO X, PM10, and PM2.5 are all
pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O 3, known as
photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM 10 and PM2.5. However, CO
tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project
Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix J) and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended
by the SCAQMD. The Project’s generated traffic was obtained from the Project’s Transportation
Impact Analysis Report for The Gateway Specific Plan at Grand Terrace prepared by Fehr and
7 Emissions in future years (i.e., due to a later construction start date or operational opening year) would be lower due to ph ased-in emissions
standards, inspection and maintenance requirements, and fleet turnover). Specifically, Project construction was modeled to start in 2023
(Phase 1) and 2025 (Phase 2) but would likely commence at a later date. As such, construction impacts would be less than those analyzed due
to the use of more energy-efficient and cleaner burning construction vehicle fleet mix, pursuant to state regulations that require vehicle fleet
operators to phase-in less polluting heavy-duty equipment. As a result, Project-related construction air quality impacts would be lower than
the impacts disclosed herein. For emissions modeling purposes, conservatively analyzing the emissions using an earlier constr uction start date
(i.e., 2023 and 2025), provides for a worst-case analysis and full disclosure of potential air quality impacts, as required by CEQA.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-23 4.2 | Air Quality
Peers (October 2022). Project trip generation from the transportation report is based on the
following Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use categories:
▪ ITE Land Use 220: Multifamily Housing (Low-rise) (375 dwelling units, 2,528 total daily vehicle
trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 210: Single-Family Detached Housing (160 dwelling units, 1,509 total daily
vehicle trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 215: Single-Family Attached Housing (160 dwelling units, 1,152 total daily vehicle
trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center (232.8 thousand square feet, 8,616 total daily vehicle
trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 151: Mini-Warehouse (91.9 thousand square feet, 133 total daily vehicle trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 932: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (five thousand square feet, 536 total
daily vehicle trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through (six thousand square feet, 2,805
total daily vehicle trips)
The Project would generate a total of 17,279 daily trips. When accounting for internal capture and
diverted trips, the Project would generate 14,535 daily trips. Mobile source emissions reflect the Project’s
net 14,535 daily trips.
As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed
Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are
compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the
significance of a project’s impact on regional air quality.
The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the
SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific
modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or
contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality
standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source
receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
4.2.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to
prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must
integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce
pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market -based
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-24 4.2 | Air Quality
programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for
areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and national ambient air quality standards. Air
quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these
standards by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is
required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is i n
nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 AQMP and 2022 AQMP. The
2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions
and achieving CAAQS and NAAQS. The primary purpose of the 2022 AQMP is to identify, develop, and
implement strategies and control measures to meet the 2015 8-hour O3 NAAQS. Air quality management
planning is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S.
EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information
and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecast s. SCAG’s latest growth
forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.
The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1 : The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity
of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2 : The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or
increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to
determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans,
and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 4.2-8,
Construction-Related Emissions, the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with the
exception of ROG. Therefore, MM AQ-1 would be implemented to reduce ROG emissions which requires
the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paint for interior and exterior architectural coatings and paintings.
Additionally, operational emissions would exceed the operational standard for ROG and NOX despite the
implementation of all feasible mitigation, as shown in Table 4.2-9, Unmitigated Operational Emissions
and Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Emissions. MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 are included to reduce
operational emissions to the greatest amount feasible. However, even with mitigation, operational
emissions would remain above the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the Project would potentially
contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on
SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local
governments and with reference to local general plans.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-25 4.2 | Air Quality
The Project site has currently a Mixed-Use land use and the following existing zoning: Commercial
Manufacturing (CM), Restricted Manufacturing (RM), Public Facilities (PUB), and Industrial (M-2). The
Project site is primarily vacant and/or used for storage with six non-conforming residences. The Project
would include plans, development standards, regulations, zoning, infrastructure requirements, design
guidelines, and implementation programs on which subsequent Project-related development (i.e., future
implementing development projects) would adhere to. Future development uses on the Project site
would consist of residential, commercial, and public facilities.
The AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s
growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general
plans. The Project would result in a change of land use designations not reflected in the AQMP. Therefore,
the Project is conservatively assumed to generate emissions not reflected within the current 2022 AQMP
regional emissions inventory for the SCAB and is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Thus, the
Project is not consistent with the second criterion.
As noted above (and discussed further in Threshold 4.3-2, below), Project implementation would result in
air pollutant emissions (ROG and NOx) that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. Although
mitigation would reduce emissions by the greatest feasible amount, Project emissions levels would remain
significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SCAB. Therefore, the Project
would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the
implementation of mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Low VOC Paint (Construction). During construction, the Project shall utilize
“Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the
regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth
by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints
shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of
Grand Terrace Building and Safety Division shall confirm that pl ans include the
following specifications:
▪ All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
▪ Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste
center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
▪ Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions
and excessive odors.
▪ For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not
rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the
storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste
center (www.cleanup.org).
▪ Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-26 4.2 | Air Quality
▪ Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC
emissions.
▪ Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and
use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable.
▪ Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer
efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent
or higher transfer efficiency.
MM AQ-2 Vehicle Trip Reduction. Develop a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile GHG emissions for
all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Grand Terrace prior to the
issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Codes Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and
encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit,
walking, and biking. The following measures shall be incorporated into the TDM plan.
TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
▪ The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider on the
need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services.
Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from
the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus
turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
▪ The portion of the TDM plan for non-residential uses shall include, but not be
limited to the following potential measures: ride-matching assistance,
preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, half-time
transportation coordinators, providing a website or message board for
coordinating rides, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and
waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and including bicycle end of trip facilities.
This list may be updated as new methods become available. Verification of this
measure shall occur prior to building permit issuance for the commercial uses.
TDM Requirements for Residential Units:
▪ Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling being sold or offered for sale,
the Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective buyer, as
soon as it may be done, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and
nonmotorized commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of the Project.
Such information shall be transmitted no later than the close of escrow. This
information shall be submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Division for
review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
▪ Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being rented or offered for rent, the
Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the tenant or prospective tenant,
materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-27 4.2 | Air Quality
opportunities in the vicinity of the development. The materials shall be approved
by the City of Grand Terrace. The materials shall be provided no later than the
time the rental agreement is executed. This information shall be submitted to the
City of Grand Terrace Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
MM AQ-3 Prohibition of Fireplaces. The installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices
shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, NO X,
particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas devices
used for primary heat, supplemental heat, or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted
on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.
MM AQ-4 Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all
landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. All
residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical
outlets to accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the
third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and
tenants, as applicable.
MM AQ-5 Low VOC Paint (Operations). The Project Applicant shall require by contract
specifications commercial development to use interior and exterior architectural
coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products that have a volatile
organic compound rating of 10 grams per liter (g/L) or less (i.e., “Super-Compliant” low
VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits ).
Contract specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Grand Terrace
prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. This measure shall be made a condition of
approval for continued upkeep of the property.
Impact 4.2-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.
The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants
(i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of
temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a
significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of
significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving,
motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-28 4.2 | Air Quality
construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne PM are largely dependent
on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather
conditions and the appropriate application of water. Although the Project is a Specific Plan that could
consist of individual smaller development projects, a specific development is not proposed at this time.
Construction and operations of the PAs would be project-specific and future development would be
subject to project-specific City discretionary review and approval. However, construction activities
associated with the Project are conservatively estimated to be completed within two phases: Phase 1 and
Phase 2. For analysis purposes, Phase 1 was anticipated to commence in July 2023 for a duration of 16
months and Phase 2 was anticipated to commence in January 2025 for a durati on of 24 months.
Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved
CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects,
based on typical construction requirements. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions
for the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-8.
Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 2023 5.12 52.13 40.01 0.09 28.46 13.31
Year 2024 76.28 67.64 95.07 0.25 23.91 9.27
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 2023 5.12 52.13 40.01 0.09 12.47 6.40
Year 2024 20.60 67.64 95.07 0.25 17.50 6.82
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
Phase 2
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 2025 2.97 27.98 26.98 0.06 20.95 11.16
Year 2026 96.35 23.32 35.49 0.07 2.81 1.40
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 2025 2.97 27.98 26.98 0.06 8.56 4.79
Year 2026 11.48 23.32 35.49 0.07 2.71 1.37
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in
diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Note: (1) SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er
construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Red uctions
percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction
equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.
(2) Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-1 which requires the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints.
Source: Ibid. Page 23 – Table 8
Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive
dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from
construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-29 4.2 | Air Quality
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out
requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust
emissions. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject to
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 for reducing fugitive dust.
Table 4.2-8 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for the
ROG (VOC). The majority of ROG emissions are generated during the architectural coatings phase of
construction. MM AQ-1 would reduce ROG emissions which requires the use of “Super -Compliant” low
VOC paint for interior and exterior architectural coatings and paintings. The Project would also be subject
to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113 . As shown above, MM AQ-1 would reduce construction impacts
below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related emissions would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Operational Emissions
Unmitigated Operations
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with area source emissions, energy emissions,
and mobile emissions, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings.
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-9. Table 4.2-9
shows that Project emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Therefore, regional unmitigated operational emissions would result in a potentially significant long-term
regional air quality impact.
Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 212.24 15.08 410.79 0.90 53.41 53.41
Energy Emissions 0.54 4.71 2.42 0.03 0.38 0.38
Mobile 48.75 67.36 483.36 1.08 109.39 29.72
Total Emissions 261.54 87.15 896.57 2.02 163.18 83.50
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in
diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: Ibid. Page 24 – Table 9
Mitigated Operations
As noted above, Table 4.2-9 shows unmitigated operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD
thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The exceedance of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
are primarily from area and mobile sources. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions
to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and
national standards and the Project has no control over these standards.
MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-2 requires the
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant
vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-3 prohibits the use of any kind of fireplaces, and MM AQ-4
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-30 4.2 | Air Quality
requires all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. MM AQ-5
requires the use of low VOC paint for interior and exterior architectural coatings and paintings.
Table 4.2-10 shows that despite the implementation of MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5, operational emissions
related to ROG and NO X would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds, therefore impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
Table 4.2-10: Mitigated Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions1 27.25 0.52 43.58 0.00 0.24 0.24
Energy Emissions 0.47 4.10 2.12 0.03 0.33 0.33
Mobile2, 3 48.54 66.81 479.18 1.07 108.29 29.42
Total Emissions 76.25 71.43 524.88 1.10 108.86 29.99
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in
diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. Incorporates implementation of a prohibition of fireplaces, electric landscape equipment, and low VOC paint pursuant to MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4,
and MM AQ-5.
2. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ -2.
3. Per the Executive Order N-79-20, by 2035 all passenger cars/trucks sold in the State of California be zero emission (ZEV). According to the
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, of all new vehicles sold in California in 2022, 18.8% were ZEVs. However, there are no formal projections
of zero emissions vehicles anticipated to be on the road over the course of the Project and the model does not acc ount for it. Therefore, these
projections are conservative and likely higher than actual emissions would be.
Source: Ibid. Page 25 – Table 10
Mitigation Measures
Refer MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5 in Impact 4.2-1 above.
Impact 4.2-3: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The Project is a Specific Plan, and no development proposals are included at this time. Build out of the
Specific Plan would occur in multiple phases over several years. However, construction activities
associated with the Project are conservatively estimated to be completed within two phases: Phase 1 and
Phase 2. For analysis purposes, Phase 1 was anticipated to commence in July 2023 for a duration of 16
months and Phase 2 was anticipated to commence in January 2025 for a duration of 24 months.
The nearest sensitive receptor to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction sites are residential buildings
located adjacent to the east of the Project site boundary. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the
SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD
Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I -4). The SCAQMD provided the Final
Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST
methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific
emissions.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-31 4.2 | Air Quality
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the
maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-11, Equipment-
Specific Grading Rates is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.
The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34 )
since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO 2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-
up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to five acres in size. CalEEMod construction
modeling anticipates disturbing a maximum of four acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides
thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the
site, the LSTs for a 4.0-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.
Table 4.2-11: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Source: Ibid. Page 30 – Table 11
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be
included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-
site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors to both Phase 1 and Phase 2
construction sites are residential buildings located adjacent to the east of the Project site boundary. LST
thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters.
SCAQMD’s LST guidance recommends using the 25-meter threshold for receptors located 25 meters or
less from the project site. Therefore, the LSTs for four acres at 25 meters were used for the construction
analysis which is consistent with the SCAQMD LST methodology. Table 4.2-12, Localized Significance of
Construction Emissions presents the results of unmitigated localized emissions during each construction
activity. Table 4.2-12 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not
result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.
Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Demolition (2023) 21.48 19.64 3.10 1.25
Site Preparation (2023) 27.52 18.24 8.55 4.91
Grading (2023) 34.52 28.05 4.83 2.66
Grading (2024) 32.38 27.72 4.75 2.58
Building Construction (2024) 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.58
Paving (2024) 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43
Architectural Coating (2024) 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
Demolition/Site Preparation (2023) 49.01 37.89 11.65 6.15
Building Construction/ Paving/ Architectural
Coating (2024) 24.19 32.60 1.14 1.07
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-32 4.2 | Air Quality
Construction Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 49.01 37.89 11.65 6.15
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold (adjusted
for 4.0 acres at 25 meters) 237 1,488 12 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Phase 2
Demolition - 2025 19.20 19.42 2.99 1.12
Site Preparation - 2025 25.23 17.91 8.37 4.74
Grading - 2025 27.94 26.33 4.54 2.39
Building Construction - 2026 12.47 16.08 0.53 0.50
Paving - 2026 8.58 14.58 0.42 0.39
Architectural Coating - 2026 1.15 1.81 0.05 0.05
Demolition/Site Preparation -2023 44.43 37.33 11.36 5.86
Building Construction/ Paving/ Architectural
Coating - 2024 22.20 32.47 1.00 0.93
Maximum Daily Emissions 44.43 37.33 11.36 5.86
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold (adjusted
for 4.0 acres at 25 meters) 237 1,488 12 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5
microns in diameter or less
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er
construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Red uctions
percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction
equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.
Source: Ibid. Page 31 – Table 12
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only
if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling
at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities).
LSTs thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters or less in SRA 34 were utilized in this analysis because
the closest receptor is located adjacent to the east. Although the Project site is approximately 131 acres,
the 5-acre LST threshold was also conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of
the site. Table 4.2-13, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions shows that the maximum daily
emissions of these pollutants during operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants
on-site and thus not at nearby sensitive receptors.
Table 4.2-13: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions
Activity Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 4.62 45.70 0.56 0.56
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,746 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5
microns in diameter or less
Source: Ibid. Page 32 – Table 13
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-33 4.2 | Air Quality
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need for an EIR’s
air quality analysis to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s significant air quality emissions
to human health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained. Sierra Club v. County
of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (“Friant Ranch”). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based
on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 nonattainment areas such as
the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New
Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program 8
was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in
a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the levels of
air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, SCAQMD
has determined that projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would
not violate any air quality standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation or to a criteria pollutant health impact. The health effects commonly associated with criteria
pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2-1.
NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O 3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where
the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological
conditions for these reactions to occur, so O 3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.
Breathing ground-level O3 can result health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of
airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest
tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational
studies strongly indicates that higher daily O 3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma
attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The
consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggest that O3 can make asthma
symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
There are significant challenges with correlating specific health effects that will occur as a result of a
project’s significant criteria air pollutant emissions. Generally, models that correlate criteria air pollutant
concentrations with specific health effects focus on regulatory decision-making that will apply throughout
an entire air basin or region. These models focus on the region-wide health effects of pollutants so that
regulators can assess the costs and benefits of adopting a proposed regulation t hat applies to an entire
category of air pollutant sources, rather than the health effects related to emissions from a specific
proposed project or source. Because of the scale of these analyses, any one project is likely to have only
very small incremental effects which may be difficult to differentiate from the effects of air pollutant
concentrations in an entire air basin. In addition, such modeling efforts are costly, and the value of a
project-specific analysis may be both modest in relation to that cost and not particularly useful. For
regional pollutants, it is difficult to trace a particular project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to a specific
health effect. Moreover, the modeled results may be misleading because the margin of error in such
modeling is large enough that, even if the modeled results report a given health effect, the model is
8 Ibid. Page 32
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-34 4.2 | Air Quality
sufficiently imprecise that the actual effect may differ from the reported results; that is, the modeled
results suggest precision, when in fact available models cannot be that precise on a project level.
As discussed above, the mass emissions thresholds developed by SCAQMD and used by CEQA lead
agencies throughout southern California to determine potential significance of project-related regional
changes in the environment are not directly indicative of exceedances of applicable ambient air standards.
Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the
ultimate concentration and location of O 3 or PM. The effects on ground-level ambient concentrations of
pollutants that may be breathed by people are also influenced by the spatial and temporal patterns of the
emission sources. In other words, the effect on O3 and PM concentrations from a given mass of pollutants
emitted in one location may vary from the effect if that same mass of pollutants was emitted in an entirely
different location in the SCAB. The same effect may be observed when the daily and seasonal variation of
emissions is taken into account. Regional-scale photochemical modeling, typically performed only for
NAAQS attainment demonstration and rule promulgation, account for these changes in the spatial,
temporal, and chemical nature of regional emissions.
Emissions from the construction and operation of the Project would vary by time of day, month, and
season, and the majority of Project-related emissions, being generated by mobile sources driving to and
from the site, would be emitted throughout a wide area defined by the origins and destinations of peopl e
traveling to and from the Project. As SCAQMD has stated, “it takes a large amount of additional precursor
emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.”9
Specifically, for extremely large regional projects, the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate
potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity,
specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NO X and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in
approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O 3. Based on its recent
experiences applying regional scale models to relatively small increase in emissions, SCAQMD’s Amicus
Brief in the Friant Ranch case stated: “[A] project emitting only 10 tons per year of NO X or VOC is small
enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the regional air quality
models that are currently used to determine ozone levels.”10 The Brief makes it clear that SCAQMD does
not believe that there must be a quantification of a project's health risks in CEQA documents prepared for
individual projects since it would be difficult to quantify health impacts for criteria pollutants. Also, the
Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG
(VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O 3-related health
impacts. Therefore, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a reg ional modeling
program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.
The SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP focuses on the 2015 8 -hour O3 standard with achieving attainment in 2037.
The largest source of NOX emissions (an O3 precursor) in 2018 were related to on-road sources. The 2022
AQMP also emphasizes a shift in focus beyond on-road emissions to off-road sources. The 2022 AQMP
identifies a 67 percent NOX reduction beyond what we would achieve through current programs by 2037
9 Ibid. Page 34
10 Ibid. Page 34
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-35 4.2 | Air Quality
and about 83 percent below current levels. In order to achieve this, the SCAQMD identifies the need for
widespread adoption of zero emissions (ZE) technologies across all mobile sectors and stationary sources.
The control strategy for the 2022 AQMP includes aggressive new regulations and the development of
incentive programs to support early deployment of advanced technologies. The two key areas for
incentive programs are (1) promoting widespread deployment of available ZE and low NO X technologies
and (2) developing new ZE and ultra-low NOX technologies for use in cases where the technology is not
currently available. SCAQMD will prioritize distribution of incentive funding in environmental justice (EJ)
areas and seek opportunities to focus benefits on the most disadvantaged communities. The 2022 AQMP
includes a total of 49 control measures. In addition to the NO X measures, the 2022 AQMP relies on co-
benefits from climate and energy efficiency programs for further reductions, limited strategic measures
for VOC reductions, and other actions.
The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NO X reductions prove to be much more effective
in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM 2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting
stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)
facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters,
engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane.
As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project
would be less than significant (refer to Tables 4.2-12 and 4.2-13). The LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most
stringent applicable state or national ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the
SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest
sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an
adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive
populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have
methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and
meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass
emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to O3 and PM emissions published by the
U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Setting section. Health
studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS.
While the Project is expected to exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric regional mass daily thresholds for ROG
and NOX, this does not in itself constitute a significant health impact to the population adjacent to the
Project and within the SCAB. The reason for this is that the mass daily thresholds are in pounds per day
emitted into the air whereas health effects are determined based on the concentration of emissions in
the air at a particular receptor (e.g., parts per million by volume of air, or micrograms per cubic meter
of air).
The NAAQS and CAAQS were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse
health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the
applicable emissions. As stated earlier, the mass emission thresholds were established primarily in
conjunction with federal permitting “major source” thresholds. If emissions were below these “de
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-36 4.2 | Air Quality
minimis” emission rates, then the Project is presumed to conform with the NAAQS.11 While based on the
status of an air basin level of attainment of the health-based NAAQS, emissions in excess of the mass
emission thresholds from one project does not mean the air basin would experience measurably higher
ground level concentrations, or more frequent occurrences of ground level concentrations in exceedance
of standards, or delay timely attainment of a particular NAAQS.
Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight
and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash,
atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level O3
concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the known O3 health-related information
can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed
project.
This discussion identifies health concerns related to PM, CO, O3, and NO2 emissions. Due to the uncertainty
in the relationship between project-level mass emissions and regional O3 formation as well as limitations
with currently available technical tools, health effects associated with the Project cannot be ascertained
with any specificity. No meaningful conclusion can be drawn with respect to potential health effects from
the Project’s potential criteria pollutant emissions.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an
intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceeda nces of the CAAQS or
NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily
when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent
in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for
passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities,
CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from
vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.
The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO
Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested
intersections in southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000
vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration
high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm national standard. The Project considered herein would
not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO
Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue
intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO
hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 17,279 additional vehicle
11 Ibid. Page 35
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-37 4.2 | Air Quality
trips attributable to the Project and distributed throughout the roadway network. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction of the Project would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of required off-
road diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of
concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential
exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with
diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting
cancer.
The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of
exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models
and methodologies for conducting HRAs are associated with longer-term exposure periods of nine, 30,
and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction
activities. The California OEHHA has not identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction is
temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would
not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time which would limit the exposure of
any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.
Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code
of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from
in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no
more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to
temporary and variable DPM emissions. Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction
activities likely to occur within specific locations in the Project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur
in any one location for an extended time), the dose of DPM of any one receptor is exposed to would be
limited. Therefore, considering the relatively short duration of DPM-emitting construction activity at any
one location, and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to
substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions.
A HRA (Appendix A) was conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for
Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the
SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA. Construction -related activities
would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel
equipment for demolition; site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); building construction; paving;
application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For
construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to
and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they
would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment oper ating at
the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-38 4.2 | Air Quality
PM10 exhaust construction emissions rates in grams per second were calculated from the total annual on-
site exhaust emissions reported in CalEEMod during construction. Construction exhau st emissions over
the entire construction period were used in AERMOD, a U.S. EPA‐approved dispersion model, to
approximate construction DPM emissions. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian
dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can
exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting
of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Uniform Cartesian recept ors
were used to evaluate the locations of the maximally exposed sensitive receptors. Surface and upper air
meteorological data from the Banning Monitoring Station provided by the SCAQMD was selected as being
the most representative meteorology. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was
imported into AERMOD for the Project. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the
SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.12
Risk levels were calculated based on the California OEHHA guida nce document, Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015). SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten in-one-
million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these
thresholds would not result in a significant impact.
The HRA determined that the off-site construction health risk impacts would be 7.61, 2.72, 0.18, and 1.06
in one million for off-site resident, on-site resident, worker, and student exposure, respectively. Acute and
chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered
individually significant. The HRA determined that the highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index at
offsite receptors during construction would be 0.010 and 0.377, respectively. The highest maximum
chronic and acute hazard index at on-site receptors during construction would be 0.007 and 0.306,
respectively. Therefore, construction risk levels would be below SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would
be less than significant. Refer to the Project HRA in Appendix A for further information concerning results,
and model data.
Diesel Particulate Matter from Interstate 215
Project operations would not generate TACs and therefore will have no impact under CEQA to evaluate
to either on-site or off-site receptors. However, as noted above, a Project HRA was prepared and
evaluated impacts from Interstate (I-) 215 to future potential receptors located on the Project site.
Pursuant to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015)
62 Cal.4th 369, under CEQA, agencies are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental
conditions on a project’s future users or residents, unless the proposed project risks exacerbate those
environmental hazards or conditions that already exist. Nevertheless, the following mobile source health
risk analysis has been prepared as an information item for land use decision-making but is not a CEQA
required analysis condition.
12 Ibid. Page 37
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-39 4.2 | Air Quality
The Project would place sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of I-215 (mobile TAC sources). Potential risks
from traffic emissions generated along this roadway were evaluated using an analysis methodology that
considers local traffic conditions, site-specific meteorology, and future exposures.
Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest expected annual average diesel PM10 emission concentrations
from diesel truck traffic at the closest residential receptor on the Project site would be 0.0447 µg/m3
during opening year. The CCR Title 24 Part 6 requires new development to use Minimum Efficiency
Reporting Value (MERV) 13 air filtration on space conditioning systems and ventilation systems that
provide outside air to the occupiable space of a dwelling. A MERV 13 air filtration system has an average
particle size removal efficiency of approximately 75 percent for 0.3 to 1.0 µg/m3 (DPM) and 90 percent
for 1.0 to 10 µg/m3 (PM10 and PM2.5) based on American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Standard 52.2. The filters would be installed in residential units prior to occupancy,
and maintenance with filters of the same value would be included in the Project’s operation and
maintenance manual. The Project’s MERV 13 air filtration systems would reduce the highest expected
annual average diesel PM10 emission concentrations conservatively by 75 percent to 0.0112 µg/m3 during
opening year. The highest expected hourly total organic gases (TOG) emission concentrations from
automobile traffic at the Project site would be 0.555 μg/m 3 (no reduction was applied to TOG
concentrations).
As noted above, SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten in-one-million and the acute or chronic
noncancer hazard index is one. The Project HRA determined that the calculated carcinogenic risk at the
Project site from DPM and TOG due to freeway emissions is 9.92 in one m illion for proposed on-site
residents and 7.00 in one million for workers. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner
technology or lower emissions in future years. Therefore, the carcinogenic risk associated with the Project
would be less than significant. Acute and chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA. An acute or
chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing
the acute or chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The highest maximum chronic and acute
hazard index associated with both DPM and TOG emissions at the Project site would be 0.03 and 0.05,
respectively. As a result, noncarcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant. The HRA determined that on-site receptors would not be exposed
to TAC concentrations from I-215 that would result in health risk impacts that exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.2-4: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to
prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-40 4.2 | Air Quality
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or
other material which cause injury, detrim ent, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number
of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to
business or property.
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and VOCs from
architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be
temporary, are not expected to affect a substanti al number of people and would disperse rapidly.
Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be
less than significant.
Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses
include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants,
chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project
would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.2.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Even with implementation of regulatory requirements, standard conditions of approval, and
implementation of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in unavoidable
significant impacts with respect to air quality plan consistency (Impact 4.2 -1), operational emissions
(Impact 4.2-2), and cumulative long-term impacts.
4.2.7 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regional
In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional
air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative
projects in the local area include new development and general growth in the project area. The greatest
source of emissions in the SCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from
cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SCAB), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when
project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.
Cumulative Short-Term Construction Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10 , and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for
O3 and PM2.5 for national standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control
Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that project s that result in
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.2-41 4.2 | Air Quality
emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should
result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to
the contrary. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds,
the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively
considerable. As shown in Table 4.2-8, mitigated construction emissions of the Project would not exceed
the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and the construction impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of MM AQ-1. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a cumulatively
considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.
Cumulative Long-Term Operational Emissions
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size
to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions
contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the
operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore,
a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Tables 4.2-9 and 4.2-10, the Project operational emissions (primarily mobile source
emissions) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds despite implementation of mitigation. As a result,
operational emissions associated with the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Emissions of motor vehicles are cont rolled by
State and national standards and the Project has no control over these standards, however it can mitigate
mobile emissions by attempting to reduce vehicles trips. As further discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, mobile emissions will be reduced as zero-emission vehicles are phased in due to
regulations such as Executive Order N-79 -20. LORs and implementation of MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5 would
reduce emissions by reducing vehicles trips, prohibition of fireplaces, electric landscape equipment, and
implementation of low VOC paint. No additional feasible mitigation measures beyond MMs AQ-2 through
AQ-5 have been identified to further reduce emissions, and impacts would remain significant.
4.2.8 REFERENCES
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan. https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Air Quality Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022). Health Risk Assessment.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-1 4.3 | Biological Resources
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes effects on biological resources that may result from the implementation of The
Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project), within the City of Grand Terrace (City). The following
discussion addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected areas, identifies and analyzes
environmental impacts of the Project, and recommends measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts
anticipated from implementation of the Project. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to
biological resources are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regulations will
serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with the impleme ntation of the
Project.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
The setting, context, and impact analysis in this section are largely based on the following documentation:
• Biological Technical Report (BTR) for The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan, Glenn Lukos
Associates (GLA), Inc., November 1, 2022 (attached as Appendix B).
The study area (herein referred to as the Project Study Area) analyzed in the BTR includes Phase 1 - and
Phase 2 on-site disturbances, Phase 1- and Phase 2- off-site disturbance areas, and portions of the Project
site boundaries that would not be impacted (characterized as “Not Impacted”). More specifically, Phase 1
on-site area includes PAs 1, 2, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 22 and a portion of the proposed Taylor
Street/Commerce Way extension. Phase 1 off-site area includes portions of Van Buren Street, De Berry
Street, Taylor Street/Commerce Way proposed extension, and PA 17 within the Project site boundaries.
Phase 1 off-site area also includes portions of the aforementioned roadways, Taylor Street, Main Street,
Pico Street, and vacant land located outside the Project site boundaries. Lastly, Phase 2 on-site area
includes PAs 6 through 8. Phase 2 off-site area includes PA 3. Refer to Exhibit 4.3-1, Biological Resources
Study Areas for depiction of the overall Project Study Area and to Section 3.0, Project Description that
describes the off-site impacts associated with the Project.
Source: Glenn Lukos Associates, 2022
Exhibit 4.3-1: Biological Resources Study Areas
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
§¨¦215
Van Buren Street
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Main Street
Pico Street
De Berry Street
Study Area Boundary - 124.99 ac.
Specific Plan Boundary - 102.59 ac.
Phase 1 Onsite Disturbance - 64.11 ac.
Phase 1 Offsite Disturbance - 32.28 ac.
Phase 2 Onsite Disturbance 11.49 ac.
Phase 2 Offsite Disturbance - 0.25 ac.
Not Impacted - 16.85 ac.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-3 4.3 | Biological Resources
4.3.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Vegetation/Land Use Types
The vegetation mapping conducted for the Project Study Area identified six different categories of
vegetation/land use types within the Project area. Table 4.3-1, Summary of On-site Vegetation/Land Use
Types, summarizes the vegetation/land use categories and the corresponding on-site areas. Additionally,
Table 4.3-2, Summary of Off-site Vegetation/Land Use Types, summarizes the vegetation/land use
categories and the corresponding off-site acreages. Refer to Exhibit 4.3-2, Vegetation Map that illustrates
the different types of vegetation within the Project Study Area.
Table 4.3-1: Summary of On-site Vegetation/Land Use Types
Vegetation/Land Use Type Phase 1
(Acres)
Phase 2
(Acres)
Not Impacted
(Acres)
Total
(Acres)
Disturbed/Developed 11.04 5.27 9.07 25.38
Disturbed/Ruderal 47.03 6.22 5.96 59.21
Freshwater Marsh 0.08 0 0 0.08
Non-native Grassland 3.90 0 0 3.90
Ornamental 0.61 0 0.16 0.77
Riparian Woodland 1.45 0 1.66 3.11
Total 64.11 11.49 16.85 92.45
Source: Ibid. p. 25 - Table 4-1
Table 4.3-2: Summary of Off-site Vegetation/Land Use Types
Vegetation/Land Use Type Phase 1
(Acres)
Phase 2
(Acres)
Total
(Acres)
Disturbed/Developed 21.40 0.24 21.64
Disturbed/Ruderal 9.58 0.01 9.59
Freshwater Marsh 0 0 0
Non-native Grassland 0.32 0 0.32
Ornamental 0.49 0 0.49
Riparian Woodland 0.46 0 0.46
Total 32.25 0.25 32.50
Source: Ibid. p. 25 - Table 4-2
Disturbed/Developed
Approximately 47.02 acres of the Project Study Area is categorized as disturbed/developed, of which
25.38 acres is located on-site and 21.64 acres is located off-site. Disturbed/Developed on- and off-site
areas include portions of existing paved roads (De Berry Street, Van B uren Street, Taylor Street and
Main Street) and other facilities, rural residential areas, a storage facility, a stockyard, a baseball field, and
flood control channels. This land use type also includes concrete channels associated with the
Riverside Canal and a separate flood control channel. The Riverside Canal enters the Project site at the
western terminus of De Berry Street adjacent to Interstate (I-) 215. The canal extends through the western
portion of the property and then extends off-site. A separate concrete-lined flood control channel
originates within the property at De Berry Street, paralleling the Riverside Canal before crossing under the
canal into a riparian drainage.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-4 4.3 | Biological Resources
Disturbed/Ruderal
Approximately 68.8 acres of the Project Study Area consists of disturbed areas dominated by non-native
vegetation associated with ruderal areas, including 59.21 acres on-site and 9.59 acres off-site. Ruderal
vegetation includes Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), London rocket
(Sisymbrium irio), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), Australian
saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflorus).
Freshwater Marsh
The on-site portion of the Project Study Area contains a drainage ditch that conveys water from a storm
drain outlet just north of Grand Terrace High School. Flows are conveyed first north and then west before
entering a storm drain that extends under the Riverside Canal. Approximately 0.08 acre of the ditch is
vegetated with freshwater marsh dominated with southern cattail (Typha domingensis).
Non-Native Grassland
Approximately 4.22 acres of the Project Study Area is categorized as non-native grassland, including
3.9 acres on-site and 0.32 acre off-site. The grassland areas are dominated by non-native grasses, with
other non-native herbaceous species. The areas of non-native grassland are concentrated around the
slopes of the on-site drainage that have not been historically farmed. Areas to the north and south have
previously supported agricultural uses and are generally dominated by nonnative, ruderal species that
include non-native grasses.
Ornamental
Approximately 1.26 acres of the Project Study Area is vegetated with ornamental (non-native) trees and
shrubs, including 0.77 acre on-site and 0.49 acre off-site. The ornamental (non-native) trees and shrubs
are planted between the northerly extension of Taylor Street and the existing basins up to the
Riverside Canal.
Riparian Woodland
Approximately 3.57 acres of the Project Study Area is categorized as riparian woodland, including
3.11 acres on-site and 0.46 acre within the Phase I off-site area. The riparian habitat is associated with a
drainage feature that originates in the eastern portion of the Project site at Van Buren Street. The drainage
feature extends west to a point where it crosses under the Riverside Canal and joins with another feature
that then continues southwest before exiting the Project site into a culvert under I-215. The upper portion
of the riparian woodland has a substantial non-native component of Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei) along
with several black walnut trees (Juglans sp.) and Fremont cottonwood, also known as the western
cottonwood (Populus fremontii).
There are two species of black walnut that are native to California, including Southern California black
walnut (Juglans californica) and Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii). Although Northern
California black walnut occurs primarily in Northern California, there are numerous records of Northern
California black walnut in Southern California, including a number of records in southwestern San
Bernardino County and western Riverside County. However, the origins of these individuals vary, including
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-5 4.3 | Biological Resources
those that were planted versus those that could be native, as Northern California black walnut was widely
planted in California as a street tree and as a rootstock for English walnut (J. regia). Northern California
black walnut was regarded by CNPS as a rare species in California (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1B )
until 2019 due to confusion in the extent of natural occurrences of Northern California black walnut in
California. In 2019, CNPS deleted Northern California black walnut as a CRPR 1B species and it is no longer
considered rare. The Southern California black walnut is designated by CNPS as a CRPR 4.2 species
(S4 State Rank), with the majority of the occurrences located in Southern California, including some
records in southwestern San Bernardino County and western Riverside County.
GLA reviewed the walnut trees at the Project site, analyzing the growth form, leaf characteristics and fruit
(walnut) size. In conclusion and based on the information available, the walnut plants at the Project site
identify as the Northern California black walnut but with perhaps a result of introgression between the
two species. However, none of the individuals identified purely as the Southern California black walnut.
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0244-186GRTE\0244-186_GIS\VegetationGIS\244-186_Vegetation.mxd
0 525 1,050262.5
Feet
±
THE GATEWAY AT GRAND TERRACE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Vegetation Map
Exhibit 4
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Map Prepared by: K. Kartunen, GLA
Date Prepared: April 1, 2022
1 inch = 525 feet
Study Area Boundary
Disturbed/Developed
Disturbed/Ruderal
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Native Grassland
Ornamental
Riparian Woodland
§¨¦215
Van Buren Street
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Main Street
De Berry Street
Pico Street
Exhibit 4.3-2: Vegetation MapCity of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Source: GLA. (2022). Biological Technical Report
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-7 4.3 | Biological Resources
Wildlife
The undeveloped portions of the Project Study Area have the potential to support a variety of amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals. Since the Project site is disturbed throughout and is surrounded by urban
development, much of the wildlife species expected in the Project Study Area are generally those that are
associated with urban areas. However, due to the presence of riparian habitat and the grassland areas,
the Project Study Area has the potential to support less common wildlife, including some special-status
species. Birds observed during the general surveys included European starling (Sturnus vulgaris),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), common raven (Corvus corax),
Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrranus vociferans), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch
(Carpodacus mexicanus), whitecrowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), black phoebe (Sayornis
nigricans), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata). Mammals
observed at the site included desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), coyote (Canis latrans), California
ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae).
Special-Status Vegetation Communities/Habitats
The CNDDB identifies the following eight special-status vegetation communities for the San Bernardino
South quadrangle (and surrounding maps): Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern California Arroyo
Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow
Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Scrub, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian
Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub. As noted above, the Project Study Area contains approximately
3.57 acres of riparian habitat, which has been generally categorized in this report as Riparian Woodland
and is considered significant under CEQA. The riparian community contains tree and shrub species that
are associated with Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Scrub, or Southern Willow Scrub
communities. Although the on-site vegetation was classified as Riparian Woodland due to the non-native
components and vegetation structure, the vegetation did not fit the definition of those specific special-
status communities.
Special-Status Plants
No special-status plants were detected during surveys conducted for the Project Study Area, and none are
expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat, with exception to the discussion of the Southern
California black walnut (versus the Northern California black walnut) summarized above. Table 4.3-3,
Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Study Area provides a list of special-status plants
evaluated for the Project Study Area through habitat assessments and surveys. Species were evaluated
based on the following factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB and NPS as occurring (either currently
or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project Study Area, and 2) any other special-status plants that
are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project Study Area, or for which potentially suitable habitat
occurs within the Project Study Area.1
1 Ibid. Pages 26-30
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-8 4.3 | Biological Resources
Table 4.3-3: Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Study Area
Species Name Status Species Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Brand's star phacelia
Phacelia stellaris
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Coastal dunes and coastal
sage scrub.
Lifeform: Annual herb
Blooming Period: March-June
Does not occur due to
a lack of suitable
habitat.
Bristly sedge
Carex comosa
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.1
Habitat: Coastal prairie, marshes and
swamps (lake margins), and valley and
foothill grassland.
Lifeform: Perennial rhizomatous herb
Blooming Period: May- September
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 2B.1
Habitat: Mesic soils in chaparral,
coastal scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps (often alkali), and
riparian scrub.
Lifeform: Perennial rhizomatous herb
Blooming Period: September- May
Does no t occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.2
Habitat: Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub. Sometimes
associated with alkaline soils.
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: January- April
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Coulter's goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Playas, vernal pools, marshes
and swamps (coastal salt).
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: February- June
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Gambel's water cress
Nasturtium gambelii
Federal: FE State:
ST
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Marshes and swamps
(freshwater or brackish).
Lifeform: Perennial rhizomatous herb
Blooming Period: April- October
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Horn's milk-vetch
Astragalus hornii var. hornii
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Lake margins with alkaline soils,
meadows and seeps, and playas.
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: May- October
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Los Angeles
sunflower Helianthus
nuttallii ssp. parishii
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1A
Habitat: Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt and freshwater).
Lifeform: Perennial rhizomatous herb
Blooming Period: August- October
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Marsh sandwort
Arenaria paludicola
Federal: FE State:
SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Bogs and fens, freshwater
marshes and swamps.
Lifeform: Perennial Stoloniferous herb
Blooming Period: May-August
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Mesa horkelia
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Sandy or gravelly soils in
chaparral (maritime), cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub.
Lifeform: Perennial Herb
Blooming Period: February- September
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Nevin's barberry
Berberis nevinii
Federal: FE State:
SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Sandy or gravelly soils in
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, and riparian scrub.
Lifeform: Perennial evergreen shrub
Blooming Period: February- June
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Parish's bush-mallow
Malacothamnus parishii
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1A
Habitat: Chaparral and coastal scrub
Lifeform: Perennial deciduous shrub
Blooming Period: June-July
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-9 4.3 | Biological Resources
Species Name Status Species Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Parish's desert-thorn
Lycium parishii
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 2B.3
Habitat: Coastal sage scrub, Sonoran
Desert scrub
Lifeform: Perennial Shrub
Blooming Period: March-April
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Parish's gooseberry
Ribes divaricatum var. parishii
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1A
Habitat: Riparian woodland
Lifeform: Perennial deciduous shrub
Blooming Period: February-April
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Parry's spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Sandy or rocky soils in open
habitats of chaparral and coastal sage
scrub.
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: April-June
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Peruvian dodder
Cuscuta obtusiflora
var. 0glandulosa
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 2B.2
Habitat: Marshes and swamps
(freshwater). Annual vine (parasitic).
Lifeform: Annual Vine (parasitic)
Blooming Period: July-October
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Plummer's mariposa lily
Calochortus plummerae
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 4.2
Habitat: Granitic, rock soils within
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal sage scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, valley and foothill
grassland.
Lifeform: Perennial bulbiferous herb
Blooming Period: May-July
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Prairie wedge grass
Sphenopholis obtusata
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 2B.2
Habitat: Mesic soils in cismontane
woodland, meadows and seeps.
Lifeform: Perennial Herb
Blooming Period: April-July
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Pringle's monardella
Monardella pringlei
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1A
Habitat: Sandy soils in coastal sage scrub.
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: May-June
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Robinson's pepper grass
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 4.3
Habitat: Chaparral, coastal sage scrub
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: January-July
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Salt marsh bird's-beak
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
maritimum
Federal: FE State:
SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
Habitat: Coastal dune, coastal
salt marshes and swamps.
Lifeform: Annual Herb (hemiparasite)
Blooming Period: May- October
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Salt Spring checkerbloom
Sidalcea neomexicana
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 2B.2
Habitat: Mesic, alkaline soils in chaparral,
coastal sage scrub, lower montane
coniferous
forest, Mojavean desert scrub, and
playas.
Lifeform: Perennial Herb
Blooming Period: March-June
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
San Bernardino aster
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1B.2
Habitat: Cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, lower montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, marshes and
swamps, valley and foothill grassland
(vernally mesic).
Lifeform: Perennial rhizomatous herb
Blooming Period: July-November
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
San Diego ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila
Federal: FE State:
None CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Habitat: Chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Often in disturbed habitats.
Lifeform: Perennial Herb (rhizomatous)
Blooming Period: April-October
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-10 4.3 | Biological Resources
Species Name Status Species Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Santa Ana River woolly
star Eriastrum densifolium
ssp. sanctorum
Federal: FE State:
SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Alluvial fan sage scrub,
chaparral. Occurring on sandy or rocky
soils.
Lifeform: Perennial Herb
Blooming Period: April-September
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Slender-horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras
Federal: FE State:
SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Sandy soils in alluvial scrub,
chaparral, cismontane woodland.
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: April-June
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Smooth tarplant
Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Alkaline soils in chenopod
scrub, meadows and seeps, playas,
riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grasslands, disturbed habitats.
Lifeform: Annual Herb
Blooming Period: April-September
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Southern California
black walnut
Juglans californica
Federal: None
State: None CNPS:
Rank 4.2
Habitat: Chaparral, cismontan
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
alluvial surfaces.
Lifeform: Perennial deciduous
tree
Blooming Period: March-
August
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat, but
no Southern
California black
walnut trees were
identified on the
Project Site during
survey performed by
GLA.
See the above
discussion under
Riparian Woodland
and Appendix B
regarding the
presence of black
walnut trees at the
Project site and the
identification of
Northern California
black walnut versus
Southern California
black walnut.
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
Federal: FT State:
SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Habitat: Clay soils in chaparral
(openings), cismontane woodland,
coastal sage scrub, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools.
Lifeform: Perennial bulbiferous herb
Blooming Period: March-June
Does not occur due
to a lack of suitable
habitat.
Status
Federal
FE- Federally Endangered
FT- Federally Threatened
FC- Federal Candidate
State
SE- State Endangered
ST- State Threatened
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-11 4.3 | Biological Resources
Species Name Status Species Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
CNPS
Rank 1A – Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere.
Rank 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
Rank 2A – Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere.
Rank 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
Rank 3 – Plants about which more information is needed (a review list).
Rank 4 – Plants of limited distribution (a wa tch list).
CNPS Threat Code Extension
.1 – Seriously endangered in California (over 80% occurrences threatened)
.2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)
.3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known)
Source: Ibid. pp. 29-32 Table 4-3
Special-Status Animals
No special-status animals were detected within the Project Study Area during the general and focused
surveys, although some species have a potential to occur within certain undeveloped portions of the
Project Study area. Table 4.3-4, Special Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Study Area provides a
list of special-status animals evaluated for the Project Study Area through general biological surveys and
habitat assessments. Species were evaluated based on the following factors, including: 1) species
identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project
Study Area, and 2) any other special-status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the
Project Study Area, for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the Project Study Area.2
Table 4.3-4: Special Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Study Area
Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Invertebrates
Delhi-sands flower-loving fly
Raphiomidas 11erminates
abdominalis
Federal: FE
State: None
Fine, sandy soils often associated with
wholly or partially consolidated dunes
referred to as the “Delhi” series. Vegetation
consists of a sparse cover, including
Californica buckwheat, California croton,
deerweed, and evening primrose.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Riverside fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus woottoni
Federal: FE
State: None
Restricted to deep seasonal vernal pools,
vernal pool-like ephemeral ponds, and stock
ponds.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
Federal: FT
State: None
Seasonal vernal pools Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Fish
Arroyo chub
Gila orcutti
Federal: None
State: SSC
Slow-moving or backwater sections of warm
to cool streams with substrates
of sand or mud.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Santa Ana speckled dace
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3
Federal: None
State: SSC
Occurs in the headwaters of the Santa Ana
and San Gabriel Rivers. May be extirpated
from the Los Angeles River system. Requires
permanent flowing streams with summer
water temperatures of 17-20° C. Usually
inhabits shallow cobble and gravel riffles.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
2 Ibid. Pages 30-34
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-12 4.3 | Biological Resources
Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Santa Ana sucker
Catostomus santaanae
Federal: FT
State: None
Small, shallow streams, less than 7 meters in
width, with currents ranging from swift in
the canyons to sluggish in the bottom lands.
Preferred substrates are generally coarse
and consist of gravel, rubble, and boulders
with growths of filamentous algae, but
occasionally they are found on
sand/mud substrates.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Amphibians
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
Federal: FT
State: SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent
sources of deep water with dense, shrubby,
or emergent riparian vegetation.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Southern mountain yellow-
legged frog
Rana muscosa
Federal: FE
State: SE
Streams and small pools in ponderosa pine,
montane hardwood-conifer, and montane
riparian habitat types.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat
Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Seasonal pools in coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, and grassland habitats.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat
Reptiles
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
Federal: None
State: SSC
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, chaparral.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Coastal whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
(multiscutatus)
Federal: None
State: SSC
pen, often rocky areas with little vegetation,
or sunny microhabitats within shrub or
grassland associations.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Occurs in a variety of vegetation types
including coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
annual grassland, oak woodland, and
riparian woodlands.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Coast patch-nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
Federal:
None State: SSC
Occurs in coastal chaparral, desert scrub,
washes, sandy flats, and rocky areas.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Granite spiny lizard
Sceloporus orcuttii orcuttii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Chaparral, scrub, and riparian habitats, but
closely tied to fractured granodiorite rock
outcrops.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Red-diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber
Federal: None
State: SSC
Habitats with heavy brush and rock
outcrops, including coastal sage scrub and
chaparral.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
San Diego banded gecko
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
Federal: None
State: SSC
Primarily a desert species, but also occurs in
cismontane chaparral, desert scrub, and
open sand dunes.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Southern California legless
lizard
Anniella stebbinsi
Federal: None
State: SSC
Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,
coastal dunes, coastal scrub; found in a
broader range of habitats that any of the
other species in the genus. Often locally
abundant, specimens are found in coastal
sand dunes and a variety of interior habitats,
including sandy washes and alluvial fans.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Southern rubber boa
Charina umbratica
Federal: None
State: ST
Restricted to the San Bernardino and San
Jacinto Mountain, in a variety of montane
forest habitats. Found in vicinity of streams
or wet meadows. Requires loose, moist soil
for burrowing. Seeks cover in rotting logs.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Aquatic snake typically associated with
wetland habitats such as streams, creeks,
and pools.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-13 4.3 | Biological Resources
Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
Federal: None
State: SSC
Slow-moving permanent or intermittent
streams, small ponds and lakes, reservoirs,
abandoned gravel pits, permanent and
ephemeral shallow wetlands, stock ponds,
and treatment lagoons. Abundant basking
sites and cover necessary, including logs,
rocks, submerged vegetation, and undercut
banks.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Birds
Bald eagle (nesting &
wintering)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Federal: None
State: SSC
Primarily in or near seacoasts, rivers,
swamps, and large lakes. Perching sites
consist of large trees or snags with heavy
limbs or broken tops.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Burrowing owl (burrow sites
& some wintering sites)
Athene cunicularia
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
Shortgrass prairies, grasslands, lowland
scrub, agricultural lands (particularly
rangelands), coastal dunes, desert floors,
and some artificial, open areas as a year -
long resident. Occupies abandoned ground
squirrel burrows as well as artificial
structures such as culverts and underpasses.
Confirmed absent
during focused surveys.
California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
Nests in high portions of salt marshes,
shallow freshwater marshes, wet meadows,
and flooded grassy vegetation.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Coastal California
gnatcatcher Polioptila
californica californica
Federal: FT
State: SSC
Low elevation coastal sage scrub and coastal
bluff scrub.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Golden eagle (nesting &
wintering)
Aquila chrysaetos
Federal: BCC
State: FP
In southern California, occupies grasslands,
brushlands, deserts, oak savannas, open
coniferous forests, and montane valleys.
Nests on rock outcrops and ledges.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Grasshopper sparrow
(nesting)
Ammodramus savannarum
Federal: None
State: SSC
Open grassland and prairies with patches of
bare ground.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Least Bell’s vireo (nesting)
Vireo Bellii pusillus
Federal: FE
State: SE
Dense riparian habitats with a stratified
canopy, including southern willow scrub,
mule fat scrub, and riparian forest.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat, but the
least Bell’s vireo was
confirmed absent
during focused surveys
Loggerhead shrike (nesting)
Lanius ludovicianus
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
Forages over open ground within areas of
short vegetation, pastures with fence rows,
old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries,
golf courses, riparian areas, open woodland,
agricultural fields, desert washes, desert
scrub, grassland, broken chaparral and
beach with scattered shrubs.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat.
Long-eared owl (nesting)
Asio otus
Federal: None
State: SSC
Riparian habitats are required by the long-
eared owl, but it also uses live- oak thickets
and other dense stands of trees.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Olive-sided flycatcher
(nesting)
Contopus cooperi
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
Breeds in montane and northern coniferous
forests, at forest edges and openings, such as
meadows and ponds. Winters at forest edges
and clearings where tall trees or snags are
present.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-14 4.3 | Biological Resources
Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Short-eared owl (nesting)
Asio flammeus
Federal: None
State: SSC
Open country, including prairie, meadows,
tundra, moorlands, marshes, savanna, and
open woodland. Nests on the ground.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Southwestern willow
flycatcher (nesting)
Empidonax traillii extimus
Federal: FE
State: SE
Riparian woodlands along streams and rivers
with mature dense thickets of trees and
shrubs.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat, but the
southwestern willow
flycatcher was
confirmed absent
during focused surveys.
Swainson’s hawk (nesting)
Buteo swainsoni
Federal: BCC
State: ST
Summer in wide open spaces of the
American West. Nest in grasslands but can
use sage flats and agricultural lands. Nests
are placed in lone trees.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Tricolored blackbird (nesting
colony)
Agelaius tricolor
Federal: BCC
State: ST
Breeding colonies require nearby water, a
suitable nesting substrate, and open-range
foraging habitat of natural grassland,
woodland, or agricultural cropland.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(nesting)
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
Federal: FT,
BCC
State: SE
Dense, wide riparian woodlands with well-
developed understories.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
White-tailed kite (nesting)
Elanus leucurus
Federal: None
State: FP
Low elevation open grasslands, savannah-
like habitats, agricultural areas, wetlands,
and oak woodlands. Dense canopies used for
nesting and cover.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat.
Yellow-breasted chat
(nesting)
Icteria virens
Federal: None
State: SSC
Dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands
and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and
dense brush with well-developed
understories.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat.
Yellow warbler (nesting)
Setophaga petechia
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
Breed in lowland and foothill riparian
woodlands dominated by cottonwoods,
alders, or willows and other small trees and
shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian
woodland. During migration, forages in
woodland, forest, and shrub habitats.
Present.
Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
Federal: None
State: SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most
scrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
Federal: None
State: SSC
Fine, sandy soils in coastal sage scrub and
grasslands.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
Federal: None
State: SSC
Coastal sage scrub, sage
scrub/grassland ecotones, and chaparral.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat.
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands,
and forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Pocketed free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: M
Rocky areas with high cliffs in pine- juniper
woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert
wash, and desert riparian.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Dipodomys merriami
Federal: FE
State: SC, SSC
Typically found in Riversidean alluvial fan
sage scrub and sandy loam soils, alluvial fans
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-15 4.3 | Biological Resources
Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
parvus and floodplains, and along washes with
nearby sage scrub.
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Occupies a variety of habitats, but is most
common among shortgrass habitats. Also
occurs in sage scrub,
but needs open habitats.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat.
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
Federal: None
State: SSC
Occurs in a variety of shrub and desert
habitats, primarily associated with rock
outcrops, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense
undergrowth.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
Federal: None
State: SSC
Desert areas, especially scrub habitats with
friable soils for digging. Prefers low to
moderate shrub cover.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Stephens’ kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi
Federal: FE
State: ST
Open grasslands or sparse shrublands with
less than 50% vegetation cover during the
summer.
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Occurs in many open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and
chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees, and tunnels.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat, but the
western mastiff bat was
confirmed absent
during focused surveys.
Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Prefers riparian areas dominated by walnuts,
oaks, willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores
where they roost in broad-leafed trees.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat, but the
western red bat was
confirmed absent
during focused surveys.
Western yellow bat
Lasiurus xanthinus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Found in valley foothill riparian, desert
riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats. Roosts in trees, particularly palms.
Forages over water and among
trees.
Potential to occur due
to the presence of
suitable habitat, but the
western yellow bat was
confirmed absent
during focused surveys.
Status
Federal
FE- Federally Endangered
FT- Federally Threatened
FPT- Federally Proposed
Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate
BCC – Birds of Conservation
Concern
State
SE- State Endangered
ST- State Threatened
SC – State Candidate
CFP – California Fully -Protected Species
SSC – Species of Special Concern
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG)
H – High Priority
LM – Low-Medium Priority
M – Medium Priority
MH – Medium-High Priority
Source: Ibid. pp. 33-39 Table 4-4.
Burrowing Owl
The Project Study Area has a low to moderate potential to support the burrowing owl due to the presence
of generally suitable habitat, including suitable burrows. Burrowing owls are associated with shortgrass
prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands (particularly rangelands), coastal dunes, desert
floors, and some artificial, open areas as a year-long resident. Burrowing owls occupy abandoned ground
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-16 4.3 | Biological Resources
squirrel burrows as well as artificial structures such as culverts and underpasses. Burrowing owls were not
detected during focused surveys and thus the burrowing owl is currently considered absent from the
Project Study area.
Least Bell’s Vireo
The Project Study Area has a low potential to support the Least Bell’s vireo. The Least Bell’s vireo occupies
dense riparian habitats with a stratified canopy, including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and
riparian forest. Breeding generally requires an understory layer of shrubs (such as mulefat), for vireos to
build their nests. The upper part of the riparian drainage at the Project site has a relatively low potential
to support breeding vireos due to the general lack of a stratified canopy. However, the absence could not
be ruled out. The downstream riparian habitat as a relatively higher potential to support breeding vireos
based on the vegetation structure. The Least Bell’s vireo was not detected during focused surveys and so
the least Bell’s vireo is currently considered absent from the Project Study Area.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
The Project Study area has a low potential to support the southwestern willow flycatcher. The
southwestern willow flycatcher is one of three subspecies known from California; however, the
southwestern willow flycatcher is the only subspecies that breeds in southern Ca lifornia. The
southwestern willow flycatcher occupies riparian woodlands along streams and rivers with mature dense
thickets of trees and shrubs. A key component of southwestern willow flycatcher habitat is a perennial
water source. The upper part of the riparian drainage is not expected to support the southwestern willow
flycatcher due to the relative narrowness of the habitat and the lack of perennial flows. However, the
downstream portion of the habitat as a relatively higher potential to support the southwestern willow
flycatcher, although the potential for occurrence is still very low due to the relatively small size of the
habitat and proximity to development, including I-215. The southwestern willow flycatcher was not
detected during focused surveys and so the southwestern willow flycatcher is currently considered absent
from the Project Study Area.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike has a low to moderate potential to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat in
the Project Study Area. The loggerhead shrike forages over open ground within areas of short vegetation,
pastures with fence rows, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, riparian areas, open
woodland, agricultural fields, desert washes, desert scrub, grassland, broken chaparral and beach with
scattered shrubs. For breeding, shrikes typically construct nests in trees or shrubs with dense foliage that
protects the nests. The average height of nests above the ground ranges from approximately 2.5 to 4 feet.
Although much of the Project Study Area is developed or disturbed, the relative openness of the Project
Study provides good foraging habitat for the shrike. However, the potential breeding habitat is limited
due to disturbed nature of the Project Study Area and relative lack of suitable vegetation. Of the trees
that are located at the site, the majority do not exhibit the foliage density that would support shrike
breeding, or at a height that is typical of shrike nest building.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-17 4.3 | Biological Resources
White-Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite has a low potential to occur at the Project Study Area. The white-tailed kite utilizes
low elevation open grasslands, savannah-like habitats, agricultural areas, and wetlands for foraging; while
using dense canopies for nesting and cover, such as oak woodlands. The Project Study Area provides
foraging habitat for white-tailed kites. Although the Pr oject Study Area does not contain native woodlands
that would be typical of kite breeding habitat, the ornamental trees located in the western portion of the
Project Study Area provides a low potential for kite nesting. The trees located in the riparian drainages
are not expected to support kite nesting due to a lack of appropriate vegetation structure. However, since
there are no recognized survey protocols focused nesting survey for the white-tailed kite was not
performed.
Yellow-Breasted Chat
The yellow-breasted chat has a low potential to breed at the Project Study Area. The chat utilizes dense,
relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well-
developed understories. The upper part of the riparian drainage provides limited opportunity for the chat
due to the relative narrowness and openness of the habitat. However, the lower part of the drainage
provides relatively better-quality habitat (relatively wider and denser vegetation) with a potential to
support the chat.
Yellow Warbler
The yellow warbler was detected at the Project Study Area during biological surveys, within the area of
riparian woodland. Yellow warblers breed in lowland and foothill riparian woodlands dominated by
cottonwoods, alders, or willows and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian
woodland.
Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse has a low potential to occur at the Project Study Area. The
pocket mouse is found in coastal sage scrub, sage scrub/grassland ecotones, and chaparral. Although the
Project Study Area is surrounded by development and is isolated from other open space, the grassland
areas of the Project Study Area have some potential to support remnant, disconnected populations of the
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse.
San Diego Black-Tailed Jackrabbit
The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit has a low to moderate potential to occur at the Project Study Area.
The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit occupies many diverse habitats, but primarily is found in arid regions
supporting short-grass habitats. Jackrabbits typically are not found in high grass or dense brush where it
is difficult for them to locomote, and the openness of open scrub habitat probably is preferred over dense
chaparral. The openness of such habitat allows jackrabbits to escape predators and humans by fast, often
long-distance sprints. Black-tailed-jackrabbits typically do not burrow but instead take shelter at the base
of shrubs in shallow depressions called forms. The jackrabbit was not detected in the Project Study Area
and because of the relative openness of the site jackrabbit would have likely been detected if they were
present at the time of the various biological surveys. Furthermore, the Project Study Area does not contain
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-18 4.3 | Biological Resources
shrubs that the forms would typically be associated with. As such, the Project Study Area does contain
habitat to support the general use of jackrabbits, but breeding opportunities are limited because of the
lack of shrubs that would be associated with breeding habitat.
Bats
Three species of bats were detected at the Project area including the Mexican free-tailed bat
(Tadarida brasiliensis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and the canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus). No
special-status bats such as the western mastiff bat, western red bat, and western yellow bat were
detected at the Project Study Area. The Project Study Area does not contain structures with the potential
for use as maternity roosts; however, some mature trees within the Project Study Area could have the
potential for maternity roosting depending on the presence of cavities, etc. Besides maternity roosting,
trees located within the Project area have the potential for use as foraging roosts.
Critical Habitat
The Project Study Area is not located within any USFWS-designated Critical Habitat areas.
Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
Native wildlife nurseries are intended as sites where wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising
young, such as rookeries, spawning areas, and bat colonies. Nurseries can be important to both special-
status species as well as commonly occurring species. The Project Study Area supports reproduction of
locally common species and potentially individuals of special-status wildlife species; however, does not
have the potential to support a regionally important wildlife nursery site such as a heronry, colonial
nesting site (i.e., northern harrier), or colonial maternal bat roost.
Nesting Birds
The Project Study Area contains trees, shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable habitat for nesting
migratory birds. Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
California Fish and Game Code.
Jurisdictional Waters
The Project contains several drainage features with potential to be considered as jurisdictional waters by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Refer to Section 4.3.3, Regulatory Setting, below for
more information regarding jurisdictional waters under USACE, RWQCB and CDFW.
USACE Jurisdiction
Potential USACE jurisdiction at the Project Study Area is approximately 0.88 acre, of which 0.08 acre
consists of federal wetlands and 0.8 acre consists of non-wetland waters. A total of 4,174 linear feet of
streambed is present. Three drainage features (Drainage A, B, and C) were evaluated within the Project
Study Area. Drainages A, B, and C are potential waters of the U.S, (WoUS) exhibiting an ordinary high-
water mark (OHWM) with several characteristics of stream flow including destruction of terrestrial
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-19 4.3 | Biological Resources
vegetation, break in bank slope, change in soil characteristics, debris wracking, and/or water marks.
Table 4.3-5, Potential USACE Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On -site) and
Table 4.3-6, Potential USACE Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (O ff-site), summarizes
potential USACE jurisdictional waters associated with the Project Study Area. A description of the
potential USACE jurisdictional drainage features associated with the Project Study Area is outlined in
Section 4.3.3 below and illustrated in Exhibit 4.3-3, Potential USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation.
Table 4.3-5: Potential USACE Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site)
Drainage Name
Potential USACE
Non-Wetland
Waters (Acres)
Potential USACE
Jurisdictional
Wetlands (Acres)
Total Potential
USACE Jurisdiction
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.29 0.00 0.29 1,806
Drainage B 0.15 0.00 0.15 978
Drainage C 0.15 0.08 0.23 565
Total 0.59 0.08 0.67 3,349
Source: Ibid. p. 42 - Table 4-5.
Table 4.3-6: Potential USACE Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site)
Drainage Name
Potential USACE
Non-Wetland
Waters (Acres)
Potential USACE
Jurisdictional
Wetlands (Acres)
Total Potential
USACE Jurisdiction
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.06 0.00 0.06 266
Drainage B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Drainage C 0.15 0.00 0.15 559
Total 0.21 0.00 0.21 825
Source: Ibid. p. 43 - Table 4-6.
X:\00 - 0362 ONL
§¨¦215
Van Buren Street
De Berry Street
Feature A
Feature A
Feature A
Feature B
Feature C
Feature C
Study Area Boundary
Specific Plan Boundary - 102.59 ac.
10 Width in Feet (W indiates wetland)
Potential Non-wetland Waters
of the U.S./Waters of the State
Potential Wetland Waters
of the U.S./Waters of the State
Impact Footprint
Exhibit 4.3-3: Potential USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Source: GLA. (2022). Biological Technical Report
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-21 4.3 | Biological Resources
Drainage A
Potential USACE jurisdiction associated with Drainage A totals approximately 0.35 acre, none of which
consist of federal wetlands. This drainage is depicted as an unnamed blue-line stream on the
USGS San Bernardino South, California, quadrangle. Drainage A originates as a concrete-lined flood
control channel that enters the site in the northwestern corner from a storm drain outlet at the western
terminus of the existing De Berry Street. The concrete channel extends for approximately 995 linear feet
through the Project site before entering a culvert that crosses under the Riverside Canal and then
continues southwest before exiting the property into a culvert under I-215. Drainage A supports an
OHWM ranging in width between six and 12 feet. The concrete-lined portion of the channel is
unvegetated, and therefore does not support wetlands. The downstream portion of Drainage A, which is
northwest of the Riverside Canal, is vegetated with riparian species including Goodding’s black willow and
mulefat. While riparian vegetation is present, this portion of Drainage A was determined to not support
wetlands due to the lack of appropriate indicators.
Drainage B
Potential USACE jurisdiction associated with Drainage B totals approximately 0.15 acre, none of which
consist of federal wetlands. Drainage B originates from the eastern portion of the Project site at a storm
drain outlet at the western terminus of the existing Van Buren Street. The drainage extends west for
978 linear feet until it crosses under the Riverside Canal and flows into Drainage A. Drainage B supports
an OHWM ranging in width between six and eight feet. The majority of the drainage supports riparian
habitat, including both native and non-native tree species. Vegetation associated with Drainage B includes
non-native Shamel ash along with walnut trees that appear to be a hybrid of the native Southern California
black walnut and the non-native English walnut. Intermixed with the ash and walnut trees are individuals
of western cottonwood.
Drainage C
Potential USACE jurisdiction associated with Drainage C totals approximately 0.38 acre, of which 0.08 acre
consists of federal wetlands and 0.3 acre consists of non-wetland WoUS. Drainage C consists of a human-
made drainage ditch that originates from a storm drain outlet in the southeastern portion of the Project
site just north of Grand Terrace High School. The channel inverts of the drainage ditch are lined with
riprap, with an unlined earthen bed, a portion of which supports potentially jurisdictional wetlands in the
form of freshwater marsh. From the outlet, the drainage ditch extends north and then turns west to a
point where it crosses under the Riverside Canal and connects to the downstream flood control channel.
Drainage C supports an OHWM ranging in width from six to 22 feet. Vegetation associated with the
western portion of Drainage C mainly consists of ruderal upland vegetation including Russian thistle,
Summer mustard, London rocket, and Cheeseweed. The wetland (southeastern) portion of Drainage C is
dominated by Southern cattails, and Tall flat sedge, with occasional Mulefat and Goodding’s black willow.
Riverside Canal
The Riverside Canal is an irrigation canal that was constructed in the late 1800s to convey water from the
Santa Ana River to citrus ranches in the City of Riverside. The canal is a closed irrigation system and does
not connect to WoUS. Instead, the canal terminates at a location near the Citrus State Historical Park
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-22 4.3 | Biological Resources
where remaining water is pumped into the municipal water system. Since the canal is a closed irrigation
system and does not connect to WoUS, it therefore would not itself be considered as potential WoUS by
the USACE pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404.
RWQCB Jurisdiction
The RWQCB jurisdiction associated with Project Study Area totals 0.88 acre, of which 0.08-acre consists
of State wetlands and 0.8-acre consists of non-wetland waters. A total of 4,174 linear feet of streambed
is present.
RWQCB jurisdiction includes three drainage features (Drainages A, B, and C) which have been evaluated
within the Project Study Area. Drainages A, B, and C exhibit an OHWM with several characteristics of
stream flow including destruction of terrestrial vegetation, terracing, change in soil characteristics, debris
wracking, and/or water marks. Drainages A, B, and C have been determined to be potential USACE
jurisdictional waters subject to regulation pursuant to Section 401 and 404 of the CWA. Therefore, these
drainages do not need to be addressed separately pursuant to Section 13260 of the California Water
Commission (CWC), the Porter-Cologne Act. There are no isolated, nonfederal waters associated with the
Project site.
Table 4.3-7, RWQCB Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site) and Table 4.3-8,
RWQCB Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site), summarizes RWQCB jurisdictional
waters associated with the Project Study Area. A description of the RWQCB jurisdictional drainage
features associated with the Project Study Area is outlined below and illustrated in Exhibit 4.3-3.
Table 4.3-7: RWQCB Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site)
Drainage Name
RWQCB Non-
Wetland Waters
(Acres)
RWQCB
Jurisdictional
Wetlands (Acres)
Total RWQCB
Jurisdiction
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.29 0.00 0.29 1,806
Drainage B 0.15 0.00 0.15 978
Drainage C 0.15 0.08 0.23 565
Total 0.59 0.08 0.67 3,349
Source: Ibid. p. 45 Table 4 -7
Table 4.3-8: RWQCB Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site)
Drainage Name
RWQCB Non-
Wetland Waters
(Acres)
RWQCB
Jurisdictional
Wetlands (Acres)
Total RWQCB
Jurisdiction
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.06 0.00 0.06 266
Drainage B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Drainage C 0.15 0.00 0.15 559
Total 0.21 0.00 0.21 825
Source: ibid. p. 45 - Table 4-8.
Drainages A, B, and C
RWQCB jurisdiction associated with Drainage A totals approximately 0.35 acre, none of which consist of
State wetlands. RWQCB jurisdiction associated with Drainage B totals approximately 0.15-acre, none of
which consist of State wetlands. Lastly, RWQCB jurisdiction associated with Drainage C totals
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-23 4.3 | Biological Resources
approximately 0.38-acre, of which 0.08-acre consists of State wetlands and 0.3-acre consists of non-
wetland waters.
Riverside Canal
Since the canal is a closed irrigation system and does not connect to other jurisdictional waters, it would
not itself be considered as a jurisdictional water.
CDFW Jurisdiction
CDFW jurisdiction associated with the Project Study Area totals approximately 4.13 acres, of which 3.66
acres consist of riparian streambed and 0.47 acre consists of non-riparian streambed. A total of 4,174
linear feet of streambed is present. CDFW jurisdiction includes all areas within RWQCB jurisdiction
including Drainages A, B, and C, as described above. CDFW jurisdiction is extended to the top of the bank
of the streambed and/or the dripline of riparian vegetation (where applicable).
Table 4.3-9, CDFW Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site) and Table 4.3-10, CDFW
Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site), summarizes CDFW jurisdictional waters
associated with the Project Study Area. A description of the CDFW jurisdictional drainage features
associated with the Project Study Area is outlined below and illustrated in Exhibit 4.3-4, Potential CDFW
Jurisdictional Delineation.
Table 4.3-9: CDFW Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (On-site)
Drainage Name CDFW Non-Riparian
Stream (Acres)
CDFW Riparian
Stream (Acres)
Total CDFW
Jurisdiction (Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.14 1.65 1.79 1,806
Drainage B 0.08 1.33 1.41 978
Drainage C 0.10 0.21 0.31 565
Total 0.32 3.19 3.51 3,349
Source: Ibid. p. 47 - Table 4-9
Table 4.3-10: CDFW Jurisdiction Associated with the Project Study Area (Off-site)
Drainage Name CDFW Non-Riparian
Stream (Acres)
CDFW Riparian
Stream (Acres)
Total CDFW
Jurisdiction (Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.00 0.42 0.42 266
Drainage B 0.00 0.05 0.05 N/A(1)
Drainage C 0.15 0.00 0.15 559
Total 0.15 0.47 0.62 825
(1) The off-site 0.05-acre represents the edge of canopy associated with the center line of the stream, and so it is not applicable to again
report a linear measurement for that portion since it was already counted as part of the on -site.
Source: Ibid. p. 47 - Table 4-10
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY
§¨¦215
Van Buren Street
De Berry Street
Feature A
Feature A
Feature A
Feature B
Feature C
Feature C
Study Area Boundary
Specific Plan Boundary
Impact Footprint
CDFW Non-Riparian Stream
CDFW Riparian
Width of Non-Riparian in Feet10
Exhibit 4.3-4: Potential CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Source: GLA. (2022). Biological Technical Report
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-25 4.3 | Biological Resources
Drainages A, B, and C
CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainage A totals approximately 2.21 acres, of which 2.07 acres consist
of riparian streambed and 0.14-acre consists of non-riparian streambed. This drainage is depicted as an
unnamed blue-line stream on the USGS San Bernardino South, California, quadrangle. CDFW jurisdiction
associated with Drainage B totals approximately 1.46 acres, of which 1.38 acres consist of riparian
streambed and 0.08-acre consists of non-riparian streambed. Lastly, CDFW jurisdiction associated with
Drainage C totals approximately 0.46 acre, of which 0.21 acre consists of riparian streambed and 0.25 acre
consists of non-riparian streambed.
Riverside Canal
Since the canal is a closed irrigation system and does not connect to CDFW jurisdictional drainage courses.
It therefore would not itself be considered as a CDFW jurisdictional resource under Section 1600 et Seq.
of the Fish and Game Code, as it is an artificial waterway lacking fish and wildlife values.
4.3.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and subsequent amendments provide guidance for the
conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
FESA defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become
an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the FESA it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is
defined in Section 3(18) of FESA: “...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Further, the USFWS, through regulation, has
interpreted the terms “harm” and “harass” to include certain types of habitat modification that result in
injury to, or death of species as forms of “take.” These interpretations, however, are generally considered
and applied on a case-by-case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property
owner seeks permission from a federal agency for an action that could affect a federally listed plant and
animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of
the FESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants.
Federal Take Authorizations for Listed Species
Federal or state authorizations of impacts to or incidental take of a listed species by a private individual
or other private entity would be granted in one of the following ways:
• Section 7 of the FESA stipulates that any federal action that may affect a species listed as
threatened or endangered requires a formal consultation with USFWS to ensure that the action
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-26 4.3 | Biological Resources
• In 1982, the FESA was amended to give private landowners the ability to develop Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCP) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA. Upon development of an HCP,
the USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species where the HCP specifies at
minimum, the following: (1) the level of impact that will result from the taking, (2) steps that will
minimize and mitigate the impacts, (3) funding necessary to implement the plan, (4) alternative
actions to the taking considered by the applicant and the reasons why such alternatives were not
chosen, and (5) such other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being
necessary or appropriate for the plan.
Clean Water Act/Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 401 requires that a project proponent for a Federal license or permit that allows activities resulting
in a discharge to WoUS must obtain a State certification that the discharge complies with other provisions
of CWA. The RWQCB administers the certification program in California.
Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredge or fil l
material) into WoUS, commonly referred to as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit process, described further below.
Section 404 establishes a permit program, administered by the USACE, regulating the discharge of
dredged or fill material into WoUS, including wetlands. Refer to USACE regulatory information below for
more information.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 701 through 719(c))
The MBTA is the domestic law that affirms, or implements, the United States’ commitment to four
international conventions (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared
migratory bird resource. The MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to
pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory bir ds. The law also applies to the removal of nests occupied
by migratory birds during the breeding season. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, pursue, molest, or
disturb these species, their nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material
into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined in USACE regulations
at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as:
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the
ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect foreign commerce including any such waters:
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-27 4.3 | Biological Resources
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or
other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shell fish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in
interstate commerce...
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under
the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(4) of this section;
(6) The territorial seas;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(6) of this section.
(8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland.
Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland
by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final
authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA.
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet
the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m)
which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
In the absence of wetlands, the limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent
streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as:
...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical
characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the
character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, federal regulatory authority extends only to
activities that affect interstate commerce. In the early 1980s, USACE interpreted the interstate commerce
requirement in a manner that restricted USACE jurisdiction on isolated (intrastate) waters. On
September 12, 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that USACE jurisdiction
extended to isolated waters that are used or could be used by migratory birds or endangered species, and
the definition of “waters of the United States” in USACE regulations was modified as quoted above from
33 CFR 328.3(a).
On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County v. USACE, et al. (SWANCC). In this case, the Court was asked whether use of an
isolated, intrastate pond by migratory birds is a sufficient interstate commerce connection to bring the
pond into federal jurisdiction of Section 404 of the CWA.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-28 4.3 | Biological Resources
The written opinion notes that the Court’s previous support of the USACE’s expansion of jurisdiction
beyond navigable waters (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.) was for a wetland that abutted
a navigable water and that the court did not express any opinion on the question of the authority of the
USACE to regulate wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water. The SWANCC opinion goes on
to state:
In order to rule for the respondents here, we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of
the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water. We conclude that the
text of the statute will not allow this.
Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States
On June 5, 2007, the EPA and USACE issued joint guidance3 that addresses the scope of jurisdiction
pursuant to the CWA in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United
States and Carabell v. United States (“Rapanos”). The information below was provided in the joint EPA/
USACE guidance.
For sites that include waters other than Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs) and/or their adjacent
wetlands or Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) tributary to TNWs and/or their adjacent wetlands, as
set forth below, USACE must apply the “significant nexus” standard.
For “isolated” waters or wetlands, the joint guidance also requires an evaluation by the USACE and EPA
to determine whether other interstate commerce clause nexuses, not addressed in the SWANCC decision
are associated with isolated features on project sites for which a jurisdictional determination is being
sought from the USACE.
The USACE and EPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• Traditional navigable waters.
• Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters.
• Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the
tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically
three months).
• Wetlands that directly touch such tributaries.
The USACE and EPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to
determine whether they have a significant nexus with a TNW:
• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent.
• Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent.
• Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.
3 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Joint EPA
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Memorandum (June 5, 2007). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-29 4.3 | Biological Resources
The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
• Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent
or short duration flow).
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do
not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
• A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself
and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they
significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional
navigable waters.
• Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.
State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15380
CEQA requires evaluation of a project’s impacts on biological resources and provides guidelines and
thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts. Section 4.3.4 and
Section 4.3.6 below set forth these thresholds and guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA includes non-listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for
state listing in its definition of “endangered” or “rare.” For plants, CDFW recognizes that plants on Lists 1A,
1B, or 2 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing
and should be considered rare or endangered under CEQA. CDFW also recommends protection of plants,
which are regionally important, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations of more common plants,
or plants on the CNPS Lists 3 or 4.
California Endangered Species Act (California State Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect,
restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. The CESA defines an
endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant
which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to
one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition,
or disease.” The State defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal,
fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and
management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the Fish and Game Commission
as rare on or before January 1, 1985, is a threatened species.” Candidate species are defined as “a native
species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has
formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to either the list of endangered species or
the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed
regulation to add the species to either list.” Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-30 4.3 | Biological Resources
though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game
Commission. Unlike FESA, CESA does not list invertebrate species.
Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened, endangered, or
candidate species by stating “No person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take,
possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the
commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those
acts, except as otherwise provided.” Under the CESA, “take” is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture,
or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the state to allow
“take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species,
threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take
incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Sections 1901 and 1913 of the California Fish and Game Code
provide that notification is required prior to disturbance.
The CESA mandates that State agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued
existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that
would avoid jeopardy. There are no State agency consultation procedures under the CESA. For proj ects
that affect both a State and Federal listed species, compliance with FESA would satisfy the CESA if the
CDFW determines that the Federal incidental take authorization is “consistent” with the CESA under
California State Fish and Game Code Section §2080.1. For projects that would result in a take of a State-
only listed species, the project proponent must apply for a take permit under Section 2081(b).
State Take Authorizations for Listed Species
State authorizations of impacts to or incidental take of a listed species by a private individual or other
private entity would be granted in the following way:
• Sections 2090-2097 of the CESA require that the state lead agency consult with CDFW on projects
with potential impacts on state-listed species. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate
consultations with USFWS for actions involving federally listed as well as state-listed species. In
certain circumstances, Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code allows CDFW to adopt
the federal incidental take statement or the 10(a) permit as its own based on its findings that the
federal permit adequately protects the species under state law.
Native Plant Protection Act (California State Fish and Game Code 1900 through 1913)
California’s Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires all State agencies to utilize their authority to carry
out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of the NPPA prohibit the taking
of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any
change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed.
The Project proponent is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project
planning to comply with the provisions of this Act and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered
plants.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-31 4.3 | Biological Resources
California Native Plant Society
The CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of
sensitive species in California. The CNPS’s Eighth Edition of the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory
of Rare and Endangered Plants of California separates plants of interest into six ranks. CNPS has compiled
an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative
characterization of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered vascular plant species of California. The list serves as
the candidate list for listing as threatened and endangered by CDFW. CNPS has developed six categories
of rarity that are summarized in Table 4.3-11, CNPS Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, & 4, and Threat Code
Extensions below.
Table 4.3-11: CNPS Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, & 4, and Threat Code Extensions
CNPS Rank Comments
Rank 1A – Plants Presumed
Extirpated in California and Either
Rare or Extinct Elsewhere
Thought to be extinct in California based on a lack of observation or detection
for many years.
Rank 1B – Plants Rare,
Threatened, or Endangered in
California and Elsewhere
Species, which are generally rare throughout their range that are also judged
to be vulnerable to other threats such as declining habitat.
Rank 2A – Plants presumed
Extirpated in California, But
Common Elsewhere
Species that are presumed extinct in California but more common outside of
California
Rank 2B – Plants Rare,
Threatened or Endangered in
California, But More Common
Elsewhere
Species that are rare in California but more common outside of California
Rank 3 – Plants About Which
More Information Is Needed (A
Review List)
Species that are thought to be rare or in de cline, but CNPS lacks the
information needed to assign to the appropriate list. In most instances, the
extent of surveys for these species is not sufficient to allow CNPS to
accurately assess whether these species should be assigned to a specific rank.
In addition, many of the Rank 3 species have associated taxonomic problems
such that the validity of their current taxonomy is unclear.
Rank 4 – Plants of Limited
Distribution (A Watch List)
Species that are currently thought to be limited in distribution or range
whose vulnerability or susceptibility to threat is currently low. In some cases,
as noted above for Rank 3 species, CNPS lacks survey data to accurately
determine status in California. Many species have been placed on Rank 4 in
previous editions of the “Inventory” and have been removed as survey data
has indicated that the species are more common than previously thought.
CNPS recommends that species currently included on this list should be
monitored to ensure that future substantial declines are minimized.
Extension Comments
.1 – Seriously endangered in
California
Species with over 80% of occurrences threatened and/or have a high degree
and immediacy of threat.
.2 – Fairly endangered in
California
Species with 20-80% of occurrences threatened.
.3 – Not very endangered in
California
Species with <20% of occurrences threatened or with no current threats
known.
Source: GLA. (2022). BTR for The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Project. p. 17 - Table 3-1. See Appendix B.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-32 4.3 | Biological Resources
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resource Control Board and each of its nine RWQCBs regulate the discharge of waste
(dredged or fill material) into WoUS and waters of the State. WoUS are defined above in Section II.A and
waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the
boundaries of the state” (California Water Code 13050[e]).
Section 401 of the CWA requires certification for any federal permit or license authorizing impacts to
WoUS (i.e., waters that are within federal jurisdiction), such as Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of
the Safe Rivers and Harbors Act, to ensure that the impacts do not violate state water quality standards.
When a project could impact waters outside of federal jurisdiction, the RWQCB has the authority under
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure
that impacts do not violate state water quality standards. CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certifications,
WDRs, and waivers of WDRs are also referred to as orders or permits.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, waters of the State fall under the jurisdiction of the
appropriate RWQCB. Under the act, the RWQCB must prepare and periodically update basin plans. Each
basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater as well as actions to
control nonpoint and point sources of pollution, thereby achieving and maintaining these standards.
Projects that affect wetlands or waters must meet waste discharge requirements of the RWQCB, which
may be issued in addition to water quality certification or a waiver under Section 401 of the CWA.
State Wetland Definition
The State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures define an area as wetland as follows:
An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or
recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface
water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic
conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by
hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.
The following wetlands are waters of the State:
1. Natural wetlands;
2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state;4 and
3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:5
4 “Created by modification of a surface water of the state” means that the wetland that is being evaluated was created by modif ying an area
that was a surface water of the state at the time of such modification. It does not include a wetland that is created in a location wher e a water
of the state had existed historically, but had already been completely eliminated at some time prior to the creation of t he wetland. The wetland
being evaluated does not become a water of the state due solely to a diversion of water from a different water of the state.
5 Artificial wetlands are wetlands that result from human activity.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-33 4.3 | Biological Resources
a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the
state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of
limited duration;
b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the
state;
c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and
maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or
d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed,
and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following
purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they
also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b):
i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal,
ii. Settling of sediment,
iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other
pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or
industrial stormwater permitting program,
iv. Treatment of surface waters,
v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering,
vi. Fire suppression,
vii. Industrial processing or cooling,
viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions
and values,
ix. Log storage,
x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or
xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have
incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or
xii. Fields flooded for rice growing.6
All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b,
or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic feature meets the wetland definition, the burden is on the
applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state.
6 Fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that have not been abandoned due to five consecutive years of non -use for the
cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that are determined to be a water of the state in accordance with these Procedures shall not have
beneficial use designations applied to them through the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, exce pt
as otherwise required by federal law for fields that are considered to be waters of the United States. Further, agricultural inputs legally applied
to fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) shall not constitute a discharge of waste to a water of the state. Agricultural inputs
that migrate to a surface water or groundwater may be considered a discharge of was te and are subject to waste discharge requirements or
waivers of such requirements pursuant to the Water Board’s authority to issue or waive waste discharge requirements or take o ther actions
as applicable.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-34 4.3 | Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1617 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW
regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river,
stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.
CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flow s at least periodically or
intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes
watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation."
CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." CDFW also defines a stream
as “a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime,
and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.”
It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines fish and wildlife to include: all wild animals,
birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities including the
habitat upon which they depend for continued viability (FGC Division 5, Chapter 1, section 45 and
Division 2, Chapter 1 section 711.2(a) respectively). Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section
1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific
flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities.
Sections 1600 through 1617. Under these sections of the California State Fish and Game Code, the Project
proponent is required to notify CDFW prior to any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the
natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Pursuant to the California State Fish and
Game Code, a “stream” is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently,
through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Based on this definition,
a watercourse with surface or subsurface flows that supports or has supported riparian vegetation is a
stream and is subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Altered or artificial watercourses valuable to fish and wildlife
are subject to CDFW jurisdiction. The CDFW also has jurisdiction over dry washes that carry water
ephemerally during storm events.
Preliminary notification and project review generally occur during the environmental review process.
When an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is required to
propose reasonable project changes to protect the resource. These modifications are formalized in a
Streambed Alteration Agreement that becomes part of the plans, specifications, and bid documents for
the Project.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) Open Space and Conservation Element focuses
on attributes that contribute to the preservation of natural resources, such as the protection of sensitive
habit, the management of production resources, such as mineral deposits, agriculture, or groundwater
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-35 4.3 | Biological Resources
recharge, and recreation and visual aesthetics.7 Concurrently, open space may be used to manage public
safety hazards such as seismic activity, high fire hazards, flood hazards , and quality of life in the
communities and neighborhoods where people live. The following goals and policies are app licable to
biological resources.
Goal 4.2 Natural resources in the City of Grand Terrace shall be protected and preserved by
utilizing open space designations or related regulations.
Policy 4.2.2 The City shall establish land use regulations to preserve and protect any identified
natural resources.
Policy 4.2.5 The City shall act to reasonably conserve and protect significant biological resources.
4.3.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning biological resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; and
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning biological resources. This analysis considers the
existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
7 City of Grand Terrace. (2010). Grand Terrace General Plan. Open Space and Conservation Element. Retrieved from: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/c4_open_space_cons
erv.pdf (accessed February 22, 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-36 4.3 | Biological Resources
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
As noted in Section 4.3.1, the Project Study Area evaluated in the BTR is shown in Exhibit 4.3-1. The
following impact analysis for the Project primarily focuses on a project-specific analysis for those portions
of the Project Study Area currently owned or otherwise under control of the project Applicant
(i.e., Phase 1 on- and off-site areas). Due to current ownership issues and lack of accessibility, potential
impacts associated with the Phase 2 on- and off-site areas were determined at the programmatic level.
The BTR (Appendix C) is determined to be adequate at a programmatic level to describe potential impacts
to biological resources. Site-specific surveys would be required for any future development proposed
within the Phase 2 on- and off-site areas, as noted in the mitigation measures below.
Biological Field Surveys
The properties within the Project Study Area have evolved over the past years. At the programmatic level,
the following surveys are referenced herein to describe findings for certain specific properties within the
Project boundaries and are determined to be adequate at a programmatic level to identify biolog ical
resources for the overall Project area in accordance with CEQA requirements.
GLA assembled biological data consisting of the following main components:
• Performance of habitat assessments, and site-specific biological surveys, to evaluate the
presence/absence of special-status species in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
• Performance of vegetation mapping for the Project area; and
• Delineation of aquatic resources (including wetlands and riparian habitat) subject to the
jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW.
Summary of Surveys
The focus of the biological surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, a review of the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 8 th edition online
inventory, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil data, other pertinent literature, and
knowledge of the region. General biological surveys and habitat assessments were conducted on foot
where access was permitted; otherwise, the assessments were performed from adjacent properties
and/or through the review of aerial imagery.
GLA conducted biological resources assessments of the Project Study Area in multiple years, starting with
initial general biological surveys in 2017 followed by focused surveys in 2018 and 2021. The 2017 visits
were performed to document existing conditions at the Project Study Area, and to note potential habitat
for special status plant and animal species. The focused biological studies conducted in 2018 and 2021
were performed to document the presence of several special-status species and conduct a jurisdictional
delineation. During all of GLA’s surveys, observations of plant and animal species were noted.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-37 4.3 | Biological Resources
Individual plants and wildlife species are evaluated in the BTR based on their “special-status.” For the
purpose of this analysis, plants were considered “special-status” based on one or more of the following
criteria:
• Listing through the FESA and/or CESA;
• Occurrence in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (Rank 1A/1B, 2A/2B, 3, or 4 ); and/or
• Occurrence in the CNDDB inventory.
Wildlife species were considered “special-status” based on one or more of the following criteria:
• Listing through the Federal and/or State ESA; and
• Designation by the State as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) or California Fully Protected (CFP)
species.
Vegetation communities and habitats were considered “special-status” based on one or more of the
following criteria:
• Occurrence in the CNDDB inventory
• Riparian habitat
• Due to the overall disturbed nature of the Project site, vegetation mapping generally did not
follow standard classification systems such as the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition
or MCVII, which is the California expression of the National Vegetation Classification, or Holland.
Vegetation mapping was generally performed based on the dominant land uses, except where
native vegetation was present, i.e., for the on-site drainage feature supporting riparian
vegetation.
4.3.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.3-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species
As discussed in Section 4.3.2 above, the Project Study Area contains walnut trees that were identified as
the Northern California black walnut, but with a note that one or more individual trees could be the result
of introgression with the Southern California black walnut. The Southern California black walnut has a
CNPS Rank of 4.2, indicating that it is a plant of limited distribution with greater than 20 percent of
occurrences threatened. Regardless, the Project does not support pure individuals of the Southern
California black walnut. Accordingly, Project development would not impact the Southern California black
walnut as a special-status species. Furthermore, the Project Study Area does not have the potential to
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-38 4.3 | Biological Resources
support special-status plants as noted in Table 4.3-4 above, due to lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, the
development of the Project would not impact special-status plants species.
Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species
Project development would remove habitats with the potential to support special-status wildlife species.
As concluded in the BTR, the loss of habitat for the following species would be considered less than
significant without mitigation based on multiple factors: the loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, yellow-
breasted chat, yellow warbler, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit. Those factors include the relatively low habitat value based on the majority of developed and
disturbed lands, predominance of non-native vegetation, and adjacency to the developed areas (i.e., no
connectivity to open space). Other factors, depending on the species, include the low potential for
occurrence and/or low sensitivity of the species. Nevertheless, impacts to nesting birds are prohibited by
the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Although there is a low potential for nesting birds to occur
within the Phase I on- and off-site areas, the Project would be required to implement MM BIO-1, to avoid
impacts to nesting birds. Therefore, with implementation of MM BIO-1, impacts to migratory/nesting
birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Based on a review of the Phase 2 areas from adjacent properties and from reviewing aerial imagery, the
Phase 2 on-site lands consist of existing rural residential parcels with associated fields that have a history
of disturbance and support predominantly non-native vegetation. The BTR concluded that the Phase 2
on-site lands do not appear to support native vegetation communities as they are primarily disturbed
areas.
The Phase 2 on-site lands also have a low potential to support foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite
and loggerhead shrikes. Similarly, because the Phase 2 on-site lands have a low potential to support
foraging and are currently disturbed, the loss of foraging habitat is not expected. The Phase 2 on-site lands
also do not have a potential to support special-status bats, or riparian birds such as the least Bell’s vireo
and southwestern willow flycatcher. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and future
development within the Phase 2 area would not be required to conduct focused surveys for those species.
The BTR concluded that the Phase 2 area could support the burrowing owl due to the presence of
generally suitable habitat, including suitable burrows. As such, future development projects within the
Phase 2 area would be required to adhere to MM BIO-2, which requires pre-construction surveys of all
suitable habitat areas for burrowing owls, prior to any disturbance activities, to confirm the absence or
occurrence of the species. Surveys would be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. With implementation of MM BIO-2, impacts to the burrowing owl species
would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Operations
No impact to any candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur during the Project operations.
Operational impacts would be less than significant.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-39 4.3 | Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 To avoid impacts to nesting migratory and/or special-status birds, the removal of any
vegetation with the potential to support nesting migratory and/or special-status birds
should be performed outside of the nesting season (February 1 through August 31,
but potentially earlier if the site can support nesting raptors). If vegetation must be
removed during the nesting season, then a qualified biologist should perform a
nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the removal of any vegetation.
If active nests are identified at the site, then the nests should be avoided with an
adequate buffer as determined by the biologist until the nests are no longer active
and the young can survive independently from the nest.
MM BIO-2 A qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance (pre-construction) survey of all
suitable habitat areas for burrowing owl. The survey shall follow the 2012 CDFW
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which indicates that a survey should be
performed 14 to 30 days prior to any disturbance activities, with a follow up survey
within 24 hours prior to the disturbance. If any burrowing owls are present at the time
of the planned disturbance, then the burrowing owls will be passively excluded or
passively relocated from the site to avoid direct harm to individual owls; however,
exclusion/relocation of nesting owls must occur outside of the breeding season
(February 1 to September 15) to avoid impacts to active nests. The
exclusion/relocation of owls must be approved by CDFW. If applicable, a Burrowing
Owl Exclusion/Relocation Plan should be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review
and approval.
Impact 4.3-2: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Impact 4.3-3 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Because riparian habitats and protected wetlands often overlap with other state or federally protected
lands, potential impacts to these two resources are analyzed together in the following discussion.
Construction
Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities
As shown in Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3, the development of the Project’s Phase 1 area would impact
approximately 96.35 acres of land, including 64.1 acres on-site and 32.25 acres off-site. More specially,
development of the Phase 1 area would impact 1.91 acres of Riparian Woodland and 0.08 acre of
Freshwater Marsh. Riparian communities, in general, are regarded as special-status vegetation
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-40 4.3 | Biological Resources
communities by CDFW and could host potential riparian species (see Table 4.3-5). Thus, impacts to
Riparian Woodland and Freshwater Marsh could be potentially significant with development of the
Project’s Phase 1 area.
To reduce potentially significant impacts, MM BIO-3 which is required during regulatory permit
acquisition for future development, will include one or more of the following mitigation options to reduce
impacts to sensitive vegetation communities: 1) avoidance and conservation of onsite waters; 2)
establishment and/or enhancement of wetlands/riparian habitat onsite; 3) establishment and/or
enhancement of wetlands/riparian habitat offsite; and/or 4) purchase of credits from an approved
mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program. With implementation of MM BIO-3, impacts to sensitive vegetation
communities would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The Project would impact drainage features that may be regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW,
including wetlands and riparian vegetation.
USACE and RWQCB Jurisdiction
As detailed in the following Table 4.3-12, Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction al Waters Associated
with On-Site Phase 1 Area and Table 4.3-13, Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters Associated
with Off-Site Phase 1 Area, development of the Project’s Phase 1 area would permanently impact
approximately 0.59 acre of potential USACE and RWCQB jurisdiction (0.38 acre onsite and 0.21 acre
offsite), including 0.08 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. On-site impacts would occur to the entirety of
Drainage B and C.
Table 4.3-12: Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters Associated with On -Site Phase 1 Area
Drainage Name Non-Wetland
Waters (Acres)
Wetlands
(Acres)
Total Impacts
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage B 0.15 0.0 0.15 963
Drainage C 0.15 0.08 0.23 565
Total Impact 0.30 0.08 0.38 1,528
Total Existing Potential Jurisdiction
waters (Drainage A, B & C)
0.59 0.08 0.67 3,349
Source: GLA. (2022). Biological Technical Report for the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan. Page 53 - Tables 5-3 and 5-5. See Appendix B.
Table 4.3-13: Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters Associated with Off-Site Phase 1 Area
Drainage Name Non-Wetland
Waters (Acres)
Wetlands
(Acres)
Total Impacts
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.06 0.0 0.06 226
Drainage C 0.15 0.0 0.15 559
Total Impact 0.21 0.0 0.21 825
Total Existing Potential Jurisdiction
waters (Drainage A, B & C)
0.21 0.0 0.21 825
Source: GLA. (2022). Biological Technical Report for the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan. Pages 53 and 54 - Tables 5-4 and 5-6. See
Appendix B.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-41 4.3 | Biological Resources
CDFW Jurisdiction
As shown in Table 4.3-14, Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Land and Riparian Vegetation Associated with
On-Site Phase 1 Area and Table 4.3-15, Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Land and Riparian Vegetation
Associated with Off-site Phase 1 Area, the Project would permanently impact approximately 2.33 acres
of land under CDFW jurisdiction (1.71 acres [1,525 linear feet] on-site and 0.62 acre [850 linear feet] off-
site), including 1.99 acres of riparian vegetation. On-site impacts would occur to Drainage B and C. Off-
site impacts would occur to Drainage A, B, and C.
Table 4.3-14: Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Land and Riparian Vegetation Associated with On-Site
Phase 1 Area
Drainage Name
Non-Riparian
Stream
(Acres)
Riparian Stream
(Acres)
Total Impacts
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage B 0.08 1.32 1.40 950
Drainage C 0.10 0.21 0.31 565
Total Impact 0.18 1.53 1.71 1,525
Source: Ibid. Page 54 - Table 5-7.
Table 4.3-15: Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Land and Riparian Vegetation Associated with Off-site
Phase 1 Area
Drainage Name
Non-Riparian
Stream
(Acres)
Riparian Stream
(Acres)
Total Impacts
(Acres)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Drainage A 0.0 0.41 0.42 226
Drainage B 0.0 0.05 0.05 25
Drainage C 0.15 0.0 0.15 559
Total Impact 0.15 0.46 0.62 850
Source: Ibid. Page 54 - Table 5-8.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the construction of the Project would permanently impact 0.59 acre of potential
USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction (including 0.08 acre of wetlands) and 2.33 acres of CDFW jurisdiction
(including 1.99 acres of riparian vegetation). Therefore, Applicants of future development projects
impacting these jurisdictional areas will be required to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE,
a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
the CDFW. Furthermore, the Project would implement MM BIO-3 to mitigate impacts concerning
jurisdictional waters. Since the Project would obtain the necessary permits from USACE, RWQCB, and
CDFW and implement MM BIO-3, the Project’s construction impact to jurisdictional waters would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
Once constructed, Project operations would not impact any riparian habitat, wetland, or other sensitive
natural community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-42 4.3 | Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-3 In addition to obtaining permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, impacts to
CDFW jurisdiction will require a Streambed Alternation Agreement and the Project
shall implement mitigation consisting of one or more of the following options
(mitigation would be required at a minimum 1:1 ratio to offset impacts):
1) Avoidance and conservation of on-site waters;
2) Establishment and/or enhancement of wetlands/riparian habitat on-site;
3) Establishment and/or enhancement of wetlands/riparian habitat off-site;
4) Purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program.
Impact 4.3-4: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project Study Area is surrounded by existing development including commercial manufacturing uses
to the north; I-215 to the northwest; residential uses and industrial uses to the south (south of W. Main
Street); commercial manufacturing uses, residential uses, manufacturing uses, industrial uses, Veteran’s
Freedom Park, and Grand Terrace High School, and vacant parcels to the east; and the BNSF railway
followed by industrial and commercial uses to the west. Although a few vacant parcels are located east of
the Project Study Area, the Project site does not function as a regional wildlife corridor or habitat linkage
due to the existing freeway, railway, and surrounding urbanization. Thus, the Project site does not support
regional wildlife movement, and therefore implementation of the Project would not substantially
interfere with the movement of native fish or wildlife species.
Additionally, as concluded in the BTR, the Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation
is removed during the nesting season (refer to Impact 4.3-1 for more information). However, general
nesting habitat does not constitute as wildlife nursery sites under CEQA. and the BTR did not identify any
wildlife nurseries in the Project Study Area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.3-5: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-43 4.3 | Biological Resources
Construction and Operations
Implementation of the Project would be subject to all applicable Federal, State, regional, and local policies
and regulations related to the protection of biological resources as outlined above in Section 4.3.3,
Regulatory Setting. However, there are no local policies or ordinances that apply to the Project area. All
development facilitated by the Project would be constructed in compliance with the Specific Plan’s
residential and non-residential development standards pursuant to the Grand Terrace MC. The Project
would support the preservation of biological resources pursuant to Grand Terrace GP Policies 4.2.2 and
4.2.5. The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project proposes streetscape
landscaping that includes, but is not limited to, canopy, skyline, understory, and background trees that
could host new habitat for special-status species. Within commercially development areas, interior
landscaping shall be installed to create shade and visual interest; parking lot screen and shade trees shall
be located within landscape planters and perimeter buffers; and residential alleys shall include landscaped
areas on both sides of the lane adjacent to selected garages and accent shrubs would be planted to
highlight unit entries. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.3-6: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project and off-site improvement areas are not located within the boundaries of a Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of such plans and
no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.3.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable biological resource impacts have been identified for the Project.
4.3.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (14 Cal Code Regs §15355).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.3-44 4.3 | Biological Resources
For purposes of cumulative biological resources impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for
cumulative development according to the related projects; see Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List.
Development of the Project would contribute to the overall reduction of riparian woodland, non-native
grassland, ornamental, and freshwater marsh vegetation in the region, which is habitat that is used, or
can be used, as live-in and/or foraging areas for several species identified in Table 4.3-4 above. The Project
would also impact wetland and non-wetland WoUS/Waters of the State.
Compensatory mitigation for Project specific impacts to riparian and wetland resources would be required
by agencies with jurisdiction over these resources and implemented in the course of the Project’s
development (MM BIO-3).
Compliance with existing regulations, permit conditions, local design standards and implementation of
MMs BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce Project impacts to biological resources to a less than significant
levels. Similarly, all future public or private projects would be required to adhere to applicable regula tory
standards, design standards, and incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts concerning
biological resources. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
to any potentially significant cumulative impact on biological resources.
4.3.8 REFERENCES
Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States &
Carabell v. United States. Joint EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Memorandum (June 5, 2007).
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). Grand Terrace General Plan. Open Space and Conservation Element.
https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20
Development/Planning/c4_open_space_conserv.pdf
Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA). (2022). Biological Technical Report for the Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan. See Appendix B.
U.S. EPA. (N.D). Section 404 Program.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleFrame.cfm?parent_object_id=2802#:~:text=Federal%
20regulations%20define%20wetlands%20as,in%20saturated%20soil%E2%80%9D%20%5B33CFR
328.).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-1 4.4 | Cultural Resources
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the environmental and regulatory settings of cultural resources. Cultural resources
relate to archaeological remains, historic buildings, traditional customs, tangible artifacts, historical
documents, and public records, which are unique, may be historically significant, or are more locally
important significant resources that make the City of Grand Terrace (City) unique. The evaluation of The
Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project), including the potential impacts to cultural resources, is
largely based on the following sources:
• BCR Consulting LLC (2022). Updated Cultural Resources Records Search (provided in Appendix C1).
• CRM Tech. (2017). Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
1167-161-03 and -04, April 25, 2017 (provided in Appendix C2).
• CRM Tech. (2017). Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Intensive-level Survey,
April 28, 2017 (provided in Appendix C3).
▪ Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 1167-151-22, -26, -28, -65, -68, -71, -74 and 1167-161-03 and
-04 (referred herein as Appendix C2-3 parcels when parcels are described as a whole).
• CRM Tech. (2017). Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reconnaissance,
September 13, 2017 (provided in Appendix C4).
▪ Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 1167-151- 10, -11, -12, -13, -21, -23, -40, -41, -64, -75, -76, -
77, and -79; 1167-161-02, -05, and -33; 1167-171-11 and -12; 1167-181-01,-12, and -13
(referred herein as Appendix C4 parcels when parcels are described as a whole).
• CRM Tech. (2022). Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report The Gateway at
Grand Terrace Specific Plan City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California,
September 8, 2022 (provided in Appendix C5).
▪ Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 1167-151-11, -14, -17, -18, -20, -21, -23, and -75; 1167-181-
01, -12, and -13 (referred herein as Appendix C5 parcels when parcels are described as a
whole).
• CRM Tech. (2022). Summary of Cultural Resources Survey Coverage, October 12, 2022 (provided
in Appendix C6).
▪ Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 1167-151- 10, -11, -12, -13, -14, -17, -18, -20, -21,- 22, -23, -
26, -28, -40, -41, -64, -65, -68, -71, -74, -75, -76, -77, and -79; 1167-161-02, -03, -04, -05,
and -33; 1167-171-11 and -12; 1167-181-01,-12, and -13.
• City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP).
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanism to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-2 4.4 | Cultural Resources
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residenti al, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
By statute, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is primarily concerned with two classes of
cultural resources: “historical resources,” which are defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §21084.1 and
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and “unique archaeological resources,” which are defined in PRC §21083.2.
The cultural evaluations were conducted in compliance with PRC §5024.1 to identify prehistoric
archaeological and historic resources in the Project site area and evaluate potential impacts that could
result from implementation of the Project.
The Project site, including the Appendix C2 through C5 parcels (Project area) have been analyzed for
cultural resources based on the several reports listed above. Refer to Exhibit 4.4-1: Cultural Resources
Study Areas for a depiction of which report’s survey area covered which portion of the Project site.
Exhibit 4.4-1: Cultural Resources Study Areas
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Specific Plan Boundary
Appendix C2-3 Parcels
Appendix C4 Parcels
Appendix C5 Parcels
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-4 4.4 | Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Ethnographic Setting
Please refer to Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, regarding the ethnography of Native American
tribes within the Project area.
City History
According to the Grand Terrace GP, the City is located along the border of the territories known to have
been occupied by the Serrano, Gabrielino (Tongva), and Cahuilla Indians, with the Serrano to the north,
Gabrielino to the west, and Cahuilla to the south and east. It is likely that all these groups passed through
or exploited resources within the City limits at different times in prehistory.1
The City’s roots extend back to Mexican land grants dating from the period between 1830 and 1840. In
1876, there were nine buildings in the Terrace-Colton area. The development of the City, or East Riverside
as the Grand Terrace-Highgrove area was then called, was facilitated by the construction of the Gage
Canal, a 22.5-mile canal that brought water to the area from the Santa Ana River marshlands below. With
plenty of water, the City rapidly became an agricultural community with a heavy emphasis on citrus
production. However, the severe freeze of 1913 destroyed many groves. Walnuts, a hardier tree, were
planted as replacements along with peaches as a quick-profit crop.
The City of Grand Terrace GP identifies 19 previously recorded sites designated as cultural resource sites.
Although a number of sites have been recorded as containing resources, there are no known areas of the
City that have been previously identified as places of historical, cultural, or archaeological significance that
should be identified as significant and be preserved as open space.2
Although a number of sites have been recorded as containing resources, there are no known areas of the
City that have been previously identified as places of historical, cultural, or archaeological significance that
should be identified as significant and be preserved as open space.3
Historical Background Re search – Project Site Setting
The land use in the Project vicinity was dominated by agriculture and various infrastructure features, such
as roads, railroads, irrigation canals, and power transmission lines, throughout the historic period . Aside
from these linear features of infrastructure and large expanses of agricultural fields, especially citrus
groves, few other notable human-made features are known to have been present within the Project area
between the 1850s and the 1960s.4
1 City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan. Pp. IV-5 to IV-6. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Develo pment/city_of_gt_general_plan.pdf (accessed
December 6, 2022).
2 Ibid. Page IV-6.
3 Ibid. Page IV-6.
4 CRM Tech. (2022). Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan City of Grand
Terrace, Attachment A. (see Appendix C5).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-5 4.4 | Cultural Resources
One notable exception to this was accessor parcel number (APN): 1167-181-01, where a number of small
buildings were present in a citrus grove during the 1930s-1950s era. Around 1971, the existing residence
currently on that parcel was constructed, and all of the previous buildings and structures were removed.
All other existing built-environment features e in the vicinity of the Project site are evidently modern in
origin, with the oldest being the aforementioned residence constructed in 1971. Two wells on APNs 1167-
151-21 and -23, for example, were evidently established between 1985 and 1995, and the baseball field
on APN 1167-151-75, a part of the Veterans Freedom Park, was completed in 2010-2012. Elsewhere in
the Project area, farming operations continued until the circa 2002-2010 era, when most of the
agricultural fields were gradually abandoned and associated features such as water storage tanks were
removed.5
Results
Field Surveys
In 2017, an archaeologist carried out a field reconnaissance for the Project site by driving along each of
the public roadways across the Project area and inspecting all built-environment features encountered
and visible ground surface for any notable archaeological remains ; see Appendix C4 of the Draft EIR. Six
historic-period sites have been recorded in the past as lying within, partially within, or adjacent to the
planning area, as listed below:
• Riverside Upper Canal/Riverside-Warm Creek Canal (33-004495/36-007169);
• Southern Pacific Railroad (36-006101);
• Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway (36-006847);
• Highgrove Steam-Electric Generating Plant (36-021711);
• Highgrove Substation (36-021712); and
• Single-Family Residence at 21992 De Berry Street.
In addition to the six previously recorded cultural resources, the archaeologist also identified the following
four buildings or groups of buildings that have a recognizable level of historical character and to be at
least 45 years of age. However, these buildings have been altered to some extent, most notably through
replacement of windows, siding, and roofs. None of these properties were evaluated for historical
significance under CEQA during this 2017 reconnaissance (Appendix C4). Therefore, they should be
treated as potential “historical resources.” The four properties are as follows: :
• Single-family residence at 21875 De Berry Street (APN 1167-151-10);
• Two duplexes at 21877-21899 De Berry Street (APNs 1167-151-12 and -13);
• Single-family residence with outbuilding at 21911 De Berry Street (APN 1167-171-11);
• Former farm complex at 21971 De Berry Street (now a part of A Storage Place; APN 1167-171-12 ).
5 Ibid. Pages 6-7.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-6 4.4 | Cultural Resources
However, none of these properties were evaluated for historical significance under CEQA provisions
during this 2017 reconnaissance (Appendix C4). Therefore, they should be treated as potential “historical
resources.”
As a part of the 2017 field survey (Appendix C3), the previously recorded cultural resources within or
adjacent to the Project area were visited to ascertain their current condition. Among them, the Highgrove
Substation appears to be intact, but the adjacent Highgrove Steam-Electric Generating Plant was partially
demolished around 2011, leaving only three buildings standing at the site. The associated Cage Park
remains extant, although it is apparently no longer in use and suffers from neglect. The Southern Pacific
Railroad has been dismantled across the entire Project area, and its former course is marked today by a
gravel path with minor culverts over the various drainages. The Riverside Upper Canal/Riverside-Warm
Creek Canal and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway remain extant just outside the Project area
boundary. As mentioned above, the Project area is predominately undeveloped and the surrounding land
uses feature a mixture of residential, commercial, public facilities and parks, and business park
development. The ground surface has been extensively disturbed by past agricultural operations, nearby
construction activities, and periodic disking. Additionally, the open areas bear evidence of other
disturbances, such dirt roads, bike path with dirt jumps, and modified drainages. No undisturbed native
land surface was noted during the 2017 survey (Appendix C3).
Archaeologists conducted additional field surveys for the Project site on July 19 and September 8, 2022
(Appendix C5). The 2022 field surveys were conducted at a reconnaissance level by driving along the
public roadways and visually inspecting the surrounding ground surface for any indication of potentia l
cultural resources or notable changes since 2017 (Appendix C3), supplemented by pedestrian inspections
of selected areas, such as where cultural resources were previously recorded , were conducted at an
intensive-level by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50
feet) apart. Ground visibility was mostly good to excellent (80 -100 percent) in the Project area but was
poor (5-10 percent) along a heavily overgrown drainage channel. On September 28, 2022, CRM Tech
conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey by walking a series of parallel northeast-southwest
transects spaced 20 meters (approximately 60 feet) apart. The rest of the northern portion of the Project
site was treated with a more cursory field reconnaissance through visual inspection from the adjacent
public right-of-way for the purpose of updating the results of the 2017 reconnaissance (Appendix C4).
No cultural resources of historic or prehistoric (i.e., Native American) origin were identified during either
of the two Phase I studies (Appendix C3 and Appendix C5). Based on these findings, the report that CRM
Tech submitted on September 8, 2022 (Appendix C5 ), recommended that the southern portion of the
Project site be cleared for cultural resources compliance unless buried archaeological materials are
discovered during future earth-moving operations.
Due to current property ownerships and the resulting limita tion of field access, only 3.05 acres in the
northern portion of the Project site have been surveyed at an intensive level. That survey took place in
2017 on APNs 1167-161-03 and -04 near the northeastern corner of the Project site (see Appendix C2).
During the survey, a single-family residence of circa 1945 vintage, located at 21992 De Berry Street, was
recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory as it was more than 50 years of age. Although,
the field inspection revealed that the property retains most of its historical character. The survey (see
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-7 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Appendix C2) concluded that the building on 21992 De Berry Street, neither appeared eligible for listing
in the CRHR nor qualified as a “historical resource.” as no persons or specific events of recognized historic
significance were identified in association with this residence, nor any prominent architects, designers, or
builders.
Summary of Existing Cultural Resources
A Summary of Cultural Resources Survey Coverage (Appendix C6) has been prepared by CRM Tech. The
report included in Appendix C6 summarizes the findings for past studies conducted on the Project site
since 2017. The studies include a series of cultural resource studies conducted by CRM Tech and BCR
Consulting LLC, including two Phase I intensive-level surveys in 2017 (Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey Report, Intensive-level Survey, included as Appendix C3, and Historical/ Archaeological Resources
Survey Report, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1167-161-03 and -04 , included as Appendix C2), a
reconnaissance-level survey in 2017 (Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources
Reconnaissance, included in Appendix C4) and a records search in 2019 (Attachment C of Appendix C6),
and an update to one of the Phase I studies earlier this year (Updated Cultural Resources Records Search,
Appendix C5). Documentation of the methods, results, and conclusions of these studies has been
submitted to the City.
Specifically, the southern portion of the Project area, designated for residential development, parks/open
space, drainage improvement, and other utilities, was surveyed entirely at an intensive level in 2017
and/or 2022 (Appendix C3 and C5). During those studies, five cultural resources from the historic period,
including four sites and an isolate (i.e., a locality with fewer than three artifacts) were identified within or
partially within that portion of the planning area.
No cultural resources of prehistoric (i.e., Native American) origin were identified during either of the two
Phase I studies (Appendix C3 and C5). At the completion of those studies, all five of the cultural resources
listed above were determined not to meet the statutory definition of “historical resources .” Therefore,
they require no further consideration under CEQA provisions on cultural resources. Based on these
findings, the report that CRM Tech submitted on September 8, 2022 (Appendix C5), along with attached
supporting materials, recommended that the southern portion of the Project site be c leared for cultural
resources compliance unless buried archaeological materials are discovered during future earth -moving
operations (Appendix C1).
A comparison of the total coverage of these previous studies and the current project boundaries indicates
that only a 2.83-acre parcel on the western edge of the Project site, namely APN 1167-151-09, had not
been surveyed for cultural resources at either intensive or reconnaissance level prior to the current study
(Figures 1, 2 of Appendix C6). On September 28, 2022, CRM TECH conducted a reconnaissance-level field
survey on that parcel of vacant land by walking a series of parallel northeast-southwest transects spaced
20 meters (approximately 60 feet) apart. The rest of the northern portion of the Project area wa s treated
with a more cursory field reconnaissance through visual inspection from the adjacent public right-of-way
for the purpose of updating the results of the 2017 reconnaissance. This part of the fieldwork was carried
out by CRM TECH on July 19, 2022.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-8 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Field observations in the northern portion of the Project area reveal that the previously recorded and
evaluated residence at 21995 De Berry Street has since been demolished. The four buildings or groups of
buildings noted during the 2017 reconnaissance remain extant today, although the residence at 21911 De
Berry Street has evidently been abandoned. In addition, a small corrugated-metal building of unknown
nature was noted on APN 1167-161-05 (no street address available), in the northeastern corner of the
Project area. See Appendices C1, C2 , C5 and C6 for reference. The bulk of this portion of the Project area
has not been surveyed adequately, especially for archaeological resources. A standard Phase I survey
should be required on all un-surveyed parcels once the Project team gains sufficient access and prior to
the approval of any specific projects on these properties.
REGULATORY S ETTING
Federal
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966 and is codified in Title 16, Section 470
et seq. of the U.S. Code (USC). The goal of the Act is to ensure federal agencies act as responsible stewards
of our nation's resources when their actions affect historic properties. Among the regulations of the NHPA,
Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties
and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Properties (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The
historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP.
See Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”
Section 106 applies when two thresholds are met: 1) there is a federal or federally licensed action,
including grants, licenses and permits, and 2) that action has the potential to affect properties listed in or
eligible for listing in the NRHP. Section 106 requires each federal agency to identify and assess the effects
of its actions on historic resources. The responsible federal ag ency must consult with appropriate state
and local officials, Indian Tribes, applicants for federal assistance and members of the public, and consider
their views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final project decisions. The
agency should also plan to involve the public and identify any other potential consulting parties. If the
agency determines that it has no undertaking or that its undertaking is a type of activity that has no
potential to affect historic properties, the agency has no further Section 106 obligations.
Pursuant to Section 106, impacts to a cultural site or artifact must be declared “significant,” “potentially
significant” or “not significant.” Under NHPA regulations, impacts to “significant” archeological sites mu st
be mitigated for, while “not significant” archeological remains need not. A “potentially significant”
determination is utilized when there is not enough information to make a conclusive ruling. NHPA
mitigation would not be necessary for archeological sites avoided during development.
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local
governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what
properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 CFR 60.2). The NRHP
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-9 4.4 | Cultural Resources
recognizes both historic-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the
national, state, and local levels.
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of
potential significance) is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following four
established criteria:
• Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.
• Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past.
• Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
• Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used
for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed
historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are not considered eligible
for the NRHP unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be at least 50 years of age
to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance.
The NRHP recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity . To retain historic
integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention
of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. The seven factors
that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
National Register Bulletin 38
The National Park Service has prepared guidelines to assist in the documentation of intangible cultural
resources, to coordinate the incorporation of provisions for the consideration of such resources into
departmental planning documents and administrative manuals, and to encourage the identification and
documentation of such resources by state and federal agencies. National Register Bulleting 38 (NRB 38) is
intended to be an aid in determining whether properties thought or alleged to have traditional cultural
significance are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and to assist federal agencies, State Historic Preservation
Offices (SHPOs), Certified Local Governments, Native American Tribes, and other historic preservation
practitioners who need to evaluate such properties when nominating them for inclusion in the NRHP or
when considering their eligibility for the NRHP as part of the review process prescribed by the ACHP under
Section 106 of the NHPA.6
6 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Cultural Resources. (1997). National Register Bulletin. Retrieved from:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB -15_web508.pdf (accessed March 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-10 4.4 | Cultural Resources
State
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054)
Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) collectively address the
illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of
the PRC), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such
remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be
implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project,
treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52
California Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 that expands CEQA regarding tribal cultural
resources, and require local governments to consult with Native American tribes prior to making certain
planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process are
discussed further in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources.
California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by
state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse
change” (PRC §5024.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for
listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically
included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest
program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks
programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a
contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission
(SHRC) determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP
criteria:
• Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant con tribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
• Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic
values.
• Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Furthermore, under PRC §5024.1 and 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §4852(c), a cultural resource
must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the CRHR. Specifically, it must retain sufficient character
or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and convey reasons of significance. Integrity is
evaluated with regard to retention of such factors as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association. Cultural sites that have been affected by ground-disturbing activities, such as
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-11 4.4 | Cultural Resources
grazing and off-road vehicle use (both of which occur within the Project site), often lack integrity because
they have been directly damaged or removed from their original location, among other changes.
Typically, a prehistoric archaeological site in California is recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR
based on its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). Important
information includes chronological markers such as projectile point styles or obsidian artifacts that can be
subjected to dating methods or undisturbed deposits that retain their stratigraphic integrity. Sites such as
these have the ability to address research questions.
California Historic Building Code
The California Historic Building Code (CHBC) provides guidelines for the preservation, restoration,
rehabilitation, relocation, and reconstruction of buildings or structures designated as qualified historical
buildings or properties by a local, State, or Federal jurisdiction, as defined by CHBC §§8-218. The CHBC
provides guidelines for long-term preservation efforts of qualified historical buildings or properties in
order to allow owners to make improvements for access for persons with disabilities; to provide a cost -
effective approach to preservation; and, to ensure overall safety of affected occupants or users.
As defined by the CHBC, a “qualified historical building” is “any building, site, structure, object, district, or
collection of structures, and their associated sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or
culture of an area by an appropriate local, State, or Federal governmental jurisdiction. This includes
designated buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for, official national, State, or local historical
registers or official inventories, such as the NRHP, CRHR, State Historical Landmark, State Points of
Historical Interest, and officially adopted city or county registers, inventories, or surveys of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.”7
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is
codified in PRC §21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have
a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or archaeological
resources.
Under CEQA (PRC §21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The CE QA
Guidelines §15064.5 recognizes that historical resources include:
1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the SHRC, for listing in the CRHR;
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC §5020.1(k), or
identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC
§5024.1(g); and
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
7 California Historic Building Code (Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division 13, Part 2.7 of California Health and Safety Code).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-12 4.4 | Cultural Resources
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the
lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in
light of the whole record.
The fact that a resource does not meet the three criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency
from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC §§5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
Open Space and Conservation Element
This Element focuses on attributes that contribute to the preservation of natural resources, such as the
protection of sensitive habit, the management of production resources, such as mineral deposits,
agriculture, or groundwater recharge, and recreation and visual aesthetics. Concurrently, open space may
be used to manage public safety hazards such as seismic activity, high fire hazards, and flood hazards , and
quality of life in the communities and neighborhoods where people live. The following goal and policy are
applicable to cultural resources.
Goal 4.9: Comply with state and federal regulations to ensure the protection of historical,
archaeological, and paleontological resources.
Policy 4.9.1 The City shall take reasonable steps to ensure that cultural resources are located,
identified, and evaluated to assure that appropriate action is taken as to the
disposition of these resources.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
City Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) Chapter 15.19, Historical Building Code, establishes the adoption
of the 2019 CHBC by reference and is the historical building code of the City for regulating the
preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation or reconstruction of buildings or properties
designated as qualified historical buildings or properties located in the City.
S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning cultural resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5; or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-13 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Methodology and Assumptions
Cultural Resources Survey
A cultural resources survey report was conducted in 2017 for the Project site (see Appendix C3 also
included as Attachment A of Appendix C5). The 2017 survey report encompassed approximately 53 acres
in total and included a historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background research,
Native American consultation, and a systematic field survey. As a result of these research procedures, two
previously recorded historic-period sites, the 1870-1886 Riverside Upper Canal/Riverside-Warm Creek
Canal (Site 33-004495/36-007169) and the 1888 Southern Pacific Railroad (Site 36 -006101), were found
to be lying partially within the boundaries of the Project site as delineated at the time, but both of them
were determined not to meet the statutory definition of “historical resources.”8 Therefore, they require
no further consideration under CEQA provisions on cultural resources.
Since the completion of the 2017 survey, an additional 22 acres have been incorporated into the Project
area. The additional acreage consists of the Appendix C5 parcels, located along both the eastern and the
western edges of the original Project area. The objective of the Update and Addendum to Cultural
Resources Survey Report (Appendix C5), as an addendum to the 2017 Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey Report and 2019 records survey (Attachment C of Appendix C6), is to assist in identifying any
“historical resources” that may be present within or adjacent to the Project area. Research procedures
completed during this study included a review of data gathered during the 2017 study (Appendix C3) and
the results of a 2019 records search (Attachment C of Appendix C6) for the Project site, initiated a Native
American Sacred Lands File search, contacted the nearest Native American tribe, pursued historical
background research on the additional properties, and carried out a field inspection of the entire Project
area. As a result of the research procedures for the Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey
Report (Appendix C5), three previously undocumented historic-period resources were identified and
recorded within the additional 22 acres of the Project area: Isolate 3910-1 (Isolated Railroad Spike),
Site 3910-2 (Drainage Channel), and Site 3910-3 (Residence at 21996 Van Buren Street). However, these
resources do not qualify as historical resources due to their lack of historical integrity, and none are
eligible for listing in the CRHR. In conjunction with the findings of the 2017 survey (Appendix C3), the
Update and Addendum Cultural Resources Survey (Appendix C5) concludes that no “historical resources”
are known to be present within the additional 22 acres of the Project site.
Cultural Resources Records
During the 2017 (Appendix C3), 2019 (Attachment C of Appendix C6), and 2022 (Appendix C1) records
searches, CRM TECH and BCR Consulting examined maps and records on file at the SCCIC and the EIC for
previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources studies in the Project vicinity.
Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks,
Points of Historical Interest, or San Bernardino/Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the
CHRIS.
8 Ibid. Page 1.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-14 4.4 | Cultural Resources
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.4-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction and Operations
A historic resource includes “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which
a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may
be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record.” If a project may cause a substantial adverse change
(defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired) in the
significance of a historical resource, the lead agency must identify potentially feasible measures to
mitigate these effects (14 CCR §15064.5(b)(1), §15064.5(b)(4)). The significance of a historic resource
would be materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those
physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register, a local register of historical resources
pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or historical resources survey meeting the
requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code.
As summarized above, the 2017 study records search (Appendix C3), concluded that the two previously
recorded historic-period sites, the 1870-1886 Riverside Upper Canal/Riverside-Warm Creek Canal
(33-004495/36-007169) and the 1888 Southern Pacific Railroad (36-006101) are ineligible due to the lack
of historic integrity and no other “historical resources” are present within the Project area.
No cultural resources of prehistoric (i.e., Native American) origin were identified during either of the two
Phase I studies (Appendix C2 and C3). At the completion of those studies, all five of the potential cultural
resources in those studies were determined not to meet the statutory definition of historical resources.
Therefore, they require no further consideration under CEQA provisions on cultural resources.
Additionally, as concluded in the Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report
(Appendix C5), three previously undocumented historic-period resources were identified and recorded
within the additional Project area:
• Isolate 3910-1 (Isolated Railroad Spike)
• Site 3910-2 (Drainage Channel)
• Site 3910-3 (Residence at 21996 Van Buren Street)
The Isolated Railroad Spike does not qualify as an historical or archaeological site due to the lack of
contextual integrity. As such, it does not constitute potential “historical resources” and requires no further
consideration.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-15 4.4 | Cultural Resources
The Drainage Channel’s historic integrity has been compromised to relate to its period of origin as its
present condition is poorly maintained and overgrown of the remaining unlined segment. There is no
evidence that this minor drainage channel is closely associated with any persons or events of recognized
historic significance, and it does not demonstrate any special merits in design, engineering, or
construction, nor any archaeological data potential. Therefore, it does not meet any of the criteria for
listing in the CRHR.
The residence at 21996 Van Buren Street was constructed near the end of the hi storic period and is most
closely associated long-time (and current) property owner Laurence E. Halvin. Historical research has
yielded no evidence that Mr. Halvin has attained a level of historical significance that would override the
elapsed-time standard required by guidelines for the CRHR, and no other persons or any events of
potential historical interest have been identified in close association with the building.
In summary, none of the three newly recorded cultural resources appear eligible for lis ting in the CRHR
and all three of these sites were recorded outside but adjacent to the Project boundaries near the
southwestern corner of the Project area, but none of them would be involved in Project development.
Therefore, they do not qualify as historical resources for CEQA-compliance purposes.
Because not all structures onsite have been adequately surveyed under the NRHP guidelines for historic
resources, to ensure the Project would not result in the alteration or destruction of a historic structure,
object, or site, MM CUL-1 is required, which specifies the mitigation framework for buildings in excess of
50 years of age. Therefore, with implementation of MM CUL-1, potential impacts regarding a substantial
adverse change of a historical resource would be less than significant.
At the conclusion of site disturbance and construction activities associated with future development
projects within the Planning Areas, no impact to known or unknown historical or cultural resources would
occur during the Project operations. Operational impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Applications for future development facilitated by the Project, shall be required to
comply with the following mitigation measure that established the framework for
evaluating any buildings to be impacted that may be in excess of 50 years.
For any buildings/structures in excess of 50 years of age having its original structural
integrity intact and not already fully evaluated in Appendices C2 through C5 , the
applicant shall retain a qualified professional historian to determine whether the
affected building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation of historic
architectural resources shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context,
association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as
indicated in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. A historical resource report shall be
submitted by the applicant to the City for approval and shall include the methods used
to determine the presence or absence of historical resources, evaluate the significance
of any historical resources identified, identify potential impacts from the proposed
project, and propose measures to mitigate any impacts. The City shall require
implementation of appropriate measures based on the report to reduce impacts to
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-16 4.4 | Cultural Resources
less than significant, if possible. If not possible to reduce impacts to less than
significant, additional CEQA review shall be required.
Impact 4.4-2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction and Operations
A significant impact would occur if grading and construction activities result in a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC §21083.2 or state CEQA
Guideline §15064.5, if (1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the SHRC, for listing in the
CRHR (PRC §5024.1 and Title 14 CCR, §4850 et seq.) is adversely affected; and (2) if grading and
construction activities would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource determined to be “historic” or “unique.” As defined in PRC §21083.2, a “unique” archaeological
resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that
without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of
the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type; and
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
According to the Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report (Appendix C5), 97 recorded
historical/archaeological sites, a “pending” site, and three isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three
artifacts—were identified within the one-mile radius around the Appendix C2, C3 and C4 parcels. Two of
these sites, the Riverside Upper Canal/Riverside-Warm Creek Canal (33-004495/36-007169) and the
former Southern Pacific Railroad (36-006101), were recorded as lying partially within the Project area.
Three other sites, the former Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe) Railway
(36-006847), the Highgrove Steam-Electric Generating Plant (36-021711), and the Highgrove Substation
(36-021712) were recorded on land adjacent to the Project boundaries.
Because of the lack of historic integrity, the entire Riverside Canal system, including the Riverside Upper
Canal/Riverside-Warm Creek Canal, was determined not to be eligible for listing in the NRHP during a
systematic historic significance evaluation in 2001, although that study further concluded that it might
become eligible if the integrity was restored. Similarly, the various segments of the Southern Pacific
Railroad that were previously recorded and evaluated, including the segment in the Project area, were
found ineligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. The Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, the Highgrove
Steam-Electric Generating Plant, and the Highgrove Substation were also considered ineligible by various
previous studies pertaining to these sites. Of the other recorded historical/archaeological sites identified
through the records search, 20 were prehistoric—i.e., Native American—in origin, consisting of bedrock
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-17 4.4 | Cultural Resources
milling features, rock shelters, habitation debris, and yoni features. All of these prehistoric sites were
found on the slopes of the La Loma Hills to the west, the nearest one being approximately a half-mile from
the Project area. Two of the isolates were also of prehistoric origin, described as a granite mano and three
mano fragments. The rest of the recorded sites, the “pending” site, and the third isolate dated to the
historic period and included other irrigation works, buildings, bridges, structural remains, refuse scatters,
roads, and power transmission lines. None of these sites or isolates was located in the immediate vicinity
of the Project area. Therefore, it has been determined that they require no further consideration.
Construction of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. CRM TECH concurs with the original evaluation efforts as
the current condition of the resources does not provide any additional data or information that would
alter those recommendations. Additionally, none of the identified cultural resources within a one-mile
radius of the Appendix C2-3 and C5 Parcels were found and no tribal cultural resources were identified
within or adjacent to the Project area.
Based on these findings, no further cultural resources management is recommended for construction and
operation of the Project. However, in the event that a potentially significant archaeological resource is
encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, MM CUL-2 would apply to further
minimize potential impacts to archaeological resources. MM CUL-2 ensures that if buried cultural
materials are discovered during earth-moving operations associated with the Project, all work in that area
shall be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the
finds. Therefore, with implementation of MM CUL-2, impacts regarding a substantial adverse change of
an archaeological resource would be less than significant.
At the conclusion of site disturbance and construction activities associated with future development
projects within the Planning Areas, no impact to known or unknown archaeological resources would occur
during the Project operations. Operational impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-2 If unanticipated archaeological resources are exposed or encountered during
construction of the Project, all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the
potential resource(s) shall be suspended. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall evaluate the
significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted
based on significance under CEQA. The evaluation may require preparation of a
treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical
Resources eligibility. The treatment plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
qualified archaeologist and submitted to the City for approval.
Impact 4.4-3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-18 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Construction and Operations
The archaeological records search and field survey did not reveal any resources known to contain human
remains within or near the Project site. While the Project site is not known to contain any cemeteries,
ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal unknown human remains. Therefore,
construction activities in the Project site could disturb human remains should any be discovered during
ground-disturbing activities. If human remains are discovered, however, those remains would require
proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including HSC §§7050.5-7055 and PRC §5097.98 and
§5097.99. HSC §§7050.5-7055 that describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains.
Specifically, HSC §7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the trea tment of any human remains that are
accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. HSC §7050.5 also requires that all activities cease
immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As
required by state law, the procedures set forth in PRC §5087.98 would be implemented, including
evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would then designate the Most
Likely Descendant of the unearthed human remains.
It is unlikely that any human remains would be encountered given that the Project site is already
disturbed. However, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during construction
activities. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the
find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until
the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the
treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the established regulatory
framework (i.e., HSC §§7050.5-7055 and PRC §§5097.98 and 5097.99) and the application of MM TCR-3,
the Project’s impacts concerning the potential to disturb human remains, would be reduced to a less than
significant.
Ground disturbing activities would not be associated with Project operations. Therefore, operation of the
Project would not further impact human remains and would not cause a substantial adverse effect to
undiscovered human remains. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM TCR-3 in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources of this EIR.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable cultural resource impacts have been identified.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of cumulative impact analysis to cultural resources, the geographic context for cumulative
analysis includes the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and future projects (refer to
Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List located in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis). Accordingly,
impacts are site-specific and not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact
a common resource, or an affected resource extends off-site, such as a historic townsite or district. With
this consideration, the cumulative analyses for historical and archaeological resources considers whether
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.4-19 4.4 | Cultural Resources
the Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could
cumulatively affect any common cultural resources.
The Project could result in potential site-specific impacts to as-yet unidentified archaeological resources
discovered during grading and trenching activities associated with future project construction. Other
projects within the cumulative study area also have the potential to result in damage and/or loss to these
resources. The combination of the Project as well as past, present, and reasonably forese eable projects
in the City and San Bernardino County would be required to comply with all applicable State, federal,
County and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. Similarly,
these projects also would be required to implement and conform project-specific to mitigation measures,
which would be likely to reduce impacts to less than significant. Although in the process of development,
some known or unknown resources may be lost, it is not anticipated that thes e impacts would be
cumulatively considerable. In addition, implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would reduce
Project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative
impacts would be less than significant.
REFERENCES
BCR Consulting, LLC. April 2019. Cultural Resources Assessment. Claremont, California.
BCR Consulting, LLC. December 2022. Updated Cultural Resources Records Search. Claremont, California.
CRM Tech. (2017). Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1167-
161-03 and -04, April 25, 2017.
CRM Tech. (2017). Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Intensive-level Survey,
April 28, 2017.
CRM Tech. (2017). Historical, Ar chaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reconnaissance,
September 13, 2017.
CRM Tech. (2022). Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report The Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California, September 8, 2022.
CRM Tech. (2022). Summary of Cultural Resources Survey Coverage, October 12, 2022.
California Historic Building Code (§§18950 to 18961 of Division 13, Part 2.7 of California Health and
Safety Code).
City of Grand Terrace General Plan. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/
city_of_gt_general_plan.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code, Chapter 15. 2019. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_CH
15.19HIBUCO_15.19.010AD.
National Parks Service. National Register Bulletin. 1997. Retrieved from :
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-1 4.5 | Energy
4.5 ENERGY
4.5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section identifies existing conditions in The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project), in the
City of Grand Terrace (City) and evaluates the Project’s potential to result in impacts due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with an energy plan. Mitigation to
avoid/reduce impacts is identified, as needed. The Project’s future development would be constructed to
Title 24 standards, which are designed to reduce energy demand in all new construction.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
The significance of each impact is included at the end of this section. This analysis is based primarily on
the following documentation located in Appendix D.
• Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. (2023). Energy Assessment.
4.5.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Pursuant to Section 15126.2(b), Section 15126.4 (a)(1)(C), and Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,
the environmental setting may include “existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the region
and locality.” Energy use is analyzed in this document due to the potential direct and indirect
environmental impacts associated with the Project. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable
resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal, etc.). CEQA Appendix F provides that EIRs include a discussion of the
potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code §21100(b)(3)).
Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in
terms of energy requirements. For many projects, cost effectiveness may be determined m ore by energy
efficiency than by initial dollar costs. This section of the EIR evaluates whether the Project would result in
environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during Project construction or operation, and whether the Project conflicts with or obstructs a State or
Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Refer to Appendix D for the CalEEMod calculations
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-2 4.5 | Energy
of the Project’s energy demands and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Emissions Factor1 (EMFAC)
2021 computer program for typical daily fuel use in San Bernardino County.
Existing Energy Supplies
Electricity
Electricity as a utility is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or
conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear
resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components including
substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on-
site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmiss ion and
distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is
typically responsive to market demands.
Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W) while energy use is measured i n
watt-hours (Wh). For example, if a light bulb has a capacity rating of 100 W, the energy required to keep
the bulb on for 1 hour would be 100 Wh. If ten 100 W bulbs were on for 1 hour, the energy required would
be 1,000 Wh or 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh). On a utility scale, a generator’s capacity is typically rated in
megawatts (MW), which is one million watts, while energy use is measured in megawatt-hours (MWh) or
gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is one billion watt-hours.
Electrical services are provided to the area by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electricity to
approximately 15 million people, 180 incorporated cities, 15 counties, 5,000 large businesses, and 280,000
small businesses throughout its 50,000-square-mile service area.2 Table 4.5-1, Energy Resources Used to
Generate Electricity for SCE (2020) shows the SCE electric power mix in 2020 compared to the statewide
2020 power mix. In 2020, electricity use attributable to the County of San Bernardino (County) was
approximately 15,969 GWh from residential and non-residential sectors.3
Table 4.5-1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2020)
Energy Resources 2020 SCE Power Mix 2020 CA Power Mix
Eligible Renewable: 30.9%: 33.1%:
Biomass and Biowaste 0.1% 2.5%
Geothermal 5.5% 4.9%
Eligible Hydroelectric 0.8% 1.4%
Solar 15.1% 13.2%
Wind 9.4% 11.1%
Coal 0.0% 2.7%
Large Hydroelectric 3.3% 12.2%
Natural Gas 15.2% 37.1%
Nuclear 8.4% 9.3%
1 EMFAC is an emission inventory model that CARB developed to assess emissions from on -road motor vehicles including cars, trucks, and
buses in California.
2 SCE. (2020). By the Numbers: Who We Serve. Retrieved from SEC Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are.
(accessed March 18, 2022).
3 California Energy Commission (CEC). (2020). Electricity Consumption by County. Retrieved from CEC Website:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx . (accessed March 18, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-3 4.5 | Energy
Energy Resources 2020 SCE Power Mix 2020 CA Power Mix
Other 0.3% 0.2%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 42.0% 5.4%
Total 100% 100%
1 Electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.
Source: SCE. (2021). 2020 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. Retrieved from SCE Website:
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/SCE_2020PowerContentLabel.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2022
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the service provider for Project area, services
approximately 21 million people in a 20,000-square-mile service territory. SoCalGas has four storage
fields; Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa del Rey, as well as a combined storage capacity
of approximately 134 billion cubic feet. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), natural gas
demand in the County area was 527 million therms in 2020.4
SoCalGas projects that total gas demand in their service area will decline at an annual rate of 1 percent
from 2020-2035.5 The decline in demand is due to modest economic growth, California Public Utilities
Commission mandated energy efficiency standards and programs, and SB 350 goals. Other factors that
contribute to the downward trend are tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards,
renewable electricity goals, a decline in core commercial and industrial demand, and conservation savings
linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI).
Energy Use
Energy use is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy use in California was
7,802 trillion BTU in 2019, which is the equivalent to 198 million Btu total consumption per capita . 6
Table 4.5-2, California Energy Consumption by Sector, breaks down California’s energy consumption by
sector.
Table 4.5-2: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2019)
End-Use Sector Consumption Share of U.S.
Residential 1,456 trillion Btu 6.9%
Commercial 1,468 trillion Btu 8.2%
Industrial 1,805 trillion Btu 5.5%
Transportation 3,073 trillion Btu 10.8%
Total 7,802 trillion Btu -
Electricity and natural gas in California are generally used by stationary sources such as residences,
commercial sites, and industrial facilities.
Petroleum Fuel
Petroleum use is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. Temporary transportation
fuel use such as gasoline and diesel during construction would result from the use of delivery vehicles and
4 California Energy Commission (CEC). (2020). Gas Consumption by Southern California Gas. Retrieved from CEC Website:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx . (accessed March 18, 2022).
5 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020. 2020 California Gas Report. Retrieved from: https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf (accessed March 18, 2022).
6 US Energy Information Administration (2020). California Energy Consumption Estimates. Retrieved from EIA Website:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA . (a ccessed January 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-4 4.5 | Energy
trucks, construction equipment, and construction employee vehicles. Transportation energy consumption
is dependent on the type of vehicles used, number of vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency
of vehicles and travel mode. Additionally, most construction equipment during grading would be powered
by gas or diesel fuel. In 2021, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted
for 13,060,407,775 gallons of gasoline.7
4.5.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Public Law 110 -140) was signed into law by President
George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. The Act’s goal is to achieve energy security in the United States
by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting
consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on GHG capture and storage. Under
the EISA, the RFS program (RFS2) was expanded in several keyways:
• Expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline;
• Increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9
billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022;
• Established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each;
and
• Required Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer
GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
RFS2 lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable
fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's
renewable fuels sector.
The EISA also includes a variety of new standards for lighting and for residential and commercial appliance
equipment. The equipment includes residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide
lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act o f 1991 (ISTEA)
The ISTEA promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well
as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs,
including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit
policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions.
7 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). (2020). Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons. Retrieved from CDTFA Website:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes -and-fees/spftrpts.htm (accessed January 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-5 4.5 | Energy
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA -21)
The TEA‐21 was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation,
discussed above. TEA‐21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface
transportation programs. TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit
under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment,
and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also
provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation
system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve
operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety.
State
Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as
under S-3-05) and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for
reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to
require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Reductions in overall energy consumption
have been implemented to reduce emissions.
In September 2016, the Governor signed into legislation SB 32, which builds on AB 32 and requires the
state to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With SB 32, the Legislature also
passed AB 197, which provides additional direction for updating the Scoping Plan to meet the 2030 GHG
reduction target codified in SB 32. CARB has published a draft update to the Scoping Plan and has received
public comments on this draft but has not released the final version.
Additional energy efficiency measures beyond the current regulations are needed to meet these goals as
well as the AB 32 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 and the SB 32 goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (see Section 4.8, Greenhouse
Gas, for a discussion of AB 32 and SB 32). Part of the effort in meeting California’s long-term reduction
goals include reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent, increasing from one-third to more
than one-half of California’s electricity derived from renewable sources, doubling the efficiency savings
achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; reducing the release of methane, b lack
carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants, and managing farm and rangelands, forests, and
wetlands so they can store carbon.
State of California Energy Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to
energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy
economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to
improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least
environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-6 4.5 | Energy
assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code)
The Code California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) was created as part of the California Building Standards
Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) by the California Building Standards Commission in
1978 to establish statewide building energy efficiency standards to reduce California’s energy use. In
general, Title 24 energy code is designed to reduce wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption in
newly constructed and existing buildings. The CEC updates the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards every
three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and
methods. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards conserve nonrenewable resources, such as natural gas,
and ensure renewable resources are extended as far as possible to reduce the need for constructi ng new
power plants.
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December, it was approved by the
California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The
2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for
new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards,
and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply
with the 2022 Energy Code.
The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and
nonresidential, which describe requirements for documentation and certificates that the building meets
the standards. These provisions include mandatory requirements for efficiency and design of the following
types of systems, equipment, and appliances:
• Air Conditioning Systems
• Heat Pumps
• Water Chillers
• Gas- and Oil-Fired Boilers
• Cooling Equipment
• Water Heaters and Equipment
• Pool and Spa Heaters and Equipment
• Gas-Fired Equipment Including Furnaces and Stoves/Ovens
• Windows and Exterior Doors
• Joints and Other Building Structure Openings (Envelope)
• Insulation and Cool Roofs
• Lighting Control Devices
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-7 4.5 | Energy
The standards include additional mandatory requirements for space conditioning (cooling and heating),
water heating, indoor and outdoor lighting systems, as well as equipment in non -residential, high-rise
residential, and hotel or motel buildings. Mandatory requirements for low-rise residential buildings cover
indoor and outdoor lighting, fireplaces, space cooling and heating equipment (including ducts and fans),
and insulation of the structure, foundation, and water piping. In addition to the mandatory requirements,
the standards call for further energy efficiency that can be provided through a choice between
performance and prescriptive compliance approaches. Separate sections apply to low -rise residential and
to non-residential, high-rise residential, and hotel or motel buildings. In buildings designed for mixed use
(e.g., commercial and residential), each section must meet the standards applicable to that type of
occupancy.
The performance approach set forth under these standards provides for the calculation of an energy
budget for each building and allows flexibility in building systems and features to meet the budget. The
energy budget addresses space-conditioning (cooling and heating), lighting, and water heating.
Compliance with the budget is determined using a CEC-approved computer software energy model. The
alternative prescriptive standards require demonstrating compliance with specific minimum efficiency for
components of the building such as building envelope insulation R-values, fenestration (areas, U-factor
and solar heat gain coefficients of windows and doors) and heating and cooling, water heating and lighting
system design requirements. These requirements vary depending on the building’s location i n the
State’s 16 climate zones.
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly
referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and
adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and
Community Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to
comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water
efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality.
CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt which encourage
or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The CEC has approved the 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code and it is anticipated to take effect January 1, 2023.
Renewable Portfolio Standard: Senate Bill 1078 and 107; Executive Order S -14-08, S-21-09,
and SB 2X
SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned
utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable
sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.
In November 2008, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which requires all
retail electricity sellers to serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy, such as wind and solar,
by 2020 and directs all state agencies to implement this target in all regulatory proceedings.
In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the
Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which directs the CARB under its AB 32
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-8 4.5 | Energy
authority to enact regulations to help the State meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent
renewable energy by 2020. In addition, CARB is to design emissions reduction measures, adopt regulations
requiring the reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions, including accounting for greenhouse
gas emissions from all electricity consumed in the state, and develop emissions reduction measu res,
including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers serving
customers in California.
On April 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 2X, which legislated the prior Executive Order S-14-08
renewable standard which would require California energy providers to buy 33 percent of their energy
from clean, renewable energy sources by 2020.
Appendix F to CEQA Guidelines
PRC §21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 requires MNDs and EIRs to describe, where relevant, the
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy caused by a project. In 1975, largely in response to
the oil crisis of the 1970s, the California State Legislature adopted AB 1575, which created the CEC. The
CEC’s statutory mission is to forecast future energy needs, license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts
or larger, develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources, plan for and direct State
responses to energy emergencies, and promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement
of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code
§21100(b)(3) to require EIRs to consider the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy caused
by a project. In addition, CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 was adopted in 1998 which requires that an EIR
describe feasible mitigation measures which would minimize the inefficient and unnecessary use of
energy. Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F.
Pursuant to Appendix F, an EIR must include a “discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed
projects…” However, because lead agencies have not consistently included such analysis in their EIRs,
California's Natural Resources Agency amended Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines in 2009 “to ensure
that lead agencies comply with the substantive directive in §21100(b)(3).” CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F
lists environmental impacts and mitigation measures that an EIR may include. What is required is a
“discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or
reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Potential impacts that may be
discussed include:
• The Project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for
each stage of the Project including construction, operation, maintenance, or removal. If
appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.
• The effects of the Project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional
capacity.
• The effects of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of
energy.
• The degree to which the Project complies with existing energy standards.
• The effects of the Project on energy resources.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-9 4.5 | Energy
• The Project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient
transportation alternatives.
State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F assists EIR preparers in determining whether a Project will result in the
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy. The discussion below analyzes the Project’s effect
on energy resources.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The following goals and policies of the City’s General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) pertaining to energy are
applicable to this Project.
Land Use Element
Goal 2.5: Provide for the preservation of natural resources and open space.
Policy 2.5.3 Energy efficiency shall be encouraged in all future development.
Circulation Element
Goal 3.1: Provide a comprehensive transportation system that provides for the current and
long-term efficient movement of people and goods within and through the City.
Policy 3.1.2 An arterial street system shall be established that provides for the collection of l ocal
traffic and provide for the efficient movement of people and goods through the City.
Goal 3.5: Provide for efficient alternative methods of travel.
Policy 3.5.1 Promote measures which reduce reliance on single occupant vehicle usage by
enforcement of the Traffic Control Measures (TCM) ordinance which addresses
development standards, land use patterns, employer based ride share programs and
bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 4.6: The City shall support and promote the conservation of energy resources.
Policy 4.6.1 The City shall establish an energy conservation policy and implementation program for
all City facilities.
Policy 4.6.2 The City shall implement a public outreach program to provide the public with
information regarding energy conservation practices and programs.
Policy 4.6.3 The City shall encourage energy and environmentally sustainable design in new land
development projects using the standards of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED).
Goal 4.7: Support air quality planning through land use policies, outreach efforts, and
participation in regional air quality planning.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-10 4.5 | Energy
Policy 4.7.7 The City shall promote energy conservation efforts in new and existing residences and
businesses.
Housing Element
Goal 8.4: Conserve and improve the condition of existing affordable housing stock.
Policy 8.4.2 Encourage the use of assistance programs to make residences more energy efficient.
Policy 8.4.5 Encourage the incorporation of energy conservation features in the design of all new
housing developments and the addition of energy conservation devices/practices in
existing residential developments.
Sustainable Development Element
Goal 9.1: Reduce the City’s per capita energy usage.
Policy 9.1.2 The City shall incorporate energy conservation measures into conditions of approval
for new development projects.
Goal 9.3: Support sustainable development through good urban design practices.
Policy 9.3.2 Site and building design in new developments should maximize opportunities for
efficient energy performance.
Goal 9.8: The City shall lead the development community by example in green building, and
energy and resource conservation practices.
Policy 9.8.1 The City shall support green development standards for new or rehabilitated public
buildings and facilities.
Policy 9.8.2 The City shall actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from public facilities
throughout the community.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
Chapter 15.17 – Green Buildings Standards. Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC)
Chapter 15.17 adopts the 2019 Green Building Standards Code as the green building standards for the
City. The provisions of this code shall apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use and
occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure. The Green Building Standards Code will be
on file for public examination in the office of the Building Official.
Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs)
LORs are existing requirements and standard conditions that are based on local, state, or federal
regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical LORs include
compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The Ci ty may impose additional
conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. Because LORs are neither Project specific nor a
result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be either Project Design Features or
Mitigation Measures. The following LORs, as identified in Section 4.2, Air Quality, would reduce energy
consumption.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-11 4.5 | Energy
LOR AQ-3 Require diesel-powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §2449.
LOR AQ-5 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6).
These standards are updated, normally every three years, to incorporate improved
energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall
ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards (§110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of
the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of
rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar
panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.
LOR AQ-6 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green
Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or
designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These
requirements include, but are not limited to:
▪ Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water -efficient fixtures in
accordance with §4.303 (residential) and §5.303 (nonresidential) of the California
Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste in accordance with §4.408.1 (residential) and
§5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling
containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with §4.410
(residential) and §5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential
construction shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential construction
shall comply with §5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
4.5.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning energy. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as
significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• The Project results in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation; or
• The Project conflicts with or obstructs a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-12 4.5 | Energy
Methodology a nd Assumptions
In determining whether implementation of the Project would result in the inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary use of fuel or energy, this analysis considers the recommendations of Appendix F of the State
CEQA Guidelines as described in Section 4.5.3 above.
This section analyzes energy use on three sources of energy that are relevant to the Project, including
electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with new development, as well
as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The analysis of Project electricity and natural gas use is
based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which quantifies energy use for
occupancy. The results of CalEEMod are included in Appendix A of the Air Quality Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessments of this Draft EIR. Modeling related to Project energy use was based primarily on
the default settings in CalEEMod for San Bernardino County. The amount of operational fuel use was
estimated using CalEEMod8 outputs for the Project and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Emissions Factor9 (EMFAC) 2021 computer program for typical daily fuel use in San Bernardino County.
Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ra tios from the
Climate Registry. Energy impacts are analyzed below according to topic. Mitigation measures directly
correspond with an identified impact. The previous mentioned LORs applicable to the Project are
identified and incorporated into the analysis for Impact 4.5-1 as applicable.
4.5.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.5-1: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
Project construction or operation?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Energy Requirements
The energy associated with Project construction includes electricity use associated with water utilized for
dust control, diesel fuel from on-road hauling trips, vendor trips, and off-road construction diesel
equipment, as well as gasoline fuel from on-road worker commute trips. The methodology for each
category is discussed below. This analysis relies on the construction equipment list and operational
characteristics, as stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as well
as the energy calculations in Appendix D. Quantifications of construction energy are provided for the
Project in Table 4.5-3, Energy Use During Construction.
8 CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions model designed to provide a uniform platform to quantity po tential air emissions from projects.
9 EMFAC is an emission inventory model that CARB developed to assess emissions from on -road motor vehicles including cars, trucks, and
buses in California.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-13 4.5 | Energy
Table 4.5-3: Energy Use During Construction
Project Source Total
Construction Energy
San Bernardino County
Annual Energy (2023)
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Electricity Use GWh
Water Use1 0.0264 15,969 0.0002 %
Diesel Use Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips2 42,348
325,042,642
0.0130 %
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 172,676 0.0531 %
Construction Diesel Total 215,024 0.0662 %
Gasoline Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips 63,889 914,089,926 0.0070 %
1 Construction water use based on acres disturbed per day per construction sequencing and estimated water use per acre.
2 On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod and fleet -average fuel consumption in gallons per
mile from EMFAC2021 in Riverside County for construction year 2023. Construction VMT occurs from workers, vendors, and hauling.
3 Construction fuel use was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.
Source: Refer to energy calculations in Appendix D.
Electricity
Water for Construction Dust Control
Electricity use associated with water use for construction dust control is calculated based on total water
use and the energy intensity for supply, distribution, and treatment of water.
The total number of gallons of water used is calculated based on acreage disturbed dur ing grading and
site preparation, as well as the daily watering rate per acre disturbed.
• The total acres disturbed are calculated using the methodology described in Chapter 4.2 of
Appendix A of the CalEEMod User’s Guide.
• The water application rate of 3,020 gallons per acre per day is from the Air and Waste
Management Association’s Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
The energy intensity value is based on the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San
Bernardino County. As summarized in Table 4.5-3, the total electricity demand associated with water use
for construction dust control would be approximately 0.0 264 GWh over the duration of construction.
Petroleum Fuel
On-Road Diesel Construction Trips
The diesel fuel associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default diesel fleet
percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon (MPG). VMT for the entire constr uction period
is calculated based on the number of trips multiplied by the trip lengths for each phase shown in
CalEEMod. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios
from the Climate Registry. Total diesel fuel consumption associated with on-road construction trips for
the Project would be approximately 42,348 gallons (Table 4.5-3). Diesel fuel use would be further reduced
through compliance with Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §2449, which requires diesel-
powered construction equipment to be turned off when not in use.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-14 4.5 | Energy
Off-Road Diesel Construction Equipment
Construction diesel fuel associated with the off-road construction equipment is calculated based on
CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. The total diesel fuel
associated with off-road construction equipment is approximately 172,676 gallons (Table 4.5-3).
On-Road Gasoline Construction Tr ips
The gasoline fuel associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on VMT from
vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default gasoline fleet percentage, and
vehicle fuel efficiency in MPG using the same methodology as the construction on-road trip diesel fuel
calculation discussed above. The total gasoline fuel associated with on-road construction trips would be
approximately 63,889 gallons (Table 4.5-3).
Compliance with Energy Standards
The Project would include construction activities that would use energy, primarily in the form of diesel
fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Contractors would be
required to comply with State law (Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3)) and
CARB Air Toxic Control Measures that place restrictions on the length of time that diesel -powered
equipment and vehicles can idle before powering down (thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful
consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling). Lastly, Project construction contractors would be
required to comply with applicable CARB regulations regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement
of older, less-efficient diesel off-road construction equipment. Accordingly, the equipment and vehicles
employed in construction of the Project would not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary
consumption of fuel.
Effects of Project Construction on Local and Regional Energy Supplies
In 2023, the earliest Project construction year, Californians are anticipated to use approximately
15,252,419,610 gallons of gasoline and approximately 3,702,133,264 gallons of diesel fuel. San Bernardino
County annual gasoline fuel use in 2023 is anticipated to be 914,089,926 gallons and diesel fuel use is
anticipated to be 325,042,642 gallons. Total Project construction gasoline fuel would represent
approximately 0.01 percent of annual gasoline used in the County (year 2023), and total Project
construction diesel fuel would represent approximately 0.07 percent of annual diesel used in the County
(year 2023). Assessing the Project according to Appendix F, II.C.2 shows that based on the total Project’s
relatively low construction fuel use proportional to annual State and County use, the Project would not
substantially affect existing energy fuel supplies or resources. New capacity or additional sources of
construction fuel are not anticipated to be required.
SCE’s total energy sales in 2020 were 83,533 GWh of electricity. The Project’s construction-related net
annual electricity consumption of 0.0264 GWh would represent approximately 0.00003 percent of SCE’s
sales. Therefore, it is anticipated that SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity
supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction electricity demand.
Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported
from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-15 4.5 | Energy
would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption. As such, it is expected that existing and
planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction
demand.
Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial
incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is
growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively
expensive and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices. Substantial
reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials
composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non -recycled
materials. The Project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials
such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas)
would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demands for
construction materials. In compliance with the Title 13 of the CCR §2449, diesel-powered construction
equipment would be required to be turned off when not in use, resulting in reduction in diesel fuel use
during construction. With reduced diesel fuel use, electricity use associated with water use for
construction dust control would be also reduced. It is reasonable to assume that production of building
materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the
interest in minimizing the costs of business.
As described above, the Project’s fuel consumption and electricity usage from the entire construction
period would increase by less than one percent in the County. A less than one percent increase in
temporary demand is not anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity. Project construction
would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. All construction equipment will
comply with air quality and energy/fuel efficiency laws and regulations; thus, the equipment would not
be wasteful or inefficient.
Operational
Energy Requirements
The energy consumption associated with Project operations would occur from building energy use
(electricity and natural gas), water use, and transportation-related fuel use. The methodology for
calculating operational Project demands of each energy category is discussed below. This analysis relies
on operations and land uses as discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, as well as the calculations which are provided in Appendix D. Annual energy use during Project
operations compared to Countywide energy use is shown in Table 4.5-4, Annual Energy Use During
Operations.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-16 4.5 | Energy
Table 4.5-4: Annual Energy Use During Operations
Project Source
Annual Operational
Energy
San Bernardino County
Annual Energy
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Electricity Use GWh
Area1 7.41 0.05 %
Water1 1.38 15,969 0.01 %
Total Electricity 8.79 0.06 %
Natural Gas Use Therms
Area1 160,195 527,236,428 0.03 %
Diesel Use Gallons
Light/Medium Trucks2 152,941 280,932,332 0.05 %
Heavy Trucks2 145,611 280,932,332 0.05 %
Total Diesel 298,552 280,932,332 0.11 %
Gasoline Use Gallons
Passenger Vechicles2 2,193,771 861,345,274 0.25 %
1 The electricity, natural gas, and water usage are based on project-specific estimates and CalEEMod defaults.
2 Calculated based on the mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fleet-average fuel consumption (in gallons per
mile) from EMFAC2021 for operational year 2024.
Source: Refer to energy calculations in Appendix D.
Petroleum Fuel
The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on-road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT
calculated for the analyses within Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and average fuel efficiency from the EMFAC model. The EMFAC fuel efficiency data incorporates the
Pavley Clean Car Standards and the Advanced Clean Cars Program. As summarized in Table 4.5-4, the total
gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on-road trips would be approximately 2,193,771 gallons per year
and 298,552 gallons per year, respectively.
Electricity
The electricity use during Project operations is based on CalEEMod defaults. The Project would use
approximately 7.41 GWh of electricity per year for area use (Table 4.5-4). The electricity associated with
operational water use is estimated based on the annual water use, and the energy intensity factor is based
on the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Bernardino County. Project area
water use is based on the CalEEMod default rates. The Project would use approximately 112 million
gallons of water annually which would require approximately 1.38 GWh per year for conveyance and
treatment. In total, the Project would use approximately 8.79 GWh of electricity per year.
Natural Gas
The methodology used to calculate the natural gas use associated with the Project is based on CalEEMod
default rates. The Project would use 160,195 therms of natural gas per year for space heating, water
heating, and stoves (Table 4.5-4).
Effects of Project Operations on Local and Regional Energy Supplies
Californians used 277,704 GWh of electricity in 2020, of which San Bernardino County used 15,969 GWh.
The Project’s operational electricity use would represent 0.00 3 percent of electricity used in the state,
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-17 4.5 | Energy
and 0.06 percent of the energy use in San Bernardino County. The Project’s electricity consumption
estimated above includes reductions associated with compliance with the 2022 Title 24 building code and
compliance the CalGreen Tier 2 standards; refer to LOR AQ-6, and MM GHG-1 in Section 4.7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. Project electricity consumption is 8.79 GWh per year or 8,790 MWh per year. Assuming
the Project operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year with an annual electricity
consumption of 8,790 MWh/year, the Project would require a capacity of approximately 1.0 MW.10 The
nearest SCE electrical substation to the Project is the Colton Substation which has a remaining capacity of
41.52 MW.11 Therefore, SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be
sufficient to serve the Project’s estimated electricity demand. SCE can provide the Project sufficient
electricity and would not be required to construct additional facilities.
Regarding natural gas, Californians used 14,352 million therms of natural gas and 527 million therms of
natural gas in San Bernardino County in 2020. Therefore, the Project’s operational natural gas use would
represent 0.001 percent of the natural gas use in the state and 0.03 percent of the natural gas use in the
County. Project natural gas consumption is estimated to be 160,195 therms/year or 0.04 million cubic feet
of gas per day (MMcf/d). According to the 2020 California Gas Report,12 in 2024 Southern California will
have a surplus of 131 MMcf/d available. Therefore, SoCalGas would have enough natural gas to serve the
Project’s demand of 0.04 MMcf/d.
In 2024, Californians are anticipated to use approximately 14,317,794 gallons of gasoline and
approximately 3,195,776,812 gallons of diesel fuel. Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are
produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world.
Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of
worldwide consumption. Project operational use of gasoline and diesel would represent a 0.25 percent
increase of gasoline use and 0.11 percent increase of diesel use in the County. Fuel demands associated
with the Project would not require the construction of additional gas stations or refineries.
Compliance with Energy Efficiency Measures
As discussed above, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings
create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy use and provide energy efficiency standards
for residential and non-residential buildings. These standards are incorporated within the California
Building Code and are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. 2022
Title 24 standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings will focus on encouraging electric heat
pump technology and use, promote electric-ready buildings to get owners to use cleaner electric heating,
cooking, and vehicle charging, expanding solar photovoltaic systems and battery storage systems to
reduce reliance on fossil fuel transportation and power plants; refer to LOR AQ-5.
10 8,790 𝑀𝑊ℎ/𝑦𝑟
8,766 ℎ/𝑦𝑟=𝑎𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑥.1.0 𝑀𝑊
11 Southern California Edison (SCE), ND. Southern California Edison Power Site Search Tool. Accessed March 31, 2022. Available a t
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888 .
12 California Gas and Electric Utilities, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-18 4.5 | Energy
Regarding water energy conservation, the Project would incorporate drought-tolerant landscaping
throughout portions of the site. Water-efficient irrigation controls would also be used in landscape areas.
Buildings would incorporate water-efficient fixtures and appliances, to comply with Title 24.
It should also be noted that SCE is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS
requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to
increase total procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent by 2020 and 50
percent by 2030. The CEC estimates that in 2019, 36 percent of the State’s retail electricity sales were
provided by Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)-eligible sources such as solar and wind. That exceeds
California’s 33 percent requirement of retail sales come from RPS-eligible sources by 2020. California
surpassed its 2020 RPS goals for the first time two years ago when an estimated 34 percent of retail
electric sales came from RPS-eligible source. In 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve
the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by
December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered
by clean energy by 2045. As of 2021, California In-State Generation for Total Renewables, was
34.8 percent.13 Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are
naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.
Energy Consumption Analysis During Operations
As discussed above, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards create uniform building codes to reduce
California’s energy use and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential
buildings. These standards are incorporated within the California Building Code and are expected to
substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use.
Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. All Project
buildings will comply with energy and fuel efficiency laws and regulations; thus, the Project would not
result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. In addition, none of the estimated Project energy uses
exceed one percent of the corresponding uses within the County.
To further minimize energy usage, the Project would implement MM AQ-2 and MM GHG-1 through
MM GHG-3. MM AQ-2 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM GHG-1 requires the
installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions in residential buildings. MM GHG-2
requires the Project to meet or exceed the voluntary CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy
efficiency. MM GHG-3 requires the residential projects to be all electric (i.e., no natural gas). Therefore,
potential impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
13 California Energy Commission. 2022. 2021 Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data -reports/energy-
almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-
generation#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20generation%20increased%203.5,0.51%20percent%20increase%20from%202020.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-19 4.5 | Energy
Impact 4.6-2: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or Local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
The energy conservation plans and policies relevant to the Project include the California Title 24 energy
standards and the 2022 California Green Building Code; refer to LOR AQ-5 and LOR AQ-6. Compliance with
Title 24 energy standards and the 2022 Green Building Code would be enforced through the City’s plan
check process. Future development on the Project site would be designed in conformance with these
existing energy standards. Additionally, the Project would be designed in accordance with Grand Terrace
GP and goals, policies, and Grand Terrace MC regulations pertaining to energy efficiency and design
standards. Compliance with goals, policies, and design standards would also be verified through the City’s
design review process. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with Southern California Association
of Government’s (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) also referred as the Connect SoCal and Connect SoCal’s GHG reduction goals (refer to
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). It is not anticipated that buildout of the Project would conflict
with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or efficiency, and therefore, a less than
significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.5.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning energy have been identified. All impacts would be less than
significant with no mitigation required.
4.5.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential cumulative impacts to energy would result if the proposed Project, in combination with past,
present, and future projects (refer to Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List located in Section 4.0,
Environmental Impact Analysis), would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This could result
from development that would not incorporate sufficient building energy efficiency features, would not
achieve building energy efficiency standards, or would result in the unnecessary use of energy during
construction and/or operation.
The cumulative projects within the areas serviced by the energy service providers would be applicable to
this analysis. All projects listed in Table 4-1 are within the service area of SCE and SoCalGas and therefore
are applicable to this cumulative analysis.
Construction associated with implementation of the Project would result in the use of energy, but not in
an inefficient or wasteful manner. The use of energy would not be substantial in comparison to statewide
electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel demand; refer to Table 4.5-3 and Table 4.5-4. As discussed
above, and in response to CEQA Appendix F, the Project-related construction electricity consumption
would represent approximately 0.00002 percent of SCE generated electricity and would not result in the
need for construction of additional energy generation. The electricity used for construction would be less
than that required during operation of the Project, would be temporary and would have a minimal
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-20 4.5 | Energy
contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. Construction of the Project would not typically
involve the consumption of natural gas. The Project’s construction electricity consumption would be
negligible relative to SCE’s generated electricity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to serve the
Project’s temporary construction electricity demand. All on-site construction equipment would be
required to meet existing regulations detailed in Section 4.5.3 regarding energy efficiency; thus the
Project’s construction energy use would not be inefficient or wasteful.
During operations the Project-related net annual electricity consumption would represent approximately
0.009 percent of SCE’s sales in 2020. SCE would review the Project’s estimated electricity consumption in
order to ensure that the estimated power requirement would be part of the total load growth forecast
for their service area and accounted for in the planned growth of the power system. The Project’s natural
gas consumption would account for approximately 0.03 percent of the County’s forecasted natural gas
consumption and the Project would account for approximately 0.003 percent of forecasted surplus of
natural gas in the SoCalGas planning area. It should be noted that the planning projections of SCE and
SoCalGas consider planned development for their service areas and are in and of themselves providing
for cumulative growth. Although the Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA), SCE and SoCalGas
have the capacity to serve the energy demands of the Project, as discussed above under Impact 4.5-1.
Additionally, the Project was determined to not induce substantial unplanned population growth; refer to
Section 4.12, Population and Housing.
SCE and SoCalGas have policies, programs, and projects in place to provide continued, adequate energy
to their users. Substantial reductions to the cumulative demand for energy can result from an increased
reliance on renewable energy systems (as required by the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standards) and the
construction of energy-efficient buildings. Cumulative projects would be subject to applicable Title 24 and
CALGreen requirements similar to the Project, which includes energy efficiency standards to minimize the
wasteful and inefficient use of energy.
Furthermore, transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be
domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current
crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption.14 As such, it is
expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s
construction and operational demand. New capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be
required. Additionally, the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local
requirements for energy efficiency. State regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley
Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel
demand of cumulative projects. In addition, new 2022 building standards would require more vehicle
charging infrastructure, assisting in the transition to electric vehicles and away from fossil fuel
consumption.
In consideration of cumulative energy use, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project would
increase overall electricity and natural gas demand but would not require additional facilities other than
local connections to, or undergrounding of, existing facilities in the Project vicinity. Additionally,
14 BP Global. (2022). 2021 Statistical Review of World Energy. Retrieved at: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-
economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-21 4.5 | Energy
cumulative growth associated with the related projects is already accounted for in the planning of future
supplies to cover projected demand. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact
concerning wasteful or inefficient energy use, and a less than significant cumulative impact would occur.
The Project and new development projects located within the cumulative study area would also be
required to comply with all the same applicable federal, state, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil
fuel consumption and the conservation of energy; refer to Table 4-1 in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact
Analysis of this Draft EIR for a list of cumulative projects. The anticipated Project impacts, in conjunction
with cumulative development in the vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy
use. Potential land use impacts are site-specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. As noted
in Impact 4.6-2, the Project would not result in significant impacts to state or local plans for renewable
energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated
to result in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than
significant.
4.5.8 REFERENCES
Air and Waste Management Association. (1992). Air Pollution Engineering Manual. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
BP Global. (2022). 2021 Statistical Review of World Energy.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-
energy.html.
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. (2021). Net Taxable Gasoline Sales.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm.
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. (2021). Net Taxable Diesel Sales.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm.
California Energy Commission. (2020). Electricity Consumption by County.
www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
California Energy Commission. (2020). Gas Consumption by County. www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/
gasbycounty.aspx.
California Energy Commission. (2020). Energy Almanac, California’s Electricity Data.
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/SCE_2020PowerContentLabel.pdf.
California Gas and Electric Utilities. (2020). 2020 California Gas Report.
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf.
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. (2023). Energy Assessment. See Appendix D.
Southern California Edison. (2020). By the Numbers: Who We Serve. https://www.sce.com/about-
us/who-we-are.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.5-22 4.5 | Energy
Southern California Edison. (2021). 2020 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison.
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/SCE_2020PowerContentLabel.pdf.
Southern California Edison. ND. Southern California Edison Power Site Search Tool.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888.
Southern California Edison. (2022). Our Service Territory. www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-
are/leadership/our-service-territory.
United States Department of Energy. (February 13, 2019). Model Year 2015 Fuel Economy Guide.
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2015.pdf.
United States Energy Information Administration. (2020). California Energy Consumption Estimates.
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-1 4.6 | Geology and Soils
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6.1 IN T RODUCTION
This section of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the existing regulatory and
environmental conditions related to the geologic, soil, and seismic characteristics, and paleontological
resources within The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) site. This section also identifies
potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Project, and as necessary, recommends
mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts. The issues addressed in this section are risks
associated with unearthing paleontological resources, faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-
related ground failure such as liquefaction, landslides, substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil, and
unstable geological units and/or soils.
The properties within the Project area have evolved over the past several years and various technical
studies have been prepared for certain properties, however not all properties have been surveyed due to
ownership issues and lack of accessibility. The surveys are referenced herein to describe the findings for
certain specific properties and are determined to be adequate at a programmatic level regarding the
Project area.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00-17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
Baseline conditions are largely based on review of the following technical documents, including review of
aerial photographs and maps of the Project site and its surroundings and review of relevant public
documents:
• Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation APN’s: 1167-161-03 & -04, (2022) prepared by LOR
Geotechnical Group, Inc (Appendix E1 ).
▪ Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 1167-161-03 & -04
• Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation APN’s: 1167-151-22, -68, -71 & -74, (2022) prepared by
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc (Appendix E2).
▪ Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 1167-151-22, -68, -71 & -74
• EIR Level Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan and
Homecoming Project, (2018) prepared by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc (Appendix E3).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-2 4.6 | Geology and Soils
• Geotechnical Report Update to the EIR Level Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation Gateway at
Grand Terrace Specific Plan and Homecoming Project, (2022) prepared by LOR Geotechnical
Group, Inc (Appendix E4).
• Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reconnaissance, (2017), prepared by
CRM TECH (Appendix C4).
• City of Grand Terrace (City) General Plan (Grand Terrace GP).
Additional relevant information presented in this section comes from various planning documents
including, but not limited to, the City of Grand Terrace (City) Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) and
pertinent California Building Standards Codes (CBSC).
An initial Geotechnical Investigation was performed in January and February of 2017 for proposed
residential development of approximately 50 acres of property generally located north of Main Street and
west of Michigan Avenue in the City of Grand Terrace, California. The Geotechnical Investigations for the
Project area represent an updated version of the previous 2017 investigations. The main change from the
2017 investigations to the 2022 investigations is the most recent investigations have involved updates to
the Project area description in terms of site conditions and site boundaries, and updates of seismic design
criteria following 2022 California Building Code (CBC) guidelines.
Exhibit 4.6-1: Geotechnical Investigation Areas
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Specific Plan Boundary
Appendix E1 Parcels
Appendix E2 Parcels
EIR Level Geotechnical Feasibility
Investigation Area
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-4 4.6 | Geology and Soils
4.6.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Geologic Setting
The Project area is located on the Perris block within the northern Peninsular Ranges geologic province of
southern California. The Perris block is considered to be a relatively stable structural block and is bounded
by active faults, including the Elsinore fault zone to the southwest, the San Jacinto fault zone to the
northeast, and the Cucamonga fault zone to the north. The Perris block is underlain predominantly of
crystalline igneous rocks of Cretaceous age and older metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. The Perris
block has multiple erosional surfaces capped with unconsolidated alluvial sediments stripped from the
surrounding highlands and is underlain with older alluvium.1
Local Geologic Setting
The Project is located within the northeastern portion of the City; located between the La Loma Hills to
the west and the Box Springs Mountains to the east and southeast. The majority of the Project site is
relatively flat, and the slope is slight, with the elevation ranging from approximately 975 feet on th e
northeastern end of the site to approximately 945 feet on the southwestern corner. The Project site is
underlain by surficial topsoil and localized fill soils followed by thick older alluvial materials. Younger
alluvial soils were also present within the drainages that traverse the center and northern portions of the
Project site. The earth materials encountered by LOR Geotechnical during the 2022 Geotechnical
Investigation are generally described as follows:
• Artificial Fill: Artificial fill soils encountered at the Project site were mainly present along the
northwestern portion of the site where fill has been placed across the two drainages. In addition,
fill soils are present in the far southern portion of the property. These soils were created in
association with the construction of the adjacent high school and a rip-rap lined drainage channel
present in this area. Fill soils are also likely present in the southwest corner where the three
aboveground storage tanks were located. Other than minor asphalt and debris, the fill soils appear
to consist of locally derived silty sand soils.
• Topsoil: Mantling the surface of the vast majority of the Project site are topsoil materials that
consist of silty sand. These soils average approximately 1.5 to 2 feet in thickness and are relatively
loose. At the time of the site investigation, these soils were moist as a result of recent heavy rains.
• Younger Alluvium: Relatively young alluvial soils are present within the two drainage courses that
traverse the northern portion of the site from east to west. The younger alluvial materials consist
mainly of loose to medium dense silty sand with well graded sand soils at depth. At the location
of the exploratory trench, these sediments were found to exceed 15 feet in thickness with the
looser, silty sand materials present in the upper 8 to 11 feet and the denser, sandier soils present
below these depths.
• Older Alluvium: Older alluvium is present at shallow depth across the Project site and underlies
the fill soils and younger alluvium. In general, the older alluvium consists of dense silty sand in the
near surface and generally becomes sandier with an increase in depth. The dense silty sand and
1 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (2022), Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation APN’s: 1167-161-03 & -04..Refer to Appendix E1
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-5 4.6 | Geology and Soils
the sandy silt layers are typically massive and porous in the near surface. However, the porosity
decreases below the first couple of feet and a blocky soil structure is evident in the deeper, denser
materials.
Faulting and Seismicity
Regional and Local Faulting
The City of Grand Terrace, including the Project area, is located within a seismically active region and
would be subject to strong regional seismic activity. The historical seismicity of the Project site entails
numerous small to medium magnitude earthquake events occurring in the region. The primary source of
regional seismic activity would occur in the northwest trending San Jacinto and San Andreas fault zones.
Ground Shaking
Strong ground shaking can be expected during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region and
is common in the majority of southern California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends
primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type)
characteristics.
Ground Subsidence
The term “ground subsidence” is defined as the sudden shrinking or gradual downward settling and
compaction of the soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence
occurs when a large portion of land sinks, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural
gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. Subsidence
would depend on the construction methods and the type of equipment used.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized as soils with significant amount of clay particles that can shrink or swell
resulting in instability for overlying structures. Changes in soil moisture content can result from
precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other
factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on
grade. Depending on the extent and location below finish subgrade, expansive soils can hav e a detrimental
effect on structures.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include
ground rupture, land sliding, rockfall, and liquefaction.
Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is most likely to occur along active faults. As previously mentioned, the Project site is not
located within an earthquake fault zone as identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act or
County Fault Zone. Therefore, ground rupture is not likely to occur within the Project site.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-6 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Landslides
A landslide is the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. Seismically induced
landslides and slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after large earthquakes. The Project
site is relatively flat and slopes from the northeast.
Rockfalls
The majority of the Project site consists of relatively flat surfaces with gently sloping areas in between. In
addition, no loose, un-rooted rocks that could fall or topple and roll were noted to be present during the
site investigation. Therefore, potential for rockfalls occurring at the Project site is considered to be nil.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure
induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary
factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and
plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration
of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface
improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below ground surface.
Paleontological Setting
The Project site is located on surface deposits of older Quaternary alluvium and shallow excavations were
determined unlikely to uncover sig nificant fossil vertebrate remains. However, it was determined that
deeper excavation may uncover such remains. CRM Tech’s Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological
Resources Reconnaissance Report (Appendix C4) includes a paleontological resources records search to
identify known paleontological localities in the vicinity of the Project. The San Bernardino County Museum
(SBCM) in Redlands and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), provided services
for this study. These institutions maintain regional paleontological locality inventories and supporting
maps and documents. These institutions identified no paleontological localities within the Project site or
within a one-mile radius.
4.6.3 REGULATORY S ETTING
Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations
Excavation and trenching are among the most hazardous construction activities. OSHA’s Excavation and
Trenching standard, Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1926.650, covers requirements
for excavation and trenching operations. OSHA requires that all excavations in which employees could
potentially be exposed to cave-ins be protected by sloping or benching the sides of the excavation,
supporting the sides of the excavation, or placing a shield between the side of the excavation and the
work area.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-7 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977
The purpose of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 is to protect or restore soil
functions on a permanent sustainable basis. Protection and restoration activities include prevention of
harmful soil changes, rehabilitation of the soil of contaminated sites and of water contaminated by such
sites, and precautions against negative soil impacts. Disruptions of natural soil functions and its function
as an archive of natural and cultural history should be avoided, as far as practicable. In addition, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) requirements,
through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, provide
guidance for protection of geologic and soil resources.
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124) established the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (Program) which is coordinated through the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the USGS, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. The purpose of the Program is to establish measures for earthquake hazards reduction and
promote the adoption of earthquake hazards reduction measures by federal, state, and local
governments; national standards and model code organizations; architects and engineers; building
owners; and others with a role in planning and constructing buildings, structures, and lifelines through
(1) grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance; (2) development of standards,
guidelines, and voluntary consensus codes for earthquake hazards reduction for buildings, structures, and
lifelines; and (3) development and maintenance of a repository of information, including technical data,
on seismic risk and hazards reduction. The Program is intended to improve the understanding of
earthquakes and their effects on communities, buildings, structures, and lifelines through interdisciplinary
research that involves engineering, natural sciences, and social, economic, and decisions sciences.
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 2621-2624, Division 2,
Chapter 7.5) was passed in 1972 following the destructive February 9, 1971 moment magnitude (Mw)
6.6 San Fernando earthquake to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures intended for human
occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prohibit siting buildings used for human occupancy across traces
of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. The
Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Earthquake Fault Zones,”
delineating appropriately wide earthquake fault zones to encompass potentially active and recently active
traces of faults. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within these zones. Before a
project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that
proposed human occupancy structures would not be constructed across active faults. An evaluation and
written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-8 4.6 | Geology and Soils
structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from
the fault (typically at least 50-foot setbacks are required).2
Effective June 1, 1998, the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act requires that sellers of real property and their
agents provide prospective buyers with a “Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement” when the property being
sold lies within one or more state-mapped hazard areas, including Earthquake Fault Zones.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (SHMA)
The SHMA of 1990 (California PRC, § 2690 et seq.) directs the California Department of Conservation’s
California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced
landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property
through the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of seismic hazards.
The SHMA provides a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities
and counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public health and safety from the effects
of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and other seismic hazards
caused by earthquakes. Mapping and other information generated pursuant to the SHMA is to be made
available to local governments for planning and development purposes. The state requires (1) local
governments to incorporate site-specific geotechnical hazard investigations and associated hazard
mitigation as part of the local construction permit approval process, and (2) the agent for a property seller,
or the seller if acting without an agent, to disclose to any prospective buyer if the property is located
within a seismic hazard zone. The State Geologist is responsible for compiling seismic hazard zone maps.
The SHMA specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic
or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans
to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.
California Building Code
CCR Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), in cludes regulations for how
buildings are designed and constructed, and are intended to ensure the maximum structural integrity and
safety of private and public buildings. The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building permits,
consists of 12 parts that contain CBSC administrative regulations for all State agencies that implement or
enforce building standards. Local agencies must ensure the development complies with the CBSC
standards. Cities and counties can adopt additional standards beyond the C BSC including CBSC Part 2,
named the CBC.
State Earthquake Protection Law
The State Earthquake Protection Law (California HSC § 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed
to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum seismic
safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC requires a
site-specific geotechnical study to address seismic issues and identifies seismic factors that must be
2 California Department of Conservation. (2019). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo. (accessed November 7, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-9 4.6 | Geology and Soils
considered in structural design. Because the Project area is not located within an Alquist–Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, special provisions would not be required for Project development related to fault
rupture.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
Public Health and Safety Element
The Grand Terrace GP Public Health and Safety Element identifies specific hazards, their specific locations
within the City, and goals and policies designed to minimize the social, economic, and environmental
disruption from hazardous events. The following goals and policies are applicable to geologic resources.
Goal 4.9: Comply with state and federal regulations to ensure the protection of historical,
archaeological, and paleontological resources.
Policy 4.9.1 The City shall take reasonable steps to ensure that cultural resources are located,
identified, and evaluated to assure that appropriate action is taken as to the
disposition of these resources.
Goal 5.1: Minimize the risk to public health and safety, social and economic welfare of the City
resulting from geologic and seismic hazards
Policy PHS 5.1.1 All new development shall comply with current seismic design standards
Policy PHS 5.1.2 All proposed developments shall be evaluated for impacts associated with geologic
and seismic hazards.
Policy PHS 5.1.4 Grading plans for development projects shall include an approved drainage and
erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during
grading.
Goal 5.3: Reduce the risk to life and property in areas designated as flood hazard areas.
Policy PHS 5.3.4 The City shall require all development projects to comply with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and implement appropriate Best Management
Practices.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
Title 15 – Building and Construction
The City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) Title 15 contains provisions and regulations
of the City’s adopted Uniform Building Code and requires development within the City to comply with the
State of California Subdivision Map Act. These State laws require developers to submit grading plans,
including soils engineering reports, and, if necessary, engineering geology reports. The reports shall
include recommendations concerning cuts, fills, compaction, and foundation to ensure stable
development.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-10 4.6 | Geology and Soils
4.6.4 S IGNI FICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning geology and soils. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
▪ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
▪ Strong seismic ground shaking.
▪ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
▪ Landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater .
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning geolog ical and soil resources. This analysis
considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid
or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite
compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or
reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on the Geotechnical Investigations prepared by
LOR Geotechnical; review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs;
and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The
determination that the Project would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on geological
and soil resources considers how the potential for development and operation of the future projects
would affect the resources.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-11 4.6 | Geology and Soils
4.6.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.6-1: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey’s Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map was reviewed and was found that the Project site is not within or adjacent to a known earthquake
fault. In addition, the County’s Geologic Hazards Map for the City determined that the Project site is not
located on any known active earthquake faults identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map.3 Nevertheless, the Project would be subject to regional seismic activity. As noted above in
Section 4.6.2, the closest active fault is located approximately 1.9 miles northeast of the Project site. Due
to the Project’s close proximity to the San Jacinto Fault Zone, strong ground motion caused by a seismic
event is expected to occur during the lifetime of the development; however, buildout of the Project would
be designed according to the latest CBC soil and seismic standards and in conformance with all applicable
Grand Terrace MC design standards that aim to minimize or resist structural collapse from strong seismic
activity. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Investigations concluded that no active or potentially active faults
are known to exist at the Project site. Therefore, construction of future developments within the Project
would not cause potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts are less than significant.
Operations
As previously mentioned, the Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault zone and is not within
or adjacent to a known earthquake fault. Additionally, operational activities of future development would
occur consistent with applicable state, and local regulations and engineering standards and specifications.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.6-2: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
3 County of San Bernardino. 2010. Geologic Hazards Overlay Map FH30C Grand Terrace. Retrieved at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH30C_20100309.pdf (accessed November 7, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-12 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Construction
As previously mentioned, the Project site is in proximity to the San Jacinto Fault Zone and is expected to
experience a strong ground motion seismic event during the lifetime of the development. Large
earthquakes could occur on other faults in the Project area but are considered less significant than the
San Jacinto fault zone due to lesser anticipated magnitudes and further distances from the Project. Strong
levels of seismic ground shaking can cause damage, particularly to older and/or poorly constructed
buildings. However, all Project development would consist of new construction in accordance with the
latest CBC soils and seismic standards and in conformance with all applicable Grand Terrace MC standards
to resist the effects of strong seismic ground shaking. In addition, all relevant documents would be
submitted to the City’s Engineering and Building Department for approval, as part of the City’s
discretionary review process. Furthermore, the Project would adhere to Grand Terrace Policies PHS 5.1.1,
PHS 5.1.2, and PHS 5.1.4 to ensure that impacts concerning strong seismic ground shaking are further
reduced. Compliance with the above policies would confirm the Project would be evaluated for impacts
associated with geologic and seismic hazards, comply with current seismic design standards, and include
an approved drainage and erosion contr ol plan to minimize impacts from erosion and sedimentation
during grading. Therefore, construction of the Project would not cause potentially substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking and impacts
would be less than significant.
Operations
The residential, commercial, and public facility uses proposed on the Project site are anticipated to
experience strong seismic ground shaking at some point in the future. As discussed above, all buildings
would be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local design standards such as Policy
PHS 5.1.1 which ensures all new development would comply with current seismic design, and Policy
PHS 5.1.2 which ensures all proposed developments would be evaluated for impacts associated with
geologic and seismic hazards. Therefore, impacts from strong seismic ground shaking during the Project’s
operational phase would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.6-3: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
The Project would not be susceptible to seismic-related ground failure due to liquefaction. As previously
stated in Section 4.6.2 above, the Project site is not located on or adjacent to any known active earthquake
faults identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, the County’s Geologic Hazard
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-13 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Overlay map for the City was reviewed and the Project site is not within a generalized liquefaction
susceptibility area.4
Additionally, the potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground shaking within granular,
loose sediments where the depth to groundwater is usually less than 50 feet. The Project site is underlain
at depth by dense, older alluvium; the upper, loose alluvial soils are anticipated to be replaced with
compacted fill; and the depth to groundwater is approximately 100 feet or more. Therefore, the potential
for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, is considered to be very low to none, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
It is anticipated that all Project components would be subject to seismic-related ground shaking at some
point in the future, however since all Project buildings would be designed in accordance with applicable
state and local design standards, persons and structures would not be significantly impacted by potential
ground failure, including liquefaction, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.6-4: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iv. Landslides?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after
earthquakes. Areas within the City most susceptible to seismically induced landslides are areas at the base
of the Blue Mountain located in the City approximately 1.4 miles to the east. Additionally, the majority of
the Project site is relatively flat with gently sloping areas in between. Locally, along the drainage course
in the southwestern portion of the property, the slopes approach 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Considering
the Project site’s geologic conditions and distance from Blue Mountain, the potential for mass movement
failures such as landslides or debris flows is very low. Furthermore, no loose, un-rooted rock that could
fall or topple and roll were noted to be present at elevations above the Project site and therefore there
would be no potential for rockfalls. In addition, the County’s Geologic Hazard Overlay map for the City
was reviewed. The Project site is not within a generalized landslide susceptibility area.5 The Project would
not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss , injury, or
death involving landslides, and therefore no impact would occur.
4 County of San Bernardino. (2010). Geologic Hazards Overlay Map FH30C Grand Terrace. Retrieved at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH30C_20100309.pdf (accessed November 7, 2022).
5 County of San Bernardino. (2010). Geologic Hazards Overlay Map FH30C Grand Terrace. Retrieved at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH30C_20100309.pdf (accessed November 7, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-14 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.6-5: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Construction activities such as grading, site stripping, excavation, and demolition would potentially result
in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. The 2022 Geotechnical Investigation indicated average removal
depths of approximately 3 to 6 feet below existing grades would be required on the majority of
development within the subject property. However, deeper removals of approximately 10 to 15 feet
would be required within the two drainage courses that traverses the northern portion of the subject
property. Grading activities could include newly constructed fill slopes (both cut and fill ), comprised of
properly compacted engineered fill. The grading proposed by the Project during Phase 1 and 2 are
preliminarily estimated to require cut/removal of approximately 293,629 cubic yards (CY) of all the
existing artificial fill soils and loose alluvial materials and approximately 280,896 CY of engineered
compacted fill would be used to fill the site. Approximately 12,733 CY would also be exported. Although
approximately 280,896 CY of engineered compacted fill would be used and approximately 12,733 CY
estimated to be exported, the site pads would be graded and adjusted to remain balanced. The
Geotechnical Investigation concluded the relative compaction of the younger alluvial soils and the relative
compaction anticipated for compacted fill soils for the Project site were estimated to have a compaction
shrinkage factor of approximately 10 to 15 percent for the younger alluvium soils. The older alluvium soils
are denser, and the removal and replacement of these soils were estimated to also result in a compaction
shrinkage factor of approximately 5 to 10 percent.
All footings are estimated to rest upon 24 inches of properly compacted fill material. In areas where the
required fill thickness is not met, the footing areas would be further excavated to a depth of at least
24 inches below the proposed footing base grade, with sub excavation extending at least 5 feet beyond
the footing lines. If an excess of 5 feet removals are required, the removal areas should extend laterally
at a 1:1 ratio, and no structures would be located on areas where the maximum depth of fill to minimum
depth of fill is greater than a 3:1 ratio as measured from the bottom of the footing. Additionally, all
foundations would have a minimum width of 12 inches and due to the low expansion soils on site, would
be established a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.
Initial site stripping would include the removal of any surficial vegetation and topsoil. Grading and
construction activities could also include foundation design improvements, building area slab-on-grade
(concrete floor slabs), and retaining walls, that would increase the loss of topsoil to erosion.
Site-specific development plans within the Project would be submitted to the City’s Engineering and
Building Department for approval, along with a Geotechnical Investigation as part of the City’s
discretionary review process. Future development would also be required to adhere to the construction
design features and Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1, which requires no clearing and/or grading
operations be performed without the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer and an on-site, pre-
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-15 4.6 | Geology and Soils
job meeting with the developer, the contractor, and soil engineer prior to all grading related operations.
All construction activities would also be subject to Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in a
Project-Specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) to reduce impacts from runoff associated with soil erosion (refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality of this EIR). Therefore, Construction-related impacts related to soil erosion would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operations
Buildout of future development projects within the Project area would include primarily impervious
surfaces. Pervious surfaces during Project operation would include, but not be limited to, maintained
landscaping ballparks, and detention basins to be constructed with operational BMPs set forth in the
Project’s WQMP to minimize soil erosion or loss of topsoil (refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EIR). The Project also includes utility infrastructure improvements that further support the
minimization of soil erosion, such as the inclusion of drainage improvements, including the installation of
infiltration facilities and permeable landscape areas (refer to Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems,
of this EIR). These public facilities would be maintained and upgraded as necessary and provided
throughout each future developed site as needed. Therefore, operation-related impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Construction Monitoring. No clearing and/or grading activities will be performed
without the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Construction monitoring,
including testing for on-site pavement design, would be performed during and after
the site rough grading operations. During and/or near the completion of site grading,
additional expansion index testing would be conducted to characterize selected areas
and to develop lot-specific recommendations for foundation design as related to the
expansion potential of the graded site soils.
During construction, the qualified geotechnical engineer will perform additional
observation and testing in correlation of the findings of the City-approved final
geotechnical investigations, and if applicable, provide supplemental investigation,
with the actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction.
Impact 4.6-6: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
The majority of the Project site is relatively flat and consist of gently sloping areas. Locally, along the
drainage course in the southwestern portion of the property, the slopes approach 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). However, considering the site geologic conditions and the overall gently sloping nature of the
property, the potential for mass movement failures such as landslides or debris flows is considered very
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-16 4.6 | Geology and Soils
low.6 Refer to Impact 4.6-1 through 4.6-5 above for additional information regarding landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse.
Although the Project would be subject to regional seismicity, all development would be designed in
accordance with applicable state and local design standards to withstand effects from strong seismic
ground-shaking. The Project is not in an area susceptible to liquefaction and the groundwater table is
determined to be at a depth of 100 feet or more, and therefore not a concern for future development
within the Project Site.
Grading activity would be conducted in accordance with the CBC and applicable design recommendations
listed in development -specific Geotechnical Investigations to be approved by the City. Subsequent to
grading, future development would be underlain by engineered fill soils. Total settlement of individual
foundations will vary depending on the width of the foundation and the actual load supported.
Project site grading would be performed in compliance with the CBC and applicable local ordinances. Any
existing undocumented fills would be removed and replaced with engineered compacted fill to strengthen
the foundation. Provided that the grading and foundation design recommendations presented in a future
development’s Geotechnical Investigation are implemented, the settlements are expected to be within
the structural tolerances of the proposed buildings.
Cut slopes excavated within the existing alluvial soils may be subject to surficial instability due to the lack
of cohesion within these materials. Therefore, fill slopes could be overfilled during construction and then
cut back to expose fully compacted soil. Where fills are to be placed against existing slopes steeper than
five horizontal to one vertical, the fill could be properly keyed and benched into competent native
materials. Therefore, stability fills would be implemented within these areas.
Overall, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM GEO-1 along with applicable
design features, and future developments’ specific geotechnical design parameters from the applicable
CBC and approved Geotechnical Investigation.
Operations
The Project’s operational phase would not result in substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic
ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure. All development would be built in compliance with
applicable state and local design standards and in accordance with the geologic recommendations set
within the development’s approved Geotechnical Reports. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Refer to MM GEO-1 above.
6 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (2022). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation APN’s: 1167-151-22, -68, -71, & -74. See Appendix E1
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-17 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Impact 4.6-7: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Soils that expand and contract in volume (“shrink-swell” pattern) are considered to be expansive and may
cause damage to aboveground infrastructure as a result of density changes that shift overlying materials.
Fine-grain clay sediments are most likely to exhibit shrink-swell patterns in response to changing moisture
levels. According to the geotechnical investigation of the site, the majority of the site surficial soils consist
of silty sands and sandy silts with a very low to low expansion potential. Although grading activities would
likely involve relatively significant mixing and blending of the site materials and a reduction of the overall
expansion potential of the fill soils, sandy silt soils of low expansion index would still remain beneath the
fill in most areas. Future development within the Project would implement MM GEO-1, and design
recommendations described in an approved Geotechnical Investigation, and CBC design standards to
reduce impacts from expansive soils. Project construction associated with expansive soils would result in
a less than significant impact.
Operations
Future development within the Project would be subject to compliance with requirements set forth in the
latest CBC that is current at the time of construction, implementing recommendations provided in a City-
approved Geotechnical Investigation, and MM GEO-1. Project operations would result in a less than
significant impact related to risks to life or property associated with expansive soils.
Mitigation Measures:
See MM GEO-1 above.
Impact 4.6-8: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system. As
illustrated in Exhibit 3-8, Existing Sewer Plan in Section 3.0, Project Description of this EIR, there are
various existing sewer pipelines located along Commerce Way, De Berry Street, Van Buren Street, Pico
Street, and Taylor Street which connect flows from the existing off-site residences and businesses. As
development is proposed on the Project site, sewer improvements would be designed and sized to tie
into the existing sewer system which is adequately sized to accommodate the Project’s projected flows.
Wastewater collected from the Project would be conveyed through an existing 18 -inch diameter sewer
pipeline under I-215 to a wastewater treatment plant in the City of Colton. Future development facilitated
by the Project would be required to analyze existing sewer capacity and determine if additional sewer
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-18 4.6 | Geology and Soils
facilities are needed to accommodate future wastewater generation rates. All sewer facility
improvements would be constructed in accordance with the City of Grand Terrace and City of Colton
requirements. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.6-9: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction and Operations
As previously mentioned, CRM Tech’s Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological Resources
Reconnaissance Report (Appendix C4 ) included a paleontological resources records search to identify
known paleontological localities in the vicinity of the Project. Paleontological records search services were
provided by the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County (NHMLAC). These institutions did not identify any paleontological localities within the planning
area or within a one-mile radius. The planning area is located on surface deposits of older Quaternary
alluvium, and thus shallow excavations would be unlikely to uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains;
however, deeper excavation may encounter the older Quaternary alluvium and fossil remains.
Disturbed and near-surface soils within the planning area have low sensitivity for paleontological
resources, but the relatively undisturbed, fine-grained sediments underneath have a higher sensitivity for
Pleistocene-age vertebrate fossil remains.7
Nevertheless, in the event that unknown paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-
disturbance activities, future development within the Project may be required to enlist a qualified
paleontologist and implement MM GEO-2 (Paleontological Construction Monitoring and Compliance
Program) to reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources or unique geologic features to less
than significant levels. Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-2, construction of the future Project
components would not destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature,
thereby reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
Project operations would not involve any activities that impact paleontological resources. T herefore, no
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-2 All earth moving operations reaching beyond the disturbed surface soils, generally
below the depth of two feet, should be monitored for paleontological resources. The
monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossil remains as they are unearthed
to avoid construction delays and should also collect samples of sediments that are
7 CRM TECH. (2017). Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reconnaissance . Available at Appendix C2
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-19 4.6 | Geology and Soils
likely to contain fossils of small invertebrates and vertebrates. However, the monitor
must have the power to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow for
removal of abundant or large specimens.
Collected samples of sediments should be processed to recover small invertebrate
and vertebrate fossils, and the recovered specimens should be identified and
prepared for curation at a repository with permanent retrievable storage.
A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should
be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. Approval of the report by
the City of Grand Terrace would signify the completion of the mitigation program.
After Project design has been finalized to determine the precise extent and location
of planned ground disturbances, and prior to construction activity, a qualified
paleontologist (to be retained by the Applicant) will prepare a paleontological
resource monitoring plan (PRMP) for approval by the City.
4.6.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACTS
No significant unavoidable geology and soil impacts have been identified.
4.6.7 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
Southern California is a seismically active region with a range of geologic and soil conditions. These
conditions can vary widely within a limited geographical area due to factors, including differences in
landforms and proximity to fault zones, among others. Therefore, while geotechnical impacts may be
associated with the cumulative development, by the very nature of the impacts (i.e., landslides and
expansive and compressible soils), impacts are typically site-specific and there is little, if any, cumulative
relationship between the development of a project and development within a larger cumulative area,
such as citywide development.
Impacts associated with seismic events and hazards would be considered significant if the effects of an
earthquake on a property could not be mitigated by an engineered solution. The significance criteria do
not require elimination of the potential for str uctural damage from seismic hazards. Instead, the criteria
require an evaluation of whether the seismic conditions on a site can be overcome through engineering
design solutions that would reduce to less than significant the substantial risk of exposing pe ople or
structures to loss, injury, or death. As stated throughout this section, the Project’s compliance with
applicable state and local design standards and regulations including implementation of MM GEO-1 and
MM GEO-2 would ensure that impacts related to geology and soils are reduced to less than significant
levels. Consequently, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative geotechnical and seismic
impacts would be less than significant. None of the Project characteristics would affect or influen ce the
geotechnical hazards for off-site development and any cumulative development would be required to
comply with the same applicable state and local design standards, regulations, goals, and policies. For
these reasons, no significant cumulative geotechnical impacts would occur for the Project.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.6-20 4.6 | Geology and Soils
4.6.8 REFERENCES
California Building Code. (2020). Adoption of the Building Code.
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_CH
15.08BUCO_15.08.010AD.
California Department of Conservation. (2018). Interactive Fault Map.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/faults.
California Department of Conservation. (2018). Interactive Fault Map.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/faults.
California Department of Conservation. (2019). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo.
California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-
Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace General Plan. (2010). https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20
Development/city_of_gt_general_plan.pdf.
County of San Bernardino. (2010). San Bernardino County Land Use Plan General Plan Geologic Hazard
Overlays. San Bernardino, CA: County of San Bernardino.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lus/hazmaps/fh27b.pdf.
County of San Bernardino. (2010). Geologic Hazards Overlay Map FH30C Grand Terrace.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH30C_20100309.pdf.
County of San Bernardino. (2010). Geologic Hazard Maps – Grand Terrace.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH30C_20100309.pdf.
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (2022), Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation APN’s: 1167-161-03 & -04.
City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California. Appendix E1 .
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (2022). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation APN’s: 1167-
151-22, -68, -71 & -74, City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California. Appendix E2.
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (2018). EIR Level Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan and Homecoming Project, City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County,
California. Appendix E3.
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (2022). Geotechnical Report Update to the EIR Level Geotechnical
Feasibility Investigation Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan and Homecoming Project, City
of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California. Appendix E4.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-1 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate potential short- and long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
impacts resulting from implementation of The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) in the City
of Grand Terrace (City). Information given in this section is based on:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment.
The GHG emissions assessment and associated calculations are provided in Appendix F.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project area. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 Planning Areas that encompass future development of residential, commercial,
public utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s
surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation
is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.
This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The
frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth h as a
much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower -frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes
through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that
otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the
atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a
habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate
change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that
these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs
exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse
effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change
or global warming.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-2 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are
pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have
relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to
several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed
around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and
cannot be pinpointed, more CO 2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake,
vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions,
approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the
last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the
atmosphere.1 Table 4.7-1, Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to
global climate change, including their physical properties.
Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide
(CO2)
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources
include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil,
natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such
as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of
CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO 2 is the most widely emitted GHG
and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for
other GHGs.
Nitrous Oxide
(N2O)
N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human -related
sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and
adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly
microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The
Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.
Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from of f-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic
substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural
practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume.
Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass
burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites,
oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH 4 is about
12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The
use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs
gains momentum. The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to
14,800 for HFC-23.
Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers
above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two
main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global
Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine
and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as
refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range
from 3,800 to 14,400.
1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Page 6. See Appendix F.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-3 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Description
Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years.
This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming
Potential of SF6 is 23,900.
Hydrochlorofluoro-
carbons (HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for
refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject
to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent
reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-
123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.
Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in
electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming
potential of 17,200.
Source: Ibid. Page 7 – Table 1
4.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have
any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions
reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel
economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures,
requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard
requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
• Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year
2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel
economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy
standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and
procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for
consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home
appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions st ems from the
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet
the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if
these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the
Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific
evidence it found that six GHGs (CO 2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-4 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the U.S. EPA’s
assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions.
Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007
directing the U.S. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish
regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by
2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and
light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating
cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.
In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department
of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG
reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and
NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years
2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in
model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if
this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years
2017-2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On
January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for
model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing
to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 miles per gallon [mpg]),
canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).
In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the
U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for
model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main
vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.
According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for
the affected vehicles by six to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.
In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to
the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will
apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through
2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final
standards are expected to lower CO 2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil
consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.
In December 2021, the U.S. EPA finalized federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light
trucks for model years 2023 through 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards
ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and are based on an assessment of current and future
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-5 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
technologies. The updated standards will result in avoiding more than 3 billion tons of GHG emissions
through 2050.2
State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and
local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce
California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential
for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant
emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 369 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2020.3 The transportation sector is the State’s largest emitter of GHGs, followed
by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program
to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32,
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.
Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards,
were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG
reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)
AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide
GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved
by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically
and economically feasible manner.
California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) to achieve the
goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted
to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 19 90 emissions level would
require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in
2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business-as-usual”).4 The Scoping Plan
evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG
reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to
2 U.S. EPA, Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026, 2021.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations -emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. Accessed:
January 2023.
3 California Air Resources Board, Current California GHG Emissions Inventory Data, 2000 -2020 GHG inventory (2022 Edition),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed December 2022.
4 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG
emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission -generating sector were compiled and used to
estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the
same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-6 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program.5 Additional
development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end
of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building a nd
appliance standards.
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020.
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional
market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of Californi a’s GHG emissions
(adopted in 2011).
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California
and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community
strategies [SCS] have been adopted).
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including
California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012),
goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009).
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gases with high
global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s
long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
• The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for
California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and l ess polluting
freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to
supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution.
• CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality
standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation
emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years. The Mobile Source
Strategy includes increasing zero emission vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks.
In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis
relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the
economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future
fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from
596 MMTCO2e to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised
business-as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now
21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that
incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is
5 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Ag ency, is a group of State agency secretaries and
heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emi ssions
reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-7 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is
approximately 16 percent.
Scoping Plan Update. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The
updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including
anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid
risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions
and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established
by AB 32. By 2016, California had reduced GHG emissions below 1990 levels, achieving AB 32’s 2020 goal
four years ahead of schedule.
2017 Scoping Plan. In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG
emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion
legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On
December 14, 2017, CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan.6 The 2017 Scoping Plan details
how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30 -15 and
codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions
reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan
and other Federal actions.
2022 Scoping Plan. Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets
for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045
in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing
and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage.
Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas
use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing
communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil -fuel
fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind
turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most
aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no
longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG
reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping
Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and
trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the
transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the
jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new
regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at
providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious
6 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-8 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on
evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In
this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new
development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is
focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects.7 CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not
address other land uses (e.g., industrial).8 However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land
use types in the future.9
As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping
Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development. Therefore,
Appendix D only applies to the residential portion of the Project as the Project proposes commercial,
residential, public utilities, public park, and open space uses.
Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limi t)
Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B -
30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions
level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process
to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.
Senate Bill 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008)
Signed into law on September 30 , 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning,
regional transportation plans (RTP), and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals
established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include SCS in their RTPs for
reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives
for the implementation of the strategies.
Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards)
AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs
emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by
lawsuits filed by automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The U.S. EPA
subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years
2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules
will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO 2e emissions and 75 percent
fewer smog-forming emissions.
Senate Bill 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to
adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities.
7 California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions , Page 21. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed March 2023).
8 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 4, November 2022.
9 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21, November 2022.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-9 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding
procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions
of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s
utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants
located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.
The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under
long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.
Senate Bill 1078, SB 107 and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards)
SB 1078 (2002) required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by
2017. SB 107 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their
load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation
by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target
by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10-
23. SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.
Senate Bill 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015)
Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The
objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from
33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to
double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through
energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop
more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will
facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.
Assembly Bill 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.
AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the
State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California
meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and
authority to curb TACs and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398
also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap -and-Trade spending
to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.
Senate Bill 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets
(i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in
discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the
CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-10 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate ch ange
efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.
Senate Bill 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse
Gases)
Signed into Law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electr icity portfolio from
50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely
powered by clean energy by 2045.
Assembly Bill 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into Law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB to adopt cost-effective and technologically
feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road
engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. The bill requires CARB to identify and, to the extent
feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates
to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality
management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment
operations.
AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later
than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide
anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB
to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and
to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO 2 removal solutions and carbon capture,
utilization, and storage technologies.
SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100
percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035
and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.
SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon
removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated
carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.
AB 1757 (Nature-Based Solutions)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1757 requires State agencies to develop a range of targets for natural
carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030,
2038, and 2045 goals which would be integrated into a scoping plan addressing natural and working lands
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-11 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although
not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of state agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05 . Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the
following GHG emissions reduction targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will
stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive
order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.
Executive Order S-01 -07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide
goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least
10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) a nd directed the
Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission,
CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring
the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.
Executive Order S-13-08 . Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California
Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy . Objectives
include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying, and exploring strategies to adapt to
climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order S-14 -08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s
Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive
Order S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of
electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity
Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly
owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-21-09 . Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt
regulations to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which
established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107
(2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by
2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.
Executive Order B-30 -15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG
reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change
Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO2e. The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on
the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-12 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every
three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisio ns.
With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030
to 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to
achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net
negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG
emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a
framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and
recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to
develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.
Executive Order N-79-20. Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that
where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles
and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal
requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045, where feasible. It also
directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium -and heavy-
duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing
volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California
Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, and the California
Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting
carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79 -20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks
regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.
California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled
buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid
population growth.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Title 20, §§1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories
of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of
operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient
appliances.
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response t o a legislative
mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy
efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel
consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the
2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, which was subsequently approved by the California Building
Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-13 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes,
expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, streng thens ventilation standards, and more.
Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the
2022 Energy Code.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code . The California Green Building Standards Code
(CCR Title 24, Part 11) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction
code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of
Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial
buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency,
water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage
or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The CEC adopted the 2022 CALGreen
Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 CALGreen Code includes voluntary Tier 2
standards, which exceed energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent. CALGreen voluntary Tier 2
standards are met through a variety of energy efficiency measures (e.g., on-site renewable energy, green
power, bio-based construction materials, and reduced parking capacity) that exceed the mandatory
CALGreen requirements.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) formed a GHG California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on
determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. This working group was formed to
assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of
stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a
variety of city and county planning departments in the South Coast Air Basin, various utilities such as
sanitation and power companies throughout the South Coast Air Basin, industry groups, and
environmental and professional organizations. The Working Group has pr oposed a tiered approach to
evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency, wherein
projects are evaluated sequentially through a series of “tiers” to determine whether the project is likely
to result in a potentially significant impact due to GHG emissions.
With the tiered approach, a project is compared against the requirements of each tier sequentially and
would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are
specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are
consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32
GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold.
The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO 2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial
projects and a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was proposed for non-industrial projects but has not been
adopted. The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would
not result in a significant cumulative impact.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-14 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, SCAQMD initially outlined that
a project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions
30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a
recommendation for this approach. The Working Group folded the Tier 4 second op tion into the third
option. Under the Tier 4 third option, a project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency -based
threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement
off-site mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less
than the proposed screening level.
Tier 3 Screening Thresholds
When the tiered approach is applied to a proposed project, and the project is found not to comply with
Tier 1 or Tier 2, the project’s emissions are compared against a screening threshold, as described above,
for Tier 3. The screening threshold formally adopted by SCAQMD is an “interim” screening threshold for
stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency under CEQA. The threshold
was termed “interim” because, at the time, SCAQMD anticipated that CARB would be adopting a
statewide significance threshold that would inform and provide guidance to SCAQMD in its adoption of a
final threshold. However, no statewide threshold was ever adopted, and the interim threshold remains in
effect.
For projects for which SCAQMD is not a lead agency, no screening thresholds have been formally adopted.
However, the SCAQMD Working Group has recommended a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for
industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects. SCAQMD determined
that these thresholds would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from these sectors, “capture”
meaning that 90 percent of total emissions from all new projects would be subject to some type of CEQA
analysis (i.e., found potentially significant).10
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Council adopted
2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal. The Connect SoCal charts a course for closely integrating land use
and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared
through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments,
county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local
stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
The Connect SoCal is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with
economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through
integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality
standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.
10 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Page 17
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-15 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The Sustainable Development Element of the City of Grand Terrace General Plan (GP) provides policies
and goals to reduce emissions and promote the air quality in the City of Grand Terrace. The Sustainable
Development Element focuses on the concept of Environmental Sustainability. Environmental
sustainability is defined as the ability of the environment to continue to properly function indefinitely. The
element establishes goals and policies in the categories of energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban
nature, transportation, environmental health, water and city buildings and facilities. The Grand Terrace
GP goals and policies applicable to the Project include the following:
Goal 9.2: Reduce the total quantity of waste generated within the City requiring landfill
disposal to meet or exceed the State waste diversion goals.
Policy 9.2.2 Require all new development projects to recycle construction and demolition wastes.
Goal 9.3: Support sustainable development through good urban design practices.
Policy 9.3.1 Incorporate “green” building practices into the review of all new or renovated
development projects.
Policy 9.3.2 Site and building design in new developments should maximize opportunities for
efficient energy performance.
Laws, Ordinances, and Regulatio ns
Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LOR)s are existing requirements and standard conditions that are
based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA
review. Typical LORs and requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code,
SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as
appropriate.
LOR GHG-1 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title
13 of the California Code of Regulations §2449.
LOR GHG-2 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient
Landscape requirements (Chapter 15.56 of the City’s Municipal Code).
LOR GHG-3 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of
Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, normally every three
years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The
Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each
building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (Section 110.10) require
buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will
structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-16 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels
prior to occupancy.
LOR GHG-4 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green
Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or
designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These
requirements include, but are not limited to:
▪ Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water -efficient fixtures in
accordance with §4.303 (residential) and §5.303 (nonresidential) of the California
Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste in accordance with §4.408.1 (residential) and
§5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part
11.
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling
containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with §4.410
(residential) and §5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
▪ To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE),
residential construction shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric vehicle
charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11 and
nonresidential construction shall comply with §5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric
vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
4.7.3 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally would have
a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or
• Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a
significant impact. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine
thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply
mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions
will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful
judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, t o
describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions.11
11 California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.4
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-17 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Thresholds
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a 10,000 MTCO 2e industrial threshold for
projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to
present GHG thresholds for land use projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency to the governing
board. The City has not adopted project-specific significance thresholds, and instead relies on SCAQMD’s
recommended Tier 3 screening thresholds to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. As
discussed under Tier 3 Screening Thresholds, the SCAQMD determined the 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening
threshold for residential and commercial projects would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from all
new projects that are subject to some type of CEQA analysis. To provide the most conservative analysis,
the City will apply the 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold recommended by SCAQMD for residential
and commercial projects.
Methodology a nd Assumptions
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there is no
project-level analysis. The baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the Project includes the
natural and anthropogenic drivers of global climate change, including world‐wide GHG emissions from
human activities which almost doubled between 1970 and 2010 from approximat ely 27 gigatonnes (Gt)
of CO2/year to nearly 49 GtCO2/year.12 As such, the geographic extent of climate change and GHG
emissions cumulative impact discussion is worldwide.
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the Calif ornia Emissions
Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors
are provided in Appendix F. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment
usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG
emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying
the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-
related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling, and
vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. The Project is a Specific Plan, and no development
proposals are included at this time. Buildout of the Project would occur in multiple phases over several
years and future development would be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and approval.
However, construction activities associated with the Project are conservatively estimated to be completed
within two phases: Phase 1 and Phase 2. For analysis purposes, Phase 1 was anticipated to commence in
July 2023 for a duration of 16 months and Phase 2 was anticipated to commence in January 2025 for a
duration of 24 months.
The Project’s operational GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources
(e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption,
water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste. These emissions categories are discussed
below.
12 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014 .
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-18 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Area Sources. Area source emissions occur from hearths, architectural coatings, landscaping
equipment, and consumer products. Additionally, the primary emissions from architectural
coatings are volatile organic compounds (VOC), which are relatively insignificant as direct GHG
emissions.
• Energy Consumption. Energy consumption consists of emissions from project consumption of
electricity and natural gas. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for
space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy
emissions are calculated based on consumption rates and emissions factors in CalEEMod. No
changes were made to the default energy usage consumption rates or emissions factors.
• Solid Waste. Solid waste releases GHG emissions in the form of methane when these materials
decompose. Solid waste emissions are calculated based on generation rates and emissions factors
in CalEEMod.
• Water and Wastewater. Project GHG emissions would be generated from energy consumption
associated with water and wastewater conveyance and treatment. Water and wastewater
emissions are calculated based on the estimated consumption and emissions factors in CalEEMod.
• Mobile Sources. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles. The Project’s generated
traffic was obtained from the Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis Report for The Gateway
Specific Plan at Grand Terrace prepared by Fehr and Peers (Appendix J1). Project trip generation
from the Trip Generation Analysis is based on the following Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) land use categories:
▪ ITE Land Use 220: Multifamily Housing (Low-rise) (375 dwelling units, 2,528 total daily vehicle
trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 210: Single-Family Detached Housing (160 dwelling units, 1,509 total daily
vehicle trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 215: Single-Family Attached Housing (160 dwelling units, 1,152 total daily vehicle
trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center (232.8 thousand square feet, 8,616 total daily vehicle
trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 151: Mini-Warehouse (91.9 thousand square feet, 133 total daily vehicle trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 932: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (five thousand square feet, 536 total
daily vehicle trips).
▪ ITE Land Use 934: Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through (six thousand square feet,
2,805 total daily vehicle trips).
The Project would generate a total of 17,279 daily trips. When accounting for internal capture and
diverted trips, the Project would generate 14,535 daily trips. Mobile source emissions reflect the Project’s
net 14,535 daily trips.
Emissions reductions attributable mitigation measures were applied in CalEEMod, are derived from
methodologies compiled in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-19 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Quantifying GHG Measures. Each measure was assessed to determine its consistency with CAPCOA
criteria for the use of the measure. The following mitigation measures were applied in CalEEMod:
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures: TRT-1 (Implement Trip Reduction
Program), TRT-3 (Provide Ride Sharing Program), and TRT-11 (Employee Vanpool/Shuttle).
Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 requires a TDM Program.
• A-1 - Electric Landscape Equipment. MM AQ-4 requires electric landscape equipment.
• Energy Efficiency Measures: BE-1 (Exceed Title 24) and BE-4 (Energy Efficient Appliances).
MM GHG-2 requires the Project to comply with voluntary CALGreen Tier 2 standards and the
mitigation requires a 15 percent improvement. MM GHG-3 requires energy efficient appliances.
• SW-1 (75 Percent Reduction in Solid Waste Disposal). This measure is required by MM GHG-4.
4.7.4 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.7-1: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable.
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of CO 2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the
transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only
occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The total
GHG emissions (in CO2e) generated during construction are shown in Table 4.7-2, Construction-Related
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e 30-Year Amortized MTCO2e
Construction Phase 1 1,074.91 35.83
Construction Phase 2 671.73 22.39
Total Construction Emissions 1,746.64 58.22
Source: Ibid. Page 22 – Table 2
As shown in Table 4.7-2, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 1,746.64 MTCO2e
over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a
30-year period and then added to the operational emissions.13 The amortized Project construction
emissions would be 58.22 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG
emissions would cease.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from
direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and
13 The amortization period is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-20 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect
sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and
wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and
any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Grand Terrace would review and verify that future
development plans within the Project area demonstrate compliance with the current version of the
Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Future development projects would also be required to adhere
to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site
development, and energy efficiency. Construction activities would be required to monitor air qual ity
emissions using applicable regulatory guidance such as the SCAQMD Rules.
GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4.7-3, Operational Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. As shown in Table 4.7-3, the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 20,964
MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. Project-related GHG emissions would exceed
the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. The majority of the GHG emissions (83 percent of unmitigated
emissions and 86 percent of mitigated emissions) are associated with non-construction related mobile
sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has
no control over these standards, as discussed further below.
Table 4.7-3: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Unmitigated Mitigated
Phase 1 Residential
Area Source1 231.35 6.03
Energy Consumption – Natural Gas2 790.40 0.00
Energy Consumption – Electricity3 733.08 728.30
Estimated Solar PV Electricity Generated4 -- -728.30
Mobile5 6,174.45 6,129.94
Waste6 275.41 68.85
Water and Wastewater 223.28 186.48
Residential Total 8,428 6,391
Phase 1 Parks
Area Source1 3.32 2.31
Energy Consumption – Natural Gas 0.00 0.00
Energy Consumption – Electricity 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.00 0.00
Waste6 0.22 0.05
Water and Wastewater 11.73 11.01
Parks Total 15 13
Phase 2 Commercial
Area Source1 0.00 0.00
Energy Consumption – Natural Gas2 198.41 182.63
Energy Consumption – Electricity 632.32 592.95
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-21 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Unmitigated Mitigated
Mobile5 11,224.96 11,099.17
Waste6 231.05 57.76
Water and Wastewater 175.40 143.29
Commercial Total 12,462 12,076
Project Total
Area Source1 234.68 8.34
Energy Consumption – Natural Gas2 988.81 182.63
Energy Consumption – Electricity3 1,365.40 592.95
Mobile5 17,399.40 17,229.11
Waste6 506.68 126.67
Water and Wastewater 410.41 340.78
Operations Total 20,905 18,480
Phase 1 Construction 7 35.83 35.83
Phase 2 Construction 7 22.39 22.39
PROJECT TOTAL 20,964 18,539
Threshold 3,000 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes
1. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 prohibits fireplaces and Mitigation Measure AQ-4 (refer to Section 4.2) requires electric landscaping
equipment, which would reduce area source emissions.
2. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 requires building energy efficiency.
3. Mitigation Measure GHG-3 requires energy efficient all electric appliances (i.e., no natural gas) in residential projects.
4. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels on residential buildings to offset energy emissions .
5. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 (refer to Section 4.2) requires implementation of a TDM program.
6. Mitigation Measure GHG-4 requires a minimum of 75 percent solid waste diversion.
7. Construction amortized over 30 years based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District GHG CEQA Significance Thresholds
Working Group (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group
#13, August 26, 2009).
Source: Ibid. Page 23 – Table 3
MM AQ-2 through AQ-4 have been identified in Section 4.2, Air Quality to reduce operational emissions.
MM AQ-2 requires the implementation of a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile GHG emissions for all uses. MM AQ-3 prohibits the
use of any kind of fireplaces, and MM AQ-4 requires that the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment
used on-site shall be 100 percent electrically powered.
Mitigation Measures provided at the end of this Impact Statement would further reduce GHG emissions.
MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions in residential
buildings. It should be noted that MM GHG-1 only applies to residential buildings as specific development
for commercial buildings is not proposed at this time. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed
the voluntary CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency. MM GHG-3 requires the
residential projects to be all electric (i.e., no natural gas) and MM GHG 4 requires the Project to divert 75
percent of waste from landfills. Additionally, LORs GHG-1 through GHG-4 are required by local, state, or
federal regulations or laws and would also apply to the Project.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-22 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As shown in Table 4.7-3 above, implementation of these MMs would reduce GHG emissions to 18,539
MTCO2e per year. As shown in Table 4.7-3, the Phase 1 residential portion of the Project and the Parks
portion of the Project would be net zero energy. However, mobile emissions would remain at 6,129.04
MTCO2e per year for the residential portion and 11,099.17 for the commercial portion, raising the
Project’s emissions above the threshold of significance. Therefore, the overall Project’s emissions would
exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold by 15,539 MTCO2e per year.
Additional mitigation to further reduce these emissions is not feasible at this time. The TDM program
required by MM AQ-2 would reduce GHG emissions resulting from commuter trips, however the number
of delivery trips and retail customer trips would not be reduced by a TDM program, and the reduction to
the residential and commercial trips would not reduce the impact from mobile sources to below the
significance threshold.
Additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of
the City of Grand Terrace to address emissions resulting from mobile sources and/or emissions generated
by cars and trucks outside of the City’s limits. As with all land use projects, the Project’s mobile and
transportation related GHG emissions are a function of two parameters: emissions control technology and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
CARB is directly responsible for regulating mobile and transportation source emissions in the State and
the federal government controls tailpipe and fuel efficiency requirements. California addresses emissions
control technology through a variety of legislation and regulatory schemes, including the state’s LCFS
(Executive Order S-01-07), a regulatory program designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon
transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG
emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. The regulatory standa rds are
expressed in terms of the “carbon intensity” of gasoline and diesel fuel and their substitutes. Different
types of fuels are evaluated to determine their “life-cycle emissions” which include the emissions
associated with producing, transporting, and using the fuels. Each fuel is then given a carbon intensity
score and compared against a declining carbon intensity benchmark for each year. Providers of
transportation fuels must demonstrate that the mix of fuels they supply for use in C alifornia meets these
declining benchmarks for each annual compliance period. In 2018, CARB approved amendments to the
LCFS, which strengthened the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 to ensure they are in-line with
California’s 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32. This ensures that the
transportation sector is meeting its obligations to achieve California’s GHG reduction targets . The state is
also implementing legislation and regulations to address the second parameter affecting t ransportation
related GHG emissions by controlling for VMT. Examples of this include SB 375, which links land use and
transportation funding and provides one incentive for regions to achieve reductions in VMT, and SB 743,
which discourages VMT increases for passenger car trips above a region-specific benchmark. However,
the state has determined that VMT regulations are not applicable to heavy trucks, such as those that will
be used at future construction activity and commercial development within the Project and generate the
majority of the Project’s GHG emissions.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-23 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As such, the City of Grand Terrace has no regulatory control over emissions control technology and
therefore limited ability to control or mitigate emissions associated with mobile source emissions
associated with this Project.
The Project’s non-mobile residential emissions are adequately mitigated through the imposed regulations
and standard conditions, as well as mitigation measures. The Project’s proposed mitigation measures and
LORs address non-mobile emissions to the extent possible, by designing buildings to provide
environmental design features, incorporate energy and water conservation measures, and provide
electrical, heating, ventilation, lighting, and power systems that meet CALGreen Stan dards (MM GHG-2
requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards, which exceeds code requirements).
Further, the Project would divert 75 percent of solid waste from landfills (MM GHG-4) and require
landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric (MM AQ-4).
Both California and the federal government have proposed ambitious standards to transition cars in
California and the United States from gasoline engines to zero-emission vehicles. In August 2022,
California approved the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations that codify Executive Order N-79-20 and
establishes a timeline for ensuring all new cars and light truck sold in state will be 100% zero emission
vehicles by 2035. In addition, the Low-emission Vehicle Regulations were amended to reduce smog-
forming emissions from gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks.14 In August 2021, President Biden
signed an Executive Order15 that set a goal that 50% of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in 2030
be zero-emission vehicles and begins rulemakings to achieve that and other reductions in vehicle
emissions. In addition, the Inflations Reduction Act (IRA) has financial incentives for consumers to
encourage the purchase of zero-emissions vehicles.16
As discussed above, CalEEMod takes into account certain mitigations, however it does not take into
account the expected increased sales of and transition to zero-emissions vehicles as the Advanced Clean
Cars II regulation takes effect in California and the federal regulations and IRA incentives take effect.
Instead, CalEEMod only accounts for CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation and updates to CARB’s Advanced
Clean Cars regulations from 2017.17,18 As zero-emissions vehicles are adopted, these tailpipe emissions
will fall. However, neither the Project nor the City of Grand Terrace have authority to further require
reduced tailpipe emissions, nor is there an approved methodology for taking expected reductions tailpipe
emissions reductions into account. In addition, the brightline SCAQMD thresholds favor small projects and
disfavor larger projects because smaller projects will simply have fewer cars and trips associated with
them. However, there is no “per capita” threshold that has been adopted. Therefore, although MM AQ-2
through AQ-4 and MM GHG-1 through GHG-4 will take effect and the Project’s non-mobile emissions will
be reduced to less than significant, mobile emissions will remain and thus the Project’s impact will remain
significant and unavoidable.
14 ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-Ii.
15 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/08/05/executive-order-on-strengthening-american-leadership-in-
clean-cars-and-trucks/.
16 https://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/inflation -reduction-act-guidebook/.
17 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/15/2019-17476/official-release-of-emfac2017-motor-vehicle-emission-factor-model-
for-use-in-the-state-of-california.
18 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical-documentation.pdf.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-24 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MMs AQ-2 through AQ-4 in Section 4.2, Air Quality. The following additional mitigation is also
required.
MM GHG-1 Residential Renewable Energy Generation. Prior to issuance of each residential
building’s permit for each development phase, residential development within the
Project site shall be required to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source
of renewable electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available
for solar (i.e., solar-ready zone). The solar-ready zone shall comply with Section 110.10
of the 2022 California Energy Code and meet with access, pathway, ventilation, and
spacing requirements, and exclude skylight area.
Each residential building shall include an electrical system and other infrastructure
sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The electrical system and
infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage. The
schedule of photovoltaic system locations may be updated as needed.
MM GHG-2 Building Energy Efficiency. Prior to the issuance of building permits, future
development within the Project shall be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) standards or meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards
in effect at the time in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a
minimum of 15 percent. Alternatively, the Project design shall include on-site
renewable energy for future commercial development, for example the incorporation
of solar panels into future Project commercial development, such that 15 percent of
the on-site energy consumption is offset.
MM GHG-3 Energy Efficient Appliances. For residential projects, all major appliances
(e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, water heaters, and
equipment for space heating) provided/ installed shall be electric (i.e., appliances that
do not use natural gas, propane, or other fossil fuels) and Energy Star certified or of
equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. Prior to the issuance of the certificate
of occupancy, the City of Grand Terrace shall verify implementation of this
requirement.
MM GHG-4 Solid Waste Diversion. Each future development within the Project shall divert a
minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy,
a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with City
standards for recyclable collection and loading areas.
Impact 4.7-2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-25 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SCAG’s Connect SoCal
SCAG’s Connect SoCal establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and
2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32
and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15. Connect SoCal contains
over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations,
bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in
county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic
bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone.
Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for
federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost
effectiveness. Connect SoCal is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies
that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA)
requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital
goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from
development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project
comparison to Connect SoCal is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-
2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project’s consistency with Connect SoCal goals
is analyzed in detail in Table 4.7-4, Connect SoCal Consistency.
Table 4.7-4: Connect SoCal Consistency
Connect SoCal Strategies Project Consistency
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global competitiveness.
Consistent: The Project would contribute to regional economic
prosperity.
GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for people
and goods.
Consistent: Although this Project is not a transportation
improvement project, the Project’s would contribute to
the local or regional mobility, accessibility, reliability, and
travel safety for people and goods. At the local level, the
Project includes a circulation plan that includes roadways,
pedestrian, and bicycle facility improvements. More
specifically, partial street improvements to Taylor Street,
Van Buren Street, and De Berry Street and the extension
of Taylor Street to Commerce Way would provide
increased connectivity to regional circulation elements
including I-215. The Project is located in an area that is
planned to enhance the overall efficiency, aesthetics, and
regional capacity to distribute goods. and products.
GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security,
and resilience of the regional
transportation system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable.
GOAL 4: Increase person and goods movement
and travel choices within the
transportation system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable.
GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.
Consistent: The Project is located within an urban area and is in close
proximity to existing transit routes and freeways. The
Project includes Project Design Features such as carpool
and vanpool parking, and clean fuel and electric vehicle
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-26 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Connect SoCal Strategies Project Consistency
(EV) infrastructure that would facilitate reducing GHG
emissions from mobile sources. Additionally, the Project
would implement MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 which
requires Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile GHG
emissions for all uses, prohibits the use of any kind of
fireplaces, and requires 100 percent electrically powered
landscaping equipment. Further, the Project would
implement MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 which
requires PV solar panels in residential buildings,
CALGreen Tier 2 standards, energy efficient residential
appliances, and divert 75 percent of waste from landfills.
GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent: The Project’s circulation plan includes street, pedestrian,
and bicycle facility improvements that would allow easy
access to the other proposed mixed-uses. The Project
would indirectly improve regional air quality by its
location being in proximity to regional transportation
corridors and in a location that reduces overall distances
for product distribution.
Furthermore, the Project would implement mitigation
measures that include, but are not limited to, MM AQ-2
which requires implementation of a TDM program to
reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage public
transit. These measures support reductions in mobile
emissions and more equitable transportation options.
GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network.
Consistent: The Project would be an infill development which
provides housing in close proximity to designated public
transit facilities and routes. Additionally, the Project
would provide a pedestrian-friendly environment that
includes new Class II on-street bike lanes, sidewalks and
streets connecting the commercial area with the
residential neighborhoods, parks, and schools.
GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven solutions
that result in more efficient travel.
No Conflict: This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable, but it does not conflict with this
goal.
GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are
supported by multiple transportation
options.
Consistent: The Project area is predominantly undeveloped with
open space land. The Project would provide diverse
housing types and improve surrounding roadways which
then would improve the transportation network including
public transit, within the City. These roadways provide
connectivity the I-215, allowing local traffic to access
regional transportation facilities .
GOAL 10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.
No Conflict: The Project proposes a mix of residential, commercial,
and public facilities land uses in an urbanized area and
would therefore not interfere with conservation of
natural or agricultural lands. The Project site is not
considered vital habitat and therefore would not conflict
with restoration of habitats.
Source: SCAG. (2020). Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ). Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed March 2023).
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Page 28 -Table 4. See Appendix F.
The goals stated in Connect SoCal were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously
stated. As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project would be consistent with the stated goals of Connect SoCal.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-27 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Therefore, the Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to
achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets and thus does not conflict with this
applicable plan.
California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping
Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by
85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the
2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well
as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero -emission
transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing c hemical and
refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and
public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy
alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.
The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world.
Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold a nd instead
advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping
Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission (ZE) transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains,
and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the
transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the
jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new
regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place. Statewide
strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include:
• Implementing SB 100 (achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045);
• Achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and
• Implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) buses
and trucks.
Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean
Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Clean Off-Road
Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. The
2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap-
and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture,
Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal
projects and technology.
As indicated above, GHG reductions are also a chieved as a result of State of California energy and water
efficiency requirements for new residential developments. These efficiency improvements correspond to
reductions in secondary GHG emissions. For example, in 2021 approximately 38 percent of the total
electricity net generation in California was derived from natural gas combustion. Therefore, energy saving
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-28 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
measures, such as Title 24, reduces GHG emissions from the power generation facilities by reducing load
demand.
Scoping Plan Appendix D, Local A ctions
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at
providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the State in meeting the ambitious
targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on
evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In
this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new
development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is
focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects.19 CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not
address other land uses (e.g., commercial).20 However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other
land use types in the future (e.g., commercial, etc.).21
CARB Scoping Plan Appendix D lists potential actions that support the State’s climate goals. However, the
Scoping Plan notes that the applicability and performance of the actions may vary across the regions. The
document is organized into two categories (A) examples of plan-level GHG reduction actions that could
be implemented by local governments and (B) examples of on-site project design features, mitigation
measures, that could be required of individual projects under CEQA, if feasible, when the local jurisdiction
is the lead agency.
Appendix D notes that residential and mixed-use residential projects that meet the below three priority
areas are “clearly” consistent with the State’s goals and projects that have these key project attributes
should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization
goals. Appendix D also notes that lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting
evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with
the State’s climate goals.22
• Transportation Electrification. Table 3 in the 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, notes that to be
clearly consistent with the State’s goals, projects should provide EV charging infrastructure that,
at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the CALGreen code. The Project is
consistent with this attribute as MM GHG-2 requires Project EV charging to meet CALGreen Tier
2 standards.
• VMT Reduction. The Scoping Plan notes that to be consistent with the VMT reduction attribute,
projects should be located on sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or
redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land; do not result in the loss or conversion
of natural and working lands; reduces parking capacity; includes affordable to lower-income units;
and consist of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre).
The proposed Project is surrounded by existing urban uses, does not result in the loss of natural
19 California Air Resources Board. (2022) 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed March 2023).
20 Ibid. Page 4.
21 Ibid. Page 4.
22 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, P age 23, November 2022.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-29 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and working lands (i.e., it would redevelop underutilized primarily vacant disturbed land), and has
a density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the Project site is located in close proximity
to existing transit routes and freeways. Furthermore, MM AQ-2 would reduce mobile source
emissions through the implementation of a TDM program. Although the Project does not propose
affordable housing, the Project would help increase housing in the City as required by the City’s
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals; refer to Section 4.12, Population and Housing.
Further, the Project would implement a variety of parking reduction measures through the Travel
Demand Management Measures; refer to Section 4.15, Transportation.
• Building Decarbonization. Building decarbonization involves maximizing energy efficiency and
eliminating use of fossil fuel energy. MM GHG-1 requires the Project to include renewable solar
energy in residential buildings, MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet CALGreen Tier 2 energy
efficiency standards, MM AQ-4 requires the use of electric landscape equipment, MM GHG-3
requires electric Energy Star rated appliances, and MM AQ-3 also prohibits natural gas use.
The Project would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements promulgated through
the 2022 Scoping Plan and would not conflict with any applicable actions. The proposed Project would
include the Appendix D key residential and mixed-use project attributes as LO Rs or mitigation (refer to
LOR GHG-1 through LOR GHG-4, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4, and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4). As
noted above, these measures include EV charging stations, TDM measures, transit -supportive densities,
and building decarbonization, as well as prohibiting wood-burning fireplaces, requiring solar panels,
requiring energy conserving appliances, and requiring low-flow toilets and faucets. As such, the Project
would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Conclusion
The proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAG’s Connect SoCal and the CARB Scoping Plan, and
would be required to comply with existing regulations, including applicable measures from the City’s
General Plan. The Project would be directly affected by the outcomes of vehicle trips and energy
consumption generating less carbon intensive emissions due to statewide compliance with future low
carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards. As such, the
Project would not conflict with any other State-level regulations pertaining to GHGs.
As shown in Table 4.7-3, approximately 92 percent of the Project Total GHG emissions are from energy
and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan goals described above
(including achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045 [SB 100], achieving 100 percent zero emission
vehicle sales in 2035 [Advanced Clean Cars II], and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation
[ZEV buses and trucks]). Mobile source emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures
discussed above (including the reduction in fuels’ carbon content, CARB’s Advanced Clean Car Program,
CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, fuel efficiency standards, etc.), as well as cleaner technology and flee t
turnover. SCAG’s Connect SoCal is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with
reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 19 percent by 2035.23 The Project includes a mix of a
23 California Air Resources Board. (2023). SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets . Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -
work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets (accessed March 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-30 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
residential, commercial, and public facilities land uses that would potentially reduce the need to travel
long distances for some residents and reduce associated GHG emissions.
At this time, it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures that have
not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that Project operations would benefit from
applicable measures enacted to meet State GHG reduction goals. The Project would not impede the
State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scopi ng Plan. The Project would be
required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the
2022 Scoping Plan.
As discussed above, MM AQ-2 would reduce mobile source emissions through the implementation of a
TDM program. LOR GHG-1 through LOR GHG-4, as required by the California Building Code, would provide
designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, water -efficient irrigation
systems and devices, recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste, facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment, and
limit idling times. Furthermore, MM GHG-1 requires the Project to install solar photovoltaic systems, MM
GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy
efficiency; MM GHG-3 requires the residential projects to utilize energy efficient appliances; and MM
GHG-4 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills.
In conclusion, the Project does not conflict with the applicable plans that are discussed above and
therefore, the Project does not have a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 in Section 4.2, Air Quality and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4,
above.
4.7.5 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Even with implementation of regulatory requirements, standard conditions of approval, and feasible
mitigation, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts because it exceeds the 3,000
MTCO2e threshold set by the SCAQMD.
4.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative Setting
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs,
which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects
have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric
lifetimes of one year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe.
Cumulative Impacts
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself
to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. GHG
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.7-31 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission
impacts from a climate change perspective. As discussed above, the Project-related GHG emissions would
exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance despite implementation of MMs AQ-2 through AQ-4
from Section 4.2 and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-4, and consistency with the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the
Project could impede the State’s GHG emission reduction targets. As such, the Project would result in a
significant cumulative GHG impact.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MMs AQ-2 through AQ-4 in Section 4.2 and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-4, above.
4.7.7 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D:
Local Actions, Page 21. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-
change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents
California Air Resources Board. (2023). SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-
targets
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. See Appendix F
SCAG. (2020). Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy). Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-1 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 INTRODUCTION
This section identifies existing conditions in The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) area and
evaluates the Project’s potential to cause a significant hazard to the public due to the use, handling, or
release of hazardous materials; result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for projects within an airport
land use plan or within two miles of an airport; interfere with an emergency plan; or expose people/
structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Mitigation to avoid/reduce impacts is
identified, as needed.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future deve lopment
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
Information in this section is primarily derived from the following documentation:
• Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for Accessor Parcel Number (APNs): 1167-181-
12 and -13 , prepared by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc (ESA Consultant) on December 29, 2020
(Appendix G1).
▪ APNs: 1167-181-12 and -13 (referred herein as Appendix G1 parcels when describing
parcels as a whole)
• Phase I ESA and Limited Site Characterization for APNs: 1167-151-22, -68, -71, and -74, prepared
by LOR on February 13, 2017 (Appendix G2).
▪ APNs: 1167-151-22, -68, -71, and -74 (referred herein as Appendix G2 parcels when
describing parcels as a whole)
• Phase I ESA and Limited Site Characterization for APNs: 1167-161-03 and -04 , prepared by LOR on
February 10, 2017 (Appendix G3).
▪ APNs: 1167-161-03 and -04 (referred herein as Appendix G3 parcels when describing
parcels as a whole)
• Work Plan for Impacted Soil Removal and Management Former Union Pacific Railroad Right -of-
way, prepared by Avocet Environmental, Inc. (Avocet) on February 22, 2 022 (Appendix G4).
Although the Project is a specific plan project that would consist of individual smaller development
projects, specific development is not proposed at this time. The technical studies listed above have been
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-2 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
prepared for certain areas as they were added to be included in the Project site boundaries, as depicted
in Exhibit 4.8-1, Environmental Site Assessment Areas. Not all properties have been surveyed due to
ownership issues and lack of accessibility. However, at the programmatic level, the surveys are referenced
herein to describe findings for certain specific properties and determined to be adequate at a
programmatic level to describe environmental conditions for the overall Project area. Individual
development projects would be required to undergo its own independent CEQA analysis, including but
not limited to an analysis of impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials .
Exhibit 4.8-1: Environmental Site Assessment Areas
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Specific Plan Boundary
Appendix G1 parcels
Appendix G3 parcels
Appendix G2 parcels
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-4 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8.2 E NVIRONM ENTAL SETTING
Historical Uses of Portions of the Project Site
To obtain a history of previous site usage, the ESA consultant conducted a search in 2020 involving
historical and topographic maps, aerial photographs, and assessor’s parcel information for the ESA
included in Appendix G1; the parcels are depicted in Exhibit 4.8-1. A representative of the owner of the
Appendix G1 parcels was also interviewed regarding their knowledge of the history of the site and its use,
including with respect to environmental concerns. The ESA in Appendix G1 concluded that the Project site
was used mainly for agricultural purposes, including citrus cultivation, on the basis of historic maps dated
between 1896-2012, and aerial photographs taken between 1931-2016 .
More specifically, the ESA in Appendix G1 concluded that the parcels evaluated included orange or walnut
agricultural groves from at least the early 1900s until the 1950s. Beginning in the 1940s, and periodically
to the 1970s, barn or canopy structures were built for various animals, including hogs, horses, and dairy
cattle. These barn and canopy structures were removed beginning in the 1980s and all were demolished
by 2002. In the 1980s, soil materials were imported to the subject parcels from construction and/or
demolition projects, and later used to grade a motorcycle track, including trails and jumps. The Project
site remains vacant to the present day, including soil piles associated with the former motorcycle track
now disced and/or grown over with natural vegetation.
Properties surrounding these parcels were historically agricultural and residential until the 1960s to
1970s, when commercial and industrial development began. The adjacent property to the east was
developed in the 1970s with what appeared to be the beginnings of the trailer repai r and sales operation
under Swertfeger’s Equipment/SEI Trailer Sales & Repair, Inc., which relatively recently became occupied
by Richardson’s RV Center. The property to the east-southeast is a pump and engineering operation, the
original owners (Wilden Pump & Engineering Company) of which began developing the property in the
late 1960s, expanding over time. Adjacent to the north of the surveyed parcels and across Van Buren
Street to the south are self-storage facilities which began development in the 1970s and 1980s.
Commercial development to the south and southeast across Van Buren Street include multi -unit buildings,
with operations that have included graphics-related businesses and technologies companies, some of
which handled hazardous materials and/or generated hazardous wastes.
The ESA consultants also conducted a search involving historical aerial photographs, assessor’s parcel
information, City building records, City directory information, and historical maps for other parcels
addressed in the report included as Appendix G2. A representative of the owner of these parcels
completed a questionnaire regarding their knowledge of the history of the site and its use, including with
respect to environmental concerns. The ESA included in Appendix G2 concluded that the subject parcels
were used mainly for agricultural purposes and associated farming infrastructure on the basis of the
review of historic maps dated between 1896-2012, and aerial photographs taken between 1938-2012.
More specifically, the ESA in Appendix G2 concluded that the parcels identified in Appendix G2 historically
included residential units, fuel and diesel aboveground tanks, large expansive agricultural fields, and a few
other notable human-made features that were present on site between the 1850s and the 1960s. In the
1990s, two present day City of Riverside water well/pump houses were built at two locations on the north
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-5 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
side of Van Buren Street, adjacent to APN 1167-151-22. Additionally, irrigated farmland was present and
Veterans Park ball fields were built adjacent to the east/southeast of the central and southeast portions
(APN 1167-151 -71 and -74), north of Pico Street. Early 2000s photographs showed the fuel oil and diesel
above ground tanks had been removed from the southwest corner of the site, and the site appeared to
have a large amount of construction items located within the north half of the site (APN 1167-151-68)
located west of Taylor Street. Within the area (APN 1167-151-22) north of the Van Buren Street, wide
plow marks and widened dirt roads were present.
An ESA was also completed in 2017 on parcels shown in the report in Appendix G3. A representative of
the owner of the parcels completed a questionnaire regarding their knowledge of the history of the
subject parcels and their use, including with respect to environmental concerns. The ESA concluded that
the parcels were used mainly for agricultural purposes and associated farming infrastructure on the basis
of historic maps dated between 1896-2012, and aerial photographs taken between 1938-2012. A former
single-family residence at 21974 De Berry Street, built in 1963, was demolished and removed by 2012.
The current single-family residence at 21992 De Berry Street was built in 1942.
Environmental Site Assessment
The purpose of an ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized
environmental conditions (HRECs), and/or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) that
may be associated with a site. The purpose of the Phase II ESA is to assess hazardous substances that may
be associated with the potential impacts to on-site soil and soil vapor from historical on-site and off-site
usage, and to determine if further Phase II ESA, remediation and/or mitigation is warranted prior to the
planned development. A Phase I ESA was conducted for the Appendix G1, G2, and G3 parcels. A Phase II
ESA was conducted for the Appendix G1 parcels.
Appendix G1 concluded that soil piles, including reported import soil materials, and adjacent or adjoining
off-site commercial and industrial sites have handled hazardous materials and/or generated hazardous
wastes, including petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents.
Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, the Appendix G1 parcels did not exhibit any evidence of RECs,
HRECs, or CRECs indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances and no further
investigations were recommended. However, record searches conducted for the off-site adjacent
properties found that the use of commercial and industrial materials at these properties is a REC as it has
the potential for historical handling of hazardous materials and/or generation of hazardous wastes,
including petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents which may have impacted the subsurface soil vapor
beneath the Appendix G1 parcels. In addition to the identified REC, two environmental concerns were
identified near the parcels associated with Appendix G1, one related to historical grove usage, which may
have impacted on-site soils with arsenic or organochlorine pesticides and the other related to imported
soil materials associated with construction and/or demolition projects, which may have been impacted
with contaminants. Based on the results of the Phase II ESA conducted to address the REC and two
environmental concerns, there were no significant impacts to the parcels associated with Appendix G1
on-site soils and soil vapor, including the soil piles that included imported materials. Refer to Appendix G1
for further information.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-6 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Appendix G2 concluded that no containers with hazardous wastes or hazardous materials were observed
on-site. In addition, no soil staining or other evidence of contamination was observed. The CSBFD-HMD’s
records of the former power generation plant to the south included assessment, remediation, and closure
of a 39,000-gallon concrete, in-ground transfer tank. A small release of fuel oil resulted in a relatively
minor amount of impacted soil, which was excavated and transported off-site.
Furthermore, the former off-site power plant (Highgrove generating station) to the south, which included
three approximate 3.36 million-gallon above ground storage tanks (ASTs) for diesel and fuel oil storage,
had numerous environmental site assessments conducted, dating back to the 1980s. The more recent
RCRA facility assessment under the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) resulted in a
determination of "No Further Action/Remedy Complete" and DTSC issuance of a CE QA Notice of
Exemption (NOE), which indicated there were no releases of hazardous substances that would adversely
impact human health and the environment, and the former Highgrove generating station was stated to
be acceptable for unrestricted use. Based on the above, there appears to be no significant impact to the
Appendix G2 parcels from the former off-site Highgrove power generation plant and associated on-site
tank farm. As concluded in Appendix G2, no environmentally impaired properties, listed within these
databases, have current or former releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products that hav e
migrated to the Project site. Lastly, composite on-site soil testing was performed to assess the potential
impacts from OCPs and arsenic.
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the Appendix G2 parcels do not exhibit evidence of RECs indicative
of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that would prohibit future development and
no further tests or investigations were recommended. Refer to Appendix G2 for further information.
Appendix G3 determined that based on the age of the on-site residence, lead-based paint (LBP) and
asbestos-containing materials (ACM) may be present. In addition, one four-gallon container with
approximately one gallon of waste oil and minor leakage was present. Furthermore, composite on-site
soil testing was performed to assess the potential impacts from OCPs and arsenic. Also, there are
numerous sites listed in environmental regulatory databases within one mile of the Appendix G3 parcels.
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the Appendix G3 parcels do not exhibit evidence of RECs indicative
of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that would prohibit future development, and
no further tests or investigations were recommended. Refer to Appendix G3 for more information.
Airports
The nearest airstrip to the Project site is the San Bernardino International Airport in the City of
San Bernardino, located at 1601 E. 3rd Street, #100, San Bernardino, CA 92408, located approximately six
miles northeast of the northern Project site boundary.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-7 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Wildland Hazards
According to CAL FIRE’s California Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer, the Project site is not located
within a moderate, high, or very high fire FHSZ.1 The Project site is classified as a non-VHFHSZ and located
within a local responsibility area (LRA) which are areas where local governments (i.e., the City of
Grand Terrace) have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection. CAL FIRE uses the FHSZ
classifications to evaluate potential wildfire hazards. A “hazard” is based on the physical conditions that
create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mitigation
measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction efforts. FHSZ maps are assigned a
hazard score based on the factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Many factors are
considered such as fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), predicted flame length,
blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for the area.2
Refer to Section 4.18, Wildfire, for more information regarding Project-related wildfire impacts.
Schools
The closest school to the Project site is Grand Terrace Highschool (21 810 Main Street) located adjacently
to PA 22. Grand Terrace Elementary School (12066 Vivienda Avenue) is located approximately 0.3-mile
northeast of the Project site. Terrace Hills Middle School (22579 De Berry Street) is located approximately
0.6 mile to the east of the Project site.
4.8.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Hazardous materials and wastes are identified and defined by federal and state regulations for the
purpose of protecting public health and the environment. Hazardous materials contain certain chemical,
physical, or infectious properties that cause them to be considered hazardous. Hazardous wastes are
defined in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Volume 25, Parts 260–265 and in the California Code
of Regulations (CCR), Title 22 Div. 4.5, Chapter 11, Ar ticle 1, § 66261. Over the years, the laws and
regulations have evolved to deal with different aspects of the handling, treatment, storage, and disposal
of hazardous substances.
Federal
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 tasked the EPA with authority to require reporting,
record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or
mixtures. The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act addresses the production, importation, use, and
disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.
1 CAL FIRE. (2021). California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer . Retrieved from: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed April 2023).
2 CAL FIRE. (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zones -What are FHSZ? Retrieved from: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-
preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/#explorefhsz (accessed April 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-8 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The objectives of RCRA are to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of
waste disposal to conserve energy and natural resources, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and
to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. The RCRA of 1976, which
amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1984, addresses solid and hazardous waste management
activities. RCRA affirmed and extended the “cradle-to-grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. The
use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 also added
Subtitle I, which governs USTs.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as “Superfund,” was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law provided broad federal
authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA established requirements concerning closed and
abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous
waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could
be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan. The National
Contingency Plan provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan also
established the National Priorities List, which is a list of contaminated sites warranting further
investigation by the U.S. EPA. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act on October 17, 1986.
State
Primary state agencies with jurisdiction over public health hazards and hazardous chemical materials
management are the DTSC and the RWQCB. Other state agencies involved in hazardous materials
management are the Department of Industrial Relations (California OSHA [Cal/OSHA]) implementation),
Office of Emergency Services (Office of Emergency Services –California Accidental Release Prevention
Implementation), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Air Resources Board (CARB),
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), State Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (Proposition 65 implementation), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
The enforcement agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations are the California Highway
Patrol and Caltrans. Hazardous materials and waste transporters are responsible for complying with all
applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations pertain to
asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403), Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos), and
1532.1 (pertaining to lead) from Title 8 of the CCR. Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials
management laws in California include the following statutes:
• Hazardous Materials Management Act – requires that businesses handling or storing certain
amounts of hazardous materials prepare a hazardous materials business plan, which includes an
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-9 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
inventory of hazardous materials stored on site (above specified quantities), an emergency
response plan, and an employee training program.
• Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5,
Article 2, Section 25100, et seq.) – authorizes the DTSC and local certified unified program
agencies to regulate facilities that generate or treat hazardous waste.
• Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) – requires the governor
to publish and update, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause canc er,
birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such
chemicals.
• Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting, also known as the Tanner Act
(Assembly Bill [AB] 2948, 1986) – requires counties to prepare, for California DTSC approval,
hazardous waste management plans, and prescribes specific public participation activities, which
must be carried out during the local land use permit process for siting new or expanding off-site
commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
• Hazardous Materials Storage and Emergency Response (AB 2185) – requires the immediate
reporting to local fire departments and Offices of Emergency Services of any release or threatened
release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business.
• California Medical Waste Management Act (California Health and Safety Code, §§ 117600–
118360) – establishes procedures for the proper handling, storage, treatment, and transportation
of medical waste.
• Land Disposal Restrictions (CCR, Chapter 18, Title 22) – set up by Congress in 1984 for the U.S. EPA,
ensures that toxic constituents present in hazardous waste are properly treated before hazardous
waste is land disposed.
State regulations and agencies pertaining to hazardous materials management and worker safety are
described in the following subsections.
California Environmental Protection Agency
The boards, departments, and offices that make up the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) include CARB, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Resources Recycling
and Recovery, the DTSC, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OHSA), and the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These boards, departments and offices were placed within the
CalEPA “umbrella” to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment
(such as clean air, clean water, clean soil, safe pesticides, and waste recycling and reduction) to assure the
coordinated deployment of state resources.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
The mission of the DTSC is to protect California’s people and environment from harmful effects of toxic
substances by restoring contaminated resources, enforcing hazardous waste laws, reducing hazardous
waste generation, and encouraging the manufacture of chemically safer products. As part of its mission,
the DTSC maintains its Enforcement and Emergency Response Division (EERD) to administer the technical
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-10 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
implementation of the State Unified Program. The Unified Program is a consolidation of six environmental
programs that are implemented at the local level. Those agencies at the local level with responsibility for
the program are known as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA). The DTSC also has the responsibility
of overseeing and regulating hazardous materials, generators, transporters, and facilities that may use,
generate, store, transport, or recycle, hazardous materials.
State Water Resources Control Board
Brownfields are underutilized properties where reuse is hindered by the actual or suspected presence of
pollution or contamination. The SWRCB Brownfield Program goals are to:
• Expedite and facilitate site cleanups and closures for brownfield sites to support reuse of those
sites;
• Preserve open space and greenfields;
• Protect groundwater and surface water resources, safeguard public health, and promote
environmental justice; and
• Streamline site assessment, clean up, monitoring, and closure requirements and procedures
within the various SWRCB site cleanup programs.
Site clean-up responsibilities for brownfields primarily reside within four main SWRCB programs: the UST
Program; Site Cleanup Program; Department of Defense Program; and the Land Disposal Program. These
SWRCB cleanup programs are charged with ensuring sites are remediated to protect California’s surface
and groundwater and return them to beneficial uses.
Government Code Section 65962.5
Pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5, environmental regulatory database lists were reviewed to
identify and locate properties with known hazardous substance contamination within the proposed
Project site (California Government Code, § 65960 et seq.). Four state agencies are required to provide
lists of facilities that have contributed, harbor, or are responsible for environmental contamination within
their jurisdiction. The four state agencies that are required to provide these lists to the Secretary for
Environmental Protection include the DTSC, the State Department for Health Services, the SWRCB, and
the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The Secretary for Environmental Protection then
takes each of the four-respective agency lists and forms one list, referred to as the Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List), which is made available to every city and/or county in
California.
California Health and Safety Code Section 25501
California law defines a hazardous material as any material that, because of its quantity, concentration,
or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may pose a present or potential hazard to human
health and safety or to the environment if released in the workplace or the environment (California Health
and Safety Code § 25501).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-11 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Cal/OSHA is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the
workplace. California OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer
is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure
(8 CCR 337–340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety
equipment, accident prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) is
administered by the CalEPA to regulate the management of hazardous wastes. While the Hazardous
Waste Control Law is generally more string ent than RCRA, until the U.S. EPA approves the California
hazardous waste control program (which is charged with regulating the generation, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste), both the state and federal laws apply in California. The Hazar dous
Waste Control Law lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous;
establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management
controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and
identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Similar to the Federal Risk Management Program, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program
includes additional state requirements as well as an additional list of regulated substances and thresholds.
The regulations of the program are contained in CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5. The intent of
California Accidental Release Prevention Program is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can
cause serious harm to the public and the environment, to minimize the damage if releases do occur, and
to satisfy community right-to-know laws.
California Health and Safety Code
The handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated by Division 20, Chapter 6.95 of the California
Health and Safety Code. Under §§ 25500–25543.3, facilities handling hazardous materials are required to
prepare a hazardous materials business plan (HMBP). HMBPs contain basic information on the location,
type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the State.
Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code establishes minimum statewide standards for HMBPs.
In addition, in the event that a facility stores a quantity of specific acutely hazardous materials above the
thresholds set forth by California code, facilities are also required to prepare a risk management plan and
California Accidental Release Plan. The risk management plan and California Accidental Release Plan
provide information on the potential impact zone of a worst-case release and require plans and programs
designed to minimize the probability of a release and mitigate potential impacts (California He alth and
Safety Code, Chapter 6.95).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-12 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The following goal and policy from the City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) appl ies to
the Project:
Public Health and Safety Element
Goal 5.6: Minimize the exposure of residents, business owners, and visitors to the impacts of
urban and wildland fires.
Policy 5.6.3 Encourage the use of fire-resistive construction materials.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
Sections 18.36.040 – Prohibited Uses
City Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) § 18.36.040 prohibits development within commercial and
restricted manufacturing districts, and industrial districts from storing hazardous and/or flammable
materials which includes, but is not limited to, pallet yard, and other wood products, and tire storage.
Section 13.20.150 – Spill containment
Grand Terrace MC § 13.20.150 requires that any person(s) storing chemicals or chemical waste outdoors
to install spill containment subject to requirements established by the Director of Building & Safety/Public
Works and Federal, State and County standards. Persons storing any other materials or equipment that
are potential sources of stormwater pollution are also required to install spill containment. No person
shall operate a spill containment system that could allow incompatible materials and/or wastes to mix,
thereby creating hazardous or toxic substances in the event of failure of one or more containers.
Section 15.56.080 – Soil Management Report
Grand Terrace MC § 15.56.0 80 requires each project applicant to prepare a soil management report/plan
in order to reduce runoff and encourage healthy plant growth. Part of the soil management report
requires the project applicant to perform tests on soil samples to determine Soil texture; Infiltration rates
determined by laboratory test or soil texture infiltration rate table; pH; Total soluble salts; Sodium;
Percent organic matter; and recommendations to reduce or eliminate contaminated soils. Each project
applicant shall submit documentation verifying implementation of soil analysis report recommendations
to the City with certificate of completion.
Section 15.58.060 – Waste Management Plan
Grand Terrace MC § 15.58.060 requires that every applicant submit a properly completed "waste
management plan" (WMP) to the WMP compliance official, in a form as prescribed by that official, as a
portion of the building or demolition permit process.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-13 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Grand Terrace Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was last updated in 2017. The LHMP’s purpose is to identify
potential City hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future
occurrences, and set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term damage to people
and property from natural and man-made hazards. The plan identifies vulnerabilities, prioritizes
mitigation actions, evaluates resources and identifies mitigation shortcomings, provides future mitigation
planning, and maintenance guidelines for the existing plan.
4.8.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning hazards and hazardous materials. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist
Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a
significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials;
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compil ed pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment;
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere within an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan; and
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria as the basis for determining the
level of impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The determination that a Project component
would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on standards related to hazards and hazardous
materials considers the available policies and regulations established by regional and state agencies and
the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components. Where significant impacts
remain, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or lessen the
Project’s significant adverse impacts.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-14 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on the information provided in the ESAs
(Appendices G1 through G3) conducted for the three areas evaluated within the Project site, which are
shown in Exhibit 4.8-1. Although the areas shown in Exhibit 4.8-1 are not inclusive of the entire Project
site, they have been determined to represent the entire area on a programmatic level. Site-specific
surveys would be required for any future development proposed within the Project site.
Site Reconnaissance
Site reconnaissance of the; Appendix G1 parcels was conducted on October 13, 2020 as part of the Phase I
and II ESA (Appendix G1); of the Appendix G2 parcels during subsequent visits between January 16, 2017
through January 18, 2017 as part of the Phase I ESA (Appendix G2); and of the Appendix G3 parcels on
January 6, 2017 as part of the Phase I ESA (Appendix G3). As stated in Section 4.8.1, areas outside of the
Appendix G1, G2, and G3 parcels were not surveyed due to ownership issues and/or lack of accessibility.
ESAs would be conducted as part of future development that would include, but not limited to, site
reconnaissance to identify visible environmental concerns. Refer to Appendices G1, G2, and G3 for further
detail.
Records Search
For records relating to environmental compliance and hazardous materials/waste within the County, the
County of San Bernardino Fire Protection District – Hazardous Materials Division (CSBFPD-HMD) generally
is the lead agency. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (CRWQCB -SAR)
or CSBFPD-HMD may be the lead agency for soil and groundwater investigations and remediation. These
agencies were contacted directly by the ESA consultants for a records review search for the Appendix G1,
G2, and G3 parcels between 2017 and 2020. Federal, state, and local environmental databases obtained
by the ESA Consultant were also searched to obtain information regarding landfills, underground storage
tanks (UST) sites, above ground storage tank (AST) sites, waste storage sites, toxic chemical sites,
contaminated well sites, and other sites containing hazardous materials as part of the ESAs (refer to
Appendices G1, G2, and G3, respectfully, which provide complete reports of the federal, state, tribal, and
proprietary records searched).
4.8.5 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.8-1: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Potentially hazardous materials would be utilized during construction phases of the Project. These
materials typically consist of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum -based products used
for construction-related machinery. The routine transport, handling, or disposal of these hazardous
materials would be temporary and adhere to applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining
to hazardous materials including, but not limited to, those implemented by the U.S EPA, the California
DTSC, and Cal/OSHA.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-15 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Additionally, all future development would adhere to the general Grand Terrace MC Chapter 8.54 general
solid waste regulations in order to reduce the risk to life and property from the use, transportation,
storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Furthermore, Grand Terrace
MC §13.20.150 would require future development projects within the Project site to comply with spill
containment requirements which could include, but not be limited to, the installation of infiltration
systems, berms, non-absorbent dikes, and absorbent socks. Grand Terrace MC §15.58.060 would also
subject future development projects to diversion requirements which requires that 60 percent of the
estimated tonnage of construction and demolition material generated from each covered project shall be
diverted from disposal. Prior to construction, each project-specific applicant would be required to submit
a waste management plan that accurately depicts that the specific project meets the diversion rate.
Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that impacts associated with the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are less than significant .
Operations
Operations of the Project would not represent a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Any potentially hazardous material
handled on the Project site would b e limited in both quantity and concentrations, consistent with other
similar residential and commercial land uses located in the City.
All future development projects that handle hazardous materials would be required to comply with all
applicable regulatory framework concerning hazardous material generation, usage, and transportation to
ensure that operational activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. For example, as mandated by the OSHA, all hazardous materials stored
on the Project site would be accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet, which would inform employees
and first responders as to the necessary remediation procedures in the case of accidental release.
Furthermore, all future development projects that handle hazardous materials in quantities equal to or
greater than 55 gallons of a liquid; 500 pounds of a solid; or extremely hazardous substances above the
threshold planning quantity; would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in
accordance with §§ 25500–25543.3 of the Health and CSBFPD.3 The purpose of the HMBP is to prevent or
minimize harm to public health and the environment from a release or threatened release of a hazardous
material. This is accomplished by providing emergency responders with the necessary information to
effectively protect the public.
Therefore, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, related to the transport, use, and disposal
of hazardous materials during operations would result in potential impacts being less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is needed.
3 County of San Bernardino. (2023). CSBFPD – HMBP. Retrieved from: https://sbcfire.org/hazmatbusinessplan/ (accessed April 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-16 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-2: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Development within the Project site could result in the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials
caused by accidental spillage during construction activity including but not limited to the exposure o f
contaminated soil during grading activities. ESAs (Appendices G1 through G3 ) conducted for three groups
of parcels within the Project site evaluated the potential for hazardous materials.
As discussed in Section 4.8.2, Environmental Setting, the ESA included as Appendix G1 concluded that
the evaluated parcels did not exhibit evidence of HRECs and/or CRECs and no further investigations were
recommended, with the exception of an identified REC and two environmental concerns. However, the
subsequent Phase II ESA, conducted to address the REC and two environmental concerns, found that none
of the soil samples analyzed for environmental concerns contained detected concentrations at or above
the laboratory reporting limits. As such, the Phase II ESA concluded that there are no significant impacts
related to on-site soil and soil vapor from the identified REC and two environmental concerns, including
the soil piles that include imported materials. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.
The ESA included as Appendix G2 also concluded that the evaluated parcels did not exhibit evidence of
RECs, HRECs, and/or CRECs and no further investigations were recommended unless obvious signs of soil
contamination, including staining or odor, are found to be present during grading activities. If soil
contamination is encountered during ground-disturbance activities within the Project site, construction
would halt and all future project-specific applicant/contractors for would prepare a Phase II ESA to
evaluate the potential environmental concerns, pursuant to Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1.
The ESA included in Appendix G3 concluded that the parcels evaluated did not exhibit evidence of RECs,
HRECs, and/or CRECs and no further investigations or tests were recommended. However, it was
determined that based on the age of the residence on-site, LBP and ACM may be present. It is also noted
that possible subsurface structures, such as old cesspools and/or septic systems should be expected. MM
HAZ-2 requires that any future project inclusive of this parcel be required to conduct ACM and LBP surveys
of the existing on-site buildings. Demolition of the on-site buildings has the potential to cause airborne
asbestos and LBP concentrations that would exceed federa l and state thresholds and may pose an
exposure risk for construction workers. MM HAZ-2 includes measures for the safe dismantling and
removal of building components and debris and prevents the accidental release of lead and asbestos,
thereby protecting workers and the public from potential exposure to hazardous materials and wastes
during demolition. MM HAZ-3 requires the evaluation of paint waste, should paint be separated from
building materials. In the event that cesspools and/or septic systems are encounter, MM HAZ-4 would
also be implemented which would require that future developers provide for the removal and disposal of
the septic systems in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
Future development project located in areas not analyzed in the ESAs included as Appendices G1 through
G3 would be required to prepare a Phase I ESA to determine if a potential hazard exists (MM HAZ-5). If
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-17 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
the Phase I determines that there are hazardous materials, a Phase II ESA w ould be prepared to address
the potential environmental concern(s).
Lastly, roadway improvements of Taylor Street near th e Applicant-owned Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
right-of-way could unearth arsenic-impacted soil. Consequently, Avocet Environmental, Inc. prepared a
work plan in accordance with the CSBFPD’s Voluntary Cleanup Program, described below.
The work plan, approved by the CSBFPD on February 23, 2022, and attached as Appendix G4, includes
procedures for characterizing and managing the arsenic-impacted soil and is intended to serve as a Soil
Management Plan (SMP). Prior to the widening of Taylor Street, the City would remove the arsenic-
impacted soil from beneath the UPRR right-of-way and transport it off-site for disposal. The removal
action and transport of the affected soil would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local
regarding handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.
With implementation of MMs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local regulation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
Hazardous materials used during operation would include, but limited to standard maintenance (i.e., lawn
upkeep, exterior painting and similar activities) and use of commercially available products (e.g., gas, oil,
paint). Usage of hazardous materials would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations
to minimize the foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment. Therefore, the use of hazardous materials within the Project site would not create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental
release of hazardous materials into the environment. A less than significant impact would occur related
to Project operations.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Applicable to future development projects within the Project site, if signs of soil
contamination, including staining or odor are encountered during ground-
disturbance activities, construction shall halt, and the project-specific
applicant/contractor is required to prepare a Phase II ESA to evaluate the potential
environmental concern. If test results are positive for a potential impact, then
remediation would be required to clean and detoxify the site, prior to continuing
ground-disturbing activities.
MM HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit of the on-site structures, preparation of a
demolition plan for the safe dismantling and removal of building components and
debris including a plan for lead and asbestos abatement shall be prepared. The
demolition plan shall be submitted to the City’s (Building and Safety Department) for
review and approval prior to commencement of demolition activities.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-18 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational
Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the presence
or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). If ACMs are located, abatement
of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb ACMs or
create an airborne asbestos hazard.
Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment
contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1403.
MM HAZ-3 If paint is separated from building materials (chemical ly or physically) during
demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from
the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If lead-based paint is
found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any
activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Contractors performing lead -
based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the Building
Official.
MM HAZ-4 If old cesspools and/or septic systems are encountered during the future
development of the Project Site identified in the Phase I ESA included as DEIR
Appendix G3 the landowner/developer shall provide for the removal and disposal of
septic tank(s) in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local r egulations.
MM HAZ-5 Applicable to future development projects, prior to development of an area not
documented in the Phase I ESAs included as DEIR Appendices G1 through G3 , project
applicants shall be required to conduct a site-specific Phase I ESA to determine if any
potential for significant impact exists. If the Phase I ESA identifies new environmental
concerns on-site, a Phase II ESA shall be conducted. If the Phase II ESA identifies that
remediation is necessary, such remediation shall occur in consultation with the
appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CUPA) prior to any site disturbing activities.
Impact 4.8-3: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The nearest school to the Project site is Grand Terrace High School located adjacent to the south-
southeast of PA 22 . Consequently, construction and operation of the future development projects could
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-19 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
emit hazardous emissions and/or handle of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing school.
As shown in Exhibit 3-7, Project Planning Areas in Section 3.0, Project Description, land uses proposed in
PAs 4, 5, and 10 through 22 nearest the Grand Terrace High School are medium- and high-density
residential, drainage facilities, utilities, and open space. Types of hazardous materials that would be used
for these land uses during construction activities could include, but not be limited to, gasoline, diesel fuel,
lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used for construction-related machinery. These
hazardous materials would be used in limited quantities and would be subject to all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations pertaining to the use, handling, or transport of hazardous materials.
During operations, the use of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled on-site would be
limited to cleaners, paints, and solvents typical for cleaning and fertilizers and pesticides for landscaping
maintenance. These types of hazardous materials are not considered to be significantly hazardous or
acutely hazardous. PA 22, which is the closest PA to the Grand Terrace High School, would be developed
with a lighted baseball field with a tot-lot/playground. The PA would be owned and maintained by the
City. Hazardous materials used during operations (i.e., fertilizers and pesticides) of the proposed park
would be handled in compliance with applicable regulations.
Since future development of the PAs 4, 5, 10 through 22 would handle hazardous materials in accordance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and the type of hazardous materials are not
considered to be significantly hazardous or acutely hazardous, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
Impact 4.8-4: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Consistent with ASTM International E1527-13, DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese
List) and other data bases were searched during preparation of the Phase I ESAs (see Appendices G-1
through G-3) and did not identify any parcels within the Project site as being on the Cortese List. In
addition, the DTSC’s EnviroStor GIS Tool shows that there are four sites within half a mile of the Project
site that were listed as contamination sites, but all four sites are classified with a “No Further Action”
status which indicates that regulatory agencies have conducted or approved a clean -up or closure of the
site and no adverse environmental impact is anticipated. A less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-20 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for peopl e residing or working in
the project area?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operation
The Project site is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the Project
would not result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area. The nearest public
airport to the Project site is the San Bernardino International Airport in the City of San Bernardino, located
at 1601 E. 3rd Street, #100, San Bernardino, CA 92408, approximately six miles northeast of the northern
Project site boundary, and would therefore not subject people or workers to excessive noise impacts. No
impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
Impact 4.8-6: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Construction of the Project’s residential and nonresidential land uses, including on- and off-site circulation
improvements would occur within two phases. When a project-specific construction activity commences,
all construction activities would occur within the boundaries of each PA and would not significantly
impede access to nearby roadways. The proposed off-site roadway improvements would be constructed
in two phases to minimize impediment to the use of De Berry Street, Van Buren Street, and Taylor Street.
Pursuant to Grand Terrace MC Article II, Traffic Control Devices, traffic-control devices (i.e., signs,
intersection signals, hours of operations, pavement markings) would be used as authorized by the City
Engineer to regulate, guide, or warn traffic to ensure that adequate roadway circulation would be
provided both on- and off-site. Furthermore, the Grand Terrace GP Public Health and Safety Element does
not show any identified evacuation routes near the Project; therefore, construction activities would not
impact the City’s emergency management program. Although the Project’s construction activities may
impede traffic flows, these impediments would be temporary in nature and would be minimized with
implementation of traffic control devices. Impacts would be less than significant related to interference
with an emergency response or evacuation plan.
The City maintains an emergency management program and a Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) to effectively deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations
Plan would be required as a result of construction activities at the Project site and the Project would not
impact an identified evacuation route. The nearest fire station is Fire Station 23 (located at 22582 Center
City Court), located approximately two miles northeast of the Project site. As further discussed in
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-21 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 4.13, Public Services, the Project would not significantly impact fire response times. Furthermore,
the proposed roadways would be designed in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
requirements. In addition, all roads would be maintained during construction activities, and buildout of
the Project’s on-and off-site circulation improvements would provide additional points of access in the
surrounding area.
Lastly, any future commercial development projects that may handle hazardous materials in quantities
equal to or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid; 500 pounds of a solid; or extremely hazardous substances
above the threshold planning quantity; would be required to submit a HMBP that would aid emergency
responders with the necessary information to effectively protect the public due to hazards and/or to
accidental release of hazardous materials.
In conclusion, construction or operations of the Project would not significantly disrupt or interfere with
emergency access or impede access to nearby roadways or interfere with the City’s emergency
management program. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
Impact 4.8-7: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project area is not located in an State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as Very High FHSZ.
According to CAL FIRE’s FHSZ Map Viewer, the Project site is located in a LRA and i s classified as a non-
Very High FHSZ.4. Consequently, the Project would not directly, or indirectly expose people or structures
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and no impact would occur. Refer to
Section 4.18, Wildfire for more information.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
4.8.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials have been identified.
4.8.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site-specific and localized. However, the
cumulative impacts area (refer to Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List located in Section 4.0,
Environmental Impact Analysis) for the Project accounts for the off-site environmental hazards, which
4 CAL FIRE. (2021). California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Retrieved from: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed April 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.8-22 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
were documented through the findings of various governmental database searches regarding properties
with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials within a search radius of up to one mile from
the Project site.
As concluded above, the ESAs did not identify any current HRECs or CRECs. One REC an d two
environmental concerns were identified. In addition, it is currently unknown if Project PAs not analyzed
in the appended ESAs contain any potential environmental concerns. Similarly, hazards associated with
cumulative projects could also have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials as the
environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are typically site-specific. Therefore, each
cumulative project would be required to address any issues related to hazardous materials or wastes on
a project-specific basis. In addition, all cumulative development, as well as future development within the
Project site, must comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous
materials, and implement mitigation, as applicable, to reduce impacts concerning hazards and hazardous
materials.
With adherence to applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing hazardous materials and
implementation of mitigation measures, the cumulatively potential risks associated with hazardous
materials would be less than significant. The incremental effects of the Project related to hazards and
hazardous materials would be minimized, and any effects would be site-specific. Therefore, considering
the above, the Project’s impact concerning hazards and hazardous materials is not considered
cumulatively significant with compliance of applicable federal, state, and local requirements, policies, and
regulations.
4.8.8 REFERENCES
CAL FIRE. (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zones -What are FHSZ? Retrieved from:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-
preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/#explorefhsz.
CAL FIRE. (2021). California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Retrieved from:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
County of San Bernardino. (2023). CSBFPD – HMBP. Retrieved from:
https://sbcfire.org/hazmatbusinessplan/.
DTSC. (2023). Envirostor GIS Database. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?assembly=42 .
LOR Geotechnical. (2020). Phase I and II ESA for Accessor Parcel Number (APNs): 1167 -181-12 and -13.
(Appendix G1).
LOR Geotechnical. (2017). Phase I ESA and Limited Site Characterization for APNs: 1167-151-22, -68, -71,
and -74. (Appendix G2).
LOR Geotechnical. (2017). Phase I ESA and Limited Site Characterization for APNs: 1167-161-03 and -04
(Appendix G3).
Avocet Environmental, Inc. (2022). Work Plan for Impacted Soil Removal and Management Former
Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-way. (Appendix G4).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-1 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9 H YDROLOGY AND WATER Q UALITY
4.9.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to describe the hydrologic resources available to The Gateway at
Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) while assessing the potential impact each future development within
the Project site could have on those resources. The pre-development conditions of the water and drainage
systems surrounding the Project area were used as a baseline with which to compare potential impacts
associated with the Project. Impacts in this section are assessed regarding their effects on water quality,
groundwater availability, and other hydrological conditions of the area. The analysis also considers the
potential effects that may occur from the presence of flood, tsunami, and seiche zones within the Project
vicinity.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
Information provided in this section is based on the following documentation:
• City of Grand Terrace (City) General Plan (Grand Terrace GP).
• City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC).
• Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Q3 Consulting, November 2022) (Appendix H1).
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (KWC Engineers, 2022) (Appendix H2).
• Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation APN’s: 1167-151-22, -68, -71 & -74, (2022) prepared by
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc (Appendix E2).
• Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared on October 10, 2022, by Engineering Resources of
Southern California (ERSC) (Appendix K1).
4.9.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Hydrology
Regional Hydrology and Drainage
The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Within this Watershed, the Santa Ana
River is the principal surface flow water body within the region. The Santa Ana River rises in Santa Ana
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-2 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Canyon in the southern San Bernardino Mountains and runs southwesterly across San Bernardino,
Riverside, and Orange Counties. The Santa Ana River then discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of
Huntington Beach. The total length of the Santa Ana River and its major tributaries is approximately
700 miles.
The Watershed is regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana
Region. The Santa Ana Region is the smallest of the RWQCB regions in the State of California, coverin g
approximately 2,800 square miles of land roughly between Los Angeles and San Diego. Regional
boundaries for each RWQCB are generally based on watersheds, while water quality requirements for
each RWQCB are based on the unique differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology.
Although geographically small, the Santa Ana Region’s approximately four million residents make it one
of the most densely populated regions in the State. The region covers portions of Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties.
Stormwater Drainage
The Project site is traversed by three major drainage courses that originate at the base of Blue Mountain
at De Berry Street, Van Buren Street, and Pico Street. The northern drainage course enters the site at the
westerly end of De Berry Street. It then travels in a southwesterly direction and enters the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) channel that eventually directs flows off-site under I-215. The
second drainage course enters the Project site on the north side of Van Buren Street near the easterly
edge of Planning Area (PA) 11. These storm water flows travel west and join the SBCFCD channel at the
western edge of the Project site. A portion of this drainage course has been identified as a possible
wetlands area. The third drainage course enters the Project site along the northern portion of the existing
Grand Terrace High School near the southeasterly edge of PA 20. The westerly terminus of Pico Street
overflows with storm water during large storm events and the storm water travels through the existing
school site towards Taylor Street and ultimately joins the Gage Canal at the western edge of the Project
site.
The off-site tributary area consists of a watershed of approximately 32,320 acres including the majority
of the City. All flows are directed to the low point within the Project site. Ultimately, drainage from the
Project site flows to the Santa Ana River.
Groundwater
The Project site is underlain by the Riverside-Arlington Subbasin of the Santa Ana River Watershed
groundwater basin within the Santa Ana Region.1 The Riverside-Arlington Subbasin is neither critically
over-drafted nor of a high Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Basin Priority. According
to the Project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for APN’s 1167-151-22, -68, -71, and -74,
conducted by LOR Geotechnical Group, groundwater was not encountered in any exploratory trenches or
borings, nor was any groundwater seepage observed during site reconnaissance. In addition, the
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicated that the depth to groundwater at the Project site is
1 California Department of Water Resources. (2004). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin,
Riverside-Arlington Subbasin. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater -Management/Bulletin-
118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/8_002_03_Riverside-ArlingtonSubbasin.pdf.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-3 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
approximately 100 to 120 feet below the surface (refer to Appendix E2). The borings were drilled to
depths ranging from approximately 16.5 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. According to the
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project, the depth to groundwater at the site is
approximately 100 to 120 feet beneath the surface. Recent groundwater data for a well located just
southeast of the intersection of Main Street and Taylor Street indicates that the depth to groundwater at
that location ranged from 157 to 177 feet during the time period from October 2011 to March of 2016.
(refer to Appendix E2). According to the Western Municipal Water District and the San Bernardino Valley
Water Conservation District Cooperative Well Measuring Program, the depth to groundwater was
approximately 160 to 170 feet in nearby wells measured during the fall of 2014. The groundwater flow
direction below the site is anticipated to be to the southwest following the regional surface topography.
Water Quality
The City has identified Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC ) as the public water system that would
supply water to the Project site. Water quality can be determined by the number of pollutants in surface
runoff and quantity of materials in the environment and its characteristics. In an urban environment, the
quantity of certain pollutants in the stormwater system is generally associated with the intensity of the
land use. In general groundwater is less vulnerable to seasonal and climatic changes than surface water
supplies. Based on current conditions, water quality is not expected to affect RHWC’s supply reliability.
Water quality issues are constantly evolving, therefore, RHWC will take action to protect and treat
supplies when needed through water quality treatment. 2 Furthermore, the Sustainable Groundwater
Management ACT (SGMA) requires local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) for
the high and medium priority basins.3 The Western Municipal Water District elected to serve as the GSA.
The Western Municipal Water District developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Upper
Santa Ana Valley Riverside-Arlington Subbasin. The Watermaster manages groundwater under the
adjudicated portion of the basin. Activities associated with planning, development, and GSP preparation
include, developing a data management framework, stakeholder engagement, and developing a planning
document that builds upon past studies and date to establish current and historic groundwater conditions
and describe potential project and management actions that will help the basin achieve sustainability.4
As previously stated, drainage from the Project site eventually flows to the Santa Ana River. The Project
site is less than a mile from the Santa Ana River. According to the California 2020-2022 Integrated Report,
the closest reach of the Santa Ana River to the Project site, Reach 4, is listed for, or impaired by, Indicator
Bacteria.5 The source of the impairment is unknown. There is not an active Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) project for this reach of the Sana Ana River. The TMDL requirement status for Reach 4 is 5A: A
2 Water Supply Assessment for The Gateway at Grand Terrace Final Report. October 10, 2022 (Appendix K1).
3 California Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). 2023. Retrieved from:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater -Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management (accessed March 2023).
4 Arlington Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 2022. Retrieved from: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022020049 (accessed March 2023).
5 SWRCB. 2022. California 2020-2022 Integrated Report final mapping visualization tool.
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/a pps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6cca2a3a1815465599201266373cbb7b (accessed
November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-4 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
water segment where standards are not met and a TMDL is required, but not yet completed, for at least
one of the pollutants being listed for this segment.6
Flood Hazards
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows the Project site
being covered by one map panel, 06071C8689H (effective 8/28/2008). No part of the Project site is within
a FEMA-mapped special flood hazard area. The entirety of the Project site is classified as Zone X, an area
noted as having a minimal flood hazard. In addition, there are no dams, reservoirs, or large water bodies
near the Project site. Furthermore, according to the City’s Flood Hazards Map, the majority of the City,
including the Project site, is not within a 100-year or a 500-year flood plain.7 The northwestern portion of
the City, that lies adjacent to or within the Santa Ana River and its floodplain, is designated as a 100 -year
and 500-year floodplain. This portion of the river is located 0.65 mile northwest of the Project site.
4.9.3 REGULATORY S ETTING
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
The Project would be subject to federal permit requirements under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).
The primary goals of the CWA are to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation’s waters and to make all surface waters fishable and swimmable. The CWA forms the basic national
framework for the management of water quality and the control of pollution discharges; it provides the
legal framework for several water quality regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), effluent limitations, water quality standards, pretreatment standards,
antidegradation policy, nonpoint-source discharge programs, and wetlands protection. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has delegated the administrative responsibility for portions
of the CWA to State and regional agencies. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting
requirements. The SWRCB works in coordination with its RWQCBs to preserve, protect, enhance, and
restore water quality.
Under the NPDES permit program, the U.S. EPA establishes regulations for discharging stormwater by
municipal and industrial facilities and construction activities. Section 402 of the CWA prohibits the
discharge of pollutants to “Waters of the United States” from any point source unless the discharge is in
compliance with an NPDES Permit.
The Anti-degradation Policy under EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulations (48 Federal Register [FR]
51400, 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 131.12, November 8, 1983), requires states and tribes to
establish a three-tiered anti-degradation program to prevent a decrease in water quality standards.
6 SWRCB. 2022. Category 5 2020 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2020_2022state_ir_reports_revised_final/apx -c-
catreports/category5_report.shtml (accessed November 2022).
7 City of Grand Terrace General Plan Draft EIR. (2010). Flood Hazard Map. Page 147. Retrieved from:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/draft_eir.pdf.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-5 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
• Tier 1—Maintains and protects existing uses and water quality conditions that support such uses.
Tier 1 is applicable to all surface waters.
• Tier 2—Maintains and protects “high quality” waters where existing conditions are better than
necessary to support “fishable/swimmable” waters. Water quality can be lowered in such waters
but not to the point at which it would interfere with existing or designed uses.
• Tier 3—Maintains and protects water quality in outstanding national resource waters. Water
quality cannot be lowered in such waters except for certain temporary changes.
Anti-degradation was explicitly incorporated into the federal CWA through 1987 amendments, codified in
§303(d)(4)(B), requiring satisfaction of anti-degradation requirements before making certain changes in
NPDES permits.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires the SWRCB to list impaired water bodies that are too polluted or
otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes.
The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop
TMDL for these waters.
Section 404 of the CWA is administered and enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Section 404 establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of
the United States, including wetlands and coastal areas below the mean high tide. USACE administers the
day-to-day program, and reviews and considers individual permit decisions and jurisdictional
determinations. USACE also develops policy and guidance and enforces Section 404 provisions.
State
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act)
The Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code §13000 et seq) is the principal law governing water quality
regulation in California. It established a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the
beneficial uses of water. The Porter -Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater
and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act the policy of the
State is as follows:
• That the quality of all the Waters of the State shall be protected,
• That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest
water quality within reason, and
• That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality
of Water in the State from degradation.
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCB’s (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the SWRCB,
which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting
water quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and
reviews Regional Water Board decisions. In addition, the State Water Board allocates rights to the use of
surface water. The RWQCB has primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and
enforcement actions within each of nine hydrology regions. The State Water Board and Regional Water
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-6 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Boards have numerous nonpoint source pollution (NPS)-related responsibilities, including monitoring and
assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.
The Regional Water Boards regulate discharges under the Porter -Cologne Act primarily through issuance
of NPDES permits for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS
discharges. Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other
than to a community sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste
discharge. The SWRCB and the RWQCBs can make their own investigations or may require discharger s to
carry out water quality investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter -Cologne Act provides
several options for enforcing WDRs and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup and
abatement orders, administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions.
The Porter-Cologne Act also implements many provisions of the CWA, such as the NPDES permitting
program. Section 401 of the CWA gives the State Water Board the authority to review any proposed
federally permitted or federally licensed activity that may impact water quality and to certify, condition,
or deny the activity if it does not comply with State water quality standards. If the State Water Board
imposes a condition on its certification, those conditions must be included in the federal permit or license.
Except for dredge and fill activities, injection wells, and solid waste disposal sites, waste discharge
requirements may not “specify the design, location, type of construction, or particular manner in which
compliance may be had….” (Porter Cologne Act §13360). Thus, waste discharge requirements ordinarily
specify the allowable discharge concentration or load or the resulting condition of the receiving water,
rather than the manner by which those results are to be achieved. However, the Regional Water Boards
may impose discharge prohibitions and other limitations on the volume, characteristics, area, or timing of
discharges and can set discharge limits such that the only practical way to comply is to use management
practices. Regional Water Boards can also waive waste discharge requirements for a specific discharge or
category of discharges on the condition that management measures identified in a water quality
management plan approved by the State Water Board or Regional Water Boards are followed.
The Porter-Cologne Act also requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain the guiding
policies of water pollution management in California. A number of statewide water quality control plans
have been adopted by the State Water Board. In addition, regional water quality control plans
(basin plans) have been adopted by each of the Regional Water Boards and are updated as necessary and
practical. These plans identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of Waters of the State and
establish water quality objectives to protect these uses. The basin plans also contain implementation,
surveillance, and monitoring plans. Statewide and regional water quality control plans include enforceable
prohibitions against certain types of discharges, including those that may pertain to nonpoint sources.
Portions of water quality control plans, the water quality objectives and beneficial use designations, are
subject to review by EPA. When approved they become water quality standards under the CWA.
State Water Resources Control Bo ard
The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the
State, while the RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The City of
Grand Terrace lies within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-7 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The NPDES permit is broken up into two Phases: I and II. Phase I requires medium and large cities, or
certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their
stormwater discharges. Phase II requires regulated small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
in urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the
permitting authority, to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. Concerning the
proposed Project, the NPDES permit is divided into two parts: construction and post-construction. The
construction permitting is administered by the SWRCB, while the post-construction permitting is
administered by the RWQCB. Development projects typically result in the disturbance of soil that requires
compliance with the NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater
Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002)
(General Construction Permit). This Statewide General Construction Permit regulates discharges from
construction sites that disturb one or more acres of soil.
The SWRCB has issued and periodically renews a statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (GCASP) and a statewide General Industrial
Activities Stormwater Permit (GIASP) for projects that do not require an i ndividual permit for these
activities. The GCASP was adopted in 2009 and further revised in 2012 (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The
most recent GIASP (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ) was adopted in April 2014, amended in November 2018
(by Order No. 2015-0122-DWQ), and requires dischargers to develop and implement a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce or prevent industrial pollutants in stormwater discharges,
eliminate unauthorized non-storm discharges, and conduct visual and analytical stormwater discharge
monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the SWPPP and submit an annual report.
By law, all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and
excavation results in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area must comply with the
provisions of this NPDES Permit and develop and implement an effective SWPPP. The SWPPP is required
to contain a site map(s), which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings,
lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
construction, and drainage patterns across the Project site. The SWPPP is required to list Best
Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of
those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring
program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment
monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
Construction General Permit Section A describes the elements that must be contained in an SWPPP. A
project applicant must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB to be covered b y the NPDES General
Permit and prepare the SWPPP before beginning construction. SWPPP implementation starts with the
commencement of construction and continues through project completion. Upon project completion, the
applicant must submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the SWRCB to indicate that construction is
completed.
The Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from MS4s. Most of
these permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. The MS4
permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan/Program with
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-8 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MEP is the
performance standard specified in CWA §402(p). The management programs specify what BMPs will be
used to address certain program areas. The program areas include public education and outreach; illicit
discharge detection and elimination; construction and post-construction; and good housekeeping for
municipal operations.
For construction activities that would result in the disturbance of one acre or more, permittees must
develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutant runoff in stormwater. This includes: (1) a
program to prevent illicit stormwater discharges; (2) structural and non-structural BMPs to reduce
pollutants in runoff from construction sites; and (3) preventing discharges from causing or contributing to
violations of water quality standards. Permittees are required to review construction site plans to
determine potential water quality impacts and ensure proposed controls are adequate. These include
preparation and submission of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) with elements of an SWPPP,
prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The 2012 MS4 permit requires that the ESCP be developed
by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. Permittees are required to develop a list of BMPs for a ra nge of
construction activities.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Grand Terrace GP are pertinent to the Project.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 4.3 Public health and safety in the City of Grand Terrace be protected, in part, through
open space areas.
Policy 4.3.3 Open space shall be used to protect public health and safety resulting from flood
hazard conditions in the City of Grand Terrace.
Goal 4.8: Achieve regional water quality objectives and protect the beneficial uses of the
regions surface and groundwater.
Policy 4.8.1 Evaluate all proposed land use and development plans for their potential to create
groundwater contamination hazards from point and non-point sources, and cooperate
with other appropriate agencies to assure appropriate mitigation.
Policy 4.8.2 Comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
Public Health and Safety Element
Goal 5.3: Reduce the risk to life and property in areas designated as flood hazard areas.
Policy 5.3.4 The City shall require all development projects to comply with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and implement appropriate Best Management
Practices.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-9 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Sustainable Development Element
Goal 9.7: Reduce the City’s per capita demand for water consumption.
Policy 9.7.2 The City shall incorporate water conservation into the development review process.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
Section 18.73.190 – Utility Underground
City Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) §18.73.190 requires that all public utility distribution and
transmission lines shall be located underground unless otherwise approved by the site and architectural
review board or city council.
Section 17.52.090 – Underground Utilities
Grand Terrace MC §17.52.090 requires that all existing and proposed utilities within a subdivision and
along peripheral streets be placed underground except those facilities exempted by the public utilities
commission regulations. In lieu fees would be paid as approved by the City Council for future
undergrounding of utilities throughout the City.
Chapter 4.80 – Developer Impact Fees
Pursuant to Grand Terrace MC Chapter 4.80, project applicants are required to pay Development Impacts
Fees (DIFs) to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services asso ciated with new
development.
4.9.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning hydrology and water quality. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form
have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality;
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater managem ent of the basin;
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious sur faces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off?
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-10 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release or pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable ground
water management plan?
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning hydrology and water quality. This analysis
considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid
or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite
compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or
reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on available information in public databases
including local planning documents, Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan, Water Supply Assessment, review of Project maps and drawings; and analysis of aerial
and ground‐level photographs. The determination that a Project component would or would not result in
“substantial” adverse effects related to hydrology and water quality includes consideration of the
available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and any deviation from these
policies in the Project’s components.
4.9.5 P ROJECT I MPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.9-1: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
The Project site currently contains storage commercial uses and six non-conforming residences, and
consists of predominately vacant land. The Project’s topography has elevations ranging from
approximately 975 feet on the northeastern end of the site to approximately 945 feet on the
southwestern corner. Grading and earthmoving activities conducted during the proposed Project’s
construction period may require the use of water for dust mitigation. Water from dust control and other
liquids such as fuels, lubricants, and liquid wastes can create runoff that could affect both groundwater
and surface water quality.
Prior to construction activities the Project applicant must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB to
be covered by the NPDES General Permit and prepare a SWPPP before beginning construction. The SWPPP
would identify site-specific construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in
stormwater and non-stormwater runoff from the Project site. BMPs are designed to control and prevent
discharges of pollutants that can adversely impact the downstream surface water quality. Construction
BMPs would include, but not be limited to, the following:
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-11 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
• Minimization of disturbed areas to the portion of the Project site necessary for construction;
• Stabilization of exposed or stockpiled soils and cleared or graded slopes;
• Establishment of permanent re-vegetation or landscaping as early as is feasible;
• Removal of sediment from surface runoff before it leaves the Project site by silt fences or other
similar devices around the site perimeter;
• Diversion of upstream runoff around disturbed areas of the Project site;
• Protection of all storm drain inlets on-site or downstream of the Project site to eliminate entry of
sediment;
• Prevention of tracking soils and debris off-site through use of a gravel strip or wash facilities, which
will be located at all construction exits from the Project site;
• Proper storage, use, and disposal of construction materials, such as solvents, wood, and gypsum;
and
• Continual inspection and maintenance of all BM Ps through the duration of construction by the
City.
For each future development projects, implementation of these BMPs would reduce or eliminate the
discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the construction site to the maximum extent
practicable. As such, the water quality of nearby surface waters and groundwater would be maintained
via compliance with NPDES permit stipulations. Additional compliance with the NPDES permit requires
the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) to manage
stormwater runoff during construction activity and include site design and source control BMPs to help
ensure stormwater runoff and impervious areas are minimized and natural areas are conserved. With
implementation of the SWQMP, compliance with the NPDES permit requirements, and implementation
of BMPs, construction activities would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Chapter 13.20.260 of
the Grand Terrace MC requires all construction projects covered by the NPDES general construction
permit as well as construction projects less that one acre to submit SWQMP to the Director of Building &
Safety/Public Works.8 Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and a development-specific erosion control
plan would ensure that future construction activities would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
Operations
The City requires the preparation and implementation of a SWQMP for all development. The SWQMP
shall identify all BMPs that would be incorporated into each individual future development to control
stormwater and non-stormwater pollutants during and after construction and shall be revised as
necessary during the life of the project. The SWQMP submittal applies to construction projects covered
8 City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT13PUSE_CH13.20STSY_ARTVCORE_13.20.260STQUMAPL
SW (accessed March 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-12 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
by the NPDES general construction permit and is designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne
pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long -term conditions
via BMPs. Implementation of the SWQMP ensures ongoing, long-term protection of the watershed basin.
Typical stormwater-related pollutants of concern for large residential mixed-use developments include
the following:
• Pesticides and herbicides and an increase in nutrients from fertilizers uses for the landscaped
areas;
• Trash/debris from the park areas;
• Fluids from vehicles (motor oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze, brank fluid, gasoline, etc.) spilled
onto paved areas; and
• Organic compounds and animal waste.
The Project proposes to construct a network of drainage lines and a detention basin throughout the
Project site to accommodate storm water runoff flows. A Preliminary WQMP was prepared by
KWC Engineers in May 2022 (attached in Appendix H1). Per the Preliminary WQMP, surface flows would
be collected in a series of catch basins, located within the western portion of the site, and gutters before
flows are conveyed into Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) units for pre-treatment before entering
a series of dry well basins. The proposed WQMP basins have been designed in accordance with the City
of Grand Terrace standards to detain and slowly release storm water to allow particles and associated
pollutants to settle out.
Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Permit. In addition to
mandatory implementation of a SWQMP, the NDPES program also requires commercial land uses to
prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and
monitoring program, unless an exemption has been granted. Under the effective NPDES Permit, the
Project Applicant (or the Project’s occupant(s)) would be required to prepare a SWPPP for all future
operational activities and implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program or
receive an exemption. Based on the requirements of the NPDES General Permit, it is assumed that
mandatory compliance with all applicable regulations would further reduce potential water quality
impacts during long-term Project operation for each future development within the Project site.
Therefore, impacts related to the violation of water quality standards during operations would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-13 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.9-2: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Future development within the Project site would not directly extract groundwater and no potable
groundwater wells are proposed. Under existing conditions, water service for the Project site is provided
by RHWC. The Project-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA; included as Appendix K1) concluded that
RHWC has sufficient groundwater to meet existing and future demands. Accordingly, the potential for
each future development within the Project site to substantially deplete groundwater supplies through
means of groundwater extraction or increasing consumption of potable groundwater is less than
significant.
One large regional detention basin with approximately 65 acre-feet of capacity would be constructed west
of Taylor Street to provide for regional storm water detention and treatment of the proposed storm drain
systems in Van Buren and Pico Streets, as well as opportunities for groundwater recharge. The goal of the
basin is to reduce the peak runoff of the Project site as well as reduce the peak runoff of the regional
watershed. The proposed basin has a bottom elevation of 925 feet and a top elevation of 945 feet. The
basin would include one outlet point at the north end of the proposed basin and would route under the
Riverside Canal into an existing native drainage channel owned by Southern California Edison, and
ultimately flows into an existing double 6-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box (RCB) underneath
Interstate 215 (I-215).9 The proposed detention basin would serve as a regional flood attenuation facility
and a source for groundwater replenishment. The development of the proposed detention basin would
include obtaining Consent Agreements and right-of-way and drainage easements from Southern
California Edison (SCE) for the outlet facility into the native channel.
Inclusion of drainage improvements, including the installation of infiltration facilities and permeable
landscape areas, as a component of all future development would create efficient passageways for runoff
water to rejoin the water system and would result in a less than significant impact to local groundwater
recharge. RHWC does not maintain any groundwater recharge basins, nor are there any in the vicinity of
the Specific Plan area owned or operated by others for the specific purpose of groundwater recharge.
Construction activities would not directly impact groundwater sources.
Preventative Low Impact Design (LID) BMPs are included in the Preliminary WQMP to minimize impervious
areas, maximize natural infiltration capacity, preserve existing drainage patterns, and re-vegetate
disturbed areas. As aforementioned, the Project site would incorporate a basin system to capture, treat,
and infiltrate the storm water runoff. Additionally, the site would be designed – per the WQMP – to
optimize the pervious surfaces with additional landscaping and park areas. The proposed drainage
patterns would be consistent with existing drainage patterns. In addition to these LID BMPS, each future
development within the Project site would comply with all other NPDES permitting to include BMPs that
are required as part of a SWPPP. With these considerations, each future development would not
9 Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Q3 Consulting, November 2022) (Appendix H1).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-14 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
substantially deplete groundwater supplies and impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.9-3: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operation
The Riverside Canal runs along the western edge of the Project site. There are no streams or rivers running
through the Project site; the nearest river is the Santa Ana River located less than one mile from the
Project. Ultimately, drainage from the Project site flows to the Santa Ana River.
Current surface runoff flows through the site along existing drainage pathways – with limited surface and
sub-surface conveyance facilities –and into the existing drainage course before flowing off-site to the
west. The Project site is currently comprised of pervious surfaces that would be converted largely to
impervious surfaces with each future development. Flows associated with each future development
would be conveyed to the storm drain system, minimizing erosion and siltation associated w ith an
undeveloped site. Each future development in the Project site would utilize subsurface storm drain
systems that convey flows in the underground storm drain network.
A local storm drain system at the intersection of De Berry Street and Commerce Way would capture flows
from De Berry Street and connect to the existing SBCFCD storm drain line under Commerce Way, then
drain to the basin. Within Van Buren Street, the proposed facilities include a 36-inch reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) from the regional basins to the Michigan Street intersection, with a local storm drain system
and catch basins to protect the intersection from flooding and storm water velocity. Additionally, new
curbs and driveways at sump conditions east of Michigan Street would be constructed to protect property
from storm event flooding. Future development would include a 48-inch storm drain extended east to the
intersection of Michigan Street, with a local storm drain system and catch basins to protect property from
flooding, along with new raised curbs that would be required at various sections along Pico Street.
Furthermore, all proposed site-specific drainage improvements would be analyzed as future projects are
developed, and all site drainage would ultimately discharge to the existing storm drain system located on
the low point of the Project site and then under I-215. Furthermore, all proposed improvements would
adhere to the requirements of the City and the SBCFCD.
The NPDES, SWPPP, and WQMP created for the Project would also minim ize potential impacts from
erosion and siltation. Further, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would also be implemented to further
minimize potential siltation and erosion effects. The erosion control plan is required as part of the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-15 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program. Implementation of dust control measures along with BMPs
included in the NPDES, SWPPP, and WQMP would reduce potential environmental effects. Impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.9-4: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
The Project site is currently vacant and lends a substantial proportion of land to pervious surfac es. The
Project proposes a mix of residential, commercial, and public facilities land uses. New development could
result in increased rates of surface water runoff associated with new impervious surfaces and could
promote increased erosion and sedimentation or other storm water contamination, and exceedance of
the capacity of existing storm drain systems.
The Project would include future development of approximately 112 acres. The existing drainage pattern
for the Project site and the general area is characterized by sheet conveyance with limited surface and
sub-surface conveyance facilities. Under existing conditions, the Project site generally intercepts
upstream drainage from property and street runoff from DeBerry, Van Buren, and Pico Streets. Existing
flows from DeBerry Street collect at the westerly cul-de-sac terminus, and discharge to an existing SBCFCD
trapezoidal channel. Flows from Van Buren Street discharge to an open native channel, which is then
routed under the Riverside Canal and into an unimproved SCE-owned native channel, which ultimately
conveys to the Caltrans box culverts under I -215. Stormwater from Pico Street is partially intercepted at
the cul-de-sac adjacent to Grand Terrace High School and routed through the school parcel to an existing
concrete trapezoidal channel that discharges to the Riverside Canal.
A local storm drain system at the intersection of De Berry Street and Commerce Way would capture flows
from De Berry Street and connect to the existing SBCFCD storm drain line under Commerce Way, then
drain to the basin. Within Van Buren Street, the proposed facilities include a 36-inch reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) from the regional basins to the Michigan Street intersection, with a local storm drain system
and catch basins to protect the intersection from flooding and storm water velocity. Additionally, new
curbs and driveways at sump conditions east of Michigan Street would be constructed to protect property
from storm event flooding. Future development would include a 48-inch storm drain extended east to the
intersection of Michigan Street, with a local storm drain system and catch basins to protect property from
flooding, along with new raised curbs would also be required at various sections along Pico Street.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-16 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
All proposed site-specific drainage improvements would be analyzed as future projects are developed,
and all site drainage would ultimately discharge to the existing storm drain system located on the low
point of the Project site and then under I-215. Furthermore, all proposed improvements would adhere to
the requirements of the City and the SBCFCD.10
The Riverside Canal runs along the western edge of the Project site and carries flows downstream to an
existing 5-foot by 8-foot RCB. Adjacent to the upstream end of the Riverside Canal there is a concrete
lined trapezoidal channel that conveys flows to the Highgrove Storm Channel. From the Highgrove Storm
Channel, runoff is conveyed under I-215 via the double 6-foot by 6-foot RCB. Refer to Section 3.0, Project
Description, Exhibit 3-9, Existing Sewer Plan, Exhibit 3-10, Conceptual Water Plan, and Exhibit 3-11,
Conceptual Storm Drain Plan.
Flows generated on-site are proposed to be conveyed via a storm drain system and discharged into a
proposed basin that would be located within the southwestern portion of the Project site. The detention
basin would serve as a regional flood attenuation facility as well as a source for groundwater
replenishment. The proposed basin is approximately 65 acre-feet (ac-ft) and has a bottom elevation of
925 feet and a top elevation of 945 feet. A Hydrology and Hydraulics Report was prepared by
Q3 Consulting to provide supporting analyses for the proposed stormwater facility to ensure the peak
outflow under the Project is less than existing conditions (Appendix H2). The Hydrology and Hydraulics
Report analyzed potential impacts under a local project on-site scenario and a regional watershed
scenario. The local project on-site and regional analyses demonstrated that the proposed development
would not have adverse impacts on downstream facilities. The proposed 100-year local on-site flows are
mitigated by the proposed basin to below existing 25-year flows. Therefore, the Project would not
significantly impact flooding conditions to upstream or downstream properties.
According to the FEMA FIRM, the Project site resides within a Flood Zone Designation X.11 Zone X is the
area between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The
areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside a special flood hazard area and higher than
the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone X. Therefore, based on the analysis
performed, it can be concluded that the proposed drainage improvements would adequately convey
flows.
Operations
The Project proposes the development of the Project site consistent with the Specific Plan which would
involve residential, commercial, and open space uses. The Project would additionally involve the
construction of new public roads which would be constructed with appropriate stormwater conveyance
facilities such as curb and gutter. These public roads would add new shallow channelized flow paths for
run-off to traverse the Project site toward the western drainage facilities and proposed drainage basin.
Curb and gutter would be adequately designed to account for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event without
flooding. Additionally, future development within the Project site would be consistent with Grand Terrace
10 The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan.
11 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2008). FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 06071C8689H. Available at https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-17 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
GP Policy 4.3.3 which ensures open space would be utilized to protect public health and safety resulting
from potential flood hazard conditions. Open spaces can play an important part in flood risk management
by providing space for managed flooding and can protect built up areas. As such, operation impacts as a
result of Project implementation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.9-5: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
As discussed previously, future development of the Project must comply with the requirements of the
NPDES General Permit, which helps control water pollution by regulating point and non-point sources that
discharge pollutants into receiving waters.
All future development within the Project site would be required to obtain a General Construction Permit.
The General Construction Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP, which would include BMPs
designed to protect the quality of storm water runoff. Preparation, implementation, and participation
with both the NPDES General Permit and the General Construction Permit, including the SWPPP and
BMPs, would reduce the potential for storm water flows, and any potential contaminants contained
within those flows, to be conveyed off-site during construction of the Project. As a result, short-term
construction-related impacts associated with creating or contributing to runoff and additional sources of
polluted runoff would be less than significant. Conformance with these requirements would be verified
prior to any project approval and included as conditions of approval to any future project. Impacts would,
therefore, be less than significant.
As mandated by the RWQCB and through implementation of individual SWQMP, the Project site would
include new storm water drainage system facilities that would be engineered, designed, and installed to
satisfy all water quality requirements. These measures would include minimizing impervious surfaces as
feasible and directing flows to LID areas; integrating appropriately sized LIDs to ensure post-development
flows do not exceed pre-development flows; and where feasible, incorporating bio-retention in
combination with site planning, and dispersion of runoff to meet LID requirements.
To ensure that the new storm water drainage improvements are planned and designed to satisfy these
requirements as well as all other applicable standards and requirements, they would be verified by the
City and incorporated as conditions of approval of the Project prior to the issuance of any construction
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-18 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
permit. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant and
mitigation would not be necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.9-6: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Impede or redirect flood flows?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
As previously discussed, the Project site is within FEMA Flood Zone Designation X, as per the FEMA FIRM
Map. No. 06071C8689H. The entirety of the Project site is classified as Zone X, an area noted as having a
minimal flood hazard. In addition, there are no dams, reservoirs, or large water bodies near the Project
site. Furthermore, according to the City’s Flood Hazards Map, the City is not within a 100-year or a
500-year flood plain. As previously mentioned, the northern drainage course enters the Project Site at the
westerly end of De Berry Street and travels southwesterly before entering the SBCFCD channel that directs
flows off-site under I-215. The second drainage course enters the Project site on the north side of Van
Buren Street near the easterly edge of PA 11 and storm water flows travel west and join the SBCFCD. The
third drainage course enters the Project site along the northern portion of the existing Grand Terrace High
School near the southeasterly edge of PA 20 and overflows travel through the existing school site and join
the Gage Canal at the western edge of the Project site. Flows generated on-site would be adequately
conveyed via a storm drain system, catch basin, and discharged into a proposed basin that would be
located within the southwestern portion of the Project site. Therefore, there would be a less than
significant impact as the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.9-7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 50 miles from the Project site. Due to the distance to the Pacific
Ocean and the presence of the Santa Ana Mountains between the Pacific Ocean and the Project site, there
is no potential for the site to be impacted by a tsunami. Additionally, surface water flow at the Project site
is generally via sheet flow in a southwesterly direction. As previously discussed, the Project site is not
within a 100-yer or 500-year flood zone and the Project site is not listed by the County of San Bernardino
as being in any mapped dam inundation hazard zone.12 Furthermore, the Project site is not downstream
of large bodies of water or tanks which potentially could causes flooding and inundate the Project site.
12 California Department of Water Resources (2022). California Dam Breach Inundation Map. Map Web Publish. Available at
https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. Accessed April 17, 2022.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-19 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The risk of seiche damage following a seismic event at the Project site is considered low. Therefore, the
Project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.9-8: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Each future development within the Project site would be located within the Santa Ana River Basin.
Related construction and operational activities would therefore be required to comply with the Santa Ana
RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and
SWQMP. Future development would be required to show conformance prior to any approval.
Furthermore, Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana Rivers Basin
Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant. The Project site lies within the
Upper Santa Ana Valley-Arlington Subbasin (Basin Number 8-002.03). The Sustainable Groundwater
Management ACT (SGMA) requires local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) for
the high and medium priority basins.13 The Western Municipal Water District elected to serve as the GSA.
The Western Municipal Water District developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the
Upper Santa Ana Valley Riverside-Arlington Subbasin
Future development would be required to comply with all applicable aspects of the Groundwater
Sustainability Plan for the Upper Santa Ana Valley Riverside-Arlington Subbasin. The Project does not
propose a specific development at this time. Construction and operations of the Planning Areas would be
project-specific and future development would be subject to project-specific City and RWQCB
discretionary review and approval. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan and
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.9.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant hydrology and water quality impacts have been identified.
4.9.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality could occur as new development, redevelopment, and
existing uses are ongoing within the watershed. This includes the Project site, other past, present, and
13 California Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). 2023. Retrieved from:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management. (accessed March 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-20 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
future projects. Because parts of the watershed are already developed, growth is anticipated to consist
of a mix of redevelopment. New development would result in some increases in impervious surfaces, and
thus could generate increased runoff from the affected project sites. Depending on the site of projects,
they would be required to prepare and implement SWPPP with BMPs to control erosion and stormwater
runoff in accordance with all required water quality permits and the Water Quality Control Plan. This
would include conformance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s , and the Santa Ana River Basin Regional
Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP). As needed, projects would implement BMPs, including
LID BMPs to minimize runoff, erosion, and storm water pollution. As part of these requirements, projects
would be required to implement and maintain source controls, and treatment measures to minimize
polluted discharge and prevent increases in runoff flows that could substantially decrease water quality.
Conformance with these measures would minimize runoff from those sites and reduce contamination of
runoff with pollutants. Therefore, related projects are not expected to cause su bstantial increases in
storm water pollution. With compliance with State and regional mandates, cumulative impacts would be
less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.9.8 REFERENCES
Arlington Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. (2022). https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022020049.
California Department of Water Resources (2022). California Dam Breach Inundation Map. Map Web
Publish. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2.
California Department of Water Resources. (2004). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Upper Santa
Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Riverside-Arlington Subbasin. https://water.ca.gov/-
/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-
118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/8_002_03_Riverside-ArlingtonSubbasin.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources. (2023). Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management.
City of Grand Terrace General Plan Draft EIR. (2010). Flood Hazard Map. Page 147.
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planni
ng%20&%20Development/Planning/draft_eir.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. (2023).
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code.
Engineering Resources of Southern California (ERSC). (2022). Water Supply Assessment (WSA),
Appendix K1.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2008). FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 06071C8689H,
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd.
KWC Engineers (2022). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix H2.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.9-21 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Q3 Consulting (2022). Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, Appendix H1.
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (2022). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
APN’s: 1167-151 -22, -68, -71, & -74 , Appendix E2.
SWRCB. 2022. California 2020-2022 Integrated Report final mapping visualization tool,
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6cca2a3a1815
465599201266373cbb7b.
SWRCB. 2022. Category 5 2020 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2020_2022state_ir_reports_rev
ised_final/apx-c-catreports/category5_report.shtml.
United States Geological Survey. (2013). Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed
Boundary Dataset (WBD). Pages 14 and 19. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-1 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
4.10 LAND USE AND P LANNING
4.10.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates The Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (Project)’s consistency with the applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations from
Federal, State, and local agencies as well as other local organizations. The section also evaluate s the
potential impacts that the Project may have regarding its own land uses, but also the potential impact to
nearby land uses and developments.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
Potential land use impacts of the Project analyzed in this section of the Draft EIR include those that could
result in land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or incompatibility with
other land use plans. Where applicable, mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the implementation
of actions which would minimize or avoid land use impacts that are identified as significant.
4.10.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Conditions
The Project site encompasses approximately 112 gross-acres. The Project’s topography has elevations
ranging from approximately 975 feet at the northeastern portion of the site to approximately 945 feet at
the southwestern corner. The Project site consists predominately of vacant land, storage commercial uses,
and six non-conforming residences. A concrete-lined storm channel carries runoff from a storm drain at
the western end of De Berry Street, southwest beneath the Gage Canal and into the westward-flowing
drainage way that crosses the Project site from the western end of Van Buren Street. This drainageway
drains beneath Interstate 215 (I-215) in a concrete-lined channel, continues to the southwest beneath La
Cadena Avenue, and flows into a debris basin approximately 0.8 mile off-site.
There is a decommissioned Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) line that traverses the Project site in a
north/south direction. This property has been acquired by the City of Grand Terrace (City) and would be
used as part of the extension of Commerce Way from its existing terminus point south to the existing
Taylor Street, and subsequent widened of the existing Taylor Street portion south to its connection at
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-2 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Main Street. There are three wells owned by the City of Riverside located at the Project site that will
remain but may be modified or relocated.
The existing non-lighted ball field northwest of Veterans Freedom Park is proposed to be relocated
northwest of the Grand Terrace High School sports fields and constructed as a new lighted baseball field
and a public playground. An existing Southern California Edison (SCE) substation located south of the
Project site would remain in addition to the SCE power lines that cross the Project site north of the
substation. Riverside Canal Power Company owns the property where a decommissioned power station
was located. Two billboard signs adjacent to I -215 would remain. There is a total of six existing single-
family residences with associated accessory structures along De Berr y Street and Van Buren Street. Five
of the six residences are currently occupied. The remaining residence is vacant.
Land Use Designations and Zoning
The City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) currently designates the Project site as Mixed
Use (MU). The MU designation allows for multiple types of land uses which include commercial, business
park, residential, open space, and recreational uses. All mixed-use projects are required to submit a
Specific Plan or Planned Development to demonstrate compatibility between the proposed uses as well
as buffering from adjacent properties. The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (SP 00 -17) has been
prepared pursuant California Government Code Section 65454.
Although the existing MU land use designation would allow for a variety of uses on a single site as
proposed by the Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment (GPA 17-01) is required to accommodate the
higher density residential developments. Accordingly, the Project proposes a GPA to amend the existing
MU land use designation to a new General Plan land use designation - the Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (GSP) for the entire Project site.
The City’s zoning map currently zones the Project site as Commercial Manufacturing (CM), Restricted
Manufacturing (MR), and Industrial (M2). The Project proposes a Zone Change (ZC 17 -02) to amend the
existing CM, MR, and M2 zoning to a new zoning. With adoption of the Specific Plan, these zones will be
changed to the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (GSP) Zone to allow for a horizontal mixed-use
development of residential, commercial, public facilities, and public park as set forth in the proposed
Specific Plan.
A summary of each of these discretionary approvals that are sought by the Project Applicant is provided
in Section 3.0, Project Description.
The following Table 4.10-1, Project Site and Surrounding – Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
describes the current land use designations and zoning for both the Project and surrounding areas. In
addition, refer to Exhibit 3-3, Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations and Exhibit 3-4,
Existing and Proposed Zoning, in Section 3.0, Project Description for more details.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-3 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Table 4.10-1: Project Site and Surrounding – Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
Location Existing Land Use1 Existing Zoning2 Proposed Land Use Proposed Zoning
Project Site Mixed Use
Commercial Manufacturing (CM)
Restricted Manufacturing (RM)
Industrial (M-2)
Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific
Plan (GSP)
Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific
Plan (GSP)
North General Commercial
Industrial
General Commercial (C2)
Commercial Manufacturing (CM) - -
South Industrial
Public
Restricted Manufacturing (MR)
Industrial (M-2)
Public Facilities (PUB)
- -
East
General Commercial
Low Density
Residential
Industrial
Public
Single Family (R1-7.2)
Commercial Manufacturing (CM)
Restricted Manufacturing (MR)
Public Facilities (PUB)
- -
West* Industrial Park
Light Industrial
Industrial Park (I-P)
Light Industrial (M-1) - -
* City of Colton General Plan – Land Use Plan and Zoning Map
Source: City of Grand Terrace. (2011). General Plan Land Use Map. Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/general_plan_land _use
_map_9-1-2017.pdf (accessed November 3, 2022).
City of Grand Terrace. (2017). Zoning Map. Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Depar tments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/zoning_map__sep_201
7.pdf (accessed November 3, 2022).
4.10.3 REGULATORY SETTING
State
California Planning and Zoning Law
The legal framework in which California cities and counties exercise local planning and land use functions
is set forth in the California Planning and Zoning Law, §§65000 to 66499.58. Under State planning law,
each city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan. State law gives cities and
counties wide latitude in how a jurisdiction may create a general plan, but there are fundamental
requirements that must be met. These requirements include the inclusion of seven mandatory elements
described in the California Government Code (CGC), including a section on land use. Each of the elements
must contain text and descriptions setting forth objectives, principles, standards, policies, and plan
proposals; diagrams and maps that incorporate data and analysis; and mitigation measures.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
SCAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange,
San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding
19 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles. As the designated MPO, SCAG is
1 City of Grand Terrace. Amended September 27, 2016. General Plan Land Use Map. Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departmen ts/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/general_plan_land_u
se_map_9-1-2017.pdf. (accessed November 11, 2022).
2 City of Grand Terrace. Amended October 11, 2016. Zoning Map. Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/zoning_map__sep_2
017.pdf. (accessed November 11, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-4 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
mandated by the Federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth
management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additional mandates exist at the State level.
SCAG is responsible for the maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated planning
process. SCAG is also responsible for the development of demographic projections, as well as the
development of integrated land use, housing, employment, transportation programs, measures, and
strategies for portions of the Air Quality Management Plan.
SCAG Connect SoCal
In September 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 Regional transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy or Connect SoCal which is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing
needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals towards 2045. Connect SoCal includes a
strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375,
improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This long -range plan,
required by the state of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as
demographic, economic, and Policy circumstances change. The Connect SoCal is a living, evolving
blueprint for the region’s future. The City of Grand Terrace is a member jurisdiction of the San Bernardino
Council of Governments, and a participating agency in SCAG’s Connect SoCal.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The Grand Terrace GP serves as the blueprint for future land development and planning within the City
limits. The General Plan is the City's vision for the future. This vision is described and implemented through
the Grand Terrace GP's goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs. The information
contained within each chapter or element of the Grand Terrace GP collectively shapes the future
development and redevelopment of the City. The document is used by decision makers, both public and
private, to guide them in decisions regarding land use and development throughout the City. The key
objectives of the Grand Terrace GP are:
• Accommodate growth on undeveloped and underdeveloped properties within the City.
• Accommodate future demand to the City's street system and infrastructure system due to growth
within the City and from surrounding jurisdictions.
• Promote new commercial development that will capitalize on the City's proximity to major
transportation corridors.
• Maintain and continue to develop Grand Terrace’s established commercial areas.
• Continue to promote the development of quality housing for all segments of the populati on,
including those households with special needs.
• Ensure that 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.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-5 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
• Mitigate and eventually eliminate, where economically feasible, natural and man-made 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 and housing and the maintenance of a healthy diversified economy .3
The Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan are presented herein
under Impact 4.10-1.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
Title 17 – Subdivisions
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) Title 17 is the City’s subdivision ordinance and
is adopted pursuant to Chapter XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution to supplement and implement
the California Subdivision Map Act, CGC §66410 et seq.4 The purpose of Title 17 is to provide the City with
legal authority for the review of the design and improvement of subdivisions and the processing of any
proposed subdivision, reconfiguration and/or consolidation of land within the City to the extent
authorized by the California Subdivision Map Act.
The provisions of this Title shall apply to any division of real property wholly or partially within the
incorporated area of the City, and shall govern the filing, processing, approval, conditional approval or
disapproval of tentative tract maps, final maps, tentative parcel maps, and parcel maps and any
modifications thereof. Except as otherwise provided in this Title and in the Subdivision Map Act, all
subdivisions shall be subject to the same substantive and procedural requirements. Subdivisions and
incorporated territory adjacent to the City shall be subject to these provisions to the extent permitted and
as provided by CGC §66454.
Title 18 - Zoning
The purpose of Grand Terrace MC Title 18 is to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and
to promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare. Except as otherwise
provided in this Title, the provisions of the Government Code pertaining to zoning and planning
(CGC §§65000 et. seq.), shall be applicable to all matters as if set forth in full in this Title . The zoning or
districting plan effectuated by this Title is a part of the master plan and consists of the establishment of
various districts, including all the territory within the boundaries of the City, within which the use of land
and buildings, the space of buildings, and the height and bulk of buildings are regulated.5
4.10.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
3 City of Grand Terrace General Plan Adopted April 27, 2010 Resolution No. 2010 -10, page I-1.
4 City of Grand Terrace. (2010) Grand Terrace Municipal Code – Title 17 Subdivisions. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT17SU_CH17.04GEPR . (accessed November 11, 2022).
5 City of Grand Terrace. (2010) Grand Terrace Municipal Code – Title 18 Zoning. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.03GEPR. (accessed November 11, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-6 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Review Checklist, which includes questions
concerning land use and planning. The questions presented in the Environmental Review Checklist have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• Physically divide an established community or
• Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, Policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning land use. In addition, this analysis considers the
existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations conducted by Kimley -Horn
in March 2022; review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and
review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination
that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on land use and
planning standards considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional
agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components. For example, an
adverse effect may be significant due to the set standards for allowed developments within each zoning
type.
4.10.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.10-1: Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
There is a total of six existing residential structures with associated accessory structures on De Berry Street
and Van Buren Street. Five residences are currently occupied, and one is vacant. Although there are
existing residences on the Project site, the existing residential uses are not part of an established
community. In addition, the existing residences are inconsistent with uses allowed within their respective
zoning of Commercial Manufacturing (CM) and therefore, are considered non-conforming uses.
The physical division of an established community is typically associated with construction of a linear
feature, such as a major highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road
or bridge, which would impair mobility in an existing community or between a community and an outlying
area. Buildout of the Project would create an established community in support of Grand Terrace GP Policy
LU 2.1.6 by introducing mixed uses to the City. The Project also proposes roadway improvements that
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-7 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
would provide points of connection for the surrounding residents and workers. Since the Project would
not divide an established community and would serve to improve existing conditions consistent with the
Grand Terrace GP, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.10-2: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, Policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
The Project’s purpose is to guide the development and operation of the 2 2 PAs that would allow a mix of
commercial, residential, public utilities and public park development. The Project does not propose any
specific development projects, but future development within the Project site would be subject to review
under this SP EIR for consideration of approving discretionary permits and, if necessary, additional
subsequent environmental review as part of the City’s approval process.
City of Grand Terrace General Plan Consistency Analysis
The City requires that all Mixed-Use projects submit a specific plan or planned development to
demonstrate compatibility between the proposed uses as well as buffering from adjacent properties .
Consequently, the Project includes a Specific Plan entitlement and Zone Change that would require that
future development comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and local policies and
regulations, including the design standards within the Specific Plan document. The Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan document (Specific Plan) would be adopted by resolution by the City and would allow
for the development of a mix of commercial, residential, public utilities, and public parks uses within the
appropriate defined 22 PAs. The Specific Plan would serve as the comprehensive plan for the future
development within the Project site and establishes appropriate new land use and zoning designations as
well as development standards and guidelines to ensure that development within the Specific Plan would
occur in a manner consistent with the Grand Terrace GP. Furthermore, the Specific Plan would be
consistent with the Grand Terrace MC Title 18, Zoning, but provides additional zoning, development
standards, and guidelines that have been tailored to the Project. The following Table 4.10-2, Permitted
and Conditionally Permitted Uses, presents the proposed permitted and conditionally permitted land
uses, activities, and facilities within the Project area.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-8 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Table 4.10-2: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
Open
Space Park Commercial Residential
(R 4-20)
Drainage
Facilities
Residential Uses
Single-family (including small-lot, detached/attached,
cluster, and motor court) - - - P -
Multi-family units (including duplexes, condominiums,
and apartments) - - - P -
Senior citizen housing - - - P
Residential Accessory Uses
Home occupation (as permitted per chapter 5.06) - - - P -
Second-Family Unit (as permitted per Chapter 18.63) - - - P -
Leasing offices - - - P -
Residential community recreation facility - - - P -
Other accessory uses directly related to primary
Residential use (as approved by the Planning Director) - - - P -
Automotive related services (includes motorcycles, boats, recreational vehicles, trailers and campers)
Retail sales of parts and supplies (No Wholesale) - - P - -
Retail sales of heavy equipment and trucks - - C - -
Rental agency - - C - -
Sales (used vehicle sales, repair and maintenance
activities only in conjunction with new dealers) - - C - -
Sales (New vehicle sales) - - C - -
New tire sales (inside tire storage only) - - C - -
Indoor Storage - - C - -
Showrooms - - C - -
Research & Development
Laboratories, research and development facilities - - P - -
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Bars, cocktail lounges, nightclubs, live entertainment - - C - -
Catering - - P - -
Microbrewery - - C - -
Restaurants - With the incidental serving of beer and
wine (without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment or
dancing)
- - P - -
With entertainment and/or serving of alcoholic
beverages (other than beer and wine) - - C - -
Fast food (without a drive-thru) - - P - -
Fast food (with a drive-thru) - - C - -
Medical
Clinics, urgent care - - P - -
Medical laboratories - - P - -
Medical/dental offices - - P - -
Optician and optometric shops - - P - -
Office and Administrative Uses
Banks, financial services and institutions - - P - -
Business and office services - - P - -
(Interior showroom - - P - -
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-9 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Open
Space Park Commercial Residential
(R 4-20)
Drainage
Facilities
Realtors and real estate offices - - P - -
Travel agencies - - P - -
Professional office - - P - -
Recreation/Entertainment
Amusement arcades - - C - -
Auditoriums - - C - -
Bowling centers - - C - -
Indoor fitness and sports facilities (health clubs,
gymnasiums, fitness centers) 4,000 square feet or less - - C - -
Greater than 4,000 square feet - - C - -
Movie theaters - - C - -
Museums - - P - -
Music, exercise and dance studios - - P - -
Retail-Commercial Uses
Apparel stores (including jewelry stores) - - P - -
General retail (i.e., art, music, collectibles, and video
games stores) P
Building materials, garden equipment and supplies
(without outside storage) (including Nurseries &
garden supply stores within enclosed area)
- - P - -
Building materials, garden equipment and supplies
(with outside storage) - - C - -
Convenience stores (including Liquor/Alcohol sales) - - C - -
Daycare centers (child or adult) and Nursing and
residential care facilities - - C - -
Electronic, appliance, and office stores (including small
electronic, appliance, and office repair shops) - - P - -
Food and beverage stores (including Farmers Markets
and bakeries) - - P - -
Furniture and home furnishing stores (including
household goods stores and antique stores) - - P - -
General merchandise stores (including Leather goods
and luggage stores) - - P - -
Health and personal care stores and services
(including Drug stores and pharmacies) - - P - -
Hardware stores (including locksmith shops) - - P - -
Hobby and craft shops (including costume design, art,
music and photography supply stores) - - P - -
Pet shops - - P - -
Publishing, printing, blueprinting, and reproduction
services - - P - -
Schools, business, hospitality, & professional
(including art, barber, beauty, performing arts, and
hotels)
- - C - -
Showroom (room used to display goods for sale) - - C - -
Smoke shops - - C - -
Sporting goods stores - - P - -
Veterinary (domestic, no boarding) (w/boarding
requires CUP) - - P - -
Veterinary w/boarding - - C - -
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-10 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Open
Space Park Commercial Residential
(R 4-20)
Drainage
Facilities
Personal Services
Barbers, hair salons, nail shops - - P - -
Dry cleaners, tailor shops - - P - -
Laundromats, self-service - - C - -
Message centers and PO boxes - - P - -
Photography or portrait studio, by appointment only - - P - -
Public and Quasi Public Facilities (places of worship
and non-profit organizations) - - C - -
Government offices and facilities (administration
buildings) P P P P -
Police and fire stations P - P P -
Rail Transit Station - - - - -
Utilities
Public Utilities, distribution and support facilities P P P P -
Other Uses
Wireless telecommunications facilities C - - - C
Other uses which are determined by the planning
commission to be similar in nature to a use listed in
this section;
- - C - -
Temporary Uses
Food trucks (recurrent) – 1 year permit maximum C
Mobile food services including food trucks (special
event) - Special Event Permit - - SE - -
Temporary uses which are determined by the Director
not to have significant long-term impact on the
environment. (Uses such as parking lot sales, Christmas
tree sales, seasonal sales, rummage sales, and others
with review through the land use approval or
administrative site and architectural approval process in
accordance with Chapter 18.63, Site and Architectural
Review.)
P P - -
Temporary construction offices (as approved by
Director) P P P P -
Outdoor displays/uses may take place in front of
business on-site, which have been approved with a
conditional use permit. Temporary special event
permits will be required for display of associated
balloons, banners and special event signs.
C - C - -
Notes:
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit
T = Temporary Use Permit
SE= Special Event Permit
Although this section focuses on the Project’s compliance with applicable land use plans and policies
adopted for the purpose of reducing an environmental effect, other relevant policies and regulations are
discussed throughout this Draft EIR. The following Table 4.10-3, General Plan Consistency Analysis,
describes the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the Grand Terrace GP. As shown
in Table 4.10-3, the Project would be consistent with all relevant Grand Terrace GP policies.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-11 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Table 4.10-3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal 2.1: Provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment and housing
opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community .
Policy LU 2.1.6 - Mixed use development which can
demonstrate superior use of land, more efficient
utilization of public facilities, and more effective
conservation of natural resources shall be strongly
encouraged by the City of Grand Terrace.
The Project proposes mixed-use land uses in support of the
City’s desire for more mixed-use development in the City.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy LU 2.1.7 – The City shall continually refine
population growth forecasts to ensure adequate
planning for anticipated increased levels of sewerage,
water, and other necessary community services.
Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems discusses the
Project’s demand on water and sewer as well as other dry
utility hookups. Buildout of the Project would incrementally
increase demands on public utilities; however, the increases
were determined to be within the anticipated growth patterns
and within the capacity of existing and planned resources.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Goal 2.2: Preserve and enhance the quality and character of the City’s residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU 2.2.2 - All residential developments shall
comply with the goals and policies of the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
The Project proposes residential uses that would comply with
all applicable goals and policies set in the housing element.
Additionally, all residential development would adhere to the
development standards and design standards contained in the
Grand Terrace MC and Specific Plan document. Refer to
consistency with the pertinent goals and policies in the
Housing Element below. Therefore, the Project would comply
with this Policy.
Goal 2.3: Provide a wide range of retail and service commercial opportunities designed to meet the needs of the City’s
residents, businesses, and visitors while also providing employment opportunities.
Policy LU 2.3.1 - Commercially designated freeway
frontage shall be master planned to ensure a
comprehensive commercial development pattern that
will serve as a scenic entry into the City.
The Project’s commercial uses would be located near the I-215
freeway off-ramp at Barton Road. Commercial development
would be subject to Grand Terrace MC and Specific Plan design
standards and guidelines to ensure that all commercial
development serves as a scenic entry into the City via Barton
Road/Commerce Way. Therefore, the Project would comply
with this Policy.
Policy LU 2.3.2 - Maintenance and continued
development of Grand Terrace’s established
commercial areas, as an encouragement of new
commercial development.
The Project includes the establishment of new commercial
development. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
Policy LU 2.3.3 - Additional freeway service-oriented
commercial uses shall be encouraged.
The Project’s commercial land uses are sited near the I -215
north-south off ramps via Barton Road. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this Policy.
Policy LU 2.3.5 - Measures to reduce potential land use
incompatibility between commercially designated
areas and all other plan areas will be given special
consideration. Specific features could include
increased setbacks, walls, berms, and landscaping.
Applicable Specific Plan design standards and features would
be considered on a project-by-project basis so residential and
nonresidential land uses are developed cohesively. All
development would be subject to the Specific Plan design
standards for residential and nonresidential development and
any other applicable Grand Terrace MC development
standards. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
Goal 2.5: Provide for the preservation of natural resources and open space.
Policy LU 2.5.3 - Energy efficiency shall be encouraged
in all future development.
Future development facilitated by this Project would be
designed in compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local regulatory which includes, but is not limited to, the
current California Green Building Standards Codes in regard to
energy usage. If necessary, future development would
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-12 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
perform subsequent environmental analysis to determine
project-specific energy demand impacts. Therefore, the
Project would comply with this Policy.
Circulation Element
Goal 3.1: Provide a comprehensive transportation system that provides for the current and long -term efficient
movement of people and goods within and through the City.
Policy C 3.1.1 - Provide a transportation system which
supports planned land uses and improves the quality
of life.
The Project proposes a circulation plan that includes
improvements to the local circulation (i.e., roadways,
pedestrian walkways, and bicycle facilities). The circulation
plan for the Project improves local circulation and provides for
new development. Refer to Exhibit 3-12, Conceptual
Circulation Plan and Section 4.15, Transportation for further
details. Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy C 3.1.2 - An arterial street system shall be
established that provides for the collection of local
traffic and provide for the efficient movement of
people and goods through the City.
The proposed circulation plan would provide partial
improvements to Taylor Street, Van Buren Street, and De Berry
Street, that include street extensions, utility easements,
installation of bike lanes, sidewalks, and a variety of street
cross sections that will serve the various land uses and create
a visually appealing and functional roadway system for vehicle
and pedestrian uses. This will improve local circulation for
traffic and provide efficient movement of people and goods
through the City. Additionally, Taylor Street shall be extended
towards Commerce Way along the Riverside Canal. Therefore,
the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy C 3.1.3 - Commerce Way shall provide for the
movement of traffic associated with commercial and
business traffic.
Refer to Policy C 3.1.2 above, Exhibit 3 -12, and Exhibit 3-7,
Construction Phasing Plan which illustrates the proposed
Commerce Way/Taylor Street extension/connection and
improvements as part of the Specific Plan . Therefore, the
Project would comply with this Policy.
Goal 3.2: Provide for a well-maintained roadway system.
Policy C 3.2.2 - The City shall require that street
improvements be constructed at the time that
development occurs on vacant or underutilized
property.
Circulation improvements are anticipated to occur within two
phases and would be considered on a project -by-project basis.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Goal 3.3: Provide for a safe circulation system.
Policy C 3.3.2 - The City shall require that new
developments provide adequate off street parking in
order to minimize the need for on street parking.
Both on-site and off-site parking requirements will be
determined on a project-by-project but would be designed in
accordance with all applicable state and local regulations,
including the design standards within the Specific Plan
document. Future development would be required to provide
adequate parking as determined by City staff. Therefore, the
Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy C 3.3.3 - The City shall ensure that local street
improvements are designed with proper attention to
community appearance and aesthetics as well as the
need to move traffic safely and efficiently.
The Specific Plan standards include private roads and alleys
should be visually distinguishable from public streets through
the use of a variety of materials and colors. Refer to
Policy 3.1.1 above and Section 4.15, Transportation for more
information. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
Goal 3.5: Provide for efficient alternative modes of travel.
Policy C 3.5.1 - Promote measures, which reduce
reliance on single occupant vehicle usage by
enforcement of the Traffic Control Measures (TCM)
ordinance, which addresses development standards,
Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures determined
most appropriate for the Specific Plan include providing car-
sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs, developing
bicycle connections that will provide access to proposed
bicycle facilities, and providing telecommuting or work -at-
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-13 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
land use patterns, employer based rideshare programs
and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
home programs, where appropriate. Refer to Section 4.15,
Transportation that contains a discussion regarding travel
demand measures that would serve to further assist in
reducing VMT. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 4.1: That the Open Space needed for outdoor recreation in the City of Grand Terrace be provided and thereby,
improve the quality of life for the residents of the City.
Policy OPC 4.1.1 – A park standard of five (5) acres per
1,000 population shall be used to determine the total
acreage of developed parks and recreation areas for
the City.
The Project would develop open space and recreational uses
that would meet park facilities demands of the planned
generated population growth, including the development of
additional recreational facilities and would comply with
Policy 4.1.1. The Project would directly generate population
growth and would develop and would develop new
recreational, public facilities, and open space development
into the planning area. Therefore, the Project would comply
with this Policy.
Policy OPC 4.1.5 – The City will establish guidelines and
standards for the establishment of a linkage system
among the City’s parks and open space areas. In
residential areas, the feasibility of utilizing sidewalks
shall be made. These sidewalks will be part of the
“Pedestrian Sidewalk Master Plan” called for in the
Circulation Element and “safe routes” to school’s plan.
In addition, consideration will be given to the
placement of appropriate signage along the sidewalk
identifying them as part of a designated trail system.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Policy OPC 4.1.6 – The City will work with other public
agencies and private entities to coordinate its trail
planning and development to tie into the regional trails
systems, including the California recreational Trail
System, connecting neighboring cities and counties.
These trails may be used for pedestrian, equestrian, or
biking. Such efforts will include a connection with the
Santa Ana River Trail as shown in the “Plan of Open
Space and Trails for the County of San Bernardino” and
with the trail system of the County of Riverside
including the proposed regional trail alo ng the Gage
Canal in Riverside County.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Goal 4.2: Natural resources in the City of Grand Terrace shall be protected and preserved by utilizing open space
designations or related regulations.
Policy OPC 4.2.2 – The City shall establish land use
regulations to preserve and protect any identified
natural resources.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. However,
the Project establishes appropriate new land use and zoning
designation as well as development standards and guidelines
for future development.
Policy OPC 4.2.5 – The City shall act to reasonably
conserve and protect significant biological resources.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. However,
the Project would adhere to MM BIO-1 through BIO-3 to
avoid impacts to sensitive species and habitats .
Goal 4.3: Public health and safety in the City of Grand Terrace shall be protected, in part, through open space areas.
Policy OPC 4.3.3 - Open space shall be used to protect
public health and safety resulting from flood hazard
conditions in the City of Grand Terrace.
The Project proposes open space land uses in PA 5 that would
be utilized to protect the proposed residential and
commercial us es from flooding hazards that could result from
the overflow of the Riverside Canal. In addition, development
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-14 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
would include best management practices (BMPs) as
required by NPDES permitting that would minimize flood
hazard impacts. Therefore, the Project wo uld comply with
this Policy.
Goal 4.6: The City shall support and promote the conservation of energy resources.
Policy OPC 4.6.1 – The City shall establish an energy
conservation policy and implementation program for
all City facilities.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Policy OPC 4.6.2 – The City shall implement a public
outreach program to provide the public with
information regarding energy conservation practices
and programs.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and n ot private projects.
Policy OPC 4.6.3 - The City shall encourage energy and
environmentally sustainable design in new land
development projects using Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) or similar standards.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. However,
specific development within the Project would be required to
adhere to the latest California Building Code and Energy Code
to ensure that energy is used efficiently .
Goal 4.7: Support air quality planning through land use policies, outreach efforts, and participation in regional air
quality planning.
Policy OPC 4.7.1 - The City shall evaluate and
implement traffic flow improvements and construction
management practices that reduce locally generated
vehicle emissions.
TDM measures determined most appropriate for the Specific
Plan include providing car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-
sharing programs, developing bicycle connections that will
provide access to proposed bicycle facilities, and providing
telecommuting or work-at-home programs, where
appropriate. These travel demand measures would serve to
further assist in reducing VMT and thereby vehicular
emissions. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
Policy OPC 4.7.2 – The City shall encourage the use of
public transportation through coordination with local
and regional transit providers.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. However,
the Project’s proposed residential uses would be located in
close proximity of OmniTrans OminiGo Route 325,
Route 30519, Route 5, and Route sbX,2and Riverside Transit
Authority (RTA) Route 14.
Policy OPC 4.7.3 - The City shall encourage land use
planning and urban design that reduces vehicle trips
through mixed use development, consolidation of
commercial uses along arterial highways, and
pedestrian connection between residential and
commercial uses.
The Project’s proposed circulation plan would improve
circulation for the new development by reinforcing a
pedestrian-friendly environment. New Class II on -street bike
lanes, sidewalks and streets would cohesively connect the
mixed-use areas with the residential neigh borhoods, parks
and schools and provide circulation within the residential
communities. In addition, the Project would travel demand
measures to lower VMT. Therefore, the Project would comply
with this Policy.
Policy 4.7.5 – The City shall encourage employers to
develop and implement trip reduction plans including
alternate work schedules, rideshare programs,
telecommuting, and employee education programs.
TDM measures determined most appropriate for the Specif ic
Plan include providing car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-
sharing programs, developing bicycle connections that will
provide access to proposed bicycle facilities, and providing
telecommuting or work-at-home programs, where
appropriate. These travel demand measures would serve to
further assist in reducing VMT Therefore, the Project would
comply with this Policy.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-15 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
Policy OPC 4.7.6 – The City shall implement policies and
procedures designed to reduce emissions generated by
construction activities including enforcement of
SCAQMD Rule 403.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Policy OPC 4.7.7 - The City shall promote energy
conservation efforts in new and existi ng residences
and businesses.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. The
relevant energy conservation plans and policies to the
Project include the California Title 24 energy standards and
the 2022 California Green Building Code.
Goal 4.8: Achieve regional water quality objectives and protect the beneficial uses of the regions surface and
groundwater.
Policy OPC 4.8.1 - Evaluate all proposed land use and
development plans for their potential to create
groundwater contamination hazards from point and
non-point sources, and cooperate with other
appropriate agencies to assure appropriate mitigation
All future development projects within the Project site would
be required to implement a SWPPP and WQMP that contains
BMPs to minimize groundwater contamination hazards.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy OPC 4.8.2 - Comply with the requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
All site-specific development would be subject to the
requirements of the NPDES permitting process. Therefore,
the Project would comply with this Policy. Therefore, the
Project would comply with this Policy.
Goal 4.9: Comply with state and federa l regulations to ensure the protection of historical, archaeological, and
paleontological resources.
Policy OPC 4.9.1 - The City shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that cultural resources are located, identified
and evaluated to assure that appropriate action is
taken as to the disposition of these resources.
The Project would implement mitigation measures that
would minimize impacts to any unknown cultural resources
discovered on site. Therefore, the Project would comply with
this Policy.
Public Health and Safety Element
Goal 5.1: Minimize the risk to public health and safety, social and economic welfare of the City resulting from geologic
and seismic hazards.
Policy PHS 5.1.1 - All new development shall comply
with current seismic design standards.
All development projects would be designed in accordance
with the latest California Building Codes to ensure that
impacts from seismic activity is minimized. Therefore, the
Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy PHS 5.1.2 - All proposed developments shall be
evaluated for impacts associated with geologic and
seismic hazards.
All development would be subject to applicable Grand
Terrace MC design standards, including City approval of final
geotechnical reports, and mitigation measures provided in
this EIR which includes the presence of a qualified
geotechnical engineer during all grading activity . Therefore,
the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy PHS 5.1.4 - Grading plans for development
projects shall include an approved drainage and
erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from
erosion and sedimentation during grading.
All development projects would be subject to this Policy.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Goal 5.3: Reduce the risk to life and property in areas designated as flood hazard areas.
Policy PHS 5.3.4 - The City shall require all development
projects to comply with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and implement
appropriate Best Management Practices.
All site-specific development would be subject to the
requirements of the NPDES permitting process. Therefore,
the Project would comply with this Policy.
Goal 5.6: Minimize the exposure of residents, business owners, and visitors to the impacts of urban and wildland
fires.
Policy PHS 5.6.2 – Continue the weed abatement
program to ensure clearing of dry vegetation areas.
The Project is located in an LRA and would comply with the
City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan . Therefore, the Project
would comply with this Policy.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-16 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
Policy PHS 5.6.3 – Encourage the use of fire-resistive
construction materials.
The Project would comply with the California Buildi ng Code
which regulates the design, construction, and quality of
materials, etc. for development. Therefore, the Project would
comply with this Policy.
Noise Element
Goal 6.1: Protect the citizens of Grand Terrace and sensitive land uses from annoying and excessive noise generated
by non-transportation-oriented uses and activities.
Policy N 6.1.2 - Construction noise on adjacent land
uses shall be minimized by limiting the permitted hours
of activity.
All future project construction activity would occur within the
permitted hours of activity consistent with this Policy.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy N 6.1.3 – City departments shall observe state
and federal occupational safety and health noise
standards.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Goal 6.2: Prevent and mit igate the adverse impacts of excessive exposure to residential and commercial land uses.
Policy N 6.2.1 - The City shall evaluate potential noise
impacts as part of the land use planning process to
mitigate or avoid detrimental impacts and enforce the
local noise ordinance.
Project development would be consistent with the Grand
Terrace MC Noise development standards to reduce noise
impacts near residential land uses and is further discussed in
Section 4.11, Noise. Therefore, the Project would comply
with this Policy.
Policy N 6.2.3 - New residential developments located
in close proximity to existing commercial/industrial
operations shall be evaluated for potential noise
impacts and interior noise mitigation.
All proposed mixed use/ commercial development near
residential land uses would be designed in accordance with
applicable Grand Terrace MC Noise standards. Therefore, the
Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy N 6.2.4 - Commercial uses developed as part of
any mixed-use project including residential component
shall not be noise intensive. Mixed -use structures shall
be designed to prevent commercial noise impacts to
the project’s residential uses.
All proposed mixed use/ commercial development near
residential land uses would be designed in accordance with
applicable Grand Terrace MC Noise standards, as well as
mitigation measures included in this EIR to reduce impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would
comply with this Policy.
Policy N 6.2.5 - New commercial/industrial operations
located in proximity to existing or proposed residential
areas shall incorporate noise mitigation into project
design.
All proposed commercial development near the proposed
residential land uses would be designed in accordance with
applicable Grand Terrace MC Noise standards, as well as
mitigation measures included in th is EIR to reduce impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would
comply with this Policy.
Policy N 6.2.6 - Impacts of construction noise and
vibration on adjacent land uses shall be regulated
through limiting the permitted hours of activity.
All future project construction activity would occur within the
permitted hours of activity consistent with this Policy.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy N 6.2.7 - The City shall evaluate potential
ground-borne vibration impacts as part of the land use
planning process to mitigate or avoid detrimental
impacts on adjacent land uses.
Pursuant to MM NOI-3 in this EIR, should construction
activities requiring operation of vibratory rollers take place
within 26 feet of a structure, a Project-specific vibration
impact analysis shall be conducted. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this Policy.
Public Services Element
Goal 7.1: Coordinate and balance the provision of public services with existing and planned development to eliminate
service gaps, maximize the use of existing public facilities and services, provide a high level of quality public services
at a reasonable cost, and maintain adequate services to meet the needs of current and f uture City residents and
businesses.
Policy PS 7.1.1 – All proposed development shall be
evaluated to determine whether current public
services and facilities can meet with their needs. If
determined that current services and facilities are
inadequate to meet the needs of new development,
appropriate mitigation measures shall be applied to
Fire protection and police protection would remain efficient
in serving the proposed project. The Project is required to
adhere to Grand Terrace MC Chapter 4.80 Development
Impact Fees, which would require each applicant to pay a
development impact fee (determined by the table provided
in Chapter 4.80) imposed by the City to pay for all or a portio n
of costs of providing public services associated with new
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-17 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
the new development to assure an adequate level of
service.
development. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
Policy PS 7.1.2 – The City shall establish and
periodically update a Development Impact Fee
program for new development designed to generate
adequate fees to provide new public services and
facilities necessary to serve the new development.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Goal 7.5: Provide for adequate law enforcement and police protection services and facilities.
Policy PS 7.5.1 – Work with the County Sherriff’s
Department to ensure that adequate police personnel,
response times, and equipment are available to meet
current and future demands of the City’s residents and
businesses.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. However,
the Project is required to adhere to Grand Terrace MC
Chapter 4.80 Development Impact Fees.
Goal 7.6: Provide for adequate fire protection services and facilities.
Policy PS 7.6.1 – Work with the San Bernardino County
Fire Protection District to ensure that adequate fire
protection personnel, response times, and equipment
are available to meet current and future demands of
the City’s residents and businesses.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. However,
the Project is required to adhere to Grand Terra ce MC
Chapter 4.80 Development Impact Fees.
Policy PS 7.6.2 – Work with Riverside Highland Water
Company to ensure adequate water pressure for fire
fighting throughout the City.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects. However,
the Project is required to provide fire hydrants at locations
approved by the SBCoFD, and Riverside Highland Water
Company lines would be extended to loop around the Project
site.
Goal 7.7: In cooperation with the Colton Joint Unified School District, provide adequate public education facilities
and programs.
Policy PS 7.7.2 - Cooperate with the School District in
the collection of school impact mitigation fees for all
new developments within the City.
The Project would pay these fees in compliance with the
California Government Code Section 65995 and Education
Code and Grand Terrace MC Chapter 4.80. Therefore, the
Project would comply with this Policy.
Housing Element
Goal 8.1: Provide and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs and sufficient in number to serve existing
and projected residents of Grand Terrace.
Policy H 8.1.1 - Promote and encourage development
of housing, which varies by type, design, form of
ownership and size.
The proposed residential uses would contain a variety of
housing types which include a variety of attached and
detached residential including cluster product, duplexes,
townhomes, small-lot single family, stacked flats and
supportive recreational amenities. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this Policy.
Policy H 8.1.2 - Maximize use of remaining vacant land
suitable for residential development
The Project would convert primarily vacant land for
residential uses. Therefore, the Project would comply with
this Policy.
Policy H 8.1.3 - Promote and encourage infill housing
development and more intensive use of underutilized
land for residential construction.
The Project proposes residential development on
underutilized land. Therefore, the Project would comply with
this Policy.
Policy H 8.1.4 - Encourage the use of innovative land
use techniques and construction methods to minimize
housing costs without compromising basic health,
safety and aesthetic considerations.
The residential land uses would contain a variety of housing
types to create individual neighborhoods, provide
architectural interest and housing choices. All residential
development would subject to the residential design
standards within the Specific Plan and applicable state design
standards. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-18 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
Goal 8.2: Promote and encourage housing opportunities, accessible to employment centers and quality community
services for all economic segments of the communit y including designated very low, low, and moderate income
households.
Policy H 8.2.1 – Continue a Policy of expeditious
processing of residential development proposals and
permits.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Policy H 8.2.2 – Encourage a wide range of housing
types, prices and ownership forms in new construction. See Policy H 8.1.1 and H 8.1.4 above.
Policy H 8.2.3 – Emphasize and promote the role of the
private sector in the construction of low -and
moderate-income housing.
The Project would adhere to the California Planning and
Zoning Law which would assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of low -and moderate-
income households. Therefore, the Project would comply
with this Policy.
Policy H 8.2.4 – Support the development of cost
saving and energy conserving construction techniques.
All housing development would be developed in accordance
with the latest California Building and Energy Codes. Pursuant
to the California Solar Mandate, all housing development
would also be developed with solar systems that would help
reduce electricity costs. Therefore, the Project would comply
with this Policy.
Policy H 8.2.8 – Streamline administrative procedures
for granting approvals and permits and establish time
limits for such approvals to minimize time, costs and
uncertainty associated with development.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Policy H 8.2.9 – Provide zoning, subdivision and
construction incentives to minimize the cost of new
and rehabilitated units.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects
Policy H 8.1.10 - Promote mixed use development that
includes provisions for affordable housing.
See Policy H 8.2.3 above. The Project would comply with this
Policy.
Goal 8.3: Promote and encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated dwelling units and the conservation of the
currently sound housing stock.
Policy H 8.3.4 – Upgrade community facilities and
municipal services as community needs warrant.
The Project proposes public facility land uses that includes
improvements to existing community facilities and municipal
services. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
Policy.
Policy H 8.3.11 – Preserve the physical character of
existing neighborhoods.
The Specific Plan contains development standards that would
ensure that streetscapes and buildings convey a cohesive,
high-quality community identity while minimizing negative
impacts to nearby neighborhoods. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this Policy.
Goal 8.4: Conserve and improve the condition of existing affordable housing stock.
Policy H 8.4.2 – Encourage the use of assistance
programs to make residences more energy efficient.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Policy H 8.4.5 – Encourage the incorporation or energy
conservation features in the design of all new housing
developments and the addition of energy conservation
devices/practices in existing residential developments.
The Project would adhere to the California Green Building
Standards Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Therefore,
the Project would comply with this Policy.
Sustainable Development Element
Goal 9.1: Reduce the City’s per capita energy usage.
Policy SD 9.1.2 – The City shall incorporate energy
conservation measures into conditions of approval for
new development projects.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-19 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Policy [1] Project Consistency
Goal 9.2: Reduce the total quantity of waste generated within the City requiring landfill disposal to meet or exceed
the State waste diversion goals.
Policy SD 9.2.2 – Require all new development projects
to recycle construction and demolition wastes.
All development projects will be required to recycle or handle
construction and demolition wastes, consist with this Policy
and in accordance with applicable state regulations regarding
the use, handling, storage, and transportation of waste.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this Policy.
Goal 9.3: Reduce the total quantity of waste generated within the City requiring landfill disposal to meet or exceed
the State waste diversion goals.
Policy SD 9.3.1 – Incorporate “green” building practices
into the review of all new or renovated development
projects.
All future development would be designed in accordance
with the latest California Building Code and Energy Code
standards, including the Specific Plan’s residential and non -
residential development standards. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this Policy.
Policy SD 9.3.2 – Site and building design in new
developments should maximize opportunities for
efficient energy performance.
All future development would be designed in accordance
with the latest California Building Code and Energy Code
standards, including the Specific Plan’s residential and non-
residential development standards. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this Policy.
Goal 9.7: Reduce the City’s per capita demand for water consumption.
Policy SD 9.7.2 The City shall incorporate water
conservation into the development review process.
All development Projects would be required to incorporate
water conservation design features and landscaping to
minimize water consumption. Therefore, the Project would
comply with this Policy.
Goal 9.8: The City shall lead the development community by example in green building, and energy and resource
conservation practices.
Policy SD 9.8.1 – The City shall support green
development standards for new or rehabilitated public
buildings and facilities.
The Project would adhere to the California Green Building
Standards Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Therefore,
the Project would comply with this Policy.
Policy SD 9.8.2 – The City shall actively reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from public facilities
throughout the community.
Not Applicable. This Policy is intended to be implemented by
the City of Grand Terrace and not private projects.
Source: City of Grand Terrace. (2010). Grand Terrace General Plan. Retrieved at: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning (accessed March 2022).
Tables C.1 through C.8 of Specific Plan.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code – Zoning
The Grand Terrace MC sets the City’s standards, guidelines, and procedures relating to the development
and maintenance of all land uses within the City. The regulations implement the goals and policies of the
General Plan while being consistent with the Land Use Plan designations. The zoning protects the physical,
social, and economic stability of City residents, businesses, and their property. It reduces or eliminates
hazards to the public; and enhances the City’s physical, social, and economic advantages through
comprehensive land use and resource planning.
The Project is seeking a Zone Change that would modify the existing zoning for a new zoning – The
Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (GSP) to implement a mixed-use development of residential,
commercial, and public facilities. Under this SP zoning, the land use plan, policies, development standards,
and design guidelines provide the site-specific requirements for future development within the area. The
GSP designation allows design flexibility to attain superior quality and excellence in design, sustainability,
architecture, and site amenities. Upon approval of the proposed zone change, the future development on
the Project site would be compliant with all applicable Grand Terrace MC zoning requirements. Any
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-20 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
amendments to the existing land use plan designations and/or zoning that would be required for Project
implementation would be subject to additional analysis for consistency with this EIR when those
legislative actions are processed in the foreseeable future.
SCAG Connect SoCal
Connect SoCal is a long-term planning document intended to guide the growth of the region that includes
the Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. Connect SoCal allows
public agencies who implement transportation projects to do so in a coordinated manner and assists the
region in achieving California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act
requirements. The plan also strives to achieve broader regional objectives, such as the preservation of
natural lands, improvement of public health, increased roadway safety, support for the region’s vital
goods movement industries, and more efficient use of resources. Table 4.10-4, Project Compatibility with
SCAG Connect SoCal Strategies below describes the proposed Project’s compa tibility with the land use
strategies proposed in Connect SoCal. Due to the Project’s consistency with the Connect SoCal Land Use
strategies, no significant impact is expected in this regard.
Table 4.10-4: Project Compatibility with Connect SoCal Strategies
Connect SoCal Strategies Project Consistency
1. Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness
The Project is located on a vacant site and development of the site would contribute
to regional economic prosperity. The Project would encourage future growth in the
City and the County, spur infrastructure improvements in the area, and implement
the Specific Plan vision. The Project would allow for the development of urban uses
on currently underutilized land. Therefore, the Project would comply with this
strategy.
2. Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for
people and goods
The Project’s proposed circulation improvements would contribute to the local or
regional mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods. At
the local level, the proposed Project includes a circulation plan that includes
roadways, pedestrian, and bicycle facility improvements. More specifically, partial
street improvements to Taylor Street, Van Buren Street, and De Berry Street and the
extension of Taylor Street to Commerce way would provide increased connectivity to
regional circulation elements including I-215. The proposed Project is located in an
area that is planned to enhance the overall efficiency, aesthetics, and regional
capacity to distribute goods. and products. Therefore, the Project would comply with
this strategy.
3. Enhance the preservation,
security, and resilience of the
regional transportation system
All modes of public and commercial transit throughout the Project area would be
required to follow safety standards set by State, regional, and local regulatory
documents. For example, sidewalks must follow precautions established in the City’s
Development Code. The Project would not remove or alter in a reductive manner
access to the local public transportation near the Project site. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this strategy.
4. Increase person and goods
movement and travel choices
within the transportation system
The Project would involve transportation improvements in the form of improvements
to nearby streets. The Project’s proposed circulation plan would provide partial
improvements to Taylor Street, Van Buren Street, and De Berry Street, that include
street ext ensions, utility easements, installation of bike lanes, sidewalks, and a variety
of street cross sections that will serve the various land uses and create a visually
appealing and functional roadway system for vehicle and pedestrian uses. This will
improve local circulation for traffic and provide efficient movement of people and
goods through the City. Additionally, Taylor Street shall be extended towards
Commerce Way along the Riverside Canal. Therefore, the Project would comply with
this strategy.
5. Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air quality
The Project is located within an urban area and is in close proximity to existing transit
routes and freeways. The Project’s circulation would be designed to increase the
efficiency of distribution of goods and products and reduce trip lengths, which would
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-21 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Connect SoCal Strategies Project Consistency
reduce GHG and air quality emissions. The Project also includes Project Design
Features such as carpool and vanpool parking, and clean fuel and EV infrastructures
that would facilitate reducing GHG emissions from mobile sources. The Project would
implement MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4, MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 and laws,
ordinances, and regulations (LORs) AQ-1 through AQ- 6 to reduce operational
emissions to the greatest amount feasible. MM GHG-1 requires residential
development to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable
electricity generation. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to comply with CALGreen Tier
2 and requires a minimum 15 percent improvement. MM GHG-3 requires energy
efficient appliances. MM GHG-4 requires a 75 percent reduction in solid waste
disposal. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super Compliant” low VOC paints
during construction. MM AQ-2 requires a TDM plan to reduce mobile GHG emissions
for all uses. MM AQ-3 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas
devices to limit ROG, NO X, particulate matter, and visible emissions. MM AQ-4
confirms the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions and/or tenant lease
agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used on-site
shall be 100 percent electrically powered. Lastly, MM AQ-5 requires product that
have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less are used for
interior and exterior architectural coatings. LOR AQ-1 requires the implementation of
Rule 402 and 403 dust control to minimize emissions. LOR AQ -2 requires the low VOC
paints. LOR AQ-3 requires diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when
not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations § 2449. LOR AQ-4 requires
water-efficient irrigation systems and devices in accordance with Chapter 15.56 of
the City’s Municipal Code. LOR AQ-5 requires accordance with Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. L astly LOR AQ-6
requires the Project to adhere to the applicable California Green Building Standards.
The Project would not exceed construction emission standards with mitigation.
However, even with mitigation, operational emissions would remain above the
SCAQMD threshold. However, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation
measures and standard conditions, air quality and greenhouse gas emission impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable. See Section 4.2, Air Quality and
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions for more information. Therefore, the Project
would comply with this strategy.
6. Support healthy and equitable
communities
The Project’s circulation plan includes street, pedestrian, and bicycle facility
improvements that would allow easy access to the other proposed mixed-uses. The
Project would indirectly improve regional air quality by its location being in proximity
to regional transportation corridors and in a location that reduces overall distances
for product distribution.
Furthermore, the Project would implement mitigation measures that includes, but is
not limited to, MM AQ-2 which requires implementation of a TDM program to reduce
single occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. These measures support
reduction in mobile emissions and more equitable transportation options. Therefore,
the Project would comply with this strategy.
7. Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network
The Project would construct new roads, infrastructure, and buildings to support uses
consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and consistent with current building codes,
State and Federal requirements including CALGreen Code. This includes electric
vehicle (EV) Parking spaces, energy-efficient buildings, and use of construction and
grading equipment that complies with current air quality standards, etc. See
Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.7, Green House Gas Emissions; and Section 4.15,
Transportation. Therefore, the Project would comply with this strategy.
8. Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven
solutions that result in more
efficient travel
The Project’s circulation plan would ensure that the proposed roadway
improvements and internal circulation are designed cohesively with the proposed
land uses. Therefore, the Project would comply with this strategy.
9. Encourage development of
diverse housing types in areas that
are supported by multiple
transportation options
The Project area is predominantly undeveloped, vacant, and open space land. There
are currently two transit stops on Barton Road in close proximity to the Project site.
The Project would provide diverse housing types and improve surrounding roadways
which then would improve the transportation network, including public transit,
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-22 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Connect SoCal Strategies Project Consistency
within the City. These roadways would provide connectivity I-215, allowing local
traffic to access regional transportation facilities. Therefore, the Project would
comply with this strategy.
10. Promote conservation of
natural and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats
This Project is located within an urban area and is not located on agricultural lands
and no habitat restoration sites are present on the Project site . Therefore, no
agricultural or habitat restoration sites will be impacted as a result of this Project.
Therefore, the Project would comply with this strategy.
Source: SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy).
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
As shown in Tables 4.10-3 and 4.10-4, the Project would be consistent with the Grand Terrace GP and MC,
and Connect SoCal strategies. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, Policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.10.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable land use and planning impacts have been identified.
4.10.7 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to land use includes closely related past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future projects located in the surrounding area. Regarding conflicts with a ny
land use plan, policies, or regulations, approval of the Project and implementation of mitigation measures
identified throughout this EIR would ensure that any future development within the Project complies
applicable goals, policies, and regulations implemented by the state, regional, and local jurisdictions,
including the design standards and guides set within the Specific Plan.
Potential land use impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a project-by-project
basis. This is true with regard to land use compatibility impacts, which are generally a function of the
relationship between the interactive effects of a specific development site and those of its immediate
environment. Existing, as well as future cumulative development, within the surrounding area is
anticipated to occur in accordance with the Grand Terrace GP and MC and be evaluated as such the same
as the Project. In addition, all future development within the Project must conform to the Specific Plan’s
development and design standards and may require additional environmental review. Therefore, the
Project, in conjunction with these other projects, is not anticipated to introduce incompatible uses and
substantially conflict with the operation of surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, the Project would not physically divide an established community because the proposed
residential units would offset the loss of existing residential units and would provide utility improvements
and a circulation plan that would benefit the City financially and increase circulation/connectively in the
area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative contribution to impacts associated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.10-23 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
with conflicts with land use planning documents or related policies and regulations. These impacts are
less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant.
4.10.8 REFERENCES
City of Grand Terrace. (Amended September 27, 2016). General Plan Land Use Map. Available at:
https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20
Development/Planning/general_plan_land_use_map_9-1-2017.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). Grand Terrace. Available at: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning.
City of Grand Terrace. (2010) Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code.
City of Grand Terrace. (Amended October 11, 2016). Zoning Map. Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20
Development/Planning/zoning_map__sep_2017.pdf.
SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-1 4.11 | Noise
4.11 N OISE
4.11.1 INTRODUCTION
The section identifies existing conditions in The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) area and
evaluates the Project’s potential to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise; generate ground-borne vibration or noise; or, if located in the vicinity of an airport, expose people
to excessive noise levels. Mitigation to avoid/reduce impacts is identified, as needed. The evaluation of
the Project, including the potential impacts to noise, is largely based on the following resources:
• Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. (Appendix I)
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanism to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
4.11.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Acoustic Fundamentals
Sound and Environmental Noise 1
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound is defined as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object
transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air) to human (or animal) ear. If the pressure
variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are called sound.
The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles
per second, or hertz (Hz).
Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. In acoustics, the fundamental model consists of
a noise source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source,
obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path, determine the perceived sound level
and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal primarily with the propagation and control of
sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady background noise that is the sum of many
distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from
individual local sources. These sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to
1 Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. Page 6. See Appendix I.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-2 4.11 | Noise
continuous noise from traffic on a major hig hway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective
from person to person.
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid this, the
decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micropascals (µPa) as a point
of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and
the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million-fold increase
in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to human perception of
relative loudness.
Noise Descriptors2
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant
frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating
scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because
environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noi se on people is largely
dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise
occurs. The equivalent noise level (Leq) represents the continuous sound pressure level over the
measurement period, while the day-night noise level (L dn) and Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL)
are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB weighted sound levels from 7:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of L eq that has the same
acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. Each noise descriptor used in the
Acoustical Assessment is summarized in the following Table 4.11-1, Definitions of Acoustical Terms.
Table 4.11-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of
the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference
pressure for air is 20.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in µPa (or 20
micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1
newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure lev el is expressed in
dB as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by
the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 µPa). Sound pressure level is the quantity
that is directly measured by a sound level meter.
Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric
pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are
below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) The sound pressure level in dB as measured on a sound level meter using the A -weighting
filter network. The A -weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency
components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear
and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) The average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the L eq of a
time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic
energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does
not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.
Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
Minimum Noise Level (Lmin)
The maximum and minimum dBA during the measurement period.
Exceeded Noise Levels
(L01, L10 , L50, L90)
The dBA values that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the
measurement period.
2 Ibid. Page 7
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-3 4.11 | Noise
Term Definitions
Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn) A 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity at nighttime. The logarithmic effect of
these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA L dn.
Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL)
A 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
and a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to
account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic
effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7
dBA CNEL.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of
environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.
The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and
time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient
noise level.
Source: Ibid. Page 7 – Table 2
The A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a
method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the
variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average
level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can
accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer
models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The
accuracy of the predicted models depends on the distance between the receptor and the noise source.
A-Weighted Decibels and Addition of Decibels 3
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and
frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness
is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values. There is a strong correlation between
dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the dBA has become the standard tool
of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels r eported in this section are in terms of dBA, but are
expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through
ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the
standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in
loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA
sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound
level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions. Under the dB
scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of approximately 5 dBA.
3 Ibid. Page 8
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-4 4.11 | Noise
Sound Propagation and Attenuation 4
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases
(attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point
source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound
levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as
a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics.5 No excess attenuation is assumed for hard
surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound,
so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed.
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between
the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm
reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The way older homes in California were constructed generally
provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The
exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.
Human Response to Noise 6
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to
individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual
physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well -being and
contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from
interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand
concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise
levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally
considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above
70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA
and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at
night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-
commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may
consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier
urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to
80 dBA). The following relationships are noted regarding increases in dBA:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1-dBA change cannot be perceived by
humans.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.
• A minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response would
be expected. A 5-dBA increase is typically considered substantial.
4 Ibid. Page 8
5 Ibid. Page 8
6 Ibid. Page 9
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-5 4.11 | Noise
• A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost
certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
Effects of Noise on People7
Hearing Loss
While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity
can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic
exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss
associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupatio nal
Safety and Health Administration has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where
hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over
8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.
Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into
homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for ann oyance
include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and
rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the
percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise
and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of
these different sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage
of people begin to report annoyance.8
Ground-borne Vibration 9
Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea
waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction
equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient
(e.g., explosions or heavy equipment usage during construction). Ground vibration consists of rapidly
fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used
to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square
(RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the
vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The
PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.
Table 4.11-2, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent
Vibrations, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration
levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care sin ce vibration may be
found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the
sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception
7 Ibid. Page 9
8 Ibid. Page 10
9 Ibid. Pages 10-11
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-6 4.11 | Noise
can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight
rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration
complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments,
which are more prevalent where ground-borne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling
phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in
exterior doors and windows.
Table 4.11-2: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent
Vibrations
Maximum PPV
(in/sec)
Vibration Annoyance
Potential Criteria
Vibration Damage Potential
Threshold Criteria FTA Vibration Damage Criteria
0.008 --
Extremely fragile historic
buildings, ruins, ancient
monuments
--
0.01 Barely Perceptible -- --
0.04 Distinctly Perceptible -- --
0.1 Strongly Perceptible Fragile buildings --
0.12 -- -- Buildings extremely susceptible
to vibration damage
0.2 -- -- Non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings
0.25 -- Historic and some old buildings --
0.3 -- Older residential structures Engineered concrete and
masonry (no plaster)
0.4 Severe -- --
0.5 --
New residential structures,
Modern industrial/commercial
buildings
Reinforced-concrete, steel or
timber (no plaster)
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; FTA = Federal Transit Administration
Source: Ibid. Page 11 – Table 3
Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur.
However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be
perceptible. Common sources for ground-borne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities
such as earthmoving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment.
Existing Conditions
Existing Noise Sources
The City is characterized as a predominately urban environment. Much of the City has been developed
with residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Transportation-related noise is the primary noise
source in the City. Other noise sources include noise generated from commercial, residential, and
recreational activities.
Mobile Sources
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated in the Acoustical Assessment for the roadway segments in
the Project vicinity using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the Project traffic analysis (Appendix J). The
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-7 4.11 | Noise
noise prediction model calculated the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes,
average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates
(also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model were modified to reflect average vehicle noise
rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data
indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium
and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along
roadway segments in proximity to the Project site are included in Table 4.11-3, Existing Traffic Noise
Levels.
Table 4.11-3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Land Use ADT dBA CNEL
Barton Road
I-215 SB Ramps to NB Ramps Commercial 17,426 67.3
I-215 NB Ramps to Michigan Street School 23,963 68.8
Michigan Street to Vivienda Avenue School 22,888 68.6
Vivienda Avenue to Mt. Vernon Avenue Commercial 16,225 67.1
Vivienda Ave Barton Road to Michigan Street Commercial 11,801 58.4
Michigan Street
Barton Road to De Berry Street Residential 12,051 64.8
De Berry Street to Van Buren Street Residential 9,126 63.5
Van Buren Street to Pico Street Residential 6,901 62.2
Pico Street to Main Street Residential 5,851 61.5
Main Street to Center Street Residential 3,600 59.4
Main Street
Michigan Street to Grand Terrace HS Driveway School 4,838 58.5
Grand Terrace HS Driveway to Titan Way School 4,825 58.5
Titan Way to Taylor Street/Commerce Way School 5,338 58.8
Taylor Street/Commerce Way to Iowa Avenue Commercial 5,563 59.0
De Berry Street Michigan Street to Mt Vernon Avenue School 2,963 54.9
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependen t upon such
factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.
Source: Ibid. Page 17 – Table 5
As shown in Table 4.11-3, the existing traffic-generated noise level on Project-vicinity roadways currently
ranges from 58.9 dBA CNEL to 69.1 dBA CNEL 100 feet from the centerline. As previously described, CNEL
is 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a
10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hour s of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise
sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.
Stationary Sources
The nearest source of stationary noise in the Project vicinity would come from existing single-family
residential and commercial properties to the east. Noise sources from residential and commercial uses
typically include mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC);
automobile related noise such as cars starting and doors slamming ; and landscaping equipment. The noise
associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise.
Noise Measurements
The Project site is primarily vacant and/or used for storage with interspersed residential uses. As noted in
the Acoustical Assessment, Kimley-Horn staff conducted four short-term noise measurements on
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-8 4.11 | Noise
March 1, 2022, to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity (refer to Appendix A of the
Acoustical Assessment for further detail). The noise measurement sites were representative of typical
existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements
were taken between 10:19 a.m. and 11:38 a.m. on a Tuesday. Measurements of L eq are considered
representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise
measured at each location are listed in Table 4.11-4, Existing Noise Measurements and shown on
Exhibit 4.11-1, Noise Measurement Locations.
Table 4.11-4: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location Measurement Period Duration
Leq
(dBA)
ST-1 21801 De Berry Street, Grand Terrace 10:19 – 10:29 a.m. 10 Minutes 67.4
ST-2 12215 Michigan Street, Grand Terrace 10:38 – 10:48 a.m. 10 Minutes 72.1
ST-3 22110 Van Buren Street, Grand
Terrace 11:04 – 11:14 a.m. 10 Minutes 62.9
ST-4 21950 Pico Street, Grand Terrace 11:28 – 11:38 a.m. 10 Minutes 51.5
Source: Ibid. Page 18 – Table 6
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with
those uses. Noise sensitive uses typically include residences, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, and
places of assembly. Vibration sensitive receivers are generally similar to noise sensitive receivers but may
also include businesses, such as research facilities and laboratories that use vibration-sensitive
equipment. The Project site is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, and indu strial properties
to the east, a high school and park to the south, and I-215 to the north and west. Sensitive land uses
nearest to the Project are summarized in the following Table 4.11-5, Sensitive Receptors.
Table 4.11-5: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project
Single-family Residences Adjacent to the east
Veterans Freedom Park Adjacent to the southeast
Single-family Residences 240 feet to the southeast
Grand Terrace High School 90 feet to the south from nearest sensitive use area
(i.e., tennis courts and baseball fields)
Source: Ibid. Page 20 – Table 7
4.11.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Guidance
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
report to provide guidance on procedures for assessing impacts at different stages of transit project
development. The report covers both construction and operational noise impacts and describes a range
of measures for controlling excessive noise and vibration. The specified noise criteria are an earlier version
of the criteria provided by the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment. In general, the primary concern regarding vibration relates to potential
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-9 4.11 | Noise
damage from construction. The guidance document establishes criteria for evaluating the potential for
damage for various structural categories from vibration.
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city
adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize
the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The
guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,”
“normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family
homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally
acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and
“conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up
to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.
Title 24 – Building Code
The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1,
Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are
applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sour ces. The
regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as
residential buildings, schools, hotel rooms, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise
sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical
studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit
interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings and
habitable rooms (including hotels), the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL .
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
Adopted on April 27, 2010, the City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace General Plan) identifies
interior and exterior noise standards that are used as guidelines to evaluate noise level impacts , as well
as noise/land use compatibility standards.
Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
The Grand Terrace Noise Element has identified interior and exterior noise standards for various land
uses, as depicted in Table 4.11-6, Grand Terrace Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. As shown in
Table 4.11-6, sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, have acceptable exterior noise level standards
of up to 65 dB and interior noise level standards of up to 45 dB.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-10 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-6: Grand Terrace Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use CNEL
Interior1 Exterior2
Residential – Single Family, Multi-family, Duplex, Mobile
Homes 45 dB 65 dB
Transient Lodging, Hotels, Motels, Nursing Homes 45 dB 65 dB
Private Offices, Church Sanctuaries, Libraries, Conference
Rooms, Theaters, Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Meeting Halls 45 dB --
School 45 dB 65 dB
General Offices, Reception/Clerical Areas 50 dB --
Bank Lobbies, Retail Stores, Restaurants 55 dB --
Manufacturing, Kitchens, Warehouses 65 dB --
Parks, Playgrounds -- 65 dB
Golf Courses, Outdoor Spectator Sports, Amusement Parks -- 65 dB
Notes:
1. Standard applies to all habitable interior areas. Standard to be achieved with windows and doors closed. Mechanical ventilati on shall be
provided as required by the Uniform Building Code.
2. Standard applies to all habitable exterior living areas includin g private yards, private patios and balconies, common recreation.
Source: City of Grand Terrace, Grand Terrace General Plan, 2010.
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria
The noise criteria identified in the Table 4.11-7, Grand Terrace Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix
below are guidelines to evaluate noise/land use compatibility. The compatibility criteria listed in
Table 4.11-7 provides the City with a planning tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to
existing and future exterior noise levels. Note that Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix describes
categories of compatibility and not specific noise standards.
Table 4.11-7: Grand Terrace Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Land Use CNEL (dB)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Single Family, Multi-family, Duplex A A B C C D D
Residential – Mobile Homes A A B C C D D
Transient Lodging – Hotels, Motels A A B B C C D
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes A A B C C D D
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters B B C C D D D
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports, Amusement Parks A A A B B D D
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks A A A B C D D
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Cemeteries A A A A B C C
Office and Professional buildings A A A B B C D
Retail Commercial, Banks, Restaurants A A A A B B C
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Service Stations,
Warehousing A A A A B B B
Agriculture A A A A A A A
Notes:
A Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
B Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be under taken only after a detailed analysis of the noise
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and
fresh air systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
C Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
D Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Ibid. Page 13 – Table 4
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-11 4.11 | Noise
The City’s General (Grand Terrace GP) goals and policies that address noise are applicable to the Project:10
Noise Element
Goal 6.1: Protect the citizens of Grand Terrace and sensitive land uses from annoying and
excessive noise generated by non -transportation oriented uses and activities.
Policy 6.1.2 Construction noise on adjacent land uses shall be minimized by limiting the permitted
hours of activity.
Policy 6.1.3 City departments shall observe state and federal occupational safety and health noise
standards.
Goal 6.2: Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of excessive exposure to residential and
commercial land uses.
Policy 6.2.1 The City shall evaluate potential noise impacts as part of the land use planning process
to mitigate or avoid detrimental impacts and enforce the local noise ordinance.
Policy 6.2.2 The City shall establish acceptable noise standards for various land uses throughout
the City of Grand Terrace through the adoption of ordinances and standards.
Policy 6.2.3 New residential developments located in close proximity to existing
commercial/industrial operations shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts and
interior noise mitigation.
Policy 6.2.4 Commercial uses developed as part of any mixed-use project including residential
component shall not be noise intensive. Mixed-use structures shall be designed to
prevent commercial noise impacts to the project’s residential uses.
Policy 6.2.5 New commercial/industrial operations located in proximity to existing or proposed
residential areas shall incorporate noise mitigation into project design.
Policy 6.2.6 Impacts of construction noise on adjacent land uses shall be regulated through limiting
the permitted hours of activity.
Policy 6.2.7 The City shall evaluate potential ground-borne vibration impacts as part of the land
use planning process to mitigate or avoid detrimental impacts on adjacent land uses.
Grand Terrace Municipal Code11
Section 8.108.020 – Loud, annoying, excessive and unnecessary noises prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued,
any excessive or unreasonable noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of any property within the City
or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities resi ding
in the area.
10 City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan. Retrieved at: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning (accessed March 2022).
11 City of Grand Terrace. (2021). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Retrieved at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code (accessed March 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-12 4.11 | Noise
B. Irrespective of whether the noise originates within the City or outside the City, the standard that
may be considered in determining whether excessive noise exists may include, but not be limited
to, the following:
1. Whether the noise can be heard over 100 feet from the property line where the source of the
noise is located;
2. The level of the noise;
3. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;
4. Whether the origin of the noise of natural or unnatural;
5. The level and intensity of the background noise, if any;
6. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities;
7. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;
8. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates or is heard in;
9. The time of the day and night the noise occurs;
10. The duration of the noise, including whether it is of a temporary or short-term nature;
11. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant;
12. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity; and
13. Whether the noise produces vibrations that are felt or heard.
Section 8.108.040 – Special activities.
The following activities shall be exempted from the Chapter 8.108 – Noise:
B. Noises produced by mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment used, related to, or connected
with emergency machinery, vehicles, work or warning alarm or bell, provided the sounding of any
bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate its operation within 30 minutes in any
hour of its being activated.
C. Noises sources associated with or vibration created by construction, repair or remodeling or grading
of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, are exempt from the provisions of Chapter
8.108 – Noise, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m., and 7:00
a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday.
E. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property provided the activities take place
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Section 8.108.050 – Prohibited noise.
The following noises are prohibited and declared to be nuisances:
F. Loading or Unloading of Trucks. No person shall create or cause to be created loud and excessive
noise in connection with the loading or unloading of motor trucks and other vehicles, so as to disturb
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-13 4.11 | Noise
the peace and quiet of adjacent residential neighborhoods, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. The loading or unloading in such a manner as to be loud or excessive at a distance of 50
feet from the trucks or vehicles being unloaded shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this
Section.
G. Operation of Equipment. The operation or use between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of
any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammers, derrick, steam or electric hoist, power driven
saw, forklifts, milling equipment, other tools or apparatus the use of which is attended by loud and
excessive noise, or the movement of tractors, tractor trucks, or large trucks on property adjacent to
residences is prohibited. The operation of such equipment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be loud or excessive at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment
being operated shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this Section. However, it is not the
intent of this Section to prohibit the direct movement of trucks on or off property, at any time;
provided, however, that such movement directly on or off the property shall not be within 50 feet
of an occupied residence.
H. Automotive Repair Works. No person shall do automotive repair, automotive body or fender or
other work on metal objects and metal parts between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., in or
adjacent to any residential district, so as to cause loud and excessive noise which disturbs the peace
and quiet of the residential neighborhood. The doing of such activities as are prohibited in this
Subsection in such a manner as to be loud or excessive at a distance of 50 feet from where such
prohibited activity is being done shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this Section.
Section 18.74.060 – Vibration Standards.
Uses shall be operated in compliance with the following provisions:
1. The generation of vibration of a duration and intensity so as to be excessive, disturbing, or
objectionable to persons located off-site, shall not be permitted.
2. Uses shall not generate ground vibration that interferes with the operations of equipment and
facilities of adjoining parcels.
4.11.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions pertaining to noise. The
issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this
section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant adverse environmental impact if it would result
in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-14 4.11 | Noise
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment
published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Admi nistration (FHWA).
Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise
level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the
noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.
Construction noise modeling was conducted using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based
on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound
attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of
intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the
noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of actual
temporary construction noise. The City does not have established quantitative construction noise
standards. As noted above, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for
residential uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.
Operations
The analysis of the without Project and with Project noise environments is based on noise prediction
modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project
operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise
measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise
levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a
worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.
Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s noise ordinance and
Grand Terrace GP.
An analysis was conducted of the Project’s effect on traffic noise conditions at off-site land uses. Without
Project traffic noise levels were compared to with Project traffic noise levels. The environmental baseline
is the without Project condition. The without Project and with Project traffic noise levels in the Project
vicinity were calculated using the FHWA highway noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The actual
sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance
and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise
attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in
the model used in the Acoustical Assessment. Therefore, the modeling effort is considered a worst-case
representation of the roadway noise. In general, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to
people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-15 4.11 | Noise
Vibration
Ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were
evaluated utilizing typical ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction equipment,
obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential ground-borne vibration impacts
related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated,
considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria.
For a structure built traditionally, without assistance from qualified engineers, the FTA guidelines show
that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage.
FTA guidelines show that modern engineered buildings built with reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber
can withstand vibration levels up to 0.50 in/sec and not experience vibration damage. The Caltrans 2020
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies the vibration threshold as 0.2
in/sec for building damage.
Assumptions
Construction Noise
The Project is within the City and adjacent to the City of Colton and the County of Riverside. The cities of
Grand Terrace and Colton do not establish quantitative construction noise standards; therefore, the
Acoustical Assessment conservatively used the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses
and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.12
Operational Noise
Non-Transportation Noise
Non-transportation related noise generators are commonly called “stationary,” “fixed,” “area,” or “point”
sources of noise. Mechanical equipment and HVAC equipment are examples of fixed location, non-
transportation noise sources.
In general, commercial noise within the City is not considered excessive. However, where residential
locations are adjacent to commercial zones, a significant impact may exist if exterior noise levels exceed
65 dBA CNEL (refer to Table 4.11-6), which is the exterior noise standard established by the Grand Terrace
GP Noise Element for residential receptors.
Mobile Noise
Traffic noise, including automobiles, trucks, and other motor vehicles is the most pervasive source of noise
in the City. Traffic generated noise impacts are evaluated based on the land use compatibility standards
within the Grand Terrace GP. A traffic noise level increase is considered substantial if:
• The existing noise levels exceed the objectives presented in Table 4.11-6 (60 dBA CNEL for
residential and noise sensitive areas and 70 dBA CNEL for commercial) and the Project would
increase this noise level by 3 dBA CNEL (barely noticeable in an exterior environment) or more; or
12 Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. Page 21.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-16 4.11 | Noise
• The noise level with the implementation of the Project would remain within the objectives shown
in Table 4.11-6, but the Project adds 5 dBA CNEL (noticeable to most people) or more to the pre-
Project noise levels. General Plan build-out will result in traffic volumes that result in noise level
increases of 5 dB or greater along most Circulation Element roadways.
Vibration
The City currently does not have a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts. The Caltrans 2020
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies the vibration threshold as 0.2
in/sec for building damage.
4.11.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.11-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
As noted in 4.11.1, Introduction, the Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to
guide all future development proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there
are no development projects proposed at this time. All subsequent development projects, including
construction and operations, undertaken within the Project’s PAs would be subject to project-specific City
discretionary review and approval. Construction activities associated with the Project are conservatively
estimated herein to be completed within two phases.
Individual projects within the Project area would generate temporary construction noise during that could
exceed existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, but construction noise would be short-term in
duration and would cease with the completion of individual development projects. Noise impacts
associated with construction activity are a function of the noise generated by construction equipment,
the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise -generating
activities. Each phase of construction involves different types of equipment and has distinct noise
characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest several
pieces of equipment.
The noise produced at each construction phase is determined by combining the Leq contributions from the
top three loudest pieces of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the ongoing time -
variations of noise emissions (commonly referred to as the usage factor). Heavy equipment, such as a
dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels of up to 85 dB A at 50 feet. However,
overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on what specific activity is being performed at any
given moment.
Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power
requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from
construction activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-17 4.11 | Noise
diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation
effects from air absorption, ground effects, and shielding effects), the average noise levels at noise -
sensitive receptors could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around
the site (site of each development phase) with different loads and power requirements.
The Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) does not establish quantitative exterior
construction noise standards; however, Grand Terrace MC Section 8.108.040 states that construction
activities are exempt from the noise provisions of Grand Terrace MC Chapter 8.108 – Noise, provided that
construction activities do not take place between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturday, or
anytime on Sunday or national holidays. While the Grand Terrace MC does not establish quantitative
construction noise standards, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq)
for residential uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise
impacts.13 Standard construction provides 25 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation with windows
closed and 15 dBA with windows open.14 Therefore, it can be assumed that exterior noise levels of 80 dBA
would equal 55 dBA when measured from the interior with windows closed.
Noise levels from Project-related construction activities were calculated from the top three loudest
construction equipment at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the acoustical center) to the property
line of the nearest receptors. Although construction may occur across the Project area, the distance from
the center of the Project construction area to various sensitive receptors, best represents the potential
average construction-related noise levels.
The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are single-family residences located to the east of the Project site.
Additionally, as the proposed residential land uses would be developed in Phase 1, the nearest on-site
receptors during Phase 2 construction would be those previously constructed residential uses. Distances
were measured from the center of the Project construction site to the property line. The center of the
construction site is used because the Leq metric is an average and equipment would move around the site,
a center distance represents the average. As shown in Table 4.11-8, Construction Noise Levels at
Sensitive Receptors, construction activities would not exceed the 80 dBA Leq residential threshold for on-
and off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction related noise impacts would be less than
significant.
13 Ibid. Page 25
14 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), 1979.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-18 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-8: Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors
Construction Phase
Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Off-Site Receptors On-Site Receptors
Single-Family
Residences to
the East
Veterans
Freedom
Park to the
Southeast
Single-Family
Residences to
the Southeast
Grand Terrace
High School to
the South
On-Site Residences to
the South of Phase 2
Construction
On-Site
Residences to
the East of Phase
2 Construction
Demolition 61.7 57.0 55.6 52.1 62.1 69.4
Site Preparation 60.5 55.8 54.4 50.9 60.9 68.2
Grading 61.3 56.6 55.3 51.8 61.7 69.0
Building Construction 60.5 55.8 54.5 50.9 60.9 68.2
Architectural Coating 50.8 46.1 44.7 41.2 51.2 63.0
Paving 55.3 50.6 49.3 45.8 55.7 58.5
Combined Overlapping
Phases1 62.0 57.3 56.0 52.4 58.9 66.2
Exceed 80 dBA Threshold? No No No No No No
1. Overlapping phases combine b uilding construction, architectural coating, and paving.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. Page 25 – Table 8.
Operations
Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise
sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing and future nearby residences
include the following:
• Traffic noise;
• Mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioners, etc.);
• Slow moving delivery/trash trucks on the Project site; and
• Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, engine start-up, and car pass-by).
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments.
Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, the Project would generate a total of 17,279 daily trips. When
accounting for internal capture and diverted trips, the Project would generate 14,535 daily trips. “Opening
Year Without Project” and “Opening Year With Project” scenarios are compared in Table 4.11-9, Off-Site
Traffic Noise Levels. As shown in Table 4.11-9, the “Opening Year Without Project” roadway noise levels
would range from 55.1 dBA CNEL to 69.7 dBA CNEL and the “Opening Year With Project” scenario would
range from 56.2 dBA CNEL to 70.6 dBA CNEL. Project generated traffic would result in a maximum increase
of 3.5 dBA; however, because the “Opening Year With Project” noise level at this roadway segment
remains below 70 dBA CNEL for commercial uses, an increase of 5 dBA is necessary to result in a significant
impact. Existing roadway segments with sensitive uses that exceed 60 dBA CNEL would require an increase
of 3 dBA to result in a significant impact. As shown in Table 4.11-9, the Project would not result in any
significant impacts, in fact noise levels along multiple roadways segments would decrease following
construction of the Project.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-19 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-9: Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Opening Year
Without Project
Opening Year
With Project
Change
Noise
Threshold2
Significant
Impact ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT dBA
CNEL1
Barton Road
I-215 SB Ramps to NB
Ramps 23,938 68.7 27,700 69.3 0.6 5 No
I-215 NB Ramps to
Michigan Street 29,863 69.7 36,475 70.6 0.9 3 No
Michigan Street to
Vivienda Avenue 28,726 69.6 35,338 70.5 0.9 3 No
Vivienda Avenue to Mt.
Vernon Avenue 19,813 67.9 28,313 69.5 1.6 5 No
Vivienda Ave Barton Road to Michigan
Street 14,188 59.2 30,250 62.5 3.3 5 No
Michigan
Street
Barton Road to De Berry
Street 14,463 65.5 9,738 63.8 -1.7 3 No
De Berry Street to Van
Buren Street 11,401 64.5 6,688 62.2 -2.3 3 No
Van Buren Street to Pico
Street 9,088 63.4 4,451 60.3 -3.1 3 No
Pico Street to Main
Street 8,013 62.9 3,400 59.2 -3.7 3 No
Main Street to Center
Street* 6,025 61.7 4,988 60.8 -0.9 3 No
Main Street
Michigan Street to Grand
Terrace High School
Driveway*
6,363 59.7 4,313 58.0 -1.7 5 No
Grand Terrace High
School Driveway to Titan
Way*
6,338 59.7 4,276 58.0 -1.7 5 No
Titan Way to Taylor
Street/Commerce Way* 6,975 60.0 4,913 58.4 -1.6 5 No
Taylor Street/Commerce
Way to Iowa Avenue* 7,301 60.1 16,163 63.6 3.5 5 No
De Berry
Street
Michigan Street to Mt.
Vernon Avenue 3,088 55.1 4,026 56.2 1.1 5 No
ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; NB = northbound .
* = area contains portions of Unincorporated Riverside County
Bold = Noise levels decrease with Project
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors
as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.
2. Potential impacts occur when the Project change exceeds 3 dBA and the land use compatibility standard is exceeded (i.e., both must occur).
Source: Ibid. Page 26 – Table 9.
On-Site Traffic Noise
Future residents at the Project site would be exposed to mobile traffic noise along Taylor Street,
Commerce Way, De Berry Street, and Van Buren Street. Table 4.11-10, On-Site Traffic Noise Levels - Local
Roadways identifies traffic noise levels at 50 feet from the roadway centerline.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-20 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-10: On-Site Traffic Noise Levels - Local Roadways
Roadway Segment
Opening Year
With Project
Noise
Threshold
(dBA CNEL)
Significant
Impact ADT dBA CNEL1
Taylor Street Main Street to Van Buren Street 14,550 63.0 60 Yes
Commerce Way
Van Buren Street to De Berry Street 18,000 64.2 60 Yes
De Berry Street to Michigan Street 17,760 64.1 60 Yes
De Berry Street Commerce Way to Michigan Street 3,885 59.6 60 No
Van Buren Street Commerce Way to Michigan Street 4,070 57.5 60 No
1 Traffic noise levels are at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such
factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.
Source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2022.
Refer to Appendix B for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results .
As shown in Table 4.11-10, the “Opening Year With Project” traffic noise levels along adjacent roadways
(i.e., Taylor Street, Commerce Way, De Berry Street, and Van Buren Street) would range from 57.5 to
64.2 dBA CNEL. Therefore, future on-site residences facing adjacent roadways would experience traffic
noise levels above the City’s 60 dBA Normally Acceptable exterior standard for residential uses. As such,
the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI-1, which requires a detailed
acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise
standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction
features (barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). Further, MM NOI-1 also requires all residential units to be
designed to ensure that interior noise levels in habitable rooms from exterior sources (including vehicles
on adjacent roadways) shall not exceed 45 dBA, in compliance with the General Plan Noise Element and
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Compliance with MM NOI-1 would ensure on-site mobile
noise impacts would be less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment
The proposed residential and commercial land uses would use HVAC units. Residential HVAC systems
typically result in noise levels that average 52 dBA at 50 feet from the source and commercial HVAC
systems typically result in noise levels that average 79 dBA at 3.28 feet from the source.15,16 Although
detailed site plans for future development within the Project site have not yet been developed, HVAC
equipment associated with commercial uses would typically be roof mounted. At the time of this analysis,
identification of specific mechanical equipment and detailed site plans have not been developed.
Assuming HVAC units could be located as close as 10 feet from on-site receptors, HVAC noise levels could
be approximately 69.3 dBA which would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL).
Further, the nearest off-site sensitive receptor from potential HVAC units on the Project site is located
approximately 15 feet to the east. At this distance, HVAC noise levels would be approximately 65.8 dBA,
which would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL). Therefore, MM NOI-2 would
be implemented to ensure noise-generating stationary source equipment would not exceed the City’s
noise regulations at on-site and off-site receptors.
15 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.
16 TRANE, Packaged Rooftop Air Conditioners, https://www.trane.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/global/products -
systems/equipment/unitary/rooftop -systems/foundation-15-to-25-tons/RT-PRC078H-EN_12032022.pdf, accessed May 2023.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-21 4.11 | Noise
Truck Deliveries and Trash/Recycling Collection
The proposed Project would involve occasional deliveries and weekly trash/recycling collection from slow-
moving trucks. The predominant noise source during on-site operations would be from on-site truck
movements and idling. Typically, slow-moving, heavy-duty delivery trucks accessing loading docks can
generate a maximum noise level of approximately 68 dBA at a distance of 30 feet.17 These activities are
expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as trucks arrive and leave the parking lot areas for
deliveries. The closest off-site sensitive receptors (i.e., single-family residences to the east) are located
approximately 15 feet to the east of potential truck movement at the Project site. At this distance, noise
levels would be approximately 74 dBA. However, an existing masonry wall would separate the nearest
sensitive receptors and the Project site, which would result in a noise level reduction of at least 10 dBA.18
Therefore, noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor would be approximately 64 dBA which is
below the City’s exterior noise standard (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL). Therefore, noise levels generated from slow-
moving truck activity at the Project site would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard. Thus, impacts
resulting from truck activities at off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
As previously discussed, on-site sensitive receptors would be located adjacent to commercial land uses.
As specific Project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify noise impacts
associated with slow-moving truck loading dock activity at specific sensitive receptors. Development
projects would be subject to environmental review, and specific mitigation measures would be
implemented to reduce noise impacts associated with slow-moving truck loading dock activity.
Notwithstanding, slow-moving truck loading dock activity noise levels would be reduced through
implementation of MM NOI-2. MM NOI-2 would ensure on-site sensitive receptors are not exposed to
noise levels above the City’s noise standards. Thus, noise impacts associated with slow-moving trucks
would be less than significant with implementation of MM NOI-2.
Parking Lots
Traffic associated with parking lots is not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards that
are based on a time averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound
levels generated by a car door slamming, an engine starting-up, and car passing by range from 53 dBA to
61 dBA at 50 feet from the source.19 The Project proposes commercial uses adjacent to existing residential
uses (north and south of De Berry Street) and proposed residential uses (north of Van Buren Street).
Although there are no specific development projects proposed at this time, future commercial parking
lots would potentially be located adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. The nearest off-site
sensitive receptors are located approximately 15 feet to the east of potential commercial parking areas
at the Project site. At this distance, parking area noise levels would range from approximately 63.5 dBA
to 71.5 dBA.20 Further, the nearest on-site sensitive receptors could be located approximately 10 feet from
potential commercial parking areas at the Project site. At this distance, parking area noise levels would
range from approximately 67.0 dBA to 75.0 dBA. Therefore, parking lot noise levels at the nearest off-site
17 Loading dock reference noise level measurements conducted by Kimley-Horn on December 18, 2018.
18 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 87, Highway Noise Barriers, December 1981,
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_87.pdf, accessed December 2022.
19 Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.
20 Based upon the Inverse Square Law (dBA2 = dBA1+20Log[d1/d2]), sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the
source.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-22 4.11 | Noise
and on-site sensitive receptors may exceed the City’s exterior noise standard (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL).
MM NOI-2 would ensure off-site and on-site sensitive receptors are not exposed to noise levels above the
City’s noise standards. Thus, noise impacts associated with parking lot activity would be less than
significant with implementation of MM NOI-2.
Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 On-Site Noise Attenuation. As part of the Site Development Review Permit process
for the proposed residential developments, a detailed acoustical study based on
architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and
submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department to
demonstrate that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise
standard for all common outdoor living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall
demonstrate that interior noise levels at all residential units at the Project site would
meet the City’s 45 dBA threshold. This mitigation measure complies with the
applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations). The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise
control measures at the receiver locations. Where closed windows are required to
achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit, Project plans and specifications shall include
ventilation as required by the California Building Code. The final grading and building
plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers (patio enclosure, wall, berm, or
combination wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall install these
barriers and enclosures.
MM NOI-2 Stationary Noise Sources. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Noise Assessment
shall be prepared, for submittal and approval of the City of Grand Terrace City
Planner, which demonstrates on-site placement of stationary noise sources at
commercial uses would not exceed noise standards established in the City of Grand
Terrace General Plan and City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code Chapter 8.108, Noise.
The Noise Assessment shall verify that stationary noise sources (e.g., loading dock
facilities, mechanical equipment, and parking lots) are adequately shielded and/or
located at an adequate distance from on-site and off-site sensitive receptors and
residences in order to comply with noise regulations established by the City of Grand
Terrace.
Impact 4.11-2: Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Construction activity can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread
through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Construction on the Project site would
have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the
specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-23 4.11 | Noise
The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general,
the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be
conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human
perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary
buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks)
at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and
underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond
similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed
with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec
is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
Table 4.11-11, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical
construction equipment. Vibration levels at 15 feet, the distance from the Project boundary to the nearest
existing structure is also included in Table 4.11-11. Groundborne vibration generated by construction
equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As
indicated in Table 4.11-11, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction
equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec
PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.
Table 4.11-11 : Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
at 26 Feet (in/sec)1
Reference Peak Particle
Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 15 Feet (in/sec)1
Vibratory Roller 0.1980 0.210 0.4518
Large Bulldozer 0.0839 0.089 0.1915
Caisson Drilling 0.0839 0.089 0.1915
Loaded Trucks 0.0717 0.076 0.1635
Jackhammer 0.0330 0.035 0.0753
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.0028 0.003 0.0065
1 Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment
adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
Note: The project construction activities do n ot include pile driving.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. Page 31 – Table 12.
The nearest structure to the Project construction site is approximately 15 feet away to the east. As shown
in Table 4.11-11, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that may be
used during Project construction range from 0.0065 to 0.4518 in/sec PPV at 15 feet from the source of
activity. All construction equipment would remain below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold at a distance
of 15 feet, with the exception of vibratory rollers. As depicted in Table 4.11-11, vibratory roller operations
may exceed the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold within 15 and 25 feet of a structure. Therefore,
implementation of MM NOI-3 would be required. Pursuant to MM NOI-3, should construction activities
requiring operation of vibratory rollers take place within 26 feet of a structure, a Project-specific vibration
impact analysis shall be conducted.21 With implementation of MM NOI-3, impacts would be less than
significant.
21 26 feet is the distance at which the threshold is not exceeded.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-24 4.11 | Noise
Operations
The operation of the Specific Plan would not include any substantial long -term vibration sources. The
Project would include truck movement activity at the Project site for deliveries and trash/recycling
collection. These movements would generally be low-speed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would
occur over new, smooth surfaces. For perspective, Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of
vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate
the highest earthborne vibrations of normal traffic.”22 Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-
generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on
freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches
per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks
were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins
and ancient monuments (and historic buildings)”.23 Since truck movements on the Project site would be
at low speed (not at freeway speeds) and would be over smooth surfaces (no t under poor roadway
conditions), Project-related vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive
groundborne vibrations; no vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no
sources of substantial groundborne vibration associated with operation of the Project, such as rail or
subways. Therefore, Project related vibration impacts from the operation of the Project would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-3 Construction Vibration. Future development projects with construction activities
requiring operation of vibratory rollers within 26 feet of a structure shall be required
to prepare a project-specific vibration impact analysis to evaluate potential
construction vibration impacts associated with the project, and to determine any
specific vibration control mechanisms that shall be incorporated into the project’s
construction bid documents to reduce such impacts. Contract specifications shall be
included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Impact 4.11-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The closest airport to the Project site is the San Bernardino International Airport located approximately 6
miles to the northeast. The Project is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or within an airport land use
plan. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project
22 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibrati on Guidance Manual, 2020.
23 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (“TeNS”), September 2013.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-25 4.11 | Noise
would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise levels
and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Other Noise Topics
Interstate 215 (I-215) Traffic
The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (California Building Industry Association v. Bay
Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 [No. S 213478]) confirmed that CEQA, with several
specific exceptions, is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the
existing environment may have on a project. Therefore, this section is not required under CEQA an d is
included for informational purposes only. The evaluation of the noise threshold exceedances in the
following discussion is provided to ensure compliance with City and State Building Code noise standards.
On-site traffic noise levels from I-215 were modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5)
software. TNM is a state-of-the-art computer program used for predicting noise impacts in the vicinity of
highways. It uses advances in personal computer hardware and software to improve upon the accuracy
and ease of modeling highway noise, including the design of effective, cost-efficient noise barriers. Traffic
volumes along I-215 were obtained from the Caltrans Traffic Census Program.24 Truck ADT and fleet mix
data was also obtained from Caltrans Traffic Census. The I-215 freeway and future on-site residential
receptors were digitized in TNM 2.5 based on the Project land use plan and available topographical data
for the Project area. The model accounted for the differences in elevation between the freeway and each
receiver and included noise reductions from existing retaining walls and sound walls along I-215.
Table 4.11-12, On-Site Traffic Noise Levels - I-215 provides the traffic noise modeling results for I-215 at
on-site residential receptors.
Table 4.11-12: On-Site Traffic Noise Levels – I-215
Receptor No. Land Use Exterior Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)
Interior Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)1
1 Residential 58.1 33.1
2 Residential 56.5 31.5
3 Residential 56.1 31.1
4 Residential 55.7 30.7
5 Residential 55.0 30.0
6 Residential 54.6 29.6
7 Residential 53.8 28.8
8 Residential 55.6 30.6
9 Residential 55.5 30.5
10 Residential 55.2 30.2
11 Residential 54.7 29.7
12 Residential 54.2 29.2
13 Residential 54.9 29.9
14 Residential 53.7 28.7
24 California Department of Transportation, Traffic Census Program, http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/, accessed December 6, 2022.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-26 4.11 | Noise
Receptor No. Land Use Exterior Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)
Interior Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)1
15 Residential 53.1 28.1
16 Residential 52.4 27.4
1 Interior noise levels were calculated assuming an exterior -interior sound reduction of 25 dBA from standard construction practices, per
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Noise Guidebook, available at:
https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/313/hud -noise-guidebook/ (2009).
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. Page 27 – Table 10.
As indicated in Table 4.11-12, exterior traffic noise levels from I-215 would not exceed the City’s 60 dBA
exterior noise standard for patios, balconies, and/or common outdoor living areas at the Project site. In
addition, interior noise levels from I-215 traffic would not exceed the City’s and/or Title 24 noise standard
of 45 dBA CNEL for residential uses; see Table 4.11-12. Therefore, on-site traffic noise levels from I-215
would not exceed the City’s exterior or interior noise level standards for residential uses.
4.11.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVO IDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning noise were identified.
4.11.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels. Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts that would cease upon
completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction
project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise
analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant with
adherence to the Grand Terrace MC.
Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to
comply with applicable City regulations related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on
the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals
would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of
approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts
are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise
impacts would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result
in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative
impact existed, and impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing
conditions with the development of the Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts
would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the proposed
Project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by
comparing the “Existing” and “Horizon Year Without Project” scenarios to the “Horizon Year With Project”
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-27 4.11 | Noise
scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the
transportation model, as well as cumulative projects.
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the
combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is
used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase.
• Combined Effect. The cumulative “Horizon Year With Project” noise level would cause a significant
cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise
level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a
significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects
(combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In
other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed Project.
• Incremental Effects. The “Horizon Year With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the
“Opening Year Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been
exceeded and the “Horizon Year With Project” noise levels exceed the acceptable noise levels on the land
use compatibility matrix. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the
source increases. Consequently, only the Project and growth due to occur in the general area would
contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
Table 4.11-13, Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway
segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Horizon Year Without Project,” and “Horizon Year with
Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts.
Table 4.11-13: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Existing
dBA CNEL
Horizon
Year
Without
Project1
dBA CNEL
Horizon Year
With
Project1
dBA CNEL
Combined Effects Incremental
Effects
Land Use
Threshold
dBA CNEL
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference In dBA
Between Existing
and Horizon Year
With Project
Difference In dBA
Between Horizon
Year Without
Project and Horizon
Year With Project
Barton
Road
I-215 SB
Ramps to NB
Ramps
67.3 69.3 69.9 2.6 0.6 75 No
I-215 NB
Ramps to
Michigan
Street
68.8 70.3 71.1 2.3 0.8 60 No
Michigan
Street to
Vivienda
Avenue
68.6 70.2 71.0 2.4 0.8 60 No
Vivienda
Avenue to
Mt. Vernon
Avenue
67.1 70.0 70.1 3.0 0.1 75 No
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-28 4.11 | Noise
Roadway Segment Existing
dBA CNEL
Horizon
Year
Without
Project1
dBA CNEL
Horizon Year
With
Project1
dBA CNEL
Combined Effects Incremental
Effects
Land Use
Threshold
dBA CNEL
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference In dBA
Between Existing
and Horizon Year
With Project
Difference In dBA
Between Horizon
Year Without
Project and Horizon
Year With Project
Viviend
a Ave
Barton Road
to Michigan
Street
58.4 61.2 62.6 4.2 1.4 75 No
Michiga
n Street
Barton Road
to De Berry
Street
64.8 63.4 64.3 -0.5 0.9 60 No
De Berry
Street to Van
Buren Street
63.5 62.4 63.2 -0.3 0.8 60 No
Van Buren
Street to
Pico Street
62.2 61.4 62.0 -0.2 0.6 60 No
Pico Street
to Main
Street
61.5 61.1 61.7 0.2 0.6 60 No
Main Street
to Center
Street*
59.4 61.5 61.9 2.5 0.4 60 No
Main
Street
Michigan
Street to
Grand
Terrace HS
Driveway*
58.5 61.2 61.5 3.0 0.3 60 No
Grand
Terrace HS
Driveway to
Titan Way*
58.5 60.9 61.2 2.7 0.3 60 No
Titan Way to
Taylor
Street/Com
merce Way*
58.8 61.3 61.6 2.8 0.3 60 No
Taylor
Street/Com
merce Way
to Iowa
Avenue*
59.0 63.9 64.4 5.4 0.5 75 No
De
Berry
Street
Michigan
Street to Mt
Vernon
Avenue
54.9 56.4 57.2 2.3 0.8 60 No
ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level. * = area contains portions of
Unincorporated Riverside County
Bold = Noise levels decrease with Project
Source: Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. Page 34 – Table 13.
Table 4.11-13 shows the volume of traffic generated by the Project would not meet the criteria for
cumulative noise increases. Thus, cumulative operational noise impact from related projects, in
conjunction with Project-specific noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts
would be less than significant.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.11-29 4.11 | Noise
Cumulative Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources of the Project would result in an incremental increase in non -transportation noise
sources in the Project vicinity. However, as discussed above, operational noise caused by the Project
would be less than significant with implementation of MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2. Similar to the Project,
other planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby
sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized, there is a limited
potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operat ional noise
levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project
must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together
with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact, and even if there was such a
significant cumulative impact, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative operational noises.
Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-site
activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative
operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project specific noise impacts, would
not be cumulatively significant.
4.11.8 REFERENCES
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan. Retrieved at:
https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning
City of Grand Terrace. (2021). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Retrieved at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code
Federal Transit Administration (2018) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment, Appendix I.
Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix J1.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1979). Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9 -79 -100).
Exhibit 4.11-1: Noise Measurement Locations
City of Grand Terrace
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
!.
!.
!.
!.ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
ST-4
PROJECT
SITE
Pico St
Ta
y
l
o
r
S
t
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
S
t
Van Buren St
De Berry St
Barton Rd
%&h(
%&h(
!.Noise Measurement Locations
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates (2022) Acoustical Assessment
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-1 4.12 | Population and Housing
4.12 P OPULATION AND H OUSING
4.12.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to analyze The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project)’s estimated
population, housing, and employment effects relative to the County of San Bernardino (County) and City
of Grand Terrace (City), and to evaluate whether it would induce substantial unplanned population growth
in the area, or displace people or housing. Mitigation measures to avoid/reduce impacts are identified as
needed.
Population growth, in and of itself, does not directly constitute a physical impact on the environment.
However, population growth may generate secondary, or indirect environmental impacts as defined
under CEQA, such as criteria air pollutant emissions (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality ), greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), increased demands for public services
(refer to Section 4.13, Public Services), and infrastructure capacity (refer to Section 4.17, Utilities and
Service Systems). These indirect population growth-related environmental effects are addressed in the
applicable sections of this Program EIR.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanism to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
4.12.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following regional and local population, housing, and employment conditions provide the context for
the environmental analysis.
Population
County of San Bernardino
Table 4.12-1, County of San Bernardino Population, presents population estimates and forecasts for the
County based on the California Department of Finance (DOF) and the Southern California Association of
Government (SCAG)’s demographic data. As identified in Table 4.12-1, the County’s estimated 2022
population was 2,187,665 persons and is forecasted to increase to 2,815,000 persons by 2045, which
constitutes an approximate 29 percent increase between 2022 and 2045.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-2 4.12 | Population and Housing
Table 4.12-1: County of San Bernardino Population
2010a 2016a 2022b 2045 Forecastc
County Total (persons) 2,035,210 2,122,579 2,187,665 2,815,000
a. DOF. (2021). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Retrieved
from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates -e5-2010-2020/ (accessed November 29, 2022).
b. DOF. (2022). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark. Retrieved
from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-
2020-2022/ (accessed November 29, 2022).
c. SCAG. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020 – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. (accessed November 29, 2022).
City of Grand Terrace
Table 4.12-2, City of Grand Terrace Population, identifies the City’s population estimates and forecasts
based on available DOF and SCAG data. As indicated in Table 4.12-2, the City’s 2022 population was
13,042 persons. The City’s population is forecasted to increase to approximately 14,500 persons, which
constitutes an approximate 11 percent increase between 2022 and 2045. The City’s 2022 population of
13,042 persons represented approximately 0.60 percent of the County’s 2022 population of 2,187,665
persons. The City’s population growth from 2010 to 2022 has a percentage increase of approximately 8
percent between 2010 and 2022.
Table 4.12-2: City of Grand Terrace Population
2010a 2016a 2022b 2045 Forecastb
City Total (persons) 12,040 12,327 13,042 14,500
a. DOF. (2021). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.
Retrieved from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimate s/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed November 29, 2022).
b. DOF. (2022). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark.
Retrieved from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-
the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed November 29, 2022).
c. SCAG. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020 – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics -and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579
Housing
County of San Bernardino
Table 4.12-3, County of San Bernardino Housing Characteristics, presents data on the County’s past and
present housing supply. As indicated in Table 4.1 2-3, the County’s 2022 housing supply totaled
approximately 740,654 units, with an average of 3.19 persons per household. Single-detached dwelling
units represented a majority of the County’s housing stock, comprising 525,570 of the 740,654 units or
approximately 71 percent of total housing units. The County’s 2022 overall vacancy rate was 8.9 percent
(approximately 65,622 unoccupied housing units).
SCAG uses existing census, historical trends and expert-derived demographic and economic assumptions
to determine its growth forecasts through Connect SoCal’s horizon planning year of 2045. Based on SCAG’s
most recent growth forecast, the County’s households are forecast to i ncrease to 875,000 by 2045,
representing an approximately 18 percent increase over the existing 740,654 households.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-3 4.12 | Population and Housing
Table 4.12-3: County of San Bernardino Housing Characteristics
Units 2010a 2016a 2022a
Single Detached 498,965 506,601 525,570
Single Attached 24,640 24,887 25,620
Multi-Family, Two to Four Units 45,123 45,680 47,409
Multi-Family, Five or More Units 87,405 90,843 97,958
Mobile Homes 43,504 43,770 44,097
Total Housing Units 699,637 711,781 740,654
Occupied 611,618 629,119 675,032
Vacancy Rate 12.6% 11.6% 8.9%
Persons per Household (average) 3.26 3.31 3.19
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 -2022, with 2010 Census
Benchmark. Sacramento, California, January 2022. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5/. (accessed
November, 2022).
City of Grand Terrace
Table 4.12-4, City of Grand Terrace Housing, presents data on the City’s past and present housing supply.
As noted in Table 4.12-4, the City’s 2022 housing supply totaled 4,899 units, with an average of
2.75 persons per households. The City’s 2022 housing supply represented 0.66 percent of the County’s
2022 housing supply. Similar to the County, single detached dwelling units represented a majority of the
City’s housing supply, comprising approximately 62 percent of total housing units. However, the City’s
2022 vacancy rate of 4.1 percent is significantly lower to the County’s vacancy rate of 8.9 percent.
Furthermore, the City’s average household size of 2.75 persons per household is also lower than the
County’s average of 3.19 persons per household.
Based on SCAG’s Growth Forecast, the total number of housing units in the City is anticipated to increase
to 5,600 by 2045, representing a significant increase of approximately 14 percent over existing conditions.
This increase is nominally lower than projected growth throughout the County.
Table 4.12-4: City of Grand Terrace Housing Characteristics
Units 2010a 2016a 2022a
Single Detached 2,893 2,893 3,047
Single Attached 124 189 165
Multi-Family, Two to Four Units 471 741 487
Multi-Family, Five or More Units 869 869 898
Mobile Homes 292 292 302
Total Housing Units 78,009 4,683 4,899
Occupied 4,403 4,437 4,696
Vacancy Rate 5.3% 5.3% 4.1%
Persons per Household (average) 2.71 2.75 2.75
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 -2021, with 2010 Census
Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-4 4.12 | Population and Housing
Employment
County of San Bernardino
The State Employment Development Department (EDD) reports the County labor force was 1,020,300
persons in September 2022.1 Of the County’s labor force, 39,000 persons were unemployed representing
an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. According to EDD, jobs in the County totaled 981,400.2 SCAG
forecasts that the County’s employment will increase to 972,000 jobs by 2035 and 1,064,000 jobs by
2045.3 This indicates an approximate 8.4 percent increase in jobs between 2022 and 2045.
City of Grand Terrace
The State EDD reports that that City’s labor force was 6,800 persons in September 2022.4 Of the City’s
labor force, 300 persons were unemployed representing an unemployment rate of approximately
3.9 percent. According to EDD, jobs in the C ity totaled 6,500. Comparatively, the City’s existing
unemployment rate is 0.1 percent higher than the County’s unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. SCAG
forecasts that the City’s employment will decrease to 6,100 jobs by 2045, representing a 6.2 percent
decrease.
Jobs-Housing Balance
The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined
geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs
and housing in an area—in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs
versus the price of housing—has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues.
The jobs/housing ratio is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project
area. SCAG applies the jobs-housing ratio at the regional and sub regional levels to analyze the fit between
jobs, housing, and infrastructure.
Ideally, job-housing balance would be a ratio of 1.0 to 1.25. A higher ratio would indicate more jobs than
housing, while a lower ratio would indicate more housing. A job-housing imbalance can indicate potential
air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting.
Based on the City’s housing demographics data provided in Table 4.12-2, the City’s job-to-housing ratio in
2022 was also 1.33. This suggests an availability of 1.33 jobs for every housing unit in the City. A jobs-to-
housing ratio greater than one implies there is suitable housing available in the area to accommodate the
workforce.
1 State of California, Employment Development Department. (September 2022). Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated
Places (CDP) (San Bernardino County). Retrieved from https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-
cities-and-census-areas.html. (Accessed November, 2022).
2 State of California, Employment Development Department. (September 2022). Monthy Labor Force Data for Counties September 2022 .
Retrieved from: https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/industry-employment-and-unemployment-rates-for-counties.html.
(accessed December 2022).
3 Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). SCAG RTP/SCS: Connect SoCal Plan – Demographics and Growth Forecast. Retrieved
from https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file -attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
(Accessed November, 2022).
4 State of California, Employment Development Department. (September 2022). Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census
Designated Places. Retrieved from https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor -force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-
areas.html#CCD. (Accessed November, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-5 4.12 | Population and Housing
Based on the County’s housing demographics data provided in Table 4.12-3, the County’s jobs-to-housing
ratio in 2022 was 1.33. This means that in 2020, there were 1.33 jobs for every housing unit in the County.
4.12.3 REGULATORY SETTING
State
California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Also known as the California Building Code, Title 24 establishes minimum requirements to safeguard
safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the build environment; to promote
safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations; and public health, safety
and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, access for persons
with disabilities, sanitation, adequate lighting, and ventilation and energy conservation.
Additionally, included under Title 24 is the California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11), also know,
as CALGreen. CALGreen is the nation’s first state-mandated green building code. It provides for
environmentally responsible and resource-efficient activities, from new building design and sustainable
construction to full operational use for the built environment.
Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) Title 15 – Buildings and Construction includes, but is
not limited to, Chapter 15.08, Building Code, which adopts the 2019 California Building Code as the City’s
building code for regulating the construction, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and maintenance
of all buildings and/or structures in the City. In addition, Grand Terrace MC Chapter 15.17, adopted the
2019 Green Building Standards Code as the City’s green building code for regulating the planning, design,
operation, construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure.
California Planning and Zoning Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth
(California Government Code [CGC] § 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies
housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet
that need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the
relative share of California’s projected population growth in each county based on California DOF
population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. The RHNA is a tool used for SCAG and its
member local governments in planning for growth. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each
jurisdiction. Communities then plan, consider, and decide how they will address this need through the
process of completing the Housing Elements of their General Plans. The RHNA does not necessarily
encourage or promote growth but allows communities to prepare for growth in a way that enhances
quality of life and mobility; improves access to jobs, transportation, and housing; and in a way that would
not adversely impact the environment.
State law recognizes the vital role that local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing.
To that end, the California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals
to:
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-6 4.12 | Population and Housing
• Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and
improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities.
• Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production,
maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with
disabilities.
• Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income
households.
• Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable
housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
• Preserve for lower-income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in
each community.
California housing element laws (CGC §§ 65580 –65589) require that each city and county identify and
analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and
programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic
segments of the community commensurate with local housing needs.
Regional
SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this
region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. It serves as a forum for addressing regional issues
concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG develops,
refines, and maintains SCAG's regional and small area socioeconomic forecasting/allocation models. SCAG
is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and
state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their
impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with
the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Transportation, and other
agencies in preparing regional planning documents. The socioeconomic estimates and projections are
used for federal and state-mandated long-range planning efforts such as the regional transportation
plan/sustainable communities’ strategy, the air quality management plan, the federal transportation
improvement program, and the RHNA.
The RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of housing element and general plan
updates at the local level. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing by income g roup within each
jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The RHNA is used in land use planning, to prioritize local
resource allocation and to help decide how to address existing and future housing needs. The RHNA also
allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region can grow in ways that enhance
quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity and fair
share housing needs.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-7 4.12 | Population and Housing
SCAG Connect SoCal
In September 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy or Connect SoCal which is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing
needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals towards 2045. Connect SoCal includes a
strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375,
improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This long -range plan,
required by the State of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as
demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The Connect SoCal is a living, evolving
blueprint for the region’s future. The City is a member jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Council of
Governments, and a participating agency in SCAG’s Connect SoCal.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
Housing Element
The Housing Element functions as an integral part of the City’s efforts to manage the development of
incorporated lands and includes a description of existing housing types, the condition of existing units, an
analysis of overcrowding, overpayment, special housing needs, and the demand for affordable housing in
the City. The Element also includes a discussion of the progress made over the previous planning period,
and projections of needs for the next eight years.
The following goals, objectives, and policies in the City’s Housing Element are applicable to the Project:
Goal 2.1: Provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment
and housing opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community.
Policy 2.1.7 The City shall continually refine population growth forecasts to ensure adequate
planning for anticipated increased levels of sewerage, water, and other necessary
community services.
Goal 8.1: Provide and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs and sufficient in
number to serve existing and projected residents of Grand Terrace.
Policy H 8.1.1 Promote and encourage development of housing, which varies by type, design, form
of ownership and size.
Policy H 8.1.2 Maximize use of remaining vacant land suitable for residential development.
Policy H 8.1.3 Promote and encourage infill housing development and more intensive use of
underutilized land for residential construction.
Policy H 8.1.4 Encourage the use of innovative land use techniques and construction methods to
minimize housing costs without compromising basic health, safety and aesthetic
considerations.
Goal 8.2: Promote and encourage housing opportunities, accessible to employment centers
and quality community services for all economic segments of the community
including designated very low, low, and moderate income households.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-8 4.12 | Population and Housing
Policy H 8.2.1 Continue a policy of expeditious processing of residential development proposals and
permits.
Policy H 8.2.2 Encourage a wide range of housing types, prices and ownership forms in new
construction.
Policy H 8.2.3 Emphasize and promote the role of the private sector in the construction of low-and
moderate-income housing.
Policy H 8.2.4 Support the development of cost saving and energy conserving construction
techniques.
Policy H 8.2.8 Streamline administrative procedures for granting approvals and permits and
establish time limits for such approvals to minimize time, costs and uncertainty
associated with development.
Policy H 8.2.9 Provide zoning, subdivision and construction incentives to minimize the cost of new
and rehabilitated units.
Policy H 8.2.10 Promote mixed use development that includes provisions for affordable housing.
Goal 8.3: Provide and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs and sufficient in
number to serve existing and projected residents of Grand Terrace.
Policy H 8.3.4 Upgrade community facilities and municipal services as community needs warrant.
Policy H 8.3.11 Preserve the physical character of existing neighborhoods.
4.12.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning population and housing. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning population and housing. This analysis considers
the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce
the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance
with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. The baseline conditions and impact analyses are
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-9 4.12 | Population and Housing
based on review of various demographic data available in public records, including local planning
documents.
4.12.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.12-1: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Employment Growth
Construction
Out of the City’s labor force, 300 persons out of 6,800 persons, were unemployed, representing an
unemployment rate of approximately 3.9 percent. According to EDD, jobs in the City totaled 6,500. SCAG
forecasts that the City’s employment will decrease to 6,100 jobs by 2045, representing a 6.2 percent
decrease. The Project would be developed with a mix of residential, commercial, public utilities and public
park land uses, including associated infrastructure within 22 Planning Areas (PA). Construction of the
Project would also include off-site roadway improvements and would occur in two phases. Project
Construction would generate construction-related employment opportunities. Construction jobs
generally do not constitute an inducing action since they are temporary in nature and are anticipated to
be filled by persons, locally and regionally. As noted above, the City has a jobs-to-housing ratio greater
than one, which implies there is suitable housing available in the area to accommodate the workforce.
Construction of the Project would generate temporary employment opportunities. Construction related
jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they ar e temporary, and since
development would occur in two phases, would limit the amount of employment opportunities provided
on a site-specific level. Therefore, Project construction would not directly or indirectly induce substantial,
unplanned population growth and a less than significant impact would occur.
Operations
The Project’s proposed commercial land uses would bring permanent jobs in the City. As described in the
City’s existing employment conditions, the City’s employment of 6,500 already surpasses SCAG’s
forecasted employment of 6,100 by 2045. Although the Project would further generate employment,
passing SCAG’s forecasted employment for the City, the forecasted increase would be well within the
County’s forecasted employment of 1,064,000 by 2045. In addition, the Project would contribute to the
City’s population by approximately 1,911 persons which could help fill the permanent employment
opportunities.5 Furthermore, permanent employment opportunities are expected to be filled by the local
area and surrounding region due to the City’s unemployment rate of 3.9 and County’s unemployment rate
of 3.8.
5 Determined by multiplying the average person per household (2.7 5) by the proposed dwelling units (695).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-10 4.12 | Population and Housing
The specific number of Project-generated employees would be determined on a project-per-project basis.
Each specific development in the Project area would be subject to project-level discretionary review and
approval to determine impacts concerning population growth-inducing impacts. Additionally, buildout of
the Project would be subject to compliance with all state, regional, and local requirements for minimizing
growth-related impacts. Therefore, the Project’s population growth due to employment opportunities
would be less than significant.
Housing Growth
Buildout of the Project could potentially increase the population growth by approximately 1,911 persons
with the addition of up to 695 dwelling units.6 Residential land use, located in Planning Areas 11, 12,
14 through 16, 19, and 20, encompass approximately 43 acres of the Specific Plan. Residential use in this
area would account for nearly 39 percent of the total land uses in the Specific Plan and allow up to a
maximum of 786 dwelling units. However, when considering the development standards, site constraints,
roads, and infrastructure, the potential number of dwelling units to be developed is projected to be
approximately 695, which would not exceed the maximum allowable number of 786 d welling units.
Therefore, the total 695 dwelling units is the projected maximum net number of dwelling units set forth
in the Specific Plan. A jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 to 1.25 is considered balanced. The City currently has a
ratio of 1.33 and is therefore considered to have more jobs than housing, however, the anticipated
housing development would help increase housing in the City as required by the City’s RHNA goals. The
anticipated housing growth would also aid in the achievement of a healthier balanced jobs-housing ratio
by 2045. Lastly, the population and housing growth of 1,911 persons and 695 dwelling units would be
within the SCAG’s forecasted 2045 population and housing growth for the City and County. Therefore, the
Project’s population growth due to housing would not be substantial, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Transportation Growth
Furthermore, upon implementation of the Project, Commerce Way would be extended from its terminus
point southward to Taylor Street and then connecting to Main Street. As part of the Commerce Way
extension, the existing Taylor Street portion will also be improved and widened all the way south to its
connection at Main Street. Along Commerce Way, the western sidewalk would be eliminated between
De Berry Street and Van Buren Street. A sidewalk would exist on the east side of the street.
Commerce Way/Taylor Street would be a secondary highway that runs northeast near I-215. Commerce
Way/Taylor Street would be the main entry to the Project area, as well as leading into the City. By
providing another entry into the City, this would generate an increase in commercial and passenger
vehicles, impacting circulation and mobility growth within the City. However, this new roadway would
alleviate traffic from Michigan Street and allow commercial vehicles to travel on a new, wider, four -lane
road, constructed to accommodate increased vehicular circulation. Lastly, expanded improvements for
Commerce Way/Taylor Street would be developed in compliance with Grand Terrace GP Policy 3.1.3,
which envisions that Commerce Way would provide movement of traffic from commercial and business
6 Ibid.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-11 4.12 | Population and Housing
uses. Therefore, the Project’s proposed circulation improvements would cause a less than significant
impact to the City’s circulation system. Refer to Section 4.15, Transportation for further discussion.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would generate approximately 1,911 persons, as well as employment
opportunities in the City. All growth is planned in accordance with the SCAG Connect SoCal Plan and would
improve the City’s job-housing imbalance. The Project’s potential employment would be covered by the
regional and local labor force, including the Project’s future residents due to the development of up to
695 dwelling units. A less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.12-2: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project site is comprised of predominately vacant land and currently contains six existing residential
structures with associated accessory structures on De Berry Street and Van Buren Street. Of these
residential structures, five are currently occupied, and one is vacant. Therefore, development of the
Project would result in the temporary displacement of residents within the existing residential units until
alternative residences are found. Although buildout of the Project would displace both housing and
people, the existing residences are currently considered non-conforming since the existing underlying
land use and zoning do not permit residential use within the Gateway SP boundary. The Project proposes
several entitlements which include, but not limited to, a zone change to convert the existing zoning
designations to “Specific Plan” which would allow the development of residential, commercial, and public
facilities land uses. As previously stated, residential land use, located in Planning Areas 11, 12, 14 through
16, 19, and 20, encompass approximately 43 acr es of the Specific Plan and the total number of dwelling
units and will not exceed the allowable maximum of 786 dwelling units within the Specific Plan.
Considering the 2022 total population, average number of residents per unit, and number of housing units
within the City, the existing six residences would contain approximately 16.5 persons and account for
approximately 0.12 percent of total housing units in the City in 2022. 7 As stated in Impact 4.12-1 above,
the Project proposes up to 695 dwelling units and would increase the population City by approximately
1,911 persons. Although the Project would temporarily displace housing, the Project would provide the
housing for the units lost. Considering the 2022 vacancy rate of 4.1 percent within the City, there are
approximately 203 vacant units that could accommodate the existing residents.8 To further assist existing
residents, the County could provide the existing residents assistance in locating replacement housing
through the County’s Housing Authority. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
7 Determined by multiplying the average person per household (2.75) by the existing (6) residences.
8 Determined by subtracting occupied units from total units.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.12-12 4.12 | Population and Housing
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.12.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant and unavoidable population and housing impacts have been identified.
4.12.7 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
Buildout of the Project would provide a planned increase in the City’s population, housing, and
employment characteristics. Future development within the Project area , consistent with other
cumulative projects would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis at a project-level and would undergo CEQA
discretionary review and approval versus the Grand Terrace GP goals and policies, Grand Terrace MC
regulations and design standards, and other applicable state and regional regulation. This would ensure
that project-specific impacts are minimized to the furthest extent possible. As discussed above, the
projected population growth due to the Project would not be significantly inducing and would be generally
consistent with SCAG’s regionally planning goals towards 2045. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated
with the buildout of the Project would be less than significant.
4.12.8 REFERENCES
SCAG. 2020. SCAG RTP/SCS: Connect SoCal Plan – Demographics and Growth Forecast.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-
growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
State of California, Department of Finance. 2022. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State, 2011-2022, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, January 2022.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/.
State of California, Employment Development Department. (September 2022). Monthly Labor Force Data
for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) (San Bernardino County). Retrieved from
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-
census-areas.html.
State of California, Employment Development Department. (September 2022). Month ly Labor Force Data
for Counties September 2022. Retrieved from:
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/2209pcou.pdf.
State of California, Employment Development Department. (September 2022). Labor Force and
Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places. Retrieved from
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-
census-areas.html#CCD.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-1 4.13 | Public Services
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICE S
4.13.1 INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates the potential impacts that The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project)
would have on existing public services, by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating its relationship
to existing and planned public services facilities and availability. Per the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the emphasis in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is on impacts to public services by the
Project that could require the construction or expansion of existing public service facilities resulting in a
physical impact on the environment within the City of Grand Terrace. For purposes of this EIR, public
services include the following: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and library services . In
addition, this section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for public services, as it pertains
to implementation of the Project.
The environmental setting discussion is based largely on review of documents and information including
the City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) and the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
(Grand Terrace MC).
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanism to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, p ublic
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
4.13.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
City of Grand Terrace Public Services
Fire Protection
The City contracts with San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCoFD) for fire and rescue
services, which provides the following services:1
• Multiple Household Hazardous Waste Programs
• Structural Fire Suppression
1 City of Grand Terrace. Fire. (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/fire#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Grand%20Terrace,for%20fire%20and%20rescue%20services.&text=For%20additiona
l%20information%2C%20contact%20us,%2FFireHazardAbate ment%2FFireHazardAbatementHome.aspx. (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-2 4.13 | Public Services
• Wildland Fire Suppression including County hand crews, bulldozers, and helicopter suppression
services
• Emergency Medical Services including basic life support
• Technical Rescue Services
• Hazardous Materials Mitigation
• Incident Command and Control including Battalion Chiefs, Division Chiefs, and a County Incident
Management Team
• Code Enforcement through the California Building Code and California Fire Code
• Pre-Fire Planning Services
• Public Education Services
The SBCoFD provides fire protection services for the City. Fire Station Number 23, located at 22582 Center
City Court, is responsible for providing fire protection to the community and consists of paid and volunteer
staffing.2 Station 23 would serve the site and is approximately two miles northeast of the Project area.
This station is staffed by three full-time fire personnel during the fire season (May 1 through November
30) and by two full-time fire personnel during the non-fire season (December 1 through April 30). The full-
time personnel are augmented by an on-call company of 20 paid call firefighters who respond to fire and
rescue calls and provide response coverage to the station when on-duty personnel are committed to an
emergency call.3
Equipment stationed at Station 23 includes the following :4 5
• Medic Engine 23
• One Type 1 Fire Engine used for structural fires and general response to all calls
• One Type 2 Squad Truck used for augmented response in conjunction with the Rescue Unit
• One Type 3 Rescue Truck used for all types of technical rescue
• One Shoring Trailer used for to carry emergency shoring materials for structural collapse and
trench collapse rescues
• There is only one Fire Demand Zone for the City and the average response time is 5 minutes,
23 seconds.
2 San Bernardino County Fire & Rescue Station Map. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1gXRGFAud9BV92Yhqvv7Y0yrfQ -I&ll=34.06078102424003%2C-
117.28561894085699&z=13. (accessed November 2022).
3 City of Grand Terrace. Fire. (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/fire (accessed November 2022).
4 City of Grand Terrace General Plan. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/city_of_gt_general_plan.pdf (accessed
November 2022).
5 Fire Department. San Bernardino County Fire Department. (2021). Retrieved from: https://sbcfire.org/ (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-3 4.13 | Public Services
Police Protection
The City contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Department to provide general patrol
services as well as all necessary management and support services. Sheriff’s services are operated from
the County’s main Sheriff’s station at 655 East Third Street in the City of San Bernardino, approximately
nine miles from the Project site via Interstate 215 ( I-215).6 The department serves over 2.1 million
residents, with eight counties and 14 patrol stations. The department consists of approximately 3,600
employees. The department’s dispatch center takes in approximately 1,014,509 calls for service annually,
and deputies write approximately 102,271 reports annually.7
Average police service response times in 2021 , are summarized in Table 4.13-1, Police Response Times,
below. Response times are based off a priority basis. High-priority report calls are those in which the
physical well-being of a person is in jeopardy. Examples would include injury traffic accidents, suicide
attempts, domestic disputes, any call involving the use of weapons, including fights and robberies w ould
be considered high priority and are in the priority one category. Also included in priority calls, but to a
lesser degree in the second priority category, are calls in which property is jeopardized, i.e., burglaries,
thefts, or malicious damage, where the crime is in progress or where the crime has just occurred, and the
suspects are still in the area. Priority three calls do not require immediate response but should be dealt
with accordingly. All calls of this type must be carefully and accurately eva luated by the call-taker to
ensure that no person is in immediate danger. Priority four calls are informational in nature, or the time
element dictates that no person or property is in jeopardy. Calls in the priority four category are handled
in the order in which they are received.8
Table 4.13-1: Police Response Times for 2021
Priority Response Time
Priority Emergency 03:55
Priority 1 06:54
Priority 2 09:31
Priority 3 11:06
Priority 4 11:35
Source: Lieutenant Brian Lane with San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Chief of Police for City of Grand Terrace. (Phone and Email
Conversation). December 2022.
The following services are provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff:
• A 168-hour general law patrol unit. This reflects 1 patrol unit, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
• Two 40-hour general law patrol units.
• One 40 -hour detective unit.
• One Community Service Officer (CSO). The CSO is provided to coordinate various programs,
including citizen patrol, crime prevention, and other community programs. The CSO trains
6 San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department. Central Station. (2021). Retrieved from: https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/patrol-
stations/central-station/. (accessed November 2022).
7 San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department. (2022). Retrieved from: https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/about-us/. (accessed December 2022).
8 San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department Manual. (2019). Retrieved from:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/sheriff/sb978/Department/Department%20Manual%20Master%2012-16-19.pdf (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-4 4.13 | Public Services
volunteers, conducts educational safety programs, and interacts with the public and businesses
on various community activities.
• Other services provided are processing of background checks, crime analysis, statistical gathering
and reporting, periodic bike patrols, emergency enforcement backups, and juvenile and jail
facilities. Access to Sheriff’s special units is available as needed, and includes helicopter support,
SWAT team, Narcotics team, Homicide, Crime Lab, Arson/Bomb Unit, etc.
Schools
All public schools within the City are owned and operated by the Colton Joint Unified School District
(CJUSD).9 Presently, there are two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school operated
by CJUSD within the City limits. Grand Terrace Elementary is approximately three roadway miles northeast
of the Project site; Terrace View Elementary is approximately 0.6 roadway miles northeast; Terrace Hills
Middle School is approximately 0.6 roadway miles east; Grand Terrace High School is adjacent to the
Project area towards the southern Project boundary line near Planning Areas (PAs) 19, 20, and 22.
Table 4.13-2, School Enrollment identifies the last five school years up to the most current enrollment,
for each of these schools.
Applicable school fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. In the event of overcrowding
at any of the local schools, newly registered children may be transferred to other schools throughout the
CJUSD until local capacity is available.
Table 4.13-2: School Enrollment
School Enrollment
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022
Grand Terrace Elementary 689 654 659 592 598
Terrace View Elementary 830 829 795 764 690
Terrace Hills Middle 985 994 986 884 872
Grand Terrace High 2,114 1,955 1,823 1,792 1,826
Source.
CJUSD. Ed-data.org. (2023). Retrieved from: http://www.ed -data.org/district/San-Bernardino/Colton-Joint-Unified. (accessed February 2023).
Data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) through the Cali fornia Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
(CALPADS). Aggregate data files are provided by the CDE – Data Reporting Office at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filesenr.asp . (accessed
November 2022). Counts of students in charter schools and traditional district schools were taken from the FRPM data file at
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/filessp.asp . (accessed November 2022).
Parks
The City has seven public parks that include facilities for baseball, soccer, basketball, jogging, playgrounds,
picnicking, and casual activities.10 This includes Blue Mountain Trail, which provides for recreational
activity and scenic views. Refer to Section 4.14, Recreation, for further discussion on parks and recreation.
Public Libraries
The Grand Terrace Branch Library is part of the San Bernardino County Library System. It is located in the
Grand Terrace Civic Center at 22795 Barton Road in Grand Terrace. The Grand Terrace Branch Library is
9 CJUSD. District School Map. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.colton.k12.ca.us/domain/40 (accessed November 2022).
10 City of Grand Terrace. (2021). Parks. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/public_works/parks_recreation/parks
(accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-5 4.13 | Public Services
open seven days a week and provides on-site and internet services to patrons of the San Bernardino
County Library System.
4.13.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
In March 2003, FEMA became part of the US Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing
mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal
response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactiv e mitigation
activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the
U.S. Fire Administration.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2 000
This Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §5121) was signed into law to amend the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. §5121-5207). Among other things, this legislation reinforces the
importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide and is
aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and
programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
i) Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities;
ii) Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk;
iii) Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements;
iv) Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the hazard mitigation grant
program; and
v) Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded.
The mitigation planning provisions outlined in §322 of this Act establish performance-based standards for
mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance Infrastructure Mitigation
[AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that fail to develop an
infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced federal share of damage assistance from
75 percent to 25 percent if the damaged facility has been damaged on more than one occas ion in the
preceding 10-year period by the same type of event.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public
accommodation and State and local government services. Under the ADA, the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board issues guidelines to ensure that facilities, public sidewalks, and
street crossings are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Public play areas, meeting rooms, park
restrooms, and other buildings and park structures must comply with ADA requirements.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-6 4.13 | Public Services
State
Title 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 1270 and 6773
In accordance with CCR, Title 8 §1270 “Fire Prevention” and §6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Equipment,”
the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has established minimum
standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited
to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions
on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and
emergency medical equipment.
California Code of Regulations Title 24 (California Bui lding Standards Code)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC),
includes regulations for how buildings are designed and constructed, and are intended to ensure the
maximum structural integrity and safety of private and public buildings. The CBSC, which applies to all
applications for building permits, consists of 12 parts that contain CBSC administrative regulations for all
State agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local ag encies must ensure the
development complies with the CBSC standards. Cities and counties can adopt additional standards
beyond the CBSC including CBSC Part 2, named the California Building Code (CBC).
California Building Code
The State provides a minimum standard for building design through the CBC, which is in Part 2 of Title 24
of the CCR. CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been modified for California
conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification
based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan checked by local City and County
building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the
installation of sprinklers in all commercial and residential buildings; the establishment of fire resistance
standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of
debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9 – California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) contains regulations consistent with nationally recognized accepted
practices for safeguarding, to a reasonable degree, life and property from various hazards, including fire
and explosion, among others. The CFC also contains provisions to assist emergency response personnel.
The CFC is pre-assembled with the International Fire Code with necessary California amendments. The
CFC contains fire safety-related building standards that are referenced in other parts of CCR Title 24. The
CFC is updated once every three years; the 2022 CFC took effect on January 1, 2023. The CFC sets forth
regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices
such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training.
The CFC provides minimum standards to increase the ability of a building or stru cture to resist the
intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic
reduction in fire losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-7 4.13 | Public Services
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in California Health and Safety Code §13000 et seq., and include
provisions concerning building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices,
and fire suppression training, as also set forth in the 2019 California Building Standards Code and related
updated codes.
Mutual Aid Agreements (MAA)
The Emergency Management Mutual Aid (EMMA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county
emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland
regions of the state. EMMA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the
Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field
Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected
jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the MAA,
local and state emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans
and procedures.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management Agency (Cal-EMA)
In 2009, the State of California passed legislation creating the Cal-EMA and authorizing it to prepare a
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) program (Title 19 CCR §2400 et seq.), which sets
forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non -compliance with SEMS
could result in the state withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an
emergency disaster.
Cal-EMA serves as the lead state agency for emergency management. Cal -EMA coordinates the state
response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for emergency
management resides with local government. Local jurisdictions first use their own resources and, as these
are exhausted, obtain more from neighboring cities and special districts, the county in which they are
located, and other counties throughout the state through the statewide mutual aid system. In California,
the SEMS provides the mechanism by which local government requests assistance. Cal -EMA serves as the
lead agency for mobilizing the state’s resources and obtaining feder al resources; it also maintains
oversight of the state’s mutual aid system.
California Penal Code
All law enforcement agencies within the State of California are organized and operated in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules of conduct,
and training for peace officers. Under state law, all sworn municipal and county officers are state peace
officers. There are no relevant State regulations pertaining to police protection.
California Education Code Section 17620
California Education Code §17620, et seq. allows school district governing boards to collect impact fees
from developers of new commercial and residential construction.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-8 4.13 | Public Services
California State Assembly Bill (AB) 2926
The State of California has traditionally been responsible for the funding of local public schools. To assist
in providing facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the State passed AB 2926
in 1986. This bill allowed school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and
commercial building space. Development impact fees were also referenced in the Leroy F. Greene School
Facilities Act of 1998, which required school districts to contribute a matching share of project costs for
construction, modernization, or reconstruction.
California Department of Education Code Section 17212.5
The California Department of Education Code §17212.5 states that “no school building shall be
constructed, reconstructed, or relocated on the trace of a geological fault along which surface rupture can
be reasonably expected to occur within the life of the school building.”
California Government Code Section 65995 and Education Code
California Government Code, §65995 is found in Government Code, Title 7, Chapter 4.9. Government Code
§65995 authorizes school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and
commercial building space. Senate Bill (SB) 50 amended Government Code §65995 in 1998. Under the
provisions of SB 50, schools can collect fees to offset costs associated with increasing school capacity as a
result of development.
The provisions of SB 50 prohibit local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use
approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and reinstate the school facility fee cap for
legislative actions (e.g., General Plan amendments, Specific Plan adoption, Zoning amendments) as was
allowed under the Mira,11 Hart,12 and Murrieta13 court cases. The provisions of Chapter 4.9 are the
exclusive means of considering as well as mitigating school impacts caused by new development.
Accordingly, these provisions limit the scope of impact review in an EIR, the mitigation that can be
imposed, and the findings a lead agency must make in justifying its approval of a project (Government
Code §65995-65996). According to Government Code §65996, the provisions of Chapter 4.9, including
development fees authorized by SB 50, are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation….”
These provisions remain in place as long as subsequent State bonds are approved and available.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The following Grand Terrace GP goals and policies are applicable to public ser vices and pertinent to the
Project.
11 Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (Mira).
12 William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Comm. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (Hart).
13 Murrieta Valley Unified School Dist. v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1212 (Murrieta).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-9 4.13 | Public Services
Public Health and Safety Element
Goal 5.6: Minimize the exposure of residents, business owners, and visitors to the impacts of
urban and wildland fires.
Policy 5.6.3 Encourage the use of fire-resistive construction materials.
Public Services Element
Goal 7.1: Coordinate and balance the provision of public services with existing and planned
development to eliminate service gaps, maximize the use of existing public facilities
and services, provide a high level of quality public services at a reasonable cost, and
maintain adequate services to meet the needs of current and future City residents
and businesses.
Policy 7.1.1 All proposed development shall be evaluated to determine whether current public
services and facilities can meet with their needs. If determined that current services
and facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of new development, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be applied to the new development to assure an adequate
level of service
Policy 7.1.2 The City shall establish and periodically update a Development Impact Fee program
for new development designed to generate adequate fees to provide new public
services and facilities necessary to serve the new development.
Goal 7.5: Provide for adequate law enforcement and police protection services and facilities.
Policy 7.5.1 Work with the County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that adequate police personnel,
response times, and equipment are available to meet current and future dem ands of
the City’s residents and businesses.
Goal 7.6: Provide for adequate fire protection services and facilities.
Policy 7.6.1 Work with the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District to ensure that adequate
fire protection personnel, response times, and equipment are available to meet
current and future demands of the City’s residents and businesses.
Policy 7.6.2 Work with Riverside Highland Water Company to ensure adequate water pressure for
fire fighting throughout the City.
Goal 7.7: In cooperation with the Colton Joint Unified School District, provide adequate public
educational facilities and programs.
Policy 7.7.2 Cooperate with the School District in the collection of school impact mitigation fees
for all new developments within the City.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
The Grand Terrace MC establishes Development Impact Fees for Public Use Facilities and Parkland and
Open Space Acquisition in Chapter 4.80 Development Impact Fees. Title 15 Building and Construction
regulates site and building development in accordance with applicable building and fire codes.14
14 City of Grand Terrace. Municipal Code. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT15BUCO . (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-10 4.13 | Public Services
4.13.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning public services. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
▪ Fire protection
▪ Police protection
▪ Schools
▪ Parks (refer to Section 4.14, Recreation)
▪ Other public facilities
Methodology a nd Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning public services. This analysis considers the
existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or redu ce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn;
review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of
various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a
Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on public services standards
considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount
of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.13.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.13-1: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
A significant impact would result if development of the Project site would result in a significant increase
in demand for fire protection services, police protection, schools, parks, or other facilities such that new
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-11 4.13 | Public Services
or physically altered stations, schools, parks, or other facilities or location from which services are
provided would be needed. If the construction or operation of such facilities would cause substantial
environmental effects due to the expansion or construction of facilities on new sites needed to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives , a potentially significant
impact could result.
I) Fire protection?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
As stated in Section 4.13.2 above, the City receives fire protection services from the SBCoFD and the
primary fire protection services are operated from Station 23. Station 23 has 3 personnel assigned to one
Medic Fire Engine. Project Buildout could result in significant increases in emergency response times and
performance objectives concerning fire protection services. However, fire service expenses associated
with the Project would stem from the SBCoFD funds which receive funds from the City through a 1 percent
dedication of City’s property tax assessment. Property tax revenues generated from development of the
site would also provide funding to offset potential increases in the demand for fire protection during
Project buildout. The Project is anticipated to bring $492,499 in revenue for the SBCoFD. Where possible,
infrastructure and physical improvements within the Project boundary may be installed in two
overlapping or consecutive phases. Construction of the Project would be phased in a logical sequence, in
response to market demands. The Specific Plan incorporates two phases, which would help reduce the
pace at which increased fire protection services are needed, since development would not occur
concurrently.
Additionally, the Project is required to adhere to Grand Terrace MC Chapter 4.80 Development Impact
Fees, which would require each applicant to pay a development impact fee (determined by the table
provided in Chapter 4.80) imposed by the City to pay for all or a portion of costs of providing public services
(i.e., fire protection services) associated with new development. The Project would be in compliance with
the SBCoFD, 2022 CFC, and 2022 CBC, and development standards set forth in the Specific Plan which
includes, but is not limited to, fire safety and fire suppression features. In addition, major development
areas would be provided with looped on-site mains to assure adequate pressure for fire suppression. Fire
hydrants would be installed at locations approved by the SBCoFD and Riverside Highland Water Company
lines would be extended to loop around the Project site.
In addition, Project development would be required to comply with the 2022 CFC and 2022 CBC while also
undergoing plan reviews and inspections by the SBCoFD – Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM), which is
required for any new development.15 The OFM has a unique position within the Fire Department as the
Inspection, Investigation, and Regulatory function of the San Bernardino County Fire Departme nt. While
active in emergency preparedness and response to fires and hazardous materials incidents, the OFM also
accomplishes the vital purpose of preventing emergencies through the education and enforcement of
15 OFM. (2020). Retrieved from: https://sbcfire.org/planreviews/. (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-12 4.13 | Public Services
health and safety laws and regulations. The O FM includes the Hazardous Materials, Community Safety
and Household Hazardous Waste Divisions.
Overall, the Project would receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection
facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
Because no fire protection facilities exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict
with existing fire structures or require modification of fire protection facilities. Compliance with applicable
local and state regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than
significant impact to fire protection services.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.13-1: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
II) Police protection?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
As discussed in Section 4.13.2 above, the City contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner
Department to provide general patrol services as well as all necessary management and support services.
Sheriff’s services are operated from the County’s main Sheriff’s station at 655 East Third Street in the City
of San Bernardino, approximately nine miles from the Project site via I-215. The San Bernardino County
Sheriff-Coroner Department is authorized to serve the City of Grand Terrace. In 2021 there were a total
of 6,738 dispatched calls and 8,395 proactive calls and the 50,342 calls and the response time of patrol to
the Priority One calls was 6:54 minutes. As previously mentioned, the department serves over 2.1 million
residents and consists of approximately 3,600 employees. The department’s dispatch center takes in
approximately 1,014,509 calls for service annually, and deputies write approximately 102,271 reports
annually.16
Current staffing levels for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department meets the existing service
demands for police protection within the City. The need for increased police service within the City is
determined by increases in service calls, demands on existing personnel, crime levels, and population. The
gradual increase in population and development associated with the Project would require continued
assessment of the adequacy of law enforcement staffing within the City.
16 San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department. (2022). Retrieved from: https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/about-us/. (accessed December 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-13 4.13 | Public Services
As discussed in the fire protection analysis above, infrastructure and physical improvements within the
Project boundary may be installed in two overlapping or consecutive phases. Construction of the Project
would be phased in a logical sequence, in response to market demands. Therefore, the Project would not
require the immediate need for police services. The need for additional personnel or equipment was
already analyzed in the Grand Terrace GP. Project development would be subject to the San Bernardino
County Sheriff-Coroner Department review, which would ensure that development conform s to the San
Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Department emergency access and site/facility security requirements
and recommendations, and thereby reduce demands on law enforcement services.
Additionally, the Project applicant would pay the required Police Facilities Impact fees, property taxes,
and other revenues generated by development that would be available to the City to offset any increased
costs for law enforcement services with little or no net effect on the City’s budget. Furthermore, the
San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Department’s response to letter requesting information on the
Department’s ability to serve build-out of the Specific Plan indicated that the Project would be adequately
served. Furthermore, prior to commencement of construction activities, Project plans would be reviewed
by applicable local agencies to ensure compliance with the City’s MC as well as all applicable regulations
to ensure adequate site signage, lighting and other crime safety preventative measures are implemented.
Construction of the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. The Project would not substantially affect
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives such that new facilities are required. The
Project also would include design elements such as lighting of streets, walkways, and bikeways; visibility
of doors and windows from the street; and fencing of the property. These measures would help reduce
demands for law enforcement services and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.13-1: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
III) Schools?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The City’s public education facilities are provided and maintained by the Colton Joint Unified School
District (CJUSD). These schools include Grand Terrace High School, adjacent to the Project site, Grand
Terrace Elementary School (12066 Vivienda Avenue) loca ted approximately 3 miles northeast of the
Project site, and Terrace Hills Middle School (22579 De Berry Street) located approximately 0.6 mile to
the east of the Project site.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-14 4.13 | Public Services
The Project would create a direct demand for public school services within the CJUSD, as the subject
property would contain residential uses that would generate increased population likely including school-
aged children requiring public education. The Project is expected to bring additional residents to the
school district; however, with anticipated increases of population per the City’s GP, the CJUSD and the
City ensure adequate planning for anticipated increases in population that indirectly impacts school
enrollment. Table 4.13-3, Projected Student Population, shows the projected student population
associated with Project implementation. Upon buildout, future development of the Project would
generate an increased student population demand in the City by approximately 456 potential students
enrolling in elementary through high school.
Table 4.13-3: Projected Student Population
School Level Student/Dwelling Unit1 Number of Dwelling Units2 Number of Students
K-12 0.58 695 456
Notes:
1. Demand factor used for student populations, per Section 4.12, Population and Housing, multiplied by 21.3% persons under 18 years of age
within the City. Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/grandterracecitycalifornia .
2. Assumes 786 dwelling units; see Table 3-3: Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Land Use Summary.
As school facilities within the City have been overall declining in enrollment (refer to Table 4.13-2), school
facilities are anticipated to have sufficient capacity for the growth in the Grand Terrace GP and Project
area. Additionally, the Project applicant would be required to pay the impact fees levied by the CJUSD, set
within the limits of California SB 50 (Greene). This funding program has been found by the Legislature to
constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school fa cilities
(Government Code §65995[h]). SB 50 establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on
the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the
individual school districts. The school districts, including the CJUSD, within the City qualify for Level 1 fees,
in which each district justifies their development fees for each land use and cannot request payment of
development fees for school facility construction exceeding the amount of the sta tutory fees expressed
in Education Code §17620. The development fees authorized under the Education Code are $4.79 per
square foot of new residential construction and $0.78 per square foot of new commercial/industrial
development (for K-12 districts).17 If school districts conduct a school facility needs assessment and qualify
for participation in the State Funding Program by the State Allocation Board, among meeting other
requirements, they can be eligible for Level 2 and Level 3 Fees. SB 50 also relieves jurisdictions from having
the authority to deny approval of a legislative or adjudicative action under CEQA in reference to real estate
development based upon the inadequacy of school facilities. Since the Project would pay any applicable
fees pursuant to SB 50, a less than significant impact would occur.
Developer fees for commercial development located in the CJUSD is $0.78 per square foot of covered and
enclosed space for new commercial construction and senior housing projects . Developer fees for new
residential development or residential additions in excess of 500 square feet are $4.79 per square foot of
assessable space for additions to existing residential construction within the CJUSD.18
17 Colton Joint Unified School District. (2022). Developer Fees. Retrieved from: https://www.cjusd.net/Page/5344. (accessed November 2022)
18 Colton Joint Unified School District. (2022). Developer School Fees. Retrieved from:
https://www.cjusd.net/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=10576&dataid=19880&FileName=Level%201%20-
%20Level%20II%20Fees.pdf. (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-15 4.13 | Public Services
Overall, Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Compliance with applicable local and state
regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to
school services.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.13-1: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
IV) Other public facilities?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project’s forecasted population growth would incrementally increase the demand for library services,
and specifically at the Grand Terrace Branch Library which is located closest to the Project site at
approximately two miles to the northeast. Although the Project would increase the population growth in
the area, Grand Terrace GP Policy 7.1.6 ensures that the City will work with the County to evaluate the
feasibility for the development of new library facilities within the City, to meet future demands. The
County Library system has developed a Strategic Plan that identifies goals and objectives , including
financial management and fundraising strategies, to maintain and enhance library facilities to meet future
demands. In addition, the Project would pay a development impact fee pursuant to Grand Terrace MC
Chapter 4.80 Development Impact Fees, which would require each applicant to pay a development fee
determined by the table in Chapter 4.80.
The Project does not propose, and would not create a need for, new or physically altered library facilities
to maintain acceptable service ratios and standards. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse
physical impacts associated with such facilities. Given the Project’s nature and scope, impacts to libraries
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.13.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant and unavoidable public services impacts have been identified.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-16 4.13 | Public Services
4.13.7 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the public services impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative
development within the City, according to the related projects.
As concluded above, all Project impacts to public services are considered less than significant, following
compliance with the established regulatory framework. The proposed Project, combined with cumulative
development projects would result in incremental increases in public service demands as the number of
people, buildings, roads, and utilities would increase. However, each cumulative project would be
required to pay construction and development fees and comply with regulatory requirements that would
be used to provide additional or modify existing public service facilities. The Project would not result in a
significant cumulative impact concerning public services.
Separate, individual projects are subject to environmental and design review by applicable agencies to
ensure that the projects would be compliant with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and standards
and ensure that the addition of these individual projects would not create undue stress on the public
service provided. Additionally, through the payment of development impact fees by individual projects,
these public services would have capital and funding available to expand services as needed to meet rising
demand with the addition of cumulative projects. Projects would be planned on a schedule to prevent
significant cumulative impacts associated with multiple projects being constructed at the same time.
Because of the required plan review, rule and regulation compliance, and payments of development
impacts fees as described above, the Project taken in sum with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on public services such as fire protection,
police protection, libraries, schools, and parks. Further, anticipated increased demands for public services
such as fire protection, police protection, libr aries, schools, and parks infrastructure and facilities within
the County, were accounted for in the County’s Countywide Plan and analyzed in its associated EIR. The
Countywide Plan EIR concluded that cumulative impacts related to public services would not be
cumulatively considerable upon implementation of applicable Countywide policies.
4.13.8 REFERENCES
City of Grand Terrace. Crime Statistic Presentation. (2015). Retrieved from:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Police
%20Services/2nd_quarter_2015_city_council_crime_stat_presentation.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). Grand Terrace DEIR. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Police%20Services/2nd_quarter_
2015_city_council_crime_stat_presentation.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. Fire. 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/fire#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Grand%20Terrace,for%20fire%20and%2
0rescue%20services.&text=For%20additional%20information%2C%20contact%20us,%2FFireHaz
ardAbatement%2FFireHazardAbatementHome.aspx.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.13-17 4.13 | Public Services
City of Grand Terrace General Plan. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/
city_of_gt_general_plan.pdf
City of Grand Terrace. (2021). Parks. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/public_works/parks_recreation/parks
City of Grand Terrace. Police Services. 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=12337339&pageId=12636172.
City of Grand Terrace. Municipal Code. (2021 ). Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT15BUCO .
CJUSD. District School Map. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.colton.k12.ca.us/domain/40 .
CJUSD. Development Fees. 2020. Retrieved from:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6709/Colton-Unified-School-Fees--4-1-20.
Colton Joint Unified School District. (2022). Developer Fees. Retrieved from:
https://www.cjusd.net/Page/5344.
Fire Department. San Bernardino County Fire Department. (2021). Retrieved from: https://sbcfire.org/
San Bernardino County Fire & Rescue Station Map. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1gXRGFAud9BV92Yhqvv7Y0yrfQ -
I&ll=34.06078102424003%2C-117.28561894085699&z=13.
San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department. Central Station. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/patrol-stations/central-station/.
San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department. (2022). Retrieved from:
https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/about-us/.
San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department Manual. 2019. Retrieved from:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/sheriff/sb978/Department/Department%20Manual%20Mast
er%2012-16-19.pdf.
OFM. (2020). Retrieved from: https://sbcfire.org/planreviews/.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.14-1 4.14 | Recreation
4.14 RECREATION
4.14.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to describe the potential impacts from The Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (Project) to recreational facilities by identifying anticipated demand created by the Project
compared to existing and planned recreational facilities and availability. Per the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the emphasis in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is on impacts to
recreational facilities by the Project that could require construction or expansion of existing facilities
resulting in a physical impact on the environment within the City of Grand Terrace (City), San Bernardino
County, California. In addition, this section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for
recreation, as it pertains to implementation of the Project.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
4.14.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
City of Grand Terrace Parks
The City has seven public parks that include facilities for baseball, soccer, basketball, jogging, playgrounds,
picnicking, and casual activities. This includes Blue Mountain Trail, which provides recreational activity
and scenic views. The existing City parks are: Grand Terrace Dog Park, Grand Terrace Fitness Park, Gwenn
Karger Park, Richard Rollins Community Park, Susan Petta Park, Veterans Freedom Park, and the Blue
Mountain Trail.
The nearest parks to the Project area are Veteran Freedom Park, adjacent to the southeast of Planning
Area 20, and Richard Rollins Community Park, located approximately 0.8 mile east of Planning Area 9.
Veterans Freedom Park offers a variety of recreational amenities to nearby residents. It is located at 21950
Pico Street and is open 7:00 AM to dusk. The Veteran Freedom Park contains two basketball courts, a
shelter area, six tables, two barbeque grills, two baseball fields, as well as 24-hour surveillance.1 One of
the two baseball fields is located southeast of the Project and one is located within the Planning Area 20
of Project site. Richard Rollins Community Park is located at 22745 De Berry Street, near the corner of Mt.
1 City of Grand Terrace. Parks. (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/public_works/parks_recreation/parks
(accessed November 6, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.14-2 4.14 | Recreation
Vernon Avenue and De Berry Street, behind Terrace Hills Middle School. This park was recently renovated
with the addition of new shelters, new play lots and a concession stand for weekend events. In addition
to 12 acres of fields, the park amenities include four shelters, two barbeques, cement walking track, a tot
lot with swings, and a playground with slides.2
4.14.3 REGULATORY SETTING
State
Quimby Act (California Government Code § 66477)
The Quimby Act was established by the California legislature in 1965 to develop new or rehabilitate
existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities. This legislation was enacted in response
to the need to provide parks and recreation facilities for California’s growing communities. The Quimby
Act gives the legislative body of a city or county the authority, by ordinance, to require the dedication of
land or payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition
of approval of a tract map or parcel map. Cities can require land or in-lieu fees for a minimum of three
acres per 1,000 residents, with the possibility of increasing the requirement to a maximum of five acres
per 1,000 residents if the city already provides more than three acres per 1,000 residents. Assembly Bill
(AB) 1191, which was approved by the Governor of California on September 8, 2015, amended the
definition of park and recreation purposes to include land and facilities for the activity of “recreational
community gardening,” which activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than, or in addition to,
the owner of the land, of plant material not for sale (AB 1911). The Quimby Act is implemented through
City Ordinance and is discussed further below.
Landscaping and Lighting Act
The Landscaping and Lighting Act (California Streets and Highways Code §§ 22500 et seq.) enables cities,
counties, and special districts to acquire land for parks, recreation, and open space. A local government
may also use the assessments to pay for improvements and maintenance to these areas. In addition to
local government agencies (i.e., counties and cities), park and r ecreation facilities may be provided by
other public agencies, such as community service districts, park, and recreation districts, etc. If so
empowered, such an agency may acquire, develop, and operate recreational facilities for the public.
State of Cali fornia Open Space Standards
State planning law provides a structure for the preservation of open space by requiring every city and
county in the state to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a “local open
space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land
within its jurisdiction” (California Government Code § 65560). The following open space categories are
identified for preservation:
• Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas that require special
management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions.
2 Ibid.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.14-3 4.14 | Recreation
• Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, natural
vegetation, fish and wildlife, and water resources.
• Open space for resource management and production, including, but not limited to, agricultural
and mineral resources, forests, rangeland, and areas required for the recharge of groundwater
basins.
• Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, parks, and recreational facilities,
areas that serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations (such as trails,
easements, and scenic roadways), and areas of outstanding scenic and cultural value.
• Open space for the protection of Native American sites, including, but not limited to, places,
features, and objects of historical, cultural, or sacred significance such as Native American
sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located
on public property (further defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 5097.9 and
5097.993)).
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The following City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) goals and policies are applicable to
recreation.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 4.1: That the Open Space needed for outdoor recreation in the City of Grand Terrace be
provided and thereby, improve the quality of life for the residents of the Cit y.
Policy 4.1.1 A park standard of five (5) acres per 1,000 population shall be used to determine the
total acreage of developed parks and recreation areas for the City.
Policy 4.1.5 The City will establish guidelines and standards for the establishment of a linkage
system among the City's parks and open space areas. In residential areas, the
feasibility of utilizing sidewalks shall be made. These sidewalks will be part of the
"Pedestrian Sidewalk Master Plan" called for in the Circulation Element and "safe
routes" to school’s plan. In addition, consideration will be given to the placement of
appropriate signage along the sidewalk identifying them as part of a designated trail
system.
Policy 4.1.6 The City will work with other public agencies and private entities to coordinate its trail
planning and development to tie into the regional trails systems, including the
California Recreational Trail System, connecting neighboring cities and counties.
These trails may be used for pedestrian, equestrian, or biking. Such efforts will include
a connection with the Santa Ana River Trail as shown in the "Plan of Open Space and
Trails for the County of San Bernardino" and with the trail system of the County of
Riverside including the proposed regional trail along the Gage Canal in Riverside
County.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.14-4 4.14 | Recreation
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
The City Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) establishes Development Impact Fees for
Public Use Facilities and Parkland and Open Space Acquisition in Chapter 4.80 Development Impact Fees.3
4.14.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning recreation. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized
as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated or
• Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Methodology a nd Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning recreation. This analysis considers the existing
regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
4.14.5 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.14-1: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction a nd Operations
There are currently seven City Parks located in Grand Terrace including the Grand Terrace Dog Park, Grand
Terrace Fitness Park, Gwen Karger Park, Richard Rollins Community Park, Susan Petta Park, Veterans
Freedom Park, and the Blue Mountain Trail. The parks nearest the Project site include Veterans Freedom
Park, adjacent to the southeast of Planning Area 20, and Richard Rollins Community Park, located
approximately 0.8-mile east of Planning Area 9. Each of these parks provide a variety of recreational
amenities such as basketball courts, shelter areas, baseball fields, and playground areas. Within the
Project, PA 18 will be designated as Open Space and PA 22 along with the pedestrian and bicycle trail that
3 City of Grand Terrace. (2021). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT4COFESCFITA_CH4.80DEIMFE_4.80.010FEDE . (accessed
January 3, 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.14-5 4.14 | Recreation
provides connectivity between PA 22 development and the existing Veterans Freedom Park will be
designated as Park.
Project development includes commercial, residential, public utilities, and public park uses. The Project
would provide public recreational facilities to meet the needs of the community. The existing non-lighted
ball field northwest of Veterans Freedom Park is proposed to be relocated northwest of the Grand Terrace
High School sports fields and constructed as a new lighted baseball field in PA 22. In addition to a new
lighted baseball field, PA 22 will also include a tot-lot/playground set in a tree-lined and “park-like” setting
and a public parking lot.
Although Project buildout of the residential component would create a direct demand for park facilities,
the need for parks would be addressed through the Project’s provision of open space and recreational
uses such as a 4.97-acre neighborhood park and as well as the pedestrian and bicycle trails that provides
connectivity between Planning Area 22 development and the existing Veterans Freedom Park. With the
development of the proposed neighborhood park, pedestrian and bicycle trails, it is anticipated that the
Project would not significantly increase the use of other nearby off-site neighborhood parks, regional
parks, or recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial physical
deterioration of planned or existing recreational facilities and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.14-2: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction a nd Operations
See Impact 4.14-1. In addition to providing on-site park and recreational facilities, the Project would pay
applicable park impact fees as established by the City, pursuant to the Quimby Act and local City
Regulations (provision of on-site park and recreational facilities may be credited against required Quimby
Act fees). According to Chapter 4: Open Space Element of the Grand Terrace GP, the City’s parkland
standard of five acres per 1,000 people is the highest allowed under the Quimby Act.4 Based on the
proposed development plans, the Project's estimated 1,911 residents (assumes an average of 2.7 5
occupants per residence for this type of community and 695 dwelling units) would equate to a dedication
requirement of 9.5 acres. The Project would comply with Quimby Act and City regulations through the
dedication of 4.97 acres of parkland within PA 22 and/or payment of in-lieu fees for parks/recreation
purposes, as determined by the City. Additionally, the proposed multi-family residential developments
4 City of Grand Terrace General Plan. (2010). Open Space and Conservation Element. Retrieved from: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/c4_open_space_con s
erv.pdf. (accessed November 6, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.14-6 4.14 | Recreation
would be required to provide amenities for the residents. Therefore, the Project would not have an
adverse physical effect on the environmental and therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.14.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant and unavoidable recreational impacts have been identified.
4.14.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the recreational impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative
development within the City, according to the related projects.
As concluded above, all Project impacts to recreation are considered less than significant, following
compliance with the established regulatory framework. The proposed Project, combined with cumulative
development projects would result in incremental incr eases in recreational facility demands as the
number of people, buildings, and roads would increase. However, each cumulative project would be
required to pay construction and development fees and Quimby Act fees, and comply with regulatory
requirements that would be used to provide additional, or to modify existing recreation facilities. The
Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact concerning recreation.
4.14.8 REFERENCES
City of Grand Terrace. (2016). Existing Park Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/GTPA_05421.00_DR
AFT03.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. (2021). Parks. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/public_works/parks_recreation/parks.
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan - Open Space and Conservation
Element. Retrieved from: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20
Development/Planning/c4_open_space_conserv.pdf
City of Grand Terrace. (20 21). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT4COFESCFIT
A_CH4.80DEIMFE_4.80.010FEDE.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-1 4.15 | Transportation
4.15 TRANSPORTATION
4.15.1 INTRODUCTION
This section identifies existing transportation-related conditions within the City of Grand Terrace (City)
and evaluates The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project)’s potential to conflict with programs,
plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities; conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3; substantially
increase hazards due to geometric design features; and result inadequate emergency access. Mitigation
to avoid/reduce impacts is identified, as needed.
The affected environment discussion is based largely on the following documentation:
• Fehr & Peers. (2022). Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Repor t for the Gateway Specific Plan
at Grand Terrace (Appendix J1).
• Fehr & Peers. (2022). The Gateway Specific Plan at Grand Terrace Transportation Metrics
Memorandum (Appendix J2).
• City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP).
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanism to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) is no longer considered a significant environmental effect under CEQA and as such,
the following information is provided solely for informational purposes and does not require a significance
determination. Per the City of Grand Terrace Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the TIA used methodology
from the SBCTA CMP to analyze traffic operations via LOS rankings, consistent with the Grand Terrace GP
Circulation Element.
The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6, 2016) was used to perform intersection LOS analysis for
the following scenarios:
• Existing (2022) Conditions
• Opening Year (2024) No Project Conditions
• Opening Year (2024) Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-2 4.15 | Transportation
• Cumulative Year (2040) No Project Conditions
• Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions
• Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project Phase 2 conditions
LOS measures transportation quality of service from the traveler’s perspective. Per the HCM6, LOS
rankings at intersections use a letter -grade scale ranging from LOS A (optimal conditions) to LOS F
(congested or overcrowded conditions) based on average control delay in seconds per vehicle, or how
long a vehicle typically waits before proceeding through the intersection. This delay is compared with
free-flow conditions, and includes slowing before an intersection, waiting in queues, and stopping at the
intersection. Stop-controlled and signalized intersections were analyzed using Synchro 11 software and
roundabouts were analyzed using Sidra Version 7 software. For signalized and all -way stop-controlled
intersections, LOS rankings are based on the average control delay of all vehicles passing through the
intersection. For two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS rankings are based on the
highest average control delay of all controlled movements.
The TIA (Appendix J1) included recommended improvements for study intersections that would operate
below applicable LOS policies in given jurisdictions. These recommendations include a combination of fee
payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair -share
contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches. The rec ommended
improvements are intended to improve operational conditions consistent with Grand Terrace GP LOS
policies. However, the recommended improvements are conceptual in nature and not required to be
enforced as additional delay – to an intersection or roadway segment – is no longer considered a
significant impact under CEQA. As such, refer to Appendix J1 for further information.
4.15.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Roadway System1
Regional Access Roads
Regional access to the Project site is provided by the following roads:
Interstate (I) 215 Freeway: I-215 passes through the western portion of the City in a general north/south
direction. I-215 borders the Project site on its northwesterly side. It is an eight-lane divided freeway near
the Project with three general purpose lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction.
South of the Project area, I-215 becomes State Route (SR) 91 where it intersects with SR-60.
Interstate 10 Freeway: I-10 is an extensive Interstate Highway that extends from the Pacific Ocean at
California State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) in Santa Monica, California, to I-95 in Jacksonville, Florida.
In the vicinity of the Project, it provides four-lanes in each direction.
1 Fehr & Peers. (2022). Transportation Impact Analysis Report. Pages 24-26. See Appendix J.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-3 4.15 | Transportation
State Route 60: SR-60 provides an east-west regional access to the Project site and runs roughly parallel
to I-10. In the vicinity of the Project, SR-60 varies between three and four lanes with one HOV lane in each
direction.
Local Access Roads
Local access to the Project site is provided by the following arterial and commuter roadways:
De Berry Street: De Berry Street is a two-lane facility that provides an east-west access to the Project site.
The City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) classifies De Berry Street as a two-lane
Collector Street between the western city limit near I -215 and Observation Street. The posted speed is
35 miles per hour (mph).
Michigan Street: Michigan Street is a two-lane facility that provides a north-south access near the Project
site. The Grand Terrace GP classifies Michigan Street as a four-lane Secondary Highway between
Commerce Way and Van Buren Street and a two-lane Collector Street between Van Buren Street and Main
Street. The posted speed is 35 mph.
Van Buren Street: Van Buren Street is a two-lane facility that provides an east-west access near the Project
site. The Grand Terrace GP classifies Van Buren Street as a two-lane Collector Street between the western
City limit near I-215 and Observation Street. The posted speed is 25 mph.
Pico Street: Pico Street is a two-lane facility that provides an east-west access near the Project site. The
Grand Terrace GP classifies Pico Street as a two-lane Collector Street between Commerce Way and Oriole
Avenue. The posted speed is 25 mph.
Main Street: Main Street is a two-lane facility that provides an east-west access near the Project site. The
street widens on the westbound side into two-lanes near the Grand Terrace High School. The
Grand Terrace GP classifies Main Street as a four-lane Secondary Highway between the western city limit
near I-215 and Mount Vernon Avenue and a two-lane Collector Street between Mount Vernon Avenue
and Oriole Avenue. There is a bike lane on the westbound approach between Michigan Street and Mount
Vernon Avenue. The westbound portion of Main Street is within the City of Grand Terrace jurisdiction,
and the east-bound portion is in the County of Riverside. The posted speed is 40 mph.
Barton Road: Barton Road is a four-lane facility that provides an east-west access near the Project site.
The Grand Terrace General Plan classifies Barton Road as a four-lane Major Highway between La Cadena
Drive and the east city limits. The posted speed varies between 40 mph and 45 mph.
Taylor Street: Taylor Street is a two-lane facility that provides a north-south access near the Project site
but currently dead ends north of Grand Terrace High School. The Grand Terrace GP assumes Taylor Street
would be an extension of Commerce Way, which classified as a four-lane Secondary Highway. There is no
posted speed limit and so a prima facie speed limit of 25 applies.
Commerce Way: Commerce Way is a two-lane facility that would provide direct access to the Project site.
It currently terminates west of Michigan Street just north of De Berry Street but is planned to connect to
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-4 4.15 | Transportation
Taylor Street. The Grand Terrace GP classifies Commerce Way as a four-lane Secondary Highway. There is
no posted speed limit and so a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph applies.
La Cadena Drive: La Cadena Drive is a four-lane facility that provides north-south access near the Project
site. The street narrows to a two-lane facility just north of Main Street. The Grand Terrace GP classifies
La Cadena Drive as a Divided Major Highway with 120-foot right-of-way from the northern City limits
(north of Barton Road) to the southern City limits (Main Street). The City of Riverside GP (Riverside General
Plan 2025, 2018) classifies La Cadena Drive south of Main Street as a two-lane collector. The posted speed
limit is 45 mph.
La Crosse Avenue: La Crosse Avenue is a two-lane facility that provides north-south access near the
Project site. La Crosse Avenue connects De Berry Street and Barton Road on the west side of I-215. There
is no posted speed limit and so a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph applies.
Center Street: Center Street is a four-lane facility that provides east-west access near the Project site. The
street narrows to a two-lane facility west of Iowa Avenue and east of Mount Vernon Avenue. The City of
Riverside GP classifies Center Street as four-lane arterial from Orange Street in the west to Mount Vernon
Avenue in the East. The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
Mount Vernon Avenue: Near the Project site, Mount Vernon Avenue is a four-lane facility that provides
north-south access near the Project site. The City of Grand Terrace GP classifies Mt Vernon Avenue as a
four-lane Secondary Highway between the northern City limits and Main Street. The posted speed is
40 mph.
Iowa Avenue: Near the Project, Iowa Avenue is under the cities of Riverside and Colton, and the
County of Riverside’s jurisdiction. It is a four-lane facility that provides north-south access near the Project
site. The City of Riverside GP classifies Iowa Avenue as a four-lane arterial from Center Street to the
City of Riverside’s northern City limits and a six-lane arteria south of Center Street. The City of Colton’s GP
classifies the roadway as a four-lane facility from the City of Colton’s southern city limits to
La Cadena Drive. The posted speed is 45 mph.
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
According to the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), the existing bicycle facility network is comprised
of bike lanes (Class II) and shared bike routes (Class III), making up 3.6 miles of existing bikeways. The
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) also permits Class I and Class IV
facilities.
The TIA prepared for the Project concluded that although the majority of the existing bicycle facilities in
the Project area are Class II facilities, there is an existing Class III bikeway facility located on Barton Road
between Commerce Way and Mount Vernon Avenue.2
2 Ibid. Page 27.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-5 4.15 | Transportation
The existing Class II bikeway facilities in the Project area are located on the following roadway segments:
• Intermittently on the north and south side of Barton Road between the western City boundary
and Commerce Way
• The north and south side of Barton Road east of Mount Vernon Avenue
• The east and west side of Mount Vernon Avenue between Barton Road and Main Street
• The west and east side of Commerce Way between Barton Road and Michigan Street
• Intermittently on the north sid e of Main Street between the western City boundary and Mount
Vernon Avenue
The Grand Terrace GP and ATP includes planned bicycle facilities on the following roadway segments:
• Michigan Street between Commerce Way and Main Street (Class II)
• The extension of Commerce Way between Michigan Street and Main Street (Class II)
• The Gage Canal between Main Street and the northern boundary of the Project area (Class I)
Pedestrian Facilities3
Pedestrian facilities include crosswalks, pedestrian signals, sidewalks, and multi-use trails. At existing
signalized intersections, adjacent to the Project, crosswalks and pedestrian push-button actuated signals
are provided. Crosswalks are generally provided at existing unsignalized intersections adjacent to the
Project, except along Main Street. Main Street primarily consists of side-street stop-controlled
intersections and offers limited north-south crossings except near Grand Terrace High School. There are
no existing multiuse trails in the area but, the Grand Terrace ATP does state that a Multi-use Path with a
Class I bikeway is planned from Main Street, east of Michigan Street, to the north of the Project.
The Grand Terrace ATP concluded that 36 percent of the City consisted of roadways that were missing
sidewalks. The only major roadway segment adjacent to the Project that does not provide continuous
sidewalk on one or both sides is Michigan Street, south of Commerce Way, to Pico Street. Sidewalk is
provided intermittently along the segment on one or both sides of the street. The following roadway
segments are adjacent to the Project and do provide continuous sidewalk:
• Barton Road east of Grand Terrace Road
• The existing extent of Commerce Way south of Barton Road
• De Berry Street west of Michigan Street
• Van Buren Street west of Michigan Street
• Michigan Street south of Pico Street
• Center Street
• Main Street east of Taylor Street
3 Ibid. Page 29.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-6 4.15 | Transportation
Public Transit Facilities4
Public transit service is offered in the City of Grand Terrace by OmniTrans and Riverside Transit Authority
(RTA).
OmniTrans operates public transit services throughout the San Bernardino urban area and provides the
following route in the vicinity of the Project area, which travels along Barton Road:
OmniTrans Route 305 (San Bernardino – Waterman – Grand Terrace) runs weekdays between
approximately 5:40 AM and 9:40 PM with headways of exactly 60 minutes. On the weekends, Route 305
starts at 6:55 AM and terminates service at 7:55 PM on Saturdays and 6:50 PM on Sundays. Route 305
continues to operate with 60-minute headways on the weekend. The closest bus stop is located east of
Vivienda Avenue/Commerce Way at Barton Road, on the south side of Barton Road.
RTA operates local and regional transit services throughout western Riverside County and provides th e
following route in the Project area along Center Street:
RTA Route 14 (Galleria at Tyler – Downtown Riverside – Loma Linda VA Hospital) runs weekdays
between approximately 8:00 AM and 5:40 PM with headways varying between 60 and 70 minutes. On
the weekends, Route 14 runs between 8:20 AM and 5:40 PM and operates with headways varying
between 55 and 65 minutes. The closest bus stop is located at the northwest corner of Michigan Street at
Center Street.
4.15.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal rules and regulations govern many facets of the City’s transportation system, including
transportation planning and programming; funding; and design, construction, and operation of facilities.
The City complies with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federa l Highway Administration, the
Urban Mass Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and other Federal agencies. In addition, the City coordinates with Federal resource
agencies where appropriate in the environmental clearance process for transportation facilities.
State
Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) was signed into law in September 2006 after
considerable study and expert testimony before the legislature. The law instructs the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verifying of statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Act directed CARB to set a GHG emission limit based on 1990 levels
to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions
in a technologically and economically feasible manner (AB 32). In December 2008, CARB adopted a
4 Ibid. Pages 29-30.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-7 4.15 | Transportation
Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. AB 32 was followed by Senate Bill (SB) 32 in 2016, which
expanded this goal for statewide GHG emissions to be 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32).
The scoping plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alte rnative
compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based
mechanisms (e.g., cap-and-trade system), and an AB 32 program implementation regulation to fund the
program. CARB recognizes cities as “essential partners” in reducing GHG emissions. As such, CARB has
developed a Local Government Toolkit with guidance for GHG reduction strategies, such as improving
transit, developing bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, and increasing city fleet vehicle efficiency, among
other strategies.
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping
Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by
85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the
2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well
as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero -emission
transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and
refrigerants with high Global Warming Potential (GWP); providing communities with sustainable options
for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use
of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such
as green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon
neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita
threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action
Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping
Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and
trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the
transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the
jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new
regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.
SB 743 – Update to the CEQA Guidelines for Transportation Impacts
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law. A key element of t his law is, for
CEQA purposes, the potential elimination or deemphasizing of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other
similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts.
According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary
to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill
development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions.
As noted, SB 743 requires impacts to transportation network performance to be viewed through a filter
that promotes the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks,
and the diversification of land uses. Some alternative metrics were identified in the law, including VMT or
automobile trip generation rates. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-8 4.15 | Transportation
delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or ongoing network monitoring,
however automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” or LOS or similar metrics, no longer
constitutes a significant adverse environmental effect under CEQA.
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the State CEQA
Guidelines, which included SB 743. Section 15064.3 of the 2019 CEQA Guidelines provides that
transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating a project's VMT.
Automobile delay is no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA. Automobile
delay can, however, still be used by agencies to determine local operational impacts. The provisions of
this section became mandatory July 1, 2020. Refer to Section 4.15.4, Significance Criteria Under CEQA,
for more information regarding VMT.
Sustainable Communities Strategies: Senate Bill 375 – Land Use Planning
Senate Bill (SB) 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional
transportation plans and funding priorities in order to help California meet the greenhouse gas reduction
goals established in Assembly Bill (AB) 32. SB 375 requires that regional transportation plans developed
by metropolitan planning organizations relevant to a project site (e.g., Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG)) incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” in their regional transportation
plans that will achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources
Board. SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
for some infill projects, such as Transit-Oriented Developments.
As a metropolitan planning organization, SCAG is responsible for preparing and utilizing a public
participation plan that is developed in consultation with all interested parties and provides reasonable
opportunities for interested parties to comment on the content of SCAG’s proposed Regional
Transportation Plan and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. SB 375 requires SCAG to
adopt a public participation plan for development of the sustainable communities strategy and an
alternative planning strategy. Further, as required by SB 375, SCAG will conduct at least two informational
meetings in each county within the region for members of the board of supervisors and city councils on
the sustainable communities strategy and alternative planning strategy, if any. The purpose of the
meetings shall be to present a draft of the sustainable communities strategy to members of the board of
supervisors and city council members in that county and to solicit and consider their input and
recommendations.
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impac ts in CEQA
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) in December 2018. The Technical Advisory aids in
the transition from LOS to VMT methodology for transportation impact analysis under CEQA. The advisory
contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and
mitigation measures.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-9 4.15 | Transportation
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) owns and operates the State highway system
(SHS), which includes the freeways and State routes within California. In Grand Terrace, Caltrans maintains
I-215, I-10, and SR-60. As discussed above, VMT are now used which, although Caltrans recog nizes, will
not apply to all projects on the SHS; however, they would apply to this Project. Caltrans also recognizes
that VMT is the most appropriate primary measure of transportation impacts for capacity increasing
transportation projects on the SHS.
The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) provides guidance on
the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The document outlines when a traffic impact
study is needed and what should be included in the scope of the study. The Guide states the following:
“Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State
highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always feasible and recommends
that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.” However, as noted
above, such analysis is no longer considered a significant adverse environmental effect under CEQA.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governme nt (SCAG) – Connect SoCal
As the metropolitan planning organization for the region’s six counties and 191 cities, the Regional Council
of SCAG is mandated by law to develop a long -term regional transportation and sustainability plan every
four years. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted the 2020–2045
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (R TP/SCS) or Connect SoCal. Connect
SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategi es
established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable
growth pattern. Connect SoCal identifies 10 goals that fall into four categories: economy, mobility,
environment, and healthy/complete communities. Connect SoCal is discussed further in Section 4.10,
Land Use and Planning, of this EIR.
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is San Bernardino’s Congestion
Management Agency (CMA). SBCTA prepares, monitors, and periodically updates the County Congestion
Management Program (CMP) to meet federal Congestion Management Process requirement and the
County’s Measure I Program. The San Bernardino County CMP defines a network of state highways an d
arterials, LOS standards and related procedures, the process for mitigation of impacts of new
development on the transportations system, and technical justification for the approach.
Traffic Modeling Methodology
VMT was estimated for the Project with th e County’s travel demand model, the San Bernardino County
Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM), that forecasts travel patterns on typical weekdays, consistent
with City guidance. SBTAM, which is a typical four-step travel demand forecasting model, began a s the
SCAG regional travel demand forecasting model and underwent a subarea model development to add
detail and refinement within San Bernardino County. As identified in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-10 4.15 | Transportation
Guidelines (June 2020), SBTAM is the most appropriate travel demand model to measure VMT in San
Bernardino County. Refer to Section 4.15.4 for further information.
Measure I Strategic Plan
Measure I authorizes a half-cent sales tax in San Bernardino County until March 2040 for use exclusively
on transportation improvement and traffic management programs. San Bernardino County voters first
approved the measure in 1989 and in 2004 overwhelmingly approved the extension through 2040.
Measure I includes language mandating development to pay its fair share for tr ansportation
improvements in San Bernardino County. The Measure I Strategic Plan is the official guide for the
allocation and administration of the combination of local transportation sales tax, State and Federal
transportation revenues, and private fair -share contributions to regional transportation facilities to fund
the Measure I 2010–2040 transportation programs. The Strategic Plan identifies funding categories and
allocations and planned transportation improvement projects in the County for freeways, major and local
arterials, bus and rail transit, and traffic management systems. The City has adopted a development
impact fee (DIF) program that is consistent with Measure I requirements.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
Circulation Element5
The following Grand Terrace GP Circulation Element goals and policies are relevant to the Project:
Goal 3.1: Provide a comprehensive transportation system that provides for the current and
long-term efficient movement of people and goods within and through the City.
Policy 3.1.1 Provide a transportation system which supports planned land uses and improves the
quality of life.
Policy 3.1.2 An arterial street system shall be established that provides for the collection of local
traffic and provide for the efficient movement of people and goods through the City.
Policy 3.1.3 Commerce Way shall provide for the movement of traffic associated with commercial
and business traffic.
Goal 3.2: Provide for a well-maintained roadway system.
Policy 3.2.2 The City shall require that street improvements be constructed at the time that
development occurs on vacant or underutilized property.
Goal 3.3: Provide for a safe circulation system.
Policy 3.3.2 The City shall require that new developments provide adequate off-street parking in
order to minimize the need for on street parking
5 City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan. Circulation Element. Available at: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/c3_circulation.pdf
(accessed November 8, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-11 4.15 | Transportation
Policy 3.3.3 The City shall ensure that local street improvements are designed with proper
attention to community appearance and aesthetics as well as the need to move traffic
safely and efficiently.
Goal 3.5: Provide for efficient alternative modes of travel .
Policy 3.5.1 Promote measures which reduce reliance on single occupant vehicle usage by
enforcement of the Traffic Control Measures (TCM) ordinance which addresses
development standards, land use patterns, employer based ride share programs and
bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
City of Grand Terrace Active Transportation Plan
The City adopted the Grand Terrace ATP in 2018 which provides recommendations and an
implementation plan to address the long-term development and maintenance of the City’s
transportation-related systems. The ATP is consistent with the Grand Terrace GP Land Use Element and
other pertinent transportation-related local and regional planning documents.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code 6
Chapter 4.104 Circulation Improvement Fee Program
Chapter 4.104 of the City’s Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) requires that new development in the City
increases the amount of traffic utilizing the City’s street system, thereby requiring the installation of
additional traffic signals, arterial street improvements, and operational at specified locations to increase
or improve transportation capacity in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and that such
new development should pay its fair share of such improvements.
Chapter 17.16 Tentative Maps
Grand Terrace MC Chapter 17.16 requires that for every proposed subdivision, the subdivider may, at his
or her option, file a preliminary map with the Department, and as many additional copies as may be
required, for the purpose of obtaining advice on the conformity of the map with the provisions of this
Title and other applicable Codes, and possible improvements in the design of the subdivision. All divisions
of land shall conform to those development standards set forth in the Zoning Code for the zoning district
in which the property to be divided is located at the time the application for the tentative map is deemed
complete. In accordance with Section 17.04.060, all divisions of land shall also conform to the Grand
Terrace GP including all maps, goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures, in effect at the
time the tentative map is deemed complete.
Section 17.52.010 Design and Improvement Requirements
Pursuant to Grand Terrace MC Section 17.52.010, all subdivisions and tentative maps thereof, must
conform to the Grand Terrace GP, MC, and any applicable specific plans and to all applicable planning,
6 City of Grand Terrace. (2021). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=GRAND_TERRACE_CALIFORNIAMUCO (accessed
November 8, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-12 4.15 | Transportation
zoning, design, improvement and environmental requirements. Unless otherwise specified, design
requirements and improvement requirements may be modified or waived only by the City Council.
Section 17.52.070 Street Design
All streets shall be designed in conformance with the design standards listed in Grand Terrace MC
Section 17.52.070.
4.15.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning transportation. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b);
• Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
• Result in inadequate emergency access.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria, as the basis for determining the
level of impacts related to transportation. This analysis considers existing regulations, laws, and standards
that serve to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain, feasible
mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or lessen the Project’s significant adverse impacts.
VMT Analysis Methodology
VMT was estimated using the Origin/Destination (OD) Method to estimate Project-generated VMT and
the Boundary Method to estimate the Project’s effect on VMT, consistent with the City’s thresholds of
significance related to VMT. For all methodologies outlined, VMT can be presented as total VMT or as
total VMT/Service Population (VMT/SP). Total VMT represents all VMT generated on a typical weekday.
Total VMT/SP is an efficiency metric which represents VMT generated on a typical weekday per person
who lives and/or works in the region analyzed.
Origin/Destination (OD) VMT
The OD Method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end
in the Project area and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations. The OD Method is
completed after the final loops of assignment in the travel demand model (after person trips have been
converted to total vehicle trips). Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone,
and destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific traffic analysis zone.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-13 4.15 | Transportation
The OD Method accounts for trips that begin or end outside of the travel demand model, special generator
trips, and truck trips and therefore provides a more complete estimate of all VMT within the Project area.
This VMT metric is consistent with VMT estimates that are utilized in the Air Quality, Noise, and Energy
sections of an EIR as it is a more complete accounting of VMT, as compared to isolating commute VMT. It
should also be noted that, although VMT includes trips to/from the County that originate or are destined
to locations outside of the model area, those trip lengths are artificially truncated at the model boundary.
Boundary Method VMT
The Boundary Method is the sum of all weekday VMT on a roadway network within a designated
boundary. Boundary Method VMT estimates VMT by multiplying the number of trips on each roadway
segment within the boundary by the length of each segment. This approach consists of all trips, including
those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary and is another way to summarize VMT.
This is the only VMT method that captures the effect of cut-through and/or displaced traffic. The City’s
TIA guidelines recommend that, for larger projects or projects located near the City limit, a larger
boundary should be applied when looking at the project’s effect on VMT to ensure that the true project
effect is not truncated. The Project is located near the City limits and is large enough to warrant further
consideration of the boundary.
An average trip length of 13.5 miles was estimated for the Project traffic analysis zone (TAZ) using the
SBTAM model. Using the City’s guidance of doubling the average trip length from the Project results in a
27-mile radius boundary. However, a 27-mile radius encompasses the entire San Bernardino Valley and
most of Western Riverside County; when considering all land uses within this large of an area, a radius of
this size may mask the true effect on VMT associated with other factors not attributable to the Project
(such as model convergence criteria and model trip balancing procedures). Therefore, we also reviewed
a 10-mile radius from the Project as an additional information point to verify the results from the larger
radius test and ensure that model noise was not factoring into the analysis results.
Model Inputs
The Project’s socioeconomic model inputs were estimated in the following ways:
• The average persons per single-family household and multi-family household were estimated
from the SBTAM Base Year (2016) model from similar TAZs in San Bernardino (e.g., TAZs that had
only single-family household or multi-family households).
Retail and restaurant employees were estimated using an assumption of one employe e per
425 square feet.
The following Table 4.15-1, Project Land Use presents the land use inputs which were coded into the
SBTAM.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-14 4.15 | Transportation
Table 4.15-1: Project Land Use
Model Socioeconomic Metric Project Input
Total Population 2,339
Single Family Population 1,184
Multiple Family Population 1,155
Total Households 695
Single Family Units 320
Multi-Family Units 375
Total Employment 640
Retail Employees 574
Non-Retail Employees 66
Source: Fehr & Peers. (2022). The Gateway Specific Plan at Grand Terrace Transportation Metrics Memorandum . Pages 4 through 5 – Table 1.
See Appendix J2
Traffic Modeling Methodology
VMT was estimated for the Project with the County’s travel demand model, the San Bernardino County
Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM), that forecasts travel patterns on typical weekdays, consistent
with City guidance. SBTAM, which is a typical four-step travel demand forecasting model, began as the
SCAG regional travel demand forecasting model and underwent a subarea model development to add
detail and refinement within San Bernardino County. As identified in the City’s guidance, SBTAM is the
most appropriate travel demand model to measure VMT in San Bernardino County. As recommended in
the SBTAM model documentation, model assignment parameters were set to run up-to five loops with a
minimum convergence criterion of 0.01.
4.15.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.15-1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project would transform the existing land uses (vacant, storage commercial, and r esidential) to
approximately 112 acres of commercial, residential, public utilities, and public park uses, including
associated infrastructure improvements (see Section 3.0, Project Description, for more information).
Potential impacts to public transit, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities were evaluated in the TIA
(Appendix J1) and Transportation Metrics Memorandum (TMM) (Appendix J2) to determine If the Project
conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of
such facilities. Findings are presented below.
Impacts to Bicycle Facilities
As noted in Section 4.15.2 above, the existing bicycle facility network is comprised of bike lanes (Class II)
and shared bike routes (Class III), making up 3.6 miles of existing bikeways. The California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) also permits Class I and Class IV facilities. As shown in
TIA Figure 4-1, Commerce Way would include a planned Class II Bike Lane. In support of the Grand Terrace
ATP, Commerce Way would include a striped median, Class II on-street bike lanes with landscaped
parkways and sidewalks. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the Grand Terrace ATP.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-15 4.15 | Transportation
Impacts to Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include crosswalks, pedestrian signals, sidewalks, and multi-use trails. At existing
signalized intersections, adjacent to the Project, crosswalks and pedestrian push-button actuated signals
are provided. At existing unsignalized intersections, adjacent to the Project, crosswalks are generally
provided, except along Main Street. Main Street consists of mostly side -street stop-controlled
intersections and offers limited north-south crossings except near Grand Terrace High School. There are
no existing multi-use trails in the area, but as documented in the previous section, the Grand Terrace ATP
does state that a Multi-use Path with a Class I bikeway is planned from Main Street, east of Michigan
Street, to the north of the Project area.
As noted in Section 4.15.2 above, the Grand Terrace ATP concludes that 36 percent of the City consists of
roadways that do not include sidewalk. The only major roadway segment adjacent to the Project that does
not provide continuous sidewalk on one or both sides is Michigan Street south of Commerce Way to
Pico Street. Sidewalk is provided intermittently along the segment on one or both sides of the street.
The following roadway segments are adjacent to the Project and currently provide continuous sidewalk:
• Barton Road east of Grand Terrace Road
• The existing extent of Commerce Way south of Barton Road
• De Berry Street west of Michigan Street
• Van Buren Street west of Michigan Street
• Michigan Street South of Pico Street
• Center Street
• Main Street east of Taylor Street
According to the Grand Terrace ATP, the proposed extension of Commerce Way is classified as a Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) project. Commerce Way would be constructed with pedestrian facilities
(i.e., sidewalks, bicycle facilities) resulting in a well-connected sidewalk network surrounding the Project.
The Project also proposes sidewalks along De Berry Street and Van Buren Street within the Project’s limits.
Pedestrians would be able to access the Project and other nearby land uses or facilit ies between Main
Street and Barton Road. Lastly, all roadways and pedestrian facilities would be designed according to the
development standards listed in the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project would be compliant
with the City’s ATP concerning pedestrian facilities.
Impacts to Public Transit Facilities
The potential impact to transit service or facilities was evaluated based on whether the proposed Project
would physically disrupt an existing facility/service or interfere with the implementation of a planned
facility/service. In addition, the Project was evaluated to determine if it would create potential conflicts
with applicable policies, plans, or programs (as defined in the regulatory setting above) supporting transit
such that the conflict could reduce transit trips or increase conflicts with other modes.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-16 4.15 | Transportation
The TMM concluded that the Project would not result in any disruption to existing transit facilities.
Although new transit trips are anticipated to be generated by the Project, the Project does not propose
any changes that would modify transit stop locations or transit headways. Additional transit ridership
demand could increase boarding and alighting activity at existing bus stops and transit terminals located
near the Project site. However, the Project is consistent with the adopted plans regarding transit
infrastructure and is not expected to decrease the performance or safety of these facilities. Therefore, the
Project is considered to have a less than significant impact on public transit.
Overall, the Project would adhere to all relevant circulation regulations and applicable policy and planning
documents. Adherence with both state and local planning directives would ensure that the Project’s
impacts to a program, plan, ordinance, or policy pertaining to transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.15-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The City of Grand Terrace prepared its Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for land use projects in June 2020
to address changes to CEQA pursuant to SB 743 to include VMT analysis meth odology and thresholds.
Based on the City of Grand Terrace Traffic Impact Analysis Guidance, a project would result in a significant
project-generated VMT impact under either of the following conditions:
1. The baseline project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of San Bernardino
baseline VMT per service population; or
2. The cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds County of San Bernardino
baseline VMT per service population
The Project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it resulted in the following condition:
1. The cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City of Grand Terrace
increases under the plus Project condition compared to the no Project condition.
VMT Assessment
The OD VMT/SP estimates are shown in the following Table 4.15-2, Project Generated VMT Estimates
and Table 4.15-3, VMT Impact Analysis Results and Threshold Comparisons . The Boundary VMT/SP
estimates are also shown in Table 4.15-3.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-17 4.15 | Transportation
Table 4.15-2: Project Generated VMT Estimates
Year/Scenario Area OD VMT Service Population OD VMT/SP
2016 No Project County of San Bernardino 113,178,769 2,927,114 38.7
2016 With Project Project TAZ 102,540 2,979 34.4
2022 Baseline No Project County of San Bernardino 118,048,375 3,136,178 37.6
2022 Baseline With Project Project TAZ 97,962 2,979 32.9
2040 No Project County of San Bernardino 132,657,192 3,763,371 35.3
2040 With Project Project TAZ 84,225 2,979 28.3
Notes:
1. Service Population is the summation of population and employment within an area.
2. OD VMT/SP = Origin-Destination Method Vehicle Miles of Travel per Service Population.
Source: Fehr & Peers. (2022). The Gateway Specific Plan at Grand Terrace Transportation Metrics Memorandum. Pages 5 through 6 – Table 2.
See Appendix J2
Table 4.15-3: VMT Impact Analysis Results and Threshold Comparisons
Project Generated VMT OD VMT Service Population OD VMT/SP
Project VMT Estimates (2022) 97,962 2,979 32.9
Project VMT Estimates (2040) 84,225 2,979 28.3
County of San Bernardino (2022) 118,048,375 3,136,178 37.6
Significant Impact Determination No
Project Effect on VMT Boundary VMT Service Population Boundary VMT/SP
10-Mile Radius Without Project (2040) 30,286,388 2,033,868 14.89
10-Mile Radius With Project (2040) 30,306,841 2,036,847 14.88
Net Change 20,453 2,979 -0.01
Significant Impact Determination No
27-Mile Radius Without Project (2040) 115,003,231 6,242,514 18.423
27-Mile Radius With Project (2040) 115,016,618 6,245,493 18.416
Net Change 13,387 2,979 -0.007
Significant Impact Determination No
Source: Fehr & Peers. (2022). The Gateway Specific Plan at Grand Terrace Transportation Metrics Memorandum. Pages 6 – Table 2. See
Appendix J2
As shown in Table 4.15-2, the base year 2016 and future year 2040 data were interpolated to estimate
the Baseline 2022 condition. The Year 2022 and Year 2040 analysis show how the VMT generated by the
Project compares to current VMT characteristics in the area. As shown in Table 4.15-3, the Project is
forecast to generate 32.9 VMT/SP in Baseline (2022) conditions and 28.3 VMT/SP in Cumulative (2040)
conditions. The relevant threshold is below the County’s baseline VMT, which is 37.6 VMT/SP in the 2022
Baseline condition. Therefore, based on the City’s adopted significance criteria, the Project VMT/SP is
below the applicable threshold for project-generated VMT.
For the Project’s effect on VMT, as shown in Table 4.15-3, both the 10-mile and 27-mile radius boundaries
reflect a modest decrease in VMT/SP as compared to the No Project condition, indicating that the Project
would either reduce trips on a per-person basis or would decrease trip lengths in the Project area.
Therefore, based on the City’s adopted significance criteria, the Project VMT/SP is below the applicable
threshold for a projects effect on VMT.
Based on the results previously discussed, the Project’s VMT impact would be less than significant, and
no mitigation is required.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-18 4.15 | Transportation
Project Phasing VMT Assessment
VMT modeling and estimates were prepared for the full buildout of the Project. Phase 1 would construct
375 Multi-family Residential (MFR) DUs, 160 Detached Single-Family Residential (SFR) DUs, and
160 attached SFR DUs. Note that there is no residential development associated with Phase 2. The
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Online VMT Screening Tool was utilized to
evaluate VMT performance of similar residential developments near the Project. According to the Tool,
these areas generated between 23.1 and 24.6 OD VMT/SP. It is anticipated that Phase 1 of the Project
would generate VMT at a similar rate.
Travel Demand Management Measures
While the Project’s VMT impact was concluded to be less than significant, the following recommendations
for Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures could be implemented to further reduce VMT
generated by the Project, as the discretion of the Project Applicant and City of G rand Terrace. The TMM
(Appendix J2) determined that the TDMs listed below would be the most applicable for the Project:
1. Implement parking restrictions to limit visitors parking in nearby neighborhoods
2. Develop carpool and vanpool programs
3. Promote unbundled parking programs that would allow parking spaces to be sold or rented
separately without inclusion into rental cost
4. Encourage shared parking between property owners and renters to increase parking utilization
during off-peak parking demand hours
5. Market programs to educate visitors, residents, and employees about alternatives to driving
6. Develop bicycle connections that will provide access to proposed bicycle facilities outlined in the
City’s Proposed Bikeway Plan, such as the proposed bikeways on Commerce W ay, Barton Road
and Michigan Street which are within or provide direct access to the Project area
7. Encourage the development of programs that subsidize transit for employees to reduce Project
vehicle trips for employees located within an appropriate transit travel distance to the site
8. Incentivize and promote Carshare programs
9. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs within the Project
10. Improve or increase access to transit in the Project area
11. Improve pedestrian networks in the Project area
12. Provide traffic calming within the Project
13. Provide telecommuting or work-at-home programs, where appropriate
14. Develop a “park once” policy to encourage employees, residents, and visitors to park once and
walk to multiple destinations within the Project area
It should be noted that most programs tend to be tenant and employer specific and, at this point, tenants
and employers are not yet known. For example, providing a shuttle service to an office use can have
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-19 4.15 | Transportation
varying reductions in VMT based on the tenant of that office building and that office culture’s response
to such TDM measures. As such, at the time of entitlement, it is very difficult to fully capture the actual
VMT reduction associated with implementation of the TDM program as many tenants in the non-
residential uses are not yet known. Although these factors are not yet known and would change the
reduction potential associated with the TDM measures, the Project could still implement a subset of
measures deemed appropriate by the City for implementation as part of the Project’s future project-
specific development approval process. Additionally, refer to MM AQ-2 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, which
provides vehicle trip reduction measures.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.15-3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sha rp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project’s proposed circulation plan would improve the local circulation and would provide access for
new development within the Project. The proposed circulation improvements are noted under
Section 4.15.3 above and further discussed in the Specific Plan. The proposed circulation impro vements
would be compatible with existing and proposed land uses. All proposed improvements would be
constructed as approved by the City Engineer and City’s Fire Department pursuant to Grand Terrace MC
Section 17.52.070, Street Design and Chapter 17.16, and as part of the Project’s proposed tentative tract
map approval. In accordance with Grand Terrace MC Section 17.52.010, “All subdivisions and tentative
maps thereof, must conform to the City General Plan, Zoning Code, and any applicable specific plans and
to all applicable planning, zoning, design, improvement and environmental requirements.”
Upon approval of the Project’s Specific Plan and adherence with the Grand Terrace MC design standards,
the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur,
and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.15-4: Result in inadequate emergency access?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project is not anticipated to result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction.
Construction staff would include assigned staff that would provide typical safety instructions and flag
emergency response vehicles in case of an emergency. All vehicles and construction equipment would not
be located in areas that would impede emergency ingress and egress of the Project site or impede
emergency vehicles from traversing the Project site. All construction equipment shall be maintained or
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.15-20 4.15 | Transportation
left in proper condition in accordance with Cal OSHA safety standards to prevent any hazardous condition
that may affect construction staff and emergency responders.
The Project’s proposed circulation would be designed in conformance with the applicable G rand Terrace
MC design guidelines and regulations, which includes but not limited to use of traffic control devices, and
payment of fair share contributions. Furthermore, the Project would be void of gated communities and
speed bumps which would provide free and clear access for emergency personnel throughout the Project
area. Lastly, as noted in Impact 4.15-3 above, the Project’s Specific Plan and future project-specific
development plans, would be reviewed by the City Engineer and Fire Department to ensure that adequate
emergency access is provided. Therefore, the Project’s impact concerning emergency access would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.15.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with transportation were identified.
4.15.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Implementation of the Project and cumulative development would result in traffic impacts to local
roadways. As discussed in the impact thresholds above, the Project is not anticipated to result in
significant traffic related impacts resulting from conflicts with transportation plans or policies.
As concluded above, the Project-generated VMT/SP estimated for baseline and future conditions is
lower than the adopted significance threshold for the City (the baseline County of San Bernardino OD
VMT/SP average). The Project considered applicable state, regional, and local regulatory framework
discussed in Section 4.15.3 and recommended TDMs which would help reduce VMT impacts to a level
below the City’s threshold of significance. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant
cumulatively considerable impact.
4.15.8 REFERENCES
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan. Retrieved from:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Plan
ning%20&%20Development/city_of_gt_general_plan.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. (2016). City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/grand_terrace/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=GRAND_TERR
ACE_CALIFORNIAMUCO.
Fehr & Peers. (2022). The Gateway Specific Plan at Grand Terrace Transportation Metrics Memorandum.
See Appendix J2.
Fehr & Peers. (2022). Transportation Impact Analysis Report. See Appendix J1.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-1 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
4.16 TR IBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.16.1 INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates the potential for The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) to generate
impacts on tribal cultural resources in the City of Grand Terrace (City). Tribal cultural resources include
landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe. Other
potential impacts to cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric, historic, and disturbance of human remains) are
evaluated in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, and impacts to paleontological resources are addressed in
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils. The analysis contained in this section includes the identification of federal,
state, and local regulations which provide guidance on analyzing tribal cultural resources. In cases where
significant impacts are found, mitigation measures would be employed to reduce impact significance or
remove the impact entirely. The evaluation of the Project site and the potential impact to tribal resources
is largely based on the following documentation:
• City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP)
• BCR Consulting LLC. (2022 ). Updated Cultural Resources Records Search. (provided in
Appendix C1)
• CRM Tech. (2017). Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reconnaissance.
(provided in Appendix C3)
• CRM Tech. (2022 ). Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report The Gateway at
Grand Terrace Specific Plan City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California.
(Appendix C5)
• CRM Tech. (2022). Summary of Cultural Resources Survey Coverage. (provided in Appendix C6)
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the reg ulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval, as well as additional AB 52 compliance for future individual projects.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
4.16.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Cultural Setting
The following information is summarized from the City’s GP Draft EIR and Appendix C3 of this Draft EIR.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-2 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Archaeological Context 1
The earliest evidence of human occupation in the Inland Empire region was discovered below the surface
of an alluvial fan in the northern portion of the Lakeview Mountains, overlooking the San Jacinto Valley,
with radiocarbon dates clustering around 9,500 Before the Present (B.P.). Another site found near the
shoreline of Lake Elsinore, close to the confluence of Temescal Wash and the San Jacinto River, yielded
radiocarbon dates between 8,000 and 9,000 B.P. Additional sites with isolated Archaic dart points, bifaces,
and other associated lithic artifacts from the same age range have been found in the nearby Cajon Pass
area of the San Bernardino Mountains, typically atop knolls with good viewsheds.
The cultural history of southern California has been summarized into numerous chronologies . Although
the beginning and ending dates of the recognized cultural horizons vary among different parts of the
region, the general framework of the prehistory of the Inland Empire can be broken into three primary
periods:
• Paleoindian Period (ca. 18,000-9,000 B.P.): Native peoples of this period created fluted spearhead
bases designed to be hafted to wooden shafts. The distinctive method of thinning bifaces and
spearhead preforms by removing long, linear flakes leaves diagnostic Paleoindian markers at tool-
making sites. Other artifacts associated with the Paleoindian toolkit include choppers, cutting
tools, retouched flakes, and perforators. Sites from this period are very sparse across the
landscape and most are deeply buried.
• Archaic Period (ca. 9,000-1,500 B.P.): Archaic sites are characterized by abundant lithic scatters of
considerable size with many biface thinning flakes, bifacial preforms broken during manufacture,
and well-made groundstone bowls and basin metates. As a consequence of making dart points,
many biface thinning waste flakes were generated at individual production stations, which is a
diagnostic feature of Archaic sites.
• Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1,500 B.P.-contact): Sites from this period typically contain small lithic
scatters from the manufacture of small arrow points, expedient groundstone tools such as tabular
metates and unshaped manos, wooden mortars with stone pestles, acorn or mesquite bean
granaries, ceramic vessels, shell beads suggestive of extensive trading networks, and steatite
implements such as pipes and arrow shaft straighteners.
Ethnohistoric Context2
According to current ethnohistorical scholarship, what is now the City of Grand Terrace lies in a n area
where the traditional territories of three Native American groups overlap: the Serrano of the
San Bernardino Mountains, the Luiseño of the Perris-Elsinore region, and the Gabrielino of the San Gabriel
Valley. Kroeber suggests that the Native Americans in this area were probably Luiseño, Reid states that
they were Serrano, and Strong considers them to be Gabrielino. In any case, there also occurred a late
influx of Cahuilla during the 19th century. All of these groups spoke languages of the Shoshonean group,
1 CRM Tech. (2022). Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan City of Grand
Terrace, Attachment A pages 6-7. (see Appendix C3).
2 Ibid. Attachment A pages 6.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-3 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
which in turn is part of the Uto-Aztecan stock, a family of languages that covers most of the southwest
United States and reaches southward as far as Mexico City.
Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans along the Santa Ana River exhibited similar social
organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their
home/base sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock mortar features. During their
seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups often ranged some distances in search of specific
plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding
slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources.
In terms of subsistence practices, a variety of animal and plant resources were evidently exploited by the
tribes. The women focused on gathering, while the men were primarily hunters and fishers. The main
plant foods varied according to season and locality. Acorns and piñon nuts were a staple for groups in the
mountains while honey mesquite, screw bean mesquite, yucca roots, and cacti fruits were collected from
the desert. The main game animals were deer, mountain sheep, antelope, rabbits, birds, and small
rodents. Every year desert groups would travel to the foothills to collect resources and trade goods from
different ecosystems.
As would be expected, the ecosystem these populations occupied would have implications regarding
subsistence-related tools of the material culture. Larger projectile points and associated manufacturing
debitage accompanying the hunting of large game are likely to be found in greater quantities at mountain
sites, whereas smaller points associated with small game hunting are better represented at sites at lower
elevations. Similarly, mortars and pestles are more likely to occur at mountain sites where acorns were
processed, while bedrock milling slicks, manos, and metates are more common at lower elevations where
they were used to process seeds found in that environment.
Existing Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American Consultation
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires that the lead CEQA agency consult with California Native American tribes
that have requested consultation for projects that may affect tribal cultural resources. The lead CEQA
agency, the City, shall begin consultation with participating Native American tribes prior to the release of
a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR. Under AB 52, a project that h as potential
to cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource constitutes a significant effect on the
environment unless mitigation reduces such effects to a less than significant level. The City sent notices
of the Project to interest California Native American tribes in May 2018 and February 2021. The following
tribes were included in the Project notification and opportunity to consult letters pursuant to AB 52:
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI); The Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Cahuilla Band of Indians.
Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes prior to making
certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process.
These consultation and notice requirements apply to the adoption and amendment of general plans and
specific plans. SB 18 outreach letters were sent to interested Native American tribes in May 2018. The
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-4 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
following tribes were included in the Project notification and opportunity to consult letters pursuant to
SB 18: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians; Cabazon Band
of Mission Indians; Cahuilla Band of Indians; Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation;
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieli no/Tongva Nation; Gabrielino Tongva
Indians of California Tribal Council; Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; Los Coyotes Band of C ahuilla and Cupeno
Indians; Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Pala Band of Mission Indians; Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians; Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation; Ramona Band of C ahuilla; Rincon Band of Luiseno
Indians; Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians; Serrano Nation of Mission Indians; Soboba Band of Luiseno Ind ians; Torres-Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians.
In compliance with Public Resource Code (PRC) §21080.3.1(b), formal notification has been provided to
California Native American tribal representatives which may have interest in projects within the
geographic area traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. Native American groups may have
knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from
development on tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC §21074. The Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) was contacted in 2021, and most recently, June 23, 2022, for a review of the
Sacred Land File (SLF) search.
The NAHC’s most recent response, dated July 29, 2022, noted that the SLF returned positive results. The
NAHC recommended 30 individuals representing 21 Native American tribal groups be contacted to elicit
information regarding cultural resource issues related to the Project.
4.16.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources
and sites that are on federal lands and Indian lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional
removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal
lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of h uman
remains, associated funerary objects, and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming
to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally
funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural
items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe
claiming affiliation.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-5 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
State
Native American Heritage Commission
PRC §5097.91 established the NAHC, the duties of which include inventorying places of religious or social
significance to Native Americans and identifying known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on
private lands. PRC §5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a
discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.
California Public Records Act
Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code [CGC]
§6250 et seq.) were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or
vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public
relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places,
features, and objects…maintained by, …, the Native American Heritage Commission….”. Section 6254.10
specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information
and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the
State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the [NAHC], another state agency,
or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between
a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.”
Senate Bill 18
SB 18 (CGC §65352.3) requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes prior to making
certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process.
Prior to the amendment or adoption of General or Specific Plans, local governments must notify the
appropriate tribal representatives of the opportunity to conduct a consultation wi th them on matters
regarding the preservation and mitigating impacts to sacred places located on land within the local
government’s jurisdiction and that such land is affected by the plan adoption or amend ment. These
consultation and notice requirements apply to the adoption and amendment of general plans and specific
plans. The consultation process requires (1) that local governments send the NAHC information on a
proposed project and request contact information for local Native American tribes; (2) that l ocal
governments then send information on the project to the tribes that the NAHC has identified and notify
them of the opportunity to consult; (3) that the tribes have 90 days to respond on whether they want to
consult or not, and (4) that consultation begins, if requested, by a tribe and there is no statutory limit on
the duration of the consultation. If issues arise and consensus on mitigation cannot be reached, SB 18
allows a finding to be made that the suggested mitigation is infeasible.
Assembly Bill 52
On July 1, 2015, California AB 52 of 2014 was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource
category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment.” (PRC §21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall avoid
damaging effects to a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC §21084.3). PRC §21074 (a)(1) and
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-6 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
(2) defines tribal cultural resources as “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and
objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and meets either of the following criteria:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in PRC §5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC §5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The
consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. AB 52 requires that
lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project” if requested (PRC §21080.3.1(b)). Native
American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed
within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The City of Grand Terrace General Plan (Grand Terrace GP) does not contain goals or policies specifically
related to tribal cultural resources, however the following Grand Terrace GP goal and policy below relates
to the protection of cultural resources:
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 4.9: Comply with State and federal regulations to ensure the protection of historical,
archaeological, and paleontological resources.
Policy 4.9.1 The City shall take reasonable steps to ensure that cultural resources are located,
identified and evaluated to assure that appropriate action is taken as to the disposition
of these resources.
4.16.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning tribal cultural resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
▪ Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-7 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Methodology a nd Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning tribal cultural resources. This analysis considers
the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce
the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance
with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or r educe the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Native American Outreach and Background Research
In compliance with SB 18 and PRC §21080.3.1(b), formal notification has been provided to California
Native American tribal representatives which may have interest in projects within the geographic area
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe and to provide notification of a proposed Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in
the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on tribal cultural resources as
defined in PRC §21074. The NAHC was contacted in May 2018, February 2021, and in June 2022, for a
review of the SLF for APNs 1167-151- 10, -11, -12, -13, -21, -22, -23, -26, -28, -40, -41, -64, -65, -66, -68, -71,
-74, -75, -76, -77, and -79; 1167-161-02, -03, -04, -05, and -33; 1167-171-11 and -12; 1167-181-01, -12,
and -13.
The NAHC first responded on May 24, 2018, noting a SLF search be conducted; an additional response was
received on February 22, 2021, noting that the SLF returned positive results. The SLF search did identify
previously known Native American cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of
religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the entire Project area. The NAHC suggested 24 individuals
representing 17 Native American tribal groups be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural
resource issues related to the Project. Outreach letters to the 17 r ecommended tribal groups were sent
in May 2018.
The NAHC was contacted again in February 2021, for an updated review of the SLF search for APNs 1167 -
151-11, -14, -17, -18, -20, -21, -23, and -75; 1167-181-01, and -12. The SLF search results remained
consistent with the 2018 records search. The NAHC was contacted again in June 2022 and the subsequent
SLF search results remained consistent with the 2018 and 2021 results. The NAHC responded on
July 29, 2022, noting that the SLF returned positive results and suggested that the SMBMI be contacted
for further information. Upon receiving the NAHC’s reply, CRM TECH contacted the SMBMI, now known
as the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, in writing on August 2, 2022. On August 23, 2022, the Tribe
replied by e-mail that the Project location is not situated near any known Native American cultural
resources. In addition to the SMBMI, the NAHC also suggested contacting other local Native American
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-8 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
groups who may have knowledge on potential “tribal cultural resources,” as d efined by CEQA, in the
Project vicinity and provided a list of 30 individuals associated with 21 tribal organizations.
On June 23, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for information in the SLF
pertaining to any known Native American cultural resources in the Project vicinity, specifically for
properties identified at APNs 1167-151-11, -14, -17, -18, -20, -21, -23, and -75 and 1167-181-01, -12, and
-13. In response, the NAHC stated in a letter dated July 29, 2022, that the SLF search identified unspecified
Native American cultural resource(s) in the Project vicinity and recommended that the SMBMI be
contacted for further information (see Attachment B of Appendix C3). Upon receiving the commission’s
reply, CRM TECH contacted the SMBMI, now known as the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, in writing
on August 2. On August 23, the Tribe replied by e-mail that the project location is not situated near any
known Native American cultural resources (see Attachment B of Appendix C3).
Should additional responses be received once the final report is submitted, the information will be
added to the Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report as an addendum and any
requested mitigation may be added to the Final EIR or as Conditions o f Approval. NAHC and
Native American correspondence materials, including communication attempts, are provided in
Attachment B of Appendix C3.
Formal Consultation – Native American Outreach and Background Research
The City sent notices of the Project to interest California Native American tribes in May 2018 and
February 2021. The following tribes were included in the Project notification and opportunity to consult
letters pursuant to AB 52: SMBMI; The Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation; Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Cahuilla Band of Indians . SB 18 outreach
letters were sent to interested Native American tribes in May 2018. The following tribes were included in
the Project notification and opportunity to consult letters pursuant to SB 18: Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians; Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; Cahuilla
Band of Indians; Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band
of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council;
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians; Morongo Band of Mission
Indians; Pala Band of Mission Indians; Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians; Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation; Ramona Band of Cahuilla; Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians; Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians;
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians; Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians; Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
The results of consultation are discussed below in Section 4.16.5, Project Impacts and Mitigation.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field reconnaissance conducted by CRM TECH;
confidential record search data from the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California
Historical Resources Information System; review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and
ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning
documents. The determination that any components of the Project may result in “substantial” adverse
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-9 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
effects on tribal cultural resources considers the existing site’s resource value and the severity of the
Project implementation on resources that may be considered significant tribal cultural resources .
4.16.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.16-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
§5020.1(k) or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code (PRC) §5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American Tribe?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
As stated above, in compliance with SB 18 and PRC §21080.3.1(b), formal notification has been provided
to California Native American tribal representatives which may have interest in projects within the
geographic area traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe and to provide notification of a
proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment. Should additional responses be received once the final
report is submitted, the information will be added to the Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources
Survey Report as an addendum and any requested mitigation may be added to the Final EIR or as
Conditions of Approval. NAHC and Native American correspondence materials, including communication
attempts, are provided in Attachment B of Appendix C3.
AB 52 and SB 18 Notices were sent by the City to 17 tribal groups in May 2018. Of those 17 tribal groups,
the following six responses were received:
• On May 25, 2018, Mrs. Jessica Mauck, Cultural Resource Analyst for the SMBMI, stated that
SMBMI does not have concerns with any activity within the Project site, and only asks to be
notified of any inadvertent discoveries.
• On May 25, 2018, Mrs. Katie Croft, Cultural Resources Manager for the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), stated that the Project area is not located within the boundaries of the
ACBCI Reservation, however it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. At the time of this
response, ACBCI defers to the SMBMI. Therefore, no further consultation was conducted.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-10 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
• On June 5, 2018, Mrs. Victoria Martin, Tribal Secretary for the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians,
stated that the Project area is not within the Tribe’s specific area of historic interest and as such,
they do not have any information to provide and defer to a closer tribe to the Project area .
• On June 7, 2018, Mr. Andrew Salas, Chairman of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation, stated that the Project lies within their ancestral tribe territory, meaning descending
from, a higher degree of kinship than traditional or cultural affiliation. They also stated that the
Project is located within a sensitive area and may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of the Tribes tribal cultural resources. Therefore, to avoid adverse effects to their
tribal cultural resources, they request consultation to provide a more complete understanding of
the prehistoric use(s) of the Project area and the potential risks for causing a substantial adverse
change to the significance of our tribal cultural resources. On March 30, 2022, Kimley-Horn and
Associates followed up with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation via email for
formal consultation to determine whether the Tribe has any comments/concerns on the Project.
As of March 30, 2022, the Tribe has not responded for further consultation.
• On June 11, 2018, Mr. Bobby Ray Esparza, Cultural Coordinator for the Cahuilla Band of Indians
stated interest in the Project and wished to consult on the proposed Project as it is within the
Cahuilla traditional land use area. They request to be notified of all updates and/or changes with
the Project moving forward.
• On August 24, 2018, Mrs. Destiny Colocho, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Rincon Band
of Luiseno Indians, stated that Project site is not within the Luiseno Aboriginal Territory, but is
within the Territory of the Luiseno people and is also within the Rincon’s specific area of Historic
Interest. However, cultural resources within or near the Project area have not been identified, so
the Tribe will not be requesting to receive consulting party status with the lead agency, but they
do recommend an archaeological records search be conducted.
On March 30, 2022, the City, contacted the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to determine whether the
Tribe has any comments/ concerns on the Project. As of March 30, 2022, the Tribe has not responded for
further consultation.
There is a potential for unknown buried archaeological resources that qualify as TCRs to be encountered
during Project-related ground-disturbing activities. In the event that a potentially significant
archaeological resource is encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation
Measure (MM ) CUL-2 would apply to minimize potential impacts to archaeological resources. MM CUL-2
requires that the Project archaeologist consults with local experts and Native American Representatives
for the preparation of a treatment plan if significant unknown cultural resources are discovered during
construction of the Project. Implementation of MMs TCR-1 through TCR-4 would further reduce impacts
to any unknown or inadvertently discovered archaeological resources or human remains that are
identified as TCRs. All such finds would be required to be treated in accordance with all CEQA
requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. With implementation of these measures,
impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-11 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM CUL-2 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources of this EIR.
MM TCR-1 Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural
resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity
of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other
portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this
assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will be
contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited
to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes his/her assessment, so as to
provide Tribal input. The archaeologist shall complete an isolate record for the find
and submit this document to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
MM TCR-2 Treatment and Disposition of TCRs.
If significant Native American historical resources are discovered and avoidance
cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop an
cultural resources Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the
drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review
and comment.
All in-field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the
finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Tribal Participant(s).
The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural
materials encountered during the project.
After the notification of discovery to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and
assessments/evaluations have occurred, the following treatment/disposition of the
TCRs shall occur:
Preservation-In-Place of the TCRs, if feasible as determined through coordination
between the project archeologist, Master Developer or Site Developers, as
applicable, and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, is the preferred method of
treatment. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the
place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the
resources in perpetuity.
Should Preservation-In-Place not be feasible, the landowner shall accommodate the
process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future
reburial area from any future impacts. During the course of construction, all
recovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on site. The
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-12 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
removal of any artifacts from the project site shall require the approval of the San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians and all resources subject to such removal must be
thoroughly inventoried with a tribal representative from San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians to oversee the process. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic
recordation have been completed.
If Preservation-In-Place and reburial are not feasible, the landowner(s) shall
relinquish ownership of all TCRs and a curation agreement with an appropriate
qualified repository within San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per
36 CFR Part 79 shall be established. The collections and associated records shall be
transferred, including title, to said curation facility by the landowner, and
accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
Any historic archaeological material that is not Native Amer ican in origin (non-TCRs)
shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials within the County of the discovery, if such an institution agrees to accept
the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered
to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
If discoveries were made during the project, a Monitoring Report shall be submitted
to the County by the Archaeologist at the completion of grading, excavation, and
ground-disturbing activities on the site. Said report will document monitoring and
archaeological efforts conducted by the archaeologist and San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document
the impacts to the known resources on the property, describe how each mitigation
measure was fulfilled, document the type of cultural resources recovered, and outline
the treatment and disposition of such resources. All reports produced will be
submitted to the County of San Bernardino, appropriate Information Center, and San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
MM TCR-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains.
In accordance with California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, if human remains or
funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project,
work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and
the County Coroner shall be contacted within 24 hours of the discovery. The project
lead/foreman shall designate an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical
demarcation/barrier 100 feet around the resource and no further excavation or
disturbance of the site shall occur while the County Coroner makes his/her
assessment regarding the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to be
Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with Public Resources Code
§5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most
likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete
their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-13 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American representative will then determine, in consultation with the
property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
Reburial of human remains and/or funerary objects (those artifacts associated with
any human remains or funerary rites) shall be accomplished in com pliance with the
California Public Resources Code §5097.98 (a) and (b). The MLD in consultation with
the landowner, shall make the final discretionary determination regarding the
appropriate disposition and treatment of human remains and funerary objects. All
parties are aware that the MLD may wish to rebury the human remains and
associated funerary objects on or near the site of their discovery, in an area that shall
not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The
applicant/developer/landowner should accommodate on-site reburial in a location
mutually agreed upon by the Parties. It is understood by all Parties that unless
otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains
or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public
disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The coroner, parties,
and Lead Agencies will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to
such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government
Code §6254 (r).
4.16.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable tribal cultural resource impacts have been identified.
4.16.7 C UMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of cumulative impact analysis to cultural and tribal cultural resources, the geographic
context for cumulative analysis is regional and considers both direct and indirect impacts over a wide area.
However, the discussion is focused on the Project’s potential for resulting in site-specific impacts that
could contribute to a cumulative loss. Accordingly, impacts are site-specific and not generally subject to
cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or an affected resource extends
off-site, such as a historic townsite or district. With this consideration, the cumulative analyses for
historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources considers whether the Project, in combination with
the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could cumulatively affect any common cultural
resources.
As discussed above, the NAHC determined that the SLF search was positive. In addition, future cumulative
development projects have the potential to encounter/adversely affect tribal cultural resources.
Therefore, it is possible that buried prehistoric artifacts or tribal cultural resources could be present within
the area. The proposed Project includes mitigation to ensure proper identification, treatment, and
preservation of cultural resources discovered. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with
other project development would be site-specific and would undergo individually environmental and
design review pursuant to CEQA in order to evaluate potential impacts. The combination of the proposed
Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City and Riverside County
would be required to comply with all applicable State, federal, and County and local regulations
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.16-14 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural and tribal cultural resources, including
compliance with required mitigation. This also includes project-by-project consultation with the
appropriate tribal representatives to discuss mitigation measures that would be included to mitigate
impacts to tribal cultural resources. In addition, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures
would reduce project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s contribution
to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
4.16.8 REFERENCES
BCR Consulting LLC. (2022). Updated Cultural Resources Records Search (provided in Appendix C1).
CRM Tech. (2017). Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reconnaissance (provided in
Appendix C3).
CRM Tech. (2022). Summary of Cultural Resources Survey Coverage (provided in Appendix C6).
CRM Tech. (2022). Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report The Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California (Appendix C5).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-1 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM S
4.17.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing public utilities and service systems and The Gateway at Grand Terrace
Specific Plan (Project)’s consistency with applicable goals and policies; identifies and analyzes
environmental impacts; and recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from
implementation of the Project, as applicable.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
As such, the information and analysis herein relied on the following documentation:
• City of Grand Terrace (City) General Plan (Grand Terrace GP).
• City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC).
• 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan
(IRUWMP) – Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC) prepared on June 30, 2021, by Water
Systems Consulting, Inc.
• Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared on October 10, 2022, by Engineering Resources of
Southern California (ERSC), included as Appendix K1.
• Sewer System Analysis prepared in May 2022 by KWC Engineers, included as Appendix K2.
4.17.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Water
Potable water service for the City is provided by Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC). RHWC is a
private mutual water company owned by its shareholders. The company maintains water main
transmission lines, wells, reservoirs, and service laterals throughout the City and is directly responsible for
their ongoing maintenance. RHWC currently has 13 wells capable of producing water.1
There are four existing City of Riverside Public Utility (RPU) well lines (48-inch) located within
Planning Areas (PAs) 1, 5, 6, 10, 18, 21 , and 22 that do not serve the City. There are four existing water
1 RHWC. (2021). 2020 IRUWMP – Part 2 Chapter 7, RHWC 2020 UWMP. Retrieved from:
https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9246/637614377683630000 (accessed November 6, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-2 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
lines, serviced by RHWC, located within or near the Project at Commerce Way (eight-inch), De Berry Street
(eight-inch), Van Buren Street (10-inch), and at Main Street (eight-inch).
Water Supply Assessment
A WSA was prepared for the Project to evaluate the existing and future demands on the water supply
needed to be supplied by RHWC. The Project site is primarily vacant and water service is provided to five
residences scattered on-site. The WSA was prepared based on the information from the San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD)’s 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP)
and the City’s 2010 General Plan land uses to examine existing RHWC demands, projected RHWC water
demands, water rights and entitlements, existing supplies, and supplies needed to meet future demands,
and water reliability to access whether sufficient water supplies would be available for the Project.
Water Sources
Riverside Highland Water Company 2
As stated above, water service is provided by RHWC . RHWC provides water services to 5,300 domestic
potable water customers and serves water to the City, the City of Colton, the Highgrove area of Riverside
County, and small portions of the County of San Bernardino (County). RHWC’s water supply is comprised
entirely of local groundwater and the company does not currently purchase imported water or other
supplies. Additionally, RHWC currently has no plans for future use of surface water supplies. However,
RHWC participates in regional project planning efforts to capture additional stormwater for purposes of
groundwater recharge to increase sustainability of the basins RHWC produces water from.
RHWC extracts potable water from the San Bernardino Basin, including the Bunker Hill Basin and Lytle
Basin, and the Riverside Arlington Basin (including the Riverside North Basin and Riverside South Basin).
RHWC currently has 13 wells capable of producing water. Two of these wells, RN-21 and RN-22 are
dedicated to providing non-potable irrigation water due to high nitrate concentrations. Three wells, FW -
2, FW-5, and FW-18 are being used for the groundwater reduction program in the Bunker Hill Basin. These
three wells can be converted to domestic water production if required. RHWC recently constructed a new
well in the Riverside North Basin, RN-26, which went online in 2021.
According to the WSA, RHWC entered into an agreement with SBVMWD for a maximum flow rate of
1,000 gallons per minute from the Baseline Feeder project. The maximum quantity RHWC can receive in
any calendar year is 1,000 acre-feet from this pipeline. Water obtained through this agreement is assessed
against RHWC’s water right in the San Bernardino Basin.
Wastewater
Sanitary sewer service is provided by the City of Grand Terrace through various agreements between the
cities of Grand Terrace and Colton. The City of Colton leases to the City of Grand Terrace and maintains
the sewer lines and treats the wastewater. There are a number of existing gravity sewer lines in the vicinity
of the Project. The main sewer line in the area is a 12-inch trunk sewer line in De Berry Street that conveys
flow from east to west through the Project and then increases to 18 -inch before it crosses I-215. After
2 Ibid.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-3 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
crossing I-215, the sewer line flows north and increases in size before reaching the Colton Water
Reclamation Facility. There is also a 10-inch gravity sewer line in Commerce Way that conveys flows south
to the 18-inch trunk sewer line. A 10-inch sewer line in Taylor Street conveys flows north to the 18-inch
trunk sewer line. There are 8-inch gravity sewer lines in Van Buren Street and Pico Street that convey
flows from east to west to the 10-inch line on Taylor Street. See Exhibit 3-8, Existing Sewer Plan in
Section 3.0, Project Description. Sewer improvements would be designed and sized to tie into the
existing/backbone infrastructure to serve all future development within the Project site. Based on
Exhibit 3-8, the existing backbone sewer infrastructure is adequately sized to accommodate these flows.
Wastewater collected from the Project site would continue to be conveyed in an existing 18-inch diameter
sewer pipeline under I-215 to the wastewater treatment plant in the City of Colton.
The Project site would be served by the City of Colton wastewater treatment plant (Colton WWTP).
The City of Colton owns, operates and maintains a wastewater collection, pumping and treatment system.
The Colton WWTP also serves the City of Grand Terrace and unincorporated San Bernardino County areas.
The Colton WWTP currently collects and treats approximately 7 million gallons per day (MGD) of
wastewater from its service area, as well from City of Grand Terrace and some unincorporated San
Bernardino County areas.3 Average daily flows at the Colton WWTP are 5.6 MGD.4
A Sewer System Analysis was prepared for the Project site to evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer
system, and is included as Draft EIR Appendix K. As discussed further below, the analysis concluded that
the existing local collector sewers have adequate capacity to serve the Project site developments.
Stormwater Drainage
The Project site is traversed by three major drainage courses that originate at the base of Blue Mountain
at De Berry Street, Van Buren Street, and Pico Street. The northern drainage course enters the site at the
westerly end of De Berry Street. It then travels in a southwesterly direction and enters the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) channel that eventually directs flows off-site under I-215. The
second drainage course enters the Project site on the north side of Van Buren Street nea r the easterly
edge of Planning Area 11. These storm water flows travel west and join the SBCFCD channel at the western
edge of the Project site. A portion of this drainage course has been identified as a possible wetlands area.
The third drainage course enters the Project site along the northern portion of the existing Grand Terrace
High School near the southeasterly edge of Planning Area (PA) 20. The westerly terminus of Pico Street
overflows with storm water during large storm events and the storm water travels through the existing
school site towards Taylor Street and ultimately joins the Gage Canal at the western edge of the Project
site.
The off-site tributary area consists of a watershed of approximately 32,320 acres including the majority
of the City. All flows are directed to the low point within the Project site. Ultimately, drainage from the
Project site flows to the Santa Ana River.
3 San Bernardino Valley Regional. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved at:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2941/Urban -Water-Management-Plan?bidId=. (accessed May 2023).
4 City of Colton. 2023. Wastewater Information. Retrieved at: https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/653/Wastewater -Information. (accessed May 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-4 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
Solid Waste
The City maintains an agreement with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc (Burrtec) for the collection and
disposal of municipal solid wastes, and organic and recyclable materials generated by residences and
businesses within the City. Burrtec provides weekly residential collection services for municipal solid
waste, organic and mixed recyclables, and green waste. Collection services to commercial and industrial
uses are provided from one to six times per week and include a wide range of waste and recyclable
collection services. Additionally, there will be future organic waste options to comply with current State
mandates. All municipal solid waste collected in the City is taken to the San Bernardino County landfill
system for disposal. The closest landfills to the Project site are the San Timoteo Landfill and the Mid-Valley
Landfill.
San Timoteo Landfill
The San Timoteo Landfill is located east of the Project site at 31 Refuse Road within the City of Redlands.
The landfill is owned and operated by the County and is accessible via Barton Road eastbound at
San Timoteo Canyon Road and via Redlands Boulevard northbound towards San Timoteo Canyon Road.
The landfill encompasses 366 acres, with 114 acres of disposal acreage. The landfill currently has a
maximum permitted capacity of 23,685,785 cubic yards for refuse disposal, a remaining capacity of
12,360,396 cubic yards, and a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day.5
Mid-Valley Landfill
The Mid-Valley Landfill is located northwest of the Project site at 2390 N. Alder Avenue within the City of
Rialto. The landfill is owned and operated by the County and is accessible via I-210 at Alder Avenue. The
existing landfill encompasses a total of 498 acres, with 408 acres of disposal acreage. The landfill has a
maximum permitted capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards for refuse disposal, a remaining capacity of
61,219,377 cubic yards, and a maximum permitted throughput of 7,500 tons per day.6
Natural Gas
Natural Gas service for the Project site is provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) which
maintains a system of mainlines and laterals throughout the City, primarily within public rights-of-way. In
an effort to ensure that natural gas is always available to its customers, SoCalGas employs the use of four
underground storage tanks: Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, Honor Ranch Storage Facility, La Goleta Storage
Facility, and Playa del Rey Storage Facility. These facilities help balance the energy supply and demand.
Electricity
Electrical power service to the Project is and would continue to be provided by Southern California Edison
(SCE) which maintains a system of above and below-ground transmission and distribution lines
throughout the City. SCE also maintains a major substation within the City. The Val Vista Substation on
Newport Road is a major switching station for SCE’s southern California grid.
5 CalRecycle. (2019). SWIS Facility/Site Summary – San Timoteo Landfill (36-AA-0087). Retrieved at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2688 (accessed November 6, 2022).
6 CalRecycle. (2019). SWIS Facility/Site Summary – Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055). Retrieved at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2662 (accessed November 6, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-5 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
Cable
Cable services for the Project site is currently provided by Time Warner; other cable companies may
provide service if permitted by the City in the future. Time Warner maintains a system of above and below -
ground lines throughout the City, primarily within public rights-of-way. All new on-site cable lines will be
placed underground.
4.17.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Clean Water Act
Pursuant to § 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code [USC] Section 1251 et seq.; CWA), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which include those waters listed in
33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3 (as amended at 80 Federal Register (FR) 37104, June 29, 2015).
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a division of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), is required to provide “certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity
that may result in the discharge to waters of the U.S. will not violate water quality standards.” Water
Quality Certification must be based on the finding that proposed discharge will comply with applicable
water quality standards.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of
pollutants into surface waters of the U.S. under CWA § 402.
Safe Drinking Water Act (Federal)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 USC
Section 300f et seq.), the primary federal law that regulates the quality of drinking water and establishes
standards to protect public health and safety. The Department of Health Services (DHS) implements the
SDWA and oversees public water system quality statewide. DHS establishes legal drinking water standards
for contaminants that could threaten public health.
State
Safe Drinking Water Act (State)
California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, Health and Safety Code [HSC] §§116350 –
116405) with the California Department of Public Health Services (DPHS) granted primary enforcement
responsibility. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (Division 4, Chapter 15, “Domestic Water
Quality and Monitoring Regulations”) established DPHS authority and provides drinking water quality and
monitoring requirements, which are equal to or more stringent than Federal standards.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act, as amended (California Water Code [CWC] §10610
et seq.), mandates that every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-6 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
annually, or serves more than 3,000 urban connections, to assess the reliability of its water sources over
a 20-year planning horizon, and report its progress on 20 percent reduction in per -capita urban water
consumption by the year 2020, as required in the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 SBX7 -7. The Act is
intended to provide assistance to water agencies in carrying out their long -term resource planning
responsibilities to ensure adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demands for water through
preparation of Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). The UWMPs must be prepared every five years
and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for review. A UWMP must
1) describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other
demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning; 2) quantify past and cur rent
water use over five-year increments, and projected water use, identifying the uses among various water
use sectors, including single-family residential, multifamily, commercial, industrial, institutional and
governmental, landscape, sales to other agencies, seawater intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge,
conjunctive use, or any combination thereof, and agricultural; and 3) describe the reliability of the water
supply and its vulnerability to seasonal and climatic shortage, and provide data, to the extent practicable,
for average, single dry, and multiple dry water years.
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the California (State) agency focused on providing
and ensuring clean sustainable water for all state residents. This State agency works alongside other
federal programs like the Clean Water Act (CWA) to r egulate water sources and uses. The SWRCB
regulates water consumption for irrigation and drinking, as well as water discharges from construction,
municipal uses, stormwater, and other sources.
Recycled Water Regulations
Regulation of recycled water is vested by state law in the SWRCB and the DPHS. DPHS is responsible for
the regulations concerning the use of recycled water. Title 17 (California Water Code [CWC] §§ 13500 –
13556) regulates the protection of the potable water supply through the control of cross-connections with
potential contaminants, including recycled water. The established water quality standards and treatment
reliability criteria for recycled water are codified in CWC Title 22. The requirements of Title 22, as revised
in 1978, 1990 and 2001, establish the quality and/or treatment processes required for a recycled effluent
to be used for a non-potable application. In addition to recycled water uses and treatment requirements,
Title 22 addresses sampling and analysis requirements at the treatment plant, preparation of an
engineering report prior to production or use of recycled water, general treatment design requirements,
reliability requirements, and alternative methods of treatment
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (CWC § 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for
California. Under this act, the SWRCB has primary responsibility for coordination and control of water
quality. In California, the U.S. EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the SWRCB. The state
is divided into nine regions related to water quality and quantity characteristics. The SWRCB, through its
nine RWQCBs, carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region.
Each RWQCB is required to adopt a WQMP or Basin Plan that recognizes and reflects the regional
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-7 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water, and
local water quality conditions and problems.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings were established in
1978 in response to a mandate to reduce the state’s energy consumption. These standards are
promulgated under CCR Title 24 Part 6 and are commonly referred to as “Title 24.” The Title 24 standards
are periodically updated to reflect new or improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The
most recent Title 24 standards were updated effective January 1, 2023, with subsequent revisions and
amendments. A new development project is required to incorporate the most recent Title 24 standards
in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted.
California Senate Bills 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 amended State law to (1) ensure better coordination between local water supply and
land use decisions and (2) confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development. Both
statutes require City and County decision-makers to receive detailed information regarding water
availability prior to approval of large development projects. SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA for
certain types of projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Projects that would
be required to prepare a WSA include, but are not limited to, residential developments of more than 500
dwelling units and shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 500,000 square feet of floor area.
2015 Update of the State Model Water Efficie nt Landscape Ordinance (per Governor’s
Executive Order B-29-15)
To improve water savings in the landscaping sector, the California DWR, updated the Model Ordinance in
2015 (in accordance with Executive Order B-29-15). The Model Ordinance promotes efficient landscapes
in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The Executive Order calls for revising the
Model Ordinance to increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more
efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion
of landscapes that can be covered in turf. New development projects that include landscape areas of
500 square feet or more are subject to the Ordinance. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial,
and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review.
Local agencies had until December 1, 2015, to adopt the Ordinance or adopt their own ordinance, which
must meet or exceed effectiveness. The City adopted Ordinance No. 247 or Grand Terrace
MC Chapter 15.56, Water Efficient Landscape in 2010 establishes provisions for water management
practices and water waste prevention for existing landscapes and promotes water efficiency.
Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606
AB 1668 and SB 606 build on Governor Brown’s ongoing efforts to make water conservation a way of life
in California and create a new foundation for long -term improvements in water conservation and drought
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-8 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
planning. SB 606 and AB 1668 establish guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the
implementation and oversight of the new standards, which must be in place by 2022.
The two bills strengthen the state’s water resiliency in the face of future droughts with provisions that
include:
• Establishing water use objectives and long-term standards for efficient water use that apply to
urban retail water suppliers; comprised of indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water
use, commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) irrigation with dedicated meters, water loss,
and other unique local uses.
• Providing incentives for water suppliers to recycle water.
• Identifying small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water
shortage vulnerability and provide recommendations for drought planning.
• Requiring both urban and agricultural water suppliers to set annual water budgets and prepare
for drought.
Mandatory Commercial Recycling – AB 341
AB 341, approved in October 2011, is intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting
commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services
and recycling manufacturing facilities in the state. The Mandatory Commercial Recycling measure is
designed to achieve a reduction in GHG emissions of 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)
equivalents. To achieve the measure’s objective, an additional 2 to 3 million tons of materials annually
will need to be recycled from the commercial sector by the year 2020 and beyond. This law requires
California commercial businesses and public entities, that generate four or more cubic yards of
commercial solid waste per week or is a multi-family residential dwelling with five or more units, to
arrange for recycling services.
Each local jurisdiction is required to inform businesses about the recycling requirement and to keep track
of the level of recycling within the business community. In addition, each jurisdiction is required to report
to CalRecycle, the state agency that oversees recycling and solid waste, on progress in the business
community.7
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The following Grand Terrace GP goals and policies are relevant to the Project:
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 4.8: Achieve regional water quality objectives and protect the beneficial uses of the
regions surface and groundwater.
7 CLI. 2011. Assembly Bill No. 341. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341 (accessed January 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-9 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
Policy 4.8.1 Evaluate all proposed land use and development plans for their potential to create
groundwater contamination hazards from point and non-point sources, and cooperate
with other appropriate agencies to assure appropriate mitigation.
Policy 4.8.2 Comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
Public Services Element
Goal 7.1: Coordinate and balance the provision of public services with existing and planned
development to eliminate service gaps, maximize the use of existing public facilities
and services, provide a high level of quality public services at a reasonable cost, and
maintain adequate services to meet the needs of current and future City residents
and businesses.
Policy 7.1.1 All proposed development shall be evaluated to determine whether current public
services and facilities can meet with their needs. If determined that current services
and facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of new development, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be applied to the new development to assure an adequate
level of service.
Sustainable Development Element
Goal 9.2: Reduce the total quantity of waste generated within the City requiring landfill
disposal to meet or exceed the State waste diversion goals.
Policy 9.2.2 Require all new development projects to recycle construction and demolition wastes.
Goal 9.7: Reduce the City’s per capita demand for water consumption.
Policy 9.7.2 The City shall incorporate water conservation into the development review process.
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
Section 18.73.190 – Utility Underground
City Municipal Code (Grand Terrace MC) § 18.73.190 requires that all public utility distribution and
transmission lines shall be located underground unless otherwise approved by the site and architectural
review board or city council.
Section 17.52.080 – Utilities
Grand Terrace MC § 17.52.080 requires that each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by gas,
electric, telephone, and cable television facilities.
Section 17.52.090 – Underground Utilities
Grand Terrace MC § 17.52.090 requires that all existing and proposed utilities within a subdivision and
along peripheral streets be placed underground except those facilities exempted by the public utilities
commission regulations. In lieu fees would be paid as approved by the City Council for future
undergrounding of utilities throughout the City.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-10 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
Chapter 4.80 – Developer Impact Fees
Pursuant to Grand Terrace MC Chapter 4.80, project applicants are required to pay Development Impacts
Fees (DIFs) to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services associated with new
development.
Chapter 8.68 – Litter Control
Grand Terrace MC Chapter 8.68 sets provisions and requirements concerning solid waste containerization
and removal for residential and commercial uses.
Chapter 15.58 - Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste
Grand Terrace MC Chapter 15.58 includes, but not limited, to provisions requiring every applicant to
submit a waste management plan (WMP) prior to issuance of any building or demolition permit.
4.17.4 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning utilities and service systems. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years;
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments;
• Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or
• Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning utilities and service systems. This analysis
considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid
or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite
compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or
reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-11 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on technical assessments provided by ERSC
(see Appendix K1) and KWC Engineers (see Appendix K2 ); review of Project maps and drawings; analysis
of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including
local planning documents. The determination that the Project would or would not result in substant ial
adverse effects on utilities or service systems is based on the capacity of those systems and their ability
to efficiently accommodate the Project’s development into their infrastructure, as well as the Project’s
compliance with all relevant regulations and policies.
4.17.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.17-1: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Water Facilities
As part of the Project, and as analyzed in this document, the Project site relies on both existing and new
water lines which are proposed along the eastern border of the Riverside Canal; PAs 14, 11, and 15; and
south from PA 21 to the Taylor Street/Main Street intersection. Exhibit 3-10, Conceptual Water Plan
shows the existing and proposed water facilities.
All water line improvements would be developed and analyzed as future projects are developed and
entitled within the Project area. A hydraulic analysis of any future water facilities would be conducted,
and improvements would be constructed in accordance with Grand Terrace GP and MC, and RHWC design
standards. Future development would also be provided with fire suppression systems. M ajor
development areas would be provided with looped on-site mains to assure adequate pressure for fire
suppression. Fire hydrants would also be installed at locations approved by the San Bernardino County
Fire Protection District (SBCFPD). RHWC lines would be extended to loop around the Project site. This
would act to ensure water systems are properly designed, implemented, operated, and maintained;
thereby furthering efficiency and adequacy of facilities while reducing facilities life cycle costs.
Water Use
The WSA (Appendix K1) estimated the future water demands for the Project to be 305,029.40 gallons per
day with an annual demand of 342 Acre Feet per Year (AFY). The peaking factors adopted by RHWC are
2.25:1 for maximum day: average day and 4.50:1 for peak hour of maximum day: average day.
The IRUWMP estimated RHWC’s total water demands will increase from 4,246 AF in 2020 to 5,131 AF in
2045, which totals to an increase of 885 AF. The 342 AFY of water from the Project constitutes
approximately 39 percent of this anticipated increase in water demand. Thus, Project’s demand does not
exceed IRUWMP’s projected demand; however, the Project’s demand consumes a significant portion of
the IRUWMP’s projected demand.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-12 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
RHWC’s future water extraction is projected to be 5,131 AF for Year 2045 and future water supply is
projected to be 5,900 by Year 2045, concluding a surplus water supply of 769 AF. The IRUWMP has verified
that RHWC has sufficient water supplies available during average, single dry, and multiple dry water years
within a 25-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with the Project, in addition
to existing and planned future uses (see Impact 4.17-2 below for more information).
Furthermore, the Project would demonstrate consistency with the Grand Terrace MC Chapter 15.56
Water Efficient Landscape which requires that landscape design, installation, maintenance, and
management to be water efficient; and that the use of water is limited to the amount reasonably required
for the beneficial use to be served. This would apply to the Project’s residential and non-residential uses.
Water demand from the Project would not result in or require the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water facilities which could cause significant environmental effects beyond the scope and scale
of those already evaluated. These impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater
As development is proposed within the Project site, sewer improvements may be required to be designed
and sized to tie into the existing/backbone infrastructure. The Sewer System Analysis (Appendix K2)
estimated the sewage flows and evaluated the recommended sewer system improvements would be
required for the Project. The criteria utilized in the preliminary sewer are in accordance with the July 2016
City of Colton Sewer Master Plan.
The 2016 Master Plan assumed a per capita sewer generation rate of 75 gallons per day (gpd)/person and
uses 4.2 people per single family home per data in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, resulting in
a residential sewer generation factor of 315 gpd/unit. Multi-family residential units typically have less
residents per unit and a lower sewer generation factor. Census data for 2016 to 2020 indicates that the
average number of people per household in the City of Colton is 3.27. Using this factor and the per capita
sewer generation factor of 75 gpd/person resulted in a residential sewer generation factor of
245 gpd/unit. The Sewer System Analysis utilized a residential sewer generation factor of 250 gpd/unit to
estimate flows from the high-density residential units on the Project. To convert average dry weather
daily flows to peak wet weather flows, a factor of 2.7 was utilized.
The Sewer System Analysis concluded that the projected average sewer flow for the Project was
274,455 gpd. Using the peaking factor of 2.7, the projected peak wet weather flow for the Project is
741,029 gpd (0.74 mgd).
The Project would receive sewer service by constructing on-site sewer lines and connecting to the existing
sewer lines that are adjacent to the development areas. As stated above, the regional sewer system has
been analyzed in the 2016 Master Planned and determined to have capacity for existing and proposed
flows in this area as no upgrades to the system are proposed in the Project area. Nevertheless, the impact
of Project flows on existing local collector sewers would need to be evaluated on a project-by-project
basis to confirm that local collector sewers have adequate available capacity to serve the Project.
Furthermore, the wastewater collection systems and proposed connections to the municipal wastewater
collection system would be designed and installed in conformance with the Grand Terrace GP policies and
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-13 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
MC’s stipulated wastewater system design, construction, and operational requirements. This would
ensure wastewater collection facilities are properly designed, implemented, operated, and maintained;
thereby furthering efficiency and adequacy of facilities while reducing facilities lifecycle costs. In addition,
project specific applicants would pay fees pursuant Grand Terrace MC Chapter 4.80 that would cover the
City's cost to fund plan review, coordination, and inspection of proposed wastewater collection system
improvements. impacts associated with wastewater would be less than significant.
Gravity Sewers
The Sewer System Analysis concluded that all existing gravity sewers have been designed to convey peak
wet weather flow and were designed to maintain a minimum velocity of two feet per second at design
capacity to prevent the deposition of solids. To minimize excessive wear and tear of the pipe, new pipes
would be designed to not exceed a maximum velocity of 8 feet per second. All new Project gravity sewers
would be installed with a minimum of 7 feet of cover.
Force Mains
All existing force mains were designed to maintain a minimum velocity of three feet per second at the
minimum design pumping capacity to prevent the deposition of solids. To minimize excessive wear and
tear of the pipe, all new Project force main pipes would be designed to convey peak wet weather flow
and not exceed a maximum velocity of 8 feet per second velocity.
Lift Stations
All new Project lift stations would be sized to accommodate the influent peak wet weather flows. A
minimum of two pumps of equal size would be provided to provide adequate standby capacity if one
pump is out of service. Pumps should be able to pass 3-inch minimum solids. The wet well would be sized
to limit the number of pump cycles to no more than six per hour. Lift stations would to be equipped with
submersible pumps in a wet well, a separate meter/valve vault, above ground pump controls housed in
an enclosure, telemetry (dialer system at a minimum), a nd a backup diesel generator.
Stormwater and Drainage
The following drainage improvements would be constructed in phases throughout the Project site:
Phase 1:
One large regional detention basin with approximately 65-acre-feet of capacity would be constructed
west of Taylor Street to provide regional storm water detention and treatment of the proposed storm
drain systems in Van Buren and Pico Streets, as well as opportunities for groundwater recharge. The
proposed groundwater recharge basins would intercept this flow, allowing for future development within
the Project site to contribute to groundwater recharge. Further, inclusion of drainage improvements,
including the installation of infiltration facilities and permeable landscape areas, as a component of al l
future development would create efficient passageways for runoff water to rejoin the water system and
would result in a less than significant impact to local groundwater recharge. RHWC does not maintain any
groundwater recharge basins, nor are there any in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area owned or operated
by others for the specific purpose of groundwater recharge. The basin would be hydraulically connected,
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-14 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
and two outfalls with one providing outlet to the San Bernardino County Flood Control Distri ct (SBCFCD)
drainage area and another providing a secondary outlet to the Gage Canal.
At De Berry Street, a local storm drain system at the intersection of De Berry Street and Commerce Way
would capture flows from De Berry and connect to the existing SBCFCD storm drain line under Commerce
Way, draining to the basin.
Within Van Buren Street, the proposed facilities include a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) from the
regional basins to the Michigan Street intersection, with a local storm drain system and catch basins to
protect the intersection from flooding and storm water velocity. Additional work would include
installation of new curbs and driveways at sump conditions east of Michigan Street to protect property
from flooding during major storms. The Project-related installation of the storm drain in Van Buren Street
would de-water the existing natural drainage area.
Phase 2:
In Pico Street, the proposed facilities include a 54-inch RCP from the regional basins along the northerly
edge of Grand Terrace High School and stubbed to the westerly cul-de-sac in Pico Street. In the future, a
48-inch storm drain would be extended east to the intersection of Michigan Street, with a local storm
drain system and catch basins to protect the intersection from flooding and storm water velocity and to
alleviate additional flooding. Along with the future 48-inch storm drain extension, new raised curbs would
also be required at various sections along Pico Street to prevent flooding.
All new Project-related site-specific drainage improvements would be developed and analyzed as future
projects are developed and entitled. All site drainage would ultimately discharge at the existing low point
of the Project site and then under I-215. All proposed improvements would be constructed to the
requirements of the City and the SBCFCD.
Electric Power
SCE provides electricity service to the residences on the Project site and would also provide electrical
service for the Project. The Project would connect to the existing SCE lines which would enable services
to the site. Although some new utility infrastructure may be required on the site, described in Section 4.5,
Energy, extension of services is not anticipated to require the construction of any new off-site electric
power facilities in order to serve the Project site. As discussed further in Section 4.5, Energy, electricity
demands for the Project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and
are estimated to be 8.79 Gigawatt Hours (GWh) of electricity per year. The Project’s operational electricity
use would represent 0.003 percent of electricity used in the State, and 0.06 percent of the energy use in
San Bernardino County. The Project’s electricity consumption estimated above includes reductions
associated with compliance with the 2022 Title 24 building code and compliance the CalGreen Tier 2
standards. Project electricity consumption is 8.79 GWh per year or 8,790 megawatt-hours (MWh) per
year. Assuming the Project operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year with an
annual electricity consumption of 8,790 MWh/year, the Project would require a capacity of approximately
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-15 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
1.0 MW.8 The nearest SCE electrical substation to the Project is the Colton Substation which has a
remaining capacity of 41.52 MW. 9 Therefore, SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity
supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s estimated electricity demand. SCE can provide the
Project sufficient electricity and would not be required to construct additional facilities. Therefore,
buildout of the Project would not require the construction or unanticipated relocation of electric power
facilities resulting in unanticipated environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant, and
mitigation is not required.
Natural Gas
SoCalGas currently provides basic residential and business gas services within the City as well as existing
service to the residences on the Project site. Similar to electricity demands discussed above, it is
anticipated that the Project’s estimated natural gas demand of approximately 160,195 therms of natural
gas per year for space heating, water heating, and stoves, would generate a significant increase in City
annual demand (see Table 4.5-4, of Section 4.5, Energy). Californians used 14,352 million therm s of
natural gas in the state and 527 million therms of natural gas in San Bernardino County in 2020. Therefore,
the Project’s operational natural gas use would represent 0.001 percent of the natural gas use in the state
and 0.03 percent of the natural gas use in the County. Project natural gas consumption is estimated to be
160,195 therms/year or 0.04 million cubic feet of gas per day (MMcf/d). According to the 2020 California
Gas Report,10 in 2024 Southern California will have a surplus of 131 MMcf/d available. Therefore, SoCalGas
will have enough natural gas to serve the Project’s demand of 0.04 MMcf/d.
In 2024, Californians are anticipated to use approximately 14,317,794 gallons of gasoli ne and
approximately 3,195,776,812 gallons of diesel fuel. Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are
produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world.
Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of
worldwide consumption. Project operational use of gasoline and diesel would represent a 0.25 percent
increase of gasoline use and 0.11 percent increase of diesel use in the County. Fuel demands associated
with the Project would not require the construction of additional gas stations or refineries.
Therefore, the installation of natural gas infrastructure would not create an increased impact on the
environment.
Telecommunication
Provision of telecommunication services to serve the Project site may involve the extension of services
for existing providers and/or the petition for additional providers not currently present in the City or
serving the Project site. Existing telecommunication lines would be located within adjacent rights-of-way
and within existing areas of disturbance such as those adjacent to existing roadways. Any new facilities
required for the Project would be constructed within the development area, and would be placed
8 8,790 𝑀𝑊ℎ/𝑦𝑟
8,766 ℎ/𝑦𝑟=𝑎𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑥.1.0 𝑀𝑊
9 Southern California Edison (SCE), ND. Southern California Edison Power Site Search Tool. Accessed March 31, 2022. Available a t
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888 .
10 California Gas and Electric Utilities, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Compreh ensive_Filing.pdf
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-16 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
underground as per the Grand Terrace MC, Title 13. The construction of substantial new
telecommunication infrastructure would not be required. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.17-2: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Development of the Project would increase water supply demands from RHWC. The 2020 IRUWMP
identifies water supply demand and delivery systems to serve the City, which includes the Project site,
towards horizon year 2045. Through year 2045, RHWC is anticipated to have adequate water supply to
meet current demand, including the increased demand of the Project and water needed for other
anticipated demands. RHWC’s adequate supply fluctuates with the availability of local groundwater and
implementation of RHWC’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan demand management measures.
Normal Year
In general, groundwater is less vulnerable to seasonal and climatic changes than surface water supplies.
Although water use may decrease in the later years of a multiple year drought due to implementation of
conservation measures and drought messaging, the 2020 IRUWMP’s water service reliability utilized a 10
percent increase throughout the projected five-year drought period to be conservative.
According to the 2020 IRUWMP, RHWC demonstrated that water supplies will meet the water demands
in normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years. RHWC has the ability to extract 4,435 AFY of water in the
San Bernardino Basin with a five-year average representing their water right.11 Additionally, RHWC is able
to pump more water to meet demands in dry years from the Riverside North and Riverside South Basins.
RHWC is also currently participating in efforts to replenish the basins with imported and local water
through regional recharge programs.
A summary from the 2020 IRUWMP of the normal year water supplies projected to be available to RHWC
are shown in Table 4.17-1, RHWC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand. The percent of average
supply increases in drought years because RHWC’s groundwater production will increase to meet an
assumed increase in demands.
11 SBVMWD. (2021). 2020 IRUWMP – Part 2 – Local Agency Information. RHWC 2020 UWMP. Page 7-19. Retrieved from:
https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9246/637614377683630000 . (accessed November2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-17 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.17-1: RHWC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Total 5,226 5,449 5,672 5,786 5,900
Demand Total 4,545 4,738 4,932 5,031 5,131
Difference 681 711 740 755 769
Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (2021). 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed IRUWMP – RHWC. Page 7-17, Table 7-12. Retrieved
from: https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9246/637614377683630000 (accessed November 2022).
As shown in Table 4.17-1, RWHC is anticipated to have sufficient supply during any normal year occurring
between 2025 and 2045.
Single-Dry Year
The RWHC’s projected supply and demand during a single dry year is shown in Table 4.17-2, Single Dry
Year Supply and Demand Comparison . According to the 2020 IRUWMP, RHWC’s demands in single dry
years are assumed to increase by 10 percent above normal year demands. The local groundwater basins
RHWC produces water from have storage for use in dry years so RHWC can produce the volume of water
needed to meet 100 percent of demands in single dry years.
Table 4.17-2: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Total 5,749 5,994 6,239 6,365 6,490
Demand Total 4,999 5,212 5,425 5,534 5,644
Difference 750 782 814 830 847
Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (2021). 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed IRUWMP – RHWC. Page 7-20, Table 7-13. Retrieved
from: https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9246/637614377683630000 (accessed November 2022).
As shown in Table 4.17-2, RWHC is anticipated to have adequate supply during any single dry year
occurring between 2025 and 2045.
Multiple Dry Years
The RWHC’s projected supply and demand during five consecutive dry years is shown in Table 4.17-3,
Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison. According to the 2020 IRUWMP, RHWC’s demands
in multiple dry years are assumed to increase by 10 percent above normal year demands each year. The
local groundwater basins RHWC produces water from have existing storage capacity for use in dry years
so RHWC can produce the volume of water needed to meet 100 percent of demands in multiple dry years.
RHWC’s supplies are 100 percent reliable during multiple dry years.
Table 4.17-3: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Supply Total 5,749 5,994 6,239 6,365 6,490
Demand Total 4,999 5,212 5,425 5,534 5,644
Difference 750 782 814 830 847
Second Year
Supply Total 5,749 5,994 6,239 6,365 6,490
Demand Total 4,999 5,212 5,425 5,534 5,644
Difference 750 782 814 830 847
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-18 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Third Year
Supply Total 5,749 5,994 6,239 6,365 6,490
Demand Total 4,999 5,212 5,425 5,534 5,644
Difference 750 782 814 830 847
Fourth Year
Supply Total 5,749 5,994 6,239 6,365 6,490
Demand Total 4,999 5,212 5,425 5,534 5,644
Difference 750 782 814 830 847
Fifth Year
Supply Total 5,749 5,994 6,239 6,365 6,490
Demand Total 4,999 5,212 5,425 5,534 5,644
Difference 750 782 814 830 847
Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (2021). 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed IRUWMP – RHWC. Page 7-21, Table 7-15. Retrieved
from: https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9246/637614377683630000 (accessed November 2022).
As shown in Table 4.17-3, RHWC is anticipated to have adequate supply during multiple dry years
occurring between 2025 and 2045.
The WSA projected water demand of the Project at 2,000 gal/acre/day which would result in an annual
demand of 273 AF of potable water. This was based on the anticipated population growth in the service
area and the expected change in per -capita consumption. RHWC’s extraction in 2015 was 2,964 AF and
future water extraction is 5,900 AF on a normal year and 6,490 AF on a dry-year. Therefore, RHWC has a
reliable water supply to supply water to the proposed Project and entire service area. The IRUWMP has
verified that RHWC has sufficient water supplies availa ble during average, single dry, and multiple dry
water years within a 25-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed
Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. Nevertheless, future development under the
Project would be required to adhere to the following conditions to ensure the reliability of water supplies
towards year 2045:
• Property owners will install water efficient devices and landscaping according to the requirements
of RHWC’s water use efficiency ordinance(s), if any, at the time of construction of a project to
reduce the impact of this Project of RHWC water supply.
• Prior to any construction activities, Project applicants are required to meet with RHWC staff to
develop a plan of service for water supply. A plan of service for water supply includes potable
water requirements and recycled water requirements when available to serve the a project.
• In the future it may be possible to serve the Project site with recycled water. RHWC policy
recognizes recycled water as a preferred source of water supply for all non-potable water
demands, including, without limitation, irrigation of recreation areas, green belts, open space,
common areas, commercial landscaping and supply for aesthetic impoundment or other water
features. Most landscaped areas in the Project area would be designed to use recycled water to
the greatest extent possible. According to RHWC’s requirements, the Project may be conditioned
to construct a recycled water system physically separated from the potable water system. The
Project may also be conditioned to construct off-site recycled water facilities. However, RHWC
has not adopted a recycled water policy at this time but plans to in the future. RHWC will decide
on requirements for recycled water use and facilities during the design phases of the Project.
• Based on present information RHWC has determined that it will be able to provide adequate
water supplies to meet the potable water demand for the Project’s proposed uses in addition to
existing and future uses within their service area. Water service will be guaranteed by the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-19 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
satisfaction of all rules and regulations of RHWC. RHWC reserves the right to revisit this WSA in
the event of a potential increase in Project water demand.
Therefore, pursuant to SB 221 §66473.7 and SB 610 §10910, RHWC would have sufficient water supplies
to meet the demands of the Project in addition to the existing and other projected demands during
normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over the next 20 years. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.17-3: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Buildout of the Project would generate approximately 27,455 gallons per day or 0.023 MGD, as
determined by the Sewer System Analysis (Appendix K2). As stated above, the Project site would be
served by the Colton WWTP which has a current treatment capacity of 7 MGD, and the plant treats an
average of 5.6 MGD. Thus, Colton WWTP has a remaining wastewater treatment capacity of 1.4 MGD.
The Project’s generated wastewater would represent less than two percent of the Colton WWTP
remaining treatment capacity. Therefore, wastewater generated by the Project would be adequately
treated at the Colton WWTP. The additional wastewater (quantity and type) that would be generated by
the Project and treated by the Colton WWTP would not impede the treatment plant’s ability to continue
to meet its wastewater treatment requirements.
Additionally, there are a number of existing gravity sewer lines in the vicinity of the Project leased to the
City and owned and operated by the City of Colton. The main sewer line in the area is a 12 -inch trunk
sewer line in De Berry Street that conveys flow from east to west through the Project and then increases
to 18-inch before it crosses I-215. After crossing I-215, the sewer line flows north and increases in size
before reaching the Colton Water Reclamation Facility. There is also a 10 -inch gravity sewer line in
Commerce Way that conveys flows south to the 18-inch trunk sewer line. A 10-inch sewer line in Taylor
Street conveys flows north to the 18 -inch trunk sewer line. There are eight-inch gravity sewer lines in Van
Buren Street and Pico Street that convey flows from east to west to the 10-inch line on Taylor Street. The
Project site contains existing wastewater facilities within and adjacent to the Project site. The Project’s
wastewater utility improvements would be designed and sized to tie into the existing /backbone
wastewater infrastructure. Wastewater collected from the Project’s short-term construction and long-
term operation activities would continue to be conveyed in an existing 18-inch diameter sewer pipeline
under I-215 to the treatment plant owned and operated by the City of Colton.
According to the Sewer System Analysis (Appendix K2), the Project’s projected average sewage flows
would be, at minimum, 27,455 gallons of sewage per day. The Sewer System Analysis concluded that the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-20 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
existing and local collector sewers have adequate capacity to serve the Project. In addition, all wastewater
utility improvements and proposed connections to the existing wastewater system would be constructed
and installed in conformance with the Grand Terrace MC and the City of Colton requirements. This would
ensure that wastewater collection facilities are properly designed, implemented, operated, and
maintained; thereby furthering efficiency and adequacy of facilities while reducing facilities lifecycle costs.
As applicable, each project applicant would also pay a DIF pursuant to the fees listed in the Grand Terrace
MC Chapter 4.80 and additional capital costs to extend the existing sewer lines, as well as applicable sewer
connection and service fees, which act to fund future improvement plans, operations, and maintenance
of existing wastewater collection facilities. Therefore, buildout of the Project would have little or no net
effect on the operation of wastewater collection facilities or wastewater treatment capacity. Impacts
would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.17-4: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The City contracts with Burrtec for the collection and disposal of solid waste and recyclable materials. All
municipal waste collected in the City is taken to the San Bernardino County Landfi ll system for disposal.
As noted in Section 4.17.2, the nearest landfills to the Project site are the San Timoteo and Mid-Valley
Landfills.
The Project site land uses allow for and encourage a mix of commercial, residential, and public park uses
at the gateway to the City. Consequently, buildout of the Project could significantly increase the amount
of waste generation in the area. The CalRecycle website12 was used for waste generation factors.
CalRecyle estimates a waste generation rate of 5 lbs./1,000 sf/day for commercial uses and 12
lbs/person/day for residential uses. Based on the listed generation rates, the Project’s commercial and
residential land uses would generate the following daily amounts of solid waste:
• (455,059.5 commercial sq ft/1,000 sq ft) x (5 lbs/day) = approximately 2,275 lbs. commercial
waste per day.
• (Proposed 786 du x 2.74 [2021 City’s persons per household]) = approximately 2,154 persons.13
▪ (2,154 persons/1 persons) x (12 lbs/day) = approximately 25,844 lbs. residential waste per
day.
12 Commercial Sector Generation Rates. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates .
(accessed November 2022).
13 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021, with 2010 Census
Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e -5/.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-21 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
As shown above, the Project’s commercial and residential land uses would generate an approximate total
of 28,119 pounds of waste per day or 14 tons per day (tpd). The San Timoteo Landfill and Mid-Valley
Landfill have maximum permitted throughout of 2,000 tons per day and 7,500 tons per day, respectively.
The Project’s projected solid waste generation would constitute 0.7 percent of the San Timoteo Landfill
throughput of waste (tons) per day and 0.19 percent of Mid-Valley Landfill’s throughput of waste (tons)
per day. Therefore, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure and would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Regardless, all future project-specific development within the Project site would utilize City-approved
solid waste generation rates pursuant to Grand Terrace MC Chapter 15.58.060 to determine the amount
of solid waste that would be generated during both short-term construction and long-term operations of
each project-specific development. In addition, each development would be required to initiate service
for solid waste collection and pay any fees associated with solid waste removal. Furthermore, each future
development project would be required to comply with ongoing waste management programs and
requirements implemented by the City.
Buildout of the Project would also comply with all applicable State requirements related to solid waste,
including AB 341 and 1826, by implementing a recycling program to separate recyclable, and recyclable
organic materials, from non-recyclable solid waste and coordinating with the respective waste hauler(s)
for disposal at a proper facility. These requirements are designed to move California to its statewide goal
of a 75 percent recycling rate, including a reduction in the level of organic waste disposal by 50 percent
from its current levels.
Although Project-specific solid waste generation is unknown, adherence with applicable state and local
provisions and regulations would ensure that buildout of the Project would not generate significant solid
waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.17-5: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Refer to Impact 4.17-4, above. Project buildout would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste. The Project does not propose any activities that would conflict with
the applicable programmatic requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.17-22 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.17.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning utilities and service systems have been identified.
4.17.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
All cumulative development within the City is evaluated when determining the cumulative impacts to
utilities and service systems as future projects would naturally increase water demand, wastewater
generation, and solid waste generation in the area. Consequently, all future projects would be required
to undergo City discretionary review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines to determine the significance of
impacts concerning water supplies, sewer capacity, wastewater treatment capacity, landfill capacity and
related infrastructure. The IRUWMP accounts for the growth in the City and surrounding region and
determined that adequate water supplies would be provided through 2045. Similarly, the Project would
be served by existing and planned wastewater and stormwater facilities. Furthermore, it was determined
that the San Timoteo and Mid-Valley Landfills would have sufficient remaining capacity of 12,360,396
cubic yards and 61,219,377 cubic yards, respectively. Therefore, while buildout of the Project would
incrementally increase demands on public utilities, the increases are within t he anticipated growth
patterns and within the capacity of existing and planned resources. The Project would not combine with
other cumulative projects to result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems. The Project’s
contribution is not considered cumulatively considerable.
4.17.8 REFERENCES
CalRecycle. (2022). Frequently Asked Questions. Available at:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/organics/faq/
CalRecycle. (2018). Per Capita Disposal Rate. Retrieved from
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/
CalRecycle. (2019). SWIS Facility/Site Summary – Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055). Retrieved at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2662
CalRecycle. (2019). SWIS Facility/Site Summary – San Timoteo Landfill (36-AA-0087). Retrieved at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2688
City of Colton. 2023. Wastewater Information. Retrieved at:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/653/Wastewater-Information.
RHWC. (2021). 2020 IRUWMP – Part 2 Chapter 7, RHWC 2020 UWMP. Retrieved from:
https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/9246/637614377683630000
San Bernardino Valley Regional. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved at:
https://www.ci.colton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2941/Urban-Water-Management-
Plan?bidId=.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-1 4.18 | Wildfire
4.18 WILDFIRE
4.18.1 INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates potential wildfire hazard impacts that may result from the implementation of The
Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project) by identifying existing wildfire hazard conditions on the
Project site and surrounding area; considering applicable federal, state, regional, and local goals and
policies; identifying and analyzing environmental impacts; and recommending measures to minim ize or
avoid potential adverse impacts resultant of Project implementation.
Information presented in this wildfire hazards impact analysis is derived largely from CAL FIRE, the
City of Grand Terrace (City) General Plan (Grand Terrace GP), the Grand Terrace Municipal Code
(Grand Terrace MC), and the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).1
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including construction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00-17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
4.18.2 E NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
According to the National Park Service (NPS), a wildfire, or wildland fire, is described as a non-structure
fire that occurs in vegetation such as trees, grasses, and shrubs . A prescribed fire is ignited by fire
managers after careful planning, under a set of conditions that must be met prior to ignition and is carried
out for specific purposes and remains closely monitored. A wildfire cannot be a prescribed fire.2 The
severity of potential wildfires is influenced by four factors: vegetation, climate, slope, and how the fire
was started.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire
hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas
of the state into different fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) based on a hazard scor ing system using
subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire
weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. Lands where CAL FIRE is
responsible for wildland fire protection are classified as State Responsibility Areas (SRA), and are generally
1 City of Grand Terrace. (2017). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning/local_hazard_mitigation_plan (accessed November 6, 2022).
2 National Park Service. (2018). Types of Wildland Fire . Retrieved from: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/types -of-wildland-fire.htm.
(accessed November 6, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-2 4.18 | Wildfire
located in unincorporated areas of the County. CAL FIRE designates areas as Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones (FHSZ), High FHSZ, and Moderate FHSZ. Additionally, local fire protection agencies, such as the San
Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCoFD), are responsible for wildfire protection in lands within
the City, or lands classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). CAL FIRE uses the same modeling data that
is used to map State Responsibility Areas (SRA s) to Map LRAs and works with local jurisdictions for
validation of the mapping. The model accounts for topography, especially the steepness of the slopes
(fires burn faster as they burn up-slope), weather (temperature, humidity, and wind), and fuel
(material that feeds a fire such as dead trees, brush, grasses, etc.). The areas with the highest likelihood
to burn are located along the eastern border of the City in the Blue Mountain region.3 According to
CAL FIRE’s FHSZ Map Viewer, the Project site is located in a LRA and is not within a VHFHSZ.4 The City
contracts with SBCoFD for fire and rescue services. The SBCoFD provides fire protection services for the
City from Fire Station Number 23, located at 22582 Center City Court in the City of Grand Terrace.
The majority of the City is urbanized and is primarily comprised of single-family residential neighborhoods
with commercial, industrial, and public facility land uses. Wildfires pose the greatest risk in the open space
and undeveloped portions of the City. The highest potential for wildland fires to occur in the City is at the
steep hillsides of Blue Mountain located at the eastern portion of the City. There is also potential for
wildfires to occur in the native areas along the Santa Ana River.5
4.18.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
In March 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing
mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response
and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities,
trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire
Administration.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
This Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §5121) was signed into law to amend the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. §5121 -5207). Among other things, this legislation reinforces the
importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide and is
aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and
programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
i) Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities;
ii) Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk;
3 City of Grand Terrace – Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Retrieved from: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/Local%20Hazard%20
Mitigation%202017_Including%20Appendix%20_Complete%20Document.pdf. (accessed February, 2023).
5 City of Grand Terrace. (2010). Grand Terrace Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 129. Retrieved from: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/draft_eir.pdf
(accessed November 6, 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-3 4.18 | Wildfire
iii) Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements;
iv) Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the hazard mitigation grant
program; and
v) Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded.
The mitigation planning provisions outlined in §322 of this Act establish performance-based standards for
mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance Infrastructure Mitigation
[AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that fail to develop an
infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced federal share of damage assistance from
75 percent to 25 percent if the damaged facility has been damaged on more than one occasion in the
preceding 10-year period by the same type of event.
State
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE protects the people of California from fires, responds to emergencies, and protects and enhances
forest, range, and watershed values providing social, economic, and environmental benefits to rural and
urban citizens. CAL FIRE’s firefighters, fire engines, and aircraft respond to an average of more than
5,600 wildland fires each year. The Office of the State Fire Marshal supports C AL FIREs mission by focusing
on fire prevention. It provides support through a wide variety of fire safety responsibilities including by
regulating buildings in which people live, congregate, or are confined; by controlling substances and
products which may, in and of themselves, or by their misuse, cause injuries, death, an d destruction by
fire; by providing statewide direction for fire prevention in wildland areas; by regulating hazardous liquid
pipelines; by reviewing regulations and building standards; and by providing training and education in fire
protection methods and responsibilities.
State of California Fire Regulations
Fire regulations for California are established in §§13000 et seq. of the California Health and Services Code
and include regulations for structural standards (similar to those identified in the California Building Code);
fire protection and public notification systems; fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke
alarms; standards for high-rise structures and childcare facilities; and fire suppression training. The State
Fire Marshal is responsible for enforcement of these established regulations and building standards for
all state-owned buildings, state-occupied buildings, and state institutions within California.
California Fire Plan
The Fire Plan is a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. By placing the emphasis on what needs to be done
long before a fire starts, the Fire Plan looks to reduce firefighting costs and property losses, inc rease
firefighter safety, and to contribute to ecosystem health. The current plan was finalized in early 201 0 and
updated as of 2018.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-4 4.18 | Wildfire
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4290 and 4291
These regulations, which implement minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space, apply to
the perimeters and access to all commercial, industrial, and residential building construction with an SRA
(approved after January 1, 1991), and within lands classified and designated as Very High FHSZ
(after July 1, 2021). The person(s) who control, lease, maintain, operate, or own said building in, upon, or
adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land
that is covered with flammable materials is required to preserve a defensible space of 100 feet from the
perimeter of the building. The regulations shall include the following:
1. Road standards for fire equipment access.
2. Standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings.
3. Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use.
4. Fuel breaks and greenbelts.
These regulations do not supersede local regulations which equal or exceed minimum regulations
adopted by the state.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24 – California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) generally referred as the California Building Standards
Code (CBSC) consists of 12 parts that contain administrative regulations for the California Building
Standards Commission and for all state agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local
agencies must ensure the development complies with the guidelines contained in the CBSC. Cities and
counties can adopt additional building standards beyond the CBSC including the CBSC Par t 2, named the
California Building Code (CBC) which is based upon the 2018 International Building Code, and Part 11,
named the California Green Building Standards Code, also called the CalGreen Code.
CCR Title 24, Part 9 – California Fire Code
The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings, the
use of premises, and the management of wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, among other issues. The
California Fire Code is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission and
was last updated on July 1, 2022 (effective date of January 1, 2023). The Fire Code sets forth regulations
regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire
extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains
regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code also
include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and
explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist
fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for
new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. Development under the Project would be
subject to applicable regulations of the California Fire Code. Projects that are developed after the effective
date would be required to adhere to the 2022 California Fire Code design standards.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-5 4.18 | Wildfire
CCR Title 24, Part 2 – California Building Code
The California Building Code contains general building design and construction requirements relating to
fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards
to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design,
construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and
structures and certain equipment. The California Building Code is updated every three years and was
updated on July 1, 2022) (effective date of January 1, 2023). Projects that are developed after the effective
date would be required to adhere to the 2022 California Building Code’s design standards.
Title 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 1270 and 6773
In accordance with CCR, Title 8 § 1270 “Fire Prevention” and § 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Equipment,”
the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum
standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited
to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, rest rictions
on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and
emergency medical equipment.
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in California Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 13000 et seq., and include
provisions concerning building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices,
and fire suppression training, as also set forth in the 2019 CBSC and related updated codes.
Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements (EMAA)
The EMMA system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of
Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state. EMMA provides service
in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center,
local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The
purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional
emergency management personnel. In accordance with the EMAA, local and state emergency managers
have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management Agency (Cal -EMA)
In 2009, the State of California passed legislation creating the Cal-EMA and authorizing it to prepare a
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) program (Title 19 CCR § 2400 et seq.), which sets
forth measures by which a jurisdiction should ha ndle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS
could result in the state withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an
emergency disaster.
Cal-EMA serves as the lead state agency for emergency management in the stat e. Cal-EMA coordinates
the state response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for
emergency management resides with local government. Local jurisdictions first use their own resources
and, as these are exhausted, obtain more from neighboring cities and special districts, the county in which
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-6 4.18 | Wildfire
they are located, and other counties throughout the state through the statewide mutual aid system. In
California, the SEMS provides the mechanism by which local government requ ests assistance. Cal-EMA
serves as the lead agency for mobilizing the state’s resources and obtaining federal resources; it also
maintains oversight of the state’s mutual aid system.
Local
City of Grand Terrace General Plan
The following Grand Terrace GP goals and policies pertaining to wildfire which are applicable to the Project
are listed below.
Public Health and Safety Element
Goal 5.6: Minimize the exposure of residents, business owners, and visitors to the impacts of
urban and wildland fires.
Policy 5.6.2 Continue the weed abatement program to ensure clearing of dry vegetation areas.
Policy 5.6.3 Encourage the use of fire-resistive construction materials.
City of Grand Terrace Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was last updated in 2017. The LHMP’s purpose is to identify
potential City hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future
occurrences, and set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term damage to people
and property from natural and man-made hazards. The plan identifies vulnerabilities, prioritizes
mitigation actions, evaluates resources and identifies mitigation shortcomings, provides future mitigation
planning, and maintenance guidelines for the existing plan.
4.18.4 S IGNIFICANCE C RITERIA UNDER CEQA
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning wildfire. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as
significance criteria in this section. If the Project is located in or near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
wildfire;
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-7 4.18 | Wildfire
Methodology a nd Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of sig nificance concerning wildfire hazards. This analysis considers the
existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations conducted by Kimley -Horn
in March 2022; review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and
review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination
that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on wildfire hazards
standards considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and
the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.18.5 P ROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 4.1 8-1: If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project area is not located in an SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ. According to CAL FIRE’s
FHSZ Map Viewer, the Project site is located in a LRA and is not within a Very High FHSZ. The City maintains
an emergency operations center and participates in the Statewide Master Mutual Aid Agreement and
contains Mutual Aid Agreements with the County and surrounding cities. The City also maintains a
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program which provides the community practical
emergency response training. As previously mentioned, the City contracts with SBCoFD for fire and rescue
services. The SBCoFD provides fire protection services for the City from Fire Station Number 23, located
at 22582 Center City Court in the City of Grand Terrace. Additionally, the City also receives emergency
response service on a federal level by FEMA.
San Bernardino County’s General Plan or Countywide Plan identified evacuation routes near the Project
that would serve as emergency evacuation routes: Interstate 10 (I -10), I-215, and I-15. Major local
evacuation routes near the Project site include Barton Road, La Cadena Avenue, and Mount Vernon
Avenue. The County’s Sheriff Department, California Highway Patrol, and other cooperating law
enforcement agencies have primary responsibility for evacuations. These agencies work closely with
responding fire department personnel who assess fire behavior and spread, which ultimately influence
evacuation decisions.
The Project would be developed near regional and local evacuation routes and would be developed in
conformance with applicable federal state, and local regulations and design standards. The Project also
includes roadway/circulation improvements that would improve the local circulation system and result in
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-8 4.18 | Wildfire
better local evacuation response and services for the City. Therefore, the Project would not impair and
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.1 8-2: If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project:
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project area is not located in an SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ. The Project site is located
in an LRA. CAL FIRE maps LRAs and works with local jurisdictions for validation of the mapping, accounting
for topography, especially the steepness of the slopes (fires burn faster as they burn up -slope), weather
(temperature, humidity, and wind), and fuel (material that feeds a fire such as dead trees, brush, grasses,
etc.).6
Topography influences the risk of a fire’s spread rate. Steep terrain results in faster fire spread upslope
and terrain that forms a funneling effect on the landscape can result in especially intense fire behavior.
Conversely, flat terrain tends to have less effect on fire spread, resulting in fires that are driven by
vegetation and/or wind. The Project’s topography consists of a slight slope with elevations ranging from
approximately 975 feet on the northeastern end of the site to approximately 945 feet on the
southwestern corner. The Project site is relatively flat, and therefore steep slopes would not exacerbate
wildfire risks to Project occupants.
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on-shore
winds during the day, and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speeds are greater during the
summer months and range from 4 to 7 miles per hour (mph) during the day and 2 to 6 mph at night within
the Project area. Santa Ana winds come from the north and flow through the Cajon Pass and then follow
the Santa Ana River to the south. Maximum wind speeds during Santa Ana conditions are undefined,
however 60 mph winds are not uncommon in the Project vicinity.7 High speed winds during Santa Ana
conditions could put Project occupants at a higher risk to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, however the City has a LHMP that includes various hazard mitigation
such as the San Bernardino County Fire Hazard Abatement (FHA) Program that reduces the risk of fires
within communities through the reduction/removal of flammable materials on properties. The FHA
conducts surveys to identify fire hazards throughout the year and mails notices to abate the hazards to
6 City of Grand Terrace – Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Retrieved from: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/Local%20Hazard%20
Mitigation%202017_Including%20Appendix%20_Complete%20Document.pdf. (accessed February 2023).
7 City of Grand Terrace General Plan. (2010). Draft Environmental Impact Report. Retrieved from: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planning%20&%20Development/Planning/draft_eir.pdf .
(accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-9 4.18 | Wildfire
the property owners. The Property owners are given 30 days to abate the violations before receiving
citations, penalties, and/or fees for abatement by the County. As previously mentioned, the areas with
the highest likelihood to burn within the City are located in the Blue Mountain region because this area
consists of steeper slopes and more vegetation fuel for wildfires. Blue Mountain is located approximately
1.5 miles east of the Project area. The FHA would lower fire risks to the Blue Mountain Region as well as
the Project site. Furthermore, the land between Blue Mountain and the Project site is currently developed
with lesser amounts of vegetation that would provide fuel for a wildfire.
Wildfires can cause temporary large increases in outdoor air borne particle, and substantial increases in
gaseous air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde which
can cause health effects from wildfire smoke exposure. When outdoor air particle concentrations
increase, indoor air concentrations of particles also increase. Because U.S. occupants are indoors
approximately 90% of the time and may be indoors even more when outdoor air is affected by wildfires,
increases in exposures to particles from wildfires attributable to climate change primarily occur indoors.
Spending more time indoors, keeping windows and doors closed, and operating indoor particle filtration
systems are options to reduce the health effects from wildfire pollutants. Particle filtrations systems are
installed in forced-air heating and cooling systems and have continuously running fans when there is
pollution from wildfires.8 The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6 requires new
development to use Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 air filtration on space conditioning
systems and ventilation systems that provide outside air to the occupiable space of a dwelling. A MERV
13 air filtration system has an average particle size removal efficiency of approximately 75 percent for
0.3 to 1.0 µg/m3 (DPM) and 90 percent for 1.0 to 10 µg/m3 (PM10 and PM2.5) based on American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2. The Project’s MERV 13
air filtration systems would reduce the highest expected annual average diesel PM10 em ission
concentrations conservatively by 75 percent to 0.0112 µg/m3 during opening year (refer to Appendix A,
Air Quality Assessment).
The Project would receive fire protection services by the San Bernardino County Fire Station 23 and would
pay development impact fees pursuant to the Grand Terrace MC to help improve fire protection services
in the City (refer to Section 4.13, Public Services). Furthermore, CAL FIRE works closely with the building
industry when implementing building codes and defensible space requirements to ensure development
matches the fire hazards for the development area. Future development within the Project site would be
constructed in compliance with the Fire Code and California Building Code and would not expose Project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire by
exacerbating wildfire risks.
In summary, wildfires may occur in wildland areas that surround the Project site; however, would not be
significantly increased in frequency, duration, or size with future development within the Project site.
Additionally, the Project site is surrounded largely by existing development and flat terrain. Lands
classified as Very High FHSZs are over a mile away from the Project site and the slopes ascend away from
the areas planned for development. Furthermore, the FHA would reduce the amount of flammable
8 Berkeley Lab. 2023. Indoor Air Quality Scientific Findings Resources Bank. Retrieved from: https://iaqscience.lbl.gov/wildfires (accessed
February, 2023).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-10 4.18 | Wildfire
materials within the Project site, limiting fuel for wildfires to spread and future development would
convert the Project site from readily ignitable fuels to ignition resistant landscapes and structures. As
previously stated, the MERV 13 air filtration systems have an average particle size removal efficiency of
approximately 75 percent for 0.3 to 1.0 µg/m3 (DPM) and 90 percent for 1.0 to 10 µg/m3 (PM10 and
PM2.5) and future development within the Project site would adhere to the Fire Code and California
building code to reduce exposure to pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 4.1 8-3: If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project:
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project area is not located in an SRA or lands classifies as Very High FHSZ, and the Project site is located
in an LRA. The Project contains various infrastructure improvements, under the guidance of the Project,
which would be installed in two phases. The Project includes construction of infrastructure improvements
including on- and off-site sewer, water, storm drainage, dry utilities, and roadway and traffic signal
facilities (refer to Section 4.15, Transportation and Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems).
Commerce Way would be extended south from the existing terminus point to Taylor Street, and also by
improved and widened all the way south to its connection at Main Street. Additionally, all areas proposed
for development would be provided with fire suppression systems, major development areas would be
provided with looped on-site mains to ensure adequate pressure for fire suppression, fire hydrants would
be installed at locations approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, and Riverside Highland
Water Company (RHWC) lines would be extended to loop around the entirety of the Project area.
Multi-family residential developments within the Project would include fire systems, and fire riser rooms
would be located within the building envelope, unless fully integrated into the building architecture. All
fire risers and fire-related plumbing would be installed in a fire riser cabinet or meter cabinet.
All proposed improvements would be constructed to meet the requirements of the City of Grand Terrace
and the San Bernardino Flood Control District (SBCFCD) and would comply with all Grand Terrace GP
policies and Specific Plan and Grand Terrace MC design standards and provisions. Therefore, the
installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure would result in less than significant impacts
regarding temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-11 4.18 | Wildfire
Impact 4.1 8-4: If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project:
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project area is not located in or near an SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ and is located in an
LRA. The Project’s topography is relatively flat and consists of elevations ranging from approximately 975
feet on the northeastern end of the site to approximately 945 feet on the southwestern corner. Parcels
surrounding the Project Site are relatively flat as well.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation for the Project, the slopes approach 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)
along the drainage course in the southwestern portion of the property, and the potential for mass
movement failures such as landslides or debris flows is considered very low. Additionally, the majority of
the Project site along the northwestern margin (PAs 4, 5, 10, 23, 17 and 21) are currently occupied by
flood control improvements and no significant changes are proposed for these areas.9 Furthermore,
future development within the Project site would be desig ned in compliance with applicable codes and
regulations, including the California Building Standard Codes.
Project flooding and drainage is discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 4.17,
Utilities and Service Systems; runoff, flooding, and drainage impacts are less than significant with
compliance with the Specific Plan, Grand Terrace MC, and implementation of utility improvements.
Although the Project is located downslope from surrounding peaks that are classified as Very High FHS Z,
lands surrounding the Project site are relatively flat and developed, limiting any materials or loose
sediments as a result of post-fire downslope flooding or landslides. Interstate 215 (I-215) and additional
existing development is located east of the Project site, and more existing development is located west of
the Project site between the Project and peaks classified as a Very High FHSZ.
Therefore, due to the relatively flat topography of the site, along with the location and nature of the
existing development surrounding the Project site, people and/or structures would not be exposed to
significant risks, including post-fire downslope flooding or landslides. Additionally, the Project is a Specific
Plan that could consist of individual smaller development projects; however, a specific development is not
proposed at this time. Construction and operations of the Planning Areas would be project-specific and
future development would be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and approval.
Furthermore, compliance with applicable state and local regulations would ensure that impacts are less
than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
9 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 4.18-12 4.18 | Wildfire
4.18.6 S IGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable wildfire impacts have been identified.
4.18.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Projects have the potential to be cumulatively considerable, when evaluated in the context of other past,
present, or reasonably foreseeable projects that make a cumulative contribution to impacts. Similar to
the Project, cumulative development within the vicinity of the Project site would be located in areas not
classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Nevertheless, all cumulative projects would be subject
to the California Building Standard Codes, include the California Building Code and California Fire Code.
Additionally, all cumulative projects would be required to comply with all local regulations and meet the
minimum fire safety standards required by the City. Implementation of these plans and policies, in
conjunction with compliance with the Fire Code and City standards, would ensure cumulative impacts
with respect to wildfire hazards are less than significant. As concluded above, the Project’s impact
concerning to wildfire hazards would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.18.8 REFERENCES
Berkeley Lab. 2023. Indoor Air Quality Scientific Findings Resources Bank. Retrieved from:
https://iaqscience.lbl.gov/wildfires.
CAL FIRE. FHSZ Viewer. Retrieved from: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
City of Grand Terrace. 2010. Grand Terrace Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 129. Retrieved from:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12337255/File/Departments/Planni
ng%20&%20Development/Planning/draft_eir.pdf.
City of Grand Terrace. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning/local_hazard_mitigation_plan.
LOR Geotechnical Group, INC. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.
National Park Service (2018). Types of Wildland Fire. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/types-of-
wildland-fire.htm.
U.S. Congress (August 1992). H.R.3360 – Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. Retrieved from:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/3360.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 5-1 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a discussion of additional California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact considerations, including Significant Irreversible Environmental
Changes, Growth-Inducing Impacts, and any Mandatory Findings of Significance.
5.1 S IGNI FICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (b) requires EIR to discuss the significant environmental effects of a
proposed project that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented, including those which
can be mitigated, but not reduced to a less-than-significant level. These impacts are referred to as
“significant and unavoidable impacts” of the project. More information on these impacts and applicable
mitigation measures is found in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
5.2 S IGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d), requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental
changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Generally, the section s tates that a project would
result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would
make their nonuse or removal unlikely;
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential
environmental accidents associated with the project; and
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involved the wasteful
use of energy).
The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would
make their nonuse or removal unlikely.
Nonrenewable resources associated with the development of the Project would include fossil fuels which
would serve as energy sources during both construction and operation activity. Fossil fuels would serve
as energy sources during both construction and operations of project-specific development. Fossil fuels
would act as transportation energy sources for construction vehicles and heavy equipment during the
construction period and by vehicles and equipment used during operations. Although buildout of the
Project would endeavor to utilize fossil fuels efficiently, their use would be vital for construction and
operations activities, making their nonuse unlikely.
Energy-efficient equipment used in operations such fuel-efficient trucks and electric/hybrid cars would be
utilized according to their availability and/or in order to comply with energy regulations and policies for
the Project as a whole as it pertains to the Project’s proposed mixed uses. The California Solar Mandate
is expected to be updated in 2023 in accordance with the 2022 California Building Standards Energy Code,
which may require the proposed commercial businesses to have both solar panels and battery storages.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 5-2 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Although no site-specific development is proposed as part of the Project, future development projects
would undergo subsequent CEQA review to determine that the use of energy resources such as fossils
fuels is used efficiently in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
The Project would also require the permanent commitment of land on which the Project would be
developed for mixed-use development. Land is a finite resource that once developed, it removes the likely
ability for that land to be used for other purposes. However, the development proposed by the Project
would provide planned growth and economic benefits to the City and development of the Project would
not eliminate the possibility of redevelopment in the future.
Overall, the Project shall utilize nonrenewable resources in a way that would not make their nonuse or
removal unlikely.
The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses.
The Project’s development is anticipated to produce significant and unavoidable impacts based on
analyses conducted in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The primary
and secondary impacts would affect the surrounding environment but would not necessarily commit
future generations to similar uses. Although grading activities would occur at the Project site, grading
activities would be limited to project-specific development. Additionally, the Project would implement
mitigation measures, air pollutant and greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and design
standards, and standard conditions to reduce impacts from air quality and greenhouse gas emissions to
the extent feasible. Furthermore, all future projects within the Project site would be subject to additional
environmental review and approval processes to identify impacts and reduction efforts as applicable at
the time of development.
The mixed-use nature of the Project is unlikely to lead to primary and secondary impacts that would
relegate future generations and developments to similar uses. Therefore, the Project would not influence
future development in that land area other than that identified in the Specific Plan and the land use
designations would be unchanged.
The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential
environmental accidents associated with the project.
The Project would be developed with commercial, residential, utilities, and public park land uses that
would not release significant amounts of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would
utilize/handle hazardous materials typical of construction and operational activities. The routine
transport, handling, or disposal of these hazardous materials would be temporary and adhere to
applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials including, but not
limited to, those implemented by the U.S EPA, the California DTSC, and Cal/OSHA. Additionally, all future
development would adhere to Grand Terrace MC §§13.20.150, 18.36.040, and 15.58.060 which would
help reduce the risk to life and property from the use, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous materials and wastes. Projects within the Specific Plan area will be required to submit a waste
management plan, as applicable, as part of the City’s demolition permitting requirements, implement
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 5-3 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
BMPs pursuant to NDPES permitting, and prohibits the storage of certain hazardo us materials that may
accidentally seep into the environment.
The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful
use of energy).
The Project would comply with any applicable federal, state, and local regulatio n and laws regarding the
use of resources during both construction and operations. As established in Section 4.17, Utilities and
Service Systems, buildout of the Project would not significantly impact water, electricity, solid waste, and
telecommunications resources. Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC), the water suppl ier for the
City and Project, would have adequate water supply to serve the Project’s total demand. As concluded in
Section 4.5, Energy, the Projects use of energy resources would be utilized in an efficient, justifiable
manner. Energy resources and consumption is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.5, Energy.
5.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a project could
induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth-inducing” if it fosters economic
or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly
in the surrounding environment. New em ployees from commercial or industrial development and new
population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth
have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity
in the area. A project would therefore have a growth inducing impact if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
• Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental
effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively.
A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen
through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA,
the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial,
and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment. This issue is
presented herein to provide additional information on ways in which the Project could contribute to
significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project
examined in the preceding sections of this Draft EIR. Potential growth-inducing effects are examined
through analysis of the following questions:
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 5-4 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Would the project directly or indirectl y foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing?
Population Growth due to Employment
As concluded in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, buildout of the Project would directly and
indirectly foster economic and population growth within the City. Although the Project does not directly
propose any development, future development facilitated by the Project would stimulate permanent
population growth from employment opportunities from short-term construction activities, permanent
jobs from the proposed commercial development, and the development of future residential dwelling
units. The City and County are considered jobs-rich, which indicates that the City is in need of more
housing to fill those positions.
The Project includes the construction of additional housing that would add approximately 1,911 persons
to the City that could fill both temporary and permanent employment positions. Additiona lly, positions
are expected to also be filled from the surrounding regional labor force due to the County’s moderate
unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. Furthermore, the Project would generate employment beyond SCAG’s
forecasted employment for the City towards year 2045, but the forecasted increase would be well within
the County’s forecasted employment of 1,064,000 by 2045. This indicates that employment opportunities
would be adequate to be filled by both the local and regional labor forces and would not require additional
housing construction beyond the housing proposed by the Project. Therefore, the Project would foster
both economic and population growth, but not in manner that is considered significantly growth-inducing.
Population Growth due to Housing
Buildout of the Project’s proposed residential uses would naturally increase the population growth in the
City. However, the City and County are considered “housing-poor” and therefore, the Project would help
improve the City’s job-housing ratio. Development of the Project’s proposed residential dwelling units
would also support the City’s pursuit for more housing as required by the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Assessment goal. Lastly the population growth due to the Project’s proposed dwelling units would be well
within the SCAG’s forecasted 2045 population and housing growth for the City and County . Therefore, the
population growth due to the proposed housing is not considered significantly growth-inducing.
Would the project remove obstacles to popul ation growth?
The Project site currently consists of predominately vacant parcels, six existing single-family residential
homes, storage units, and drainage features. Although the buildout of the Project would displace the
existing persons, the Project would not remove obstacles to population growth since the Project would
potentially develop approximately 695 dwelling units. The projected population growth would also be
well within the population growth in the area as indicated by local and regional planning documents.
Would the project require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause
significant environmental effects?
The Project would include infrastructure improvements and connections to existing facilities to allow for
the future development’s demands of resources such as natural gas, electricity, and water. The
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 5-5 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
environmental impacts associated with the facility improvements associated with the Project have been
analyzed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.18, Wildfire of this EIR. Mitigation measures were
proposed as applicable that, when implemented, would reduce potential impacts resulting from the
Project’s need for construction of new and expanded facilities to less than significant levels, with the
exception of impacts associated with air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, which would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively.
Refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.18, Wildfire of this EIR. No significant cumulative
impacts were determined during the analysis of the Project, with the exception of cumulative impacts
concerning air quality and greenhouse gases. Operational emissions associated with the Project would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Emissions
of motor vehicles are controlled by State and national standards and the Project has no control over these
standards, however it can mitigate mobile emissions by attempting to reduce vehicles trips. Standard
Conditions and implementation of MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5 would reduce emissions by reducing vehicles
trips, prohibition of fireplaces, electric landscape equipment, and implementation of low VOC paint. No
additional feasible mitigation measures beyond MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5 have been identified to further
reduce emissions, and impacts would remain significant.
Supplemental analysis may be conducted as development occurs on the Project site to determine if
impacts concerning air quality and greenhouse gases could be reduced.
5.4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(1)-(4) requires preparation of an EIR when certain specified impacts may
result from construction or implementation of a project. The EIR concludes a finding of significance if the
project:
Has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
A finding of significance is determined if a project “has the potential to substanti ally degrade the quality
of the environment.” In practice, this is the same standard as a significant effect on the environment,
which is defined in CEQA Guidelines §15382 as “a substantial or potentially adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”
This EIR has been prepared for the Project, which fully addresses all of the Mandatory Findings of
Significance. This EIR, in its entirety, addresses and discloses all known potential environmental effects
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 5-6 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
associated with the development of the Project including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in the
following environmental resource categories:
• Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources
• Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Recreation
• Geology and Soils • Transportation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems
• Hydrology and Water Quality • Wildfire
A summary of all potential environmental impacts, level of significance and mitigation measures is
provided in Section 1.0, Executive Summary.
Special status plant and wildlife species and the Project’s potential effect on those species are fully
discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources of this EIR. The Section found that the Project site contained
the Northern California black walnut species, that could be result of introgression with the Southern
California black walnut special-status species. However, it was concluded that the Project does not
support pure individuals of the Southern California black walnut. Accordingly, the Project is not considered
to impact the Southern California black walnut and therefore, would not impact a special-status plant
species. The Section also determined that the low potential for several special -status wildlife species to
occur within the Project site. Due to relatively low habitat value based on the majority of developed and
disturbed lands, predominance of non-native vegetation, and adjacency to the developed areas, impacts
to those species were considered to be less than significant, which the exception of the burrowing owl
species. Mitigation was proposed in the section to reduce the risk to the burrowing owl species.
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources and Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources of the EIR analyzed the
potential historical and archeological resource impacts that could occur due to the future development
of the Project. The Section proposed mitigation to reduce impacts to both historical and archeological
resources that could be discovered on-site during ground-disturbance activities during the construction
period. The mitigation presented in the section reduced the potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
Has impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3) defines “cumulatively considerable” to mean that “the incremental effects
of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” This EIR provides a
cumulative impact analysis for all thresholds that directly or indirectly result in a less than significant
impact, a potentially significant impact unless mitigated, or a significant and unavoidable impact.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 5-7 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics listed above and are provided in
Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this EIR.
Will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
As required by CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(4), “A lead agency shall find that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where
there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:
the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.” Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be
minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This standard relates to
adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular
individuals. While changes to the environment that could directly or indirectly affect human beings would
be possible in all of the CEQA issue areas previously listed, those that could directly affect human beings
include aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gases, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, noise, land use and planning, public services and utilities, transportation,
water resources, wildfire hazards, and climate change, all of which are addressed in the appropriate
sections of this EIR; refer to Table of Contents for specific section numbers.
The Project has the potential to create impacts that could cause adverse effects on human beings. The
majority of these effects are created during the construction phase of the Project and would be temporary
in nature and would mostly occur over the relatively short-term construction phase. Direct impacts to
humans during the construction phase as well as effects associated with operation of the Project site
would be less than significant or would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the exception of
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation measures created for the potential impacts of the
Project are detailed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this EIR. Most operational impacts foreseen for the
Project would be mitigated to a level of less than significant, with the exception of air quality and
greenhouse gases despite the implementation of mitigation measures, standard conditions, and project
design features. Refer to Section 5.1 above and Sections 4.2, Air Quality and Section 4.7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of this EIR for further discussion.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-1 6.0 | Alternatives
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports (EIR)
“describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the Project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the Project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (State CEQA
Guidelines §15126.6). CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each
Alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the project. If an alternative
would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as
proposed, the significant effects of the Alternative must be discussed, but these effects may be discussed
in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (California Code of Regulations [CCR]
§15126.6[d]). The EIR is not required to consider every conceivable Alternative to a project but is guided
by a rule of reason. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. Section 15126.6[d])
states that the EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster
informed decision making and public participation. Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on
alternatives (§15126.6(a) through (f)) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal
requirements for the Alternative’s analysis in the Draft EIR.
• “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be
more costly” (§15126.6(b)).
• “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact”
(§15126.6(e)(1)). “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the
notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation was published, at the time the
environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in
the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent
with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative
is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives” (§15126.6(e)(2)).
• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that require an EIR
to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall
be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
Project” (§15126.6(f)).
• “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives
are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally
significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can
reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already
owned by the proponent)” (§15126.6(f)(1)).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-2 6.0 | Alternatives
• For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (§15126.6(f)(2)(A)).
• “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and
whose implementation is remote and speculative” (§15126.6(f)(3)).
6.2 RAN GE OF ALTERNATIVES
The City of Grand Terrace (City), as the lead agency, is responsible for selecting this range of project
alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. This
Chapter describes three Alternatives to The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan (Project). These
alternatives include the No Project Alternative (existing zoning and general plan alternative), Reduced
Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative, and the No Commercial Alternative. The three alternatives
are discussed below in more detail.
Alternatives were developed based on the following: information provided by the Project Applicant and
the City; and input received from comments on the NOP. Among the factors that may be taken into
account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives – as described in §15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines – are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure,
general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries.
As discussed above, one of the main purposes of the range of alternatives is to discuss different projects
that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects, especially effects that are found
to be significant and unavoidable. In the case of the Project, significant and unavoidable impacts were
identified for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). With regard to air quality, reactive organic
gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) operational emissions exceeded the thresholds of the SCAQMD.
Additionally, GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year, regardless of the mitigation
incorporated. For this reason, the alternatives analyzed were selected to evaluate the potential to further
reduce impacts on air quality, GHG emissions, and mobile emissions, as those constitute the majority of
pollutants and GHG emissions.
Lastly, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose
implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The
alternatives that were selected for additional consideration were chosen in accordance with the above
listed CEQA Guidelines, represent a reasonable range of alternatives, are feasible, and will encourage
discussion in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.
Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR should include “a statement of objectives
sought by the proposed Project.” The proposed Specific Plan was prepared to guide and encourage the
development and revitalization of under-utilized land in the southwest corner portion of the City. The
Specific Plan focuses on the distinctive characteristics of properties within their surrounding context by
customizing the planning process and land use regulations specifically in this area, in a manner c onsistent
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-3 6.0 | Alternatives
with the General Plan. The Specific Plan was prepared to achieve the following Project objectives, which
are also described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR:
1. Authorize the redevelopment of a blighted and under-utilized property;
2. Organize a mix of land uses which will provide a variety of housing and businesses, spurring new
jobs and services;
3. Implement development standards and design guidelines establishing a vibrant community ;
4. Provide diversity of high-quality architecture and landscape with appropriate open space areas;
5. Provide for the distribution, location and extent and intensity of major components of public and
private roads, sewage, water, drainage, dry utilities, and other essential facilities within the
Project area and/or needed to support the proposed land uses;
6. Establishes compatibility standards and guidelines to minimize negative impacts on adjacent
properties;
7. Include operational and maintenance plans for financing improvements;
8. Provide the extension of Commerce Way from its current terminus point southward to
Taylor Street and then Main Street; and
9. Provide public recreational facilities to meet the needs of the community by incorporating a public
park with a new baseball field and playground.
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts of the Project
Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this Draft EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with
implementation of the Project. The analyses contained in these sections identified the following
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the Project:
Air Quality
• CAAQS, NAAQS, and AQMP Consistency (Impact 4.2-1). The violations to which Consistency
Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. Although the Project would not exceed construction
emissions standards, the Project’s operational emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD’s
operational standard for ROG and NO X despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation
measures and standard conditions. Thus, the Project is not consistent with Consistency
Criterion No. 1.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies
based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. The Project would result in a change of land use
designations not reflected in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project is conservatively assumed to
generate emissions not reflected within the current 2022 AQMP regional emissions inventory for
the SCAB and is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Thus, the Project is not consistent
with the second criterion.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-4 6.0 | Alternatives
Project implementation would result in air pollutant emissions (ROG and NOx) that exceed
SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. Although mitigation would reduce emissions by the
greatest feasible amount, Project emission levels would remain significant and would contribute
to the nonattainment designations in the SCAB. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with
the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of
mitigation.
• Project-Related Operational Emissions (Impact 4.2-2). Despite implementation of Mitigation
Measure (MM) AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and compliance with laws, ordinances, and regulations
(LOR)s AQ-1 through AQ-6, the Project’s operational emissions would remain above SCAQMD
thresholds for ROG and NO X resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
• Cumulative Long-Term Emissions. As stated above, operational activities would create a
significant and unavoidable impact due to exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds for NO X and ROG.
Implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and compliance with LOR AQ-1 through AQ-6
would reduce impacts; however, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Project-Related GHG Emissions (Impact 4.7-1). Despite implementation of MM GHG-1 through
MM GHG-3, MMs AQ-2 through AQ-4, and compliance with LORs GHG-1 through GHG-4, the
Project’s GHG emissions would remain above SCAQMD thresholds, resulting in a significant and
unavoidable impact.
• Cumulative GHG Emissions. Despite implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4,
MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4, and compliance with LORs GHG-1 through GHG-4, Project emissions
could impede statewide 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. As such, the Project
would result in a significant cumulative GHG impact. Therefore, the Project’s contribution of GHG
emissions would be cumulatively considerable.
6.3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Criteria for Selecting Alternatives
As previously mentioned, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to a project or its
location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant impacts of a project, even if the
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more
costly, per §15126.6 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This alternatives analysis, therefore, focuses on
project alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts of the proposed
Project related to the environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Comments received during the NOP process included issues related to noise generation, increased truck
traffic – especially on local roadways; air quality impacts from vehicular traffic; increased noise at night;
access to recreation; and extended hours of construction and operation. While all of these considerations
are addressed throughout this EIR in the respective chapters, they also were considered to develop the
reasonable range of alternatives. As discussed above, alternatives were selected based on alternative
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-5 6.0 | Alternatives
designs that could reduce the Project’s significant impacts on air quality and GHG emissions. The
alternatives listed below represent a reasonable range of alternatives that at least partially fulfill the
objectives the City is seeking and/or alleviate some of the potential impacts that would occur upon
implementation of the Project as proposed.
Alternatives to the Project
The following Project alternatives discussion consists of three project alternatives, each of which is
described briefly below.
• No Project Alternative
• Reduced Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative
• No Commercial Alternative
Existing Conditions
The Project site consists of elevations ranging from approximately 975 feet on the northeastern end of
the site to approximately 945 feet on the southwestern corner. The Project area is relatively flat and
generally slopes from the northeast to southwest with the low point at the end of De Berr y Street. The
Project site consists predominately vacant land, storage commercial uses, and six non-conforming
residences. A concrete-lined storm channel carries runoff from a storm drain at the western end of De
Berry Street, southwest beneath the Gage Canal and into the westward-flowing drainage way that crosses
the Project area from the western end of Van Buren Street. This drainageway drains beneath I-215 in a
concrete-lined channel, continues to the southwest beneath La Cadena Drive and flows into a debris basin
approximately 0.8 mile off-site.
There is a decommissioned Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) line that traverses the Project site in a
north/south direction that has been acquired by the City and would be used as part of the extension of
Commerce Way from its existing terminus point south to the existing Taylor Street, and subsequent
widening of the existing Taylor Street portion all the way south to its connection at Main Street. There are
three wells owned by the City of Riverside located in the Project site that would remain but may be
modified or relocated.
The existing non-lighted ball field northwest of Veterans Freedom Park is proposed to be relocated
northwest of the Grand Terrace High School sports fields and constructed as a new lighted baseball field
and a public playground. An existing Southern California Edison (SCE) substation located south of the
Project site would remain in addition to the SCE power lines that cross the Project site north of the
substation. Riverside Canal Power Company owns the property where a decommissioned power station
was located. Two billboard signs adjacent to I-215 would remain. There is a total of six existing single-
family residences with associated accessory structures along De Berry Street and Van Buren Street. Five
out of the six residences are currently occupied. The remaining building is vacant.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-6 6.0 | Alternatives
6.3.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative or
“Alternative 1”. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a
development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project
does not proceed as provided by §15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)
provides that, “In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing
environmental setting is maintained.” Under this alternative, the Project would not be developed, and no
new development would occur, however, the existing conditions as mentioned above would remain in
operation.
Under Alternative 1, the adoption of the Specific Plan would not occur, and no new development nor
infrastructure improvements would occur. However, the existing conditions and uses would remain in
operation under Alternative 1. Accordingly, Alternative 1 provides a comparison between the
environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting
from not approving or denying the Project. Alternative 1 would not develop the 695 dwelling units,
455,0495 square feet (SF) of general commercial uses, and associated on -site and off-site infrastructure
improvements that would otherwise occur as part of the Project.
Comparison of Project Impacts
An evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of Alternative 1, as compared to those of the
proposed Project, is provided below.
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 1, no new development would occur, and the existing predominately vacant land would
remain. Consequently, construction and operational impacts on scenic vistas and scenic resources would
not occur. Therefore, no impacts related to aesthetics would occur under Alternative 1. Accordingly,
Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior compared to the Project.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 1, no potentially significant construction or operational emissions would occur.
Additionally, by maintaining existing uses throughout the Project area, an increase in traffic-related air
emissions would not occur. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced, and the significant
and unavoidable operation-related ROG and NO x emissions would be avoided and remain below
SCAQMD’s threshold. Thus, Alternative 1 would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1 and No. 2.
Therefore, no impacts related to air quality would occur by Alternative 1. Accordingly, Alternative 1 would
be environmentally superior compared to the Project.
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 1, no ground disturbance activities would occur and thus, potential impacts to sensitive
wildlife species, migratory species and nesting birds, and wetlands and riparian areas that are present on
the Project site would not occur. Therefore, Alternative 1 would avoid all on and off-site disturbances and
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-7 6.0 | Alternatives
impacts to biological resources. Accordingly, Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior compared
to the Project.
Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 1, no ground disturbance activities would occur and thus, potential impacts concerning
cultural and tribal cultural resources, including human remains, would not occur. Therefore, Alternative 1
would reduce impacts to historical and archaeological resources and is environmentally superior
compared to the Project.
Energy
Under Alternative 1, no new development would occur, and the existing predominately vacant land would
remain. Consequently, no grading or construction would occur under this alternative and there would be
no potential impacts to energy resources from wasteful, inefficient energy consumption. Therefore, this
alternative would reduce impacts to energy resources compared to the Project.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding energy impacts, as no increase
in energy consumption would occur from the site continuing in its existing condition.
Geology and Soils
No new construction activities, including but not limited to demolition and ground disturbing activities,
would occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, there would be no potential for persons or building structures
to experience seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the
Project site. Additionally, this alternative would not result in impacts to paleontological resources. Overall,
the geologic hazard impacts from this alternative would be less than significant, in comparison to the
Project. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 1, no construction or operational GHG emissions would occur. More specifically, this
alternative would avoid the unmitigated 20,964 MTCO2e per year of GHG emissions that would occur with
the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding GHG emissions since an increase
in GHG emissions would not occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no development would occur under Alternative 1, no impacts related to hazards or hazardous
materials would occur. Although this alternative would avoid the Project’s potential effects related to
hazards and hazardous materials, the cleanup of contaminated soils that exist on the property and near
the Union Pacific Railroad would not occur as a result of the property’s redevelopment. Remediation of
on-site contamination is a benefit of the Project that would not be realized under this alternative.
Therefore, hazard impacts would be greater compared to the proposed Project.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-8 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative 1 would be environmentally inferior to the Project regarding hazards and hazardous materials
since no soil remediation would occur, and contaminated soils would remain on the property.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Existing water quality conditions, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, and runoff water amounts
would remain “as is” under this alternative because no new development would occur. Accordingly, this
alternative would not introduce new sources of water pollutants from either the construction or operation
phases of development to the Project site. Additionally, this alternative would not include utility
improvements required by the Project. However, this alternative would not include installation of new
low-impact development (LID), source control, site design, and treatment control best management
practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff and water pollution, which would occur under the Project. Runoff
would not be filtered and would continue to contain sediment and other potential pollutants associated
with the existing and surrounding uses. The beneficial water quality improvements proposed by the
Project would not occur and impacts would be greater compared to the Project.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally inferior to the Project regarding hydrology and water quality since
no beneficial stormwater and drainage improvements would occur.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 1 the City’s zoning designations for the Project site would remain unchanged and would
allow for the development of different land uses. The City’s Zoning Code Map shows that the existing
zoning designation for the Project site is Commercial Manufacturing (CM), Restricted Manufacturing (MR)
and Industrial (M2). Although different land uses, neither Alternative 1 or the Project would physically
divide an established neighborhood associated with construction of a linear feature, such as a major
highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access. Therefore, the Alt ernative 1 would result in
an environmentally equivalent impact compared to the Project.
Noise
Alternative 1 would not result in construction and operational activities that generate noise and vibration
impacts. Therefore, there would be no mobile-source and stationary noise volumes from construction and
operational activity under this alternative. Thus, Alternative 1 would result in lesser noise impacts
compared to the Project.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding noise and vibration. The short-
term construction-related or long-term operational vehicular noise level and vibration increases
associated with the Project would not occur.
Population and Housing
The Project proposes the development of 695 dwelling units, which were determined to be within the
growth projections for the area and impacts to population and housing were determined to be less than
significant. Under Alternative 1, the development of these 695 dwelling units would not occur. Although
Alternative 1 would result in a less than significant impact concerning population growth, this alternative
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-9 6.0 | Alternatives
would not contribute to the growth planned for the City and would necessitate the City to develop housing
elsewhere.
Therefore, the Alternative 1 would be environmentally inferior to the Project regarding population and
housing.
Public Services
Alternative 1 would not increase the demand for public facilities, compared to the Project. However, no
development impact fees would be collected under the Alternative 1. Thus, Alternative 1 would not
stimulate the growth of public services within the City. Therefore, the Alternative 1 would be
environmentally equivalent to the Project.
Recreation
The Project proposes both public and private on-site park and recreational facilities. In addition, the
proposed residential uses – of 695 dwelling units – would incrementally increase demand on existing City
parks and facilities. However, the Project would pay applicable park impact fees pursuant to the Quimby
Act and local City regulations (provision of on-site park and recreational facilities may be credited against
required Quimby Act fees). The Project’s impacts related to recreation were determined to be less than
significant due to these provisions.
Therefore, the Alternative 1 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding recreation.
Transportation
Under Alternative 1, the existing daily trips would remain at current conditions and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable traffic impacts associated with
transportation and traffic. Additionally, the Project proposes pedestrian facilities that would improve
pedestrian access and provide better connections between Main Street and Barton Road along Commerce
Way compared to pre-Project conditions.
The Project-generated VMT is estimated to be lower than the adopted significance threshold for the City.
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), the Project would either reduce trips on a per-person basis
or would decrease trip lengths within the study area compared to the Alternative 1.
Therefore, the Alternative 1 would be environmentally inferior to the Project regarding transportation
and traffic.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 1 would avoid disturbances on the Project site and eliminate impacts to unearthed tribal
cultural resources. Thus, there would be no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources since no
ground disturbing activities would occur. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced
compared to the Project.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding tribal cultural resources.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-10 6.0 | Alternatives
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 1 would result in reduced impacts to utilities and service systems since the necessity for
utilities and service systems would be lower. Alternative 1 would retain the Project site’s existing site
conditions and no need for additional utilities and service systems would occur. Therefore, Alternative 1’s
impacts to utilities and service systems would be considered less than that of the Project.
However, Alternative 1 would also result in no new beneficial utilities and service systems. There would
be no storm drain improvements and no construction of a regional detention basin. Therefore, there
would not be a new storm drain system or drainage improvements to capture flows from De Berry, Van
Buren, and Pico Streets.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding utilities and service systems
since beneficial utility improvements would not occur. Since no development would occur on-site, there
would be no environmental impacts and Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior in this regard.
However, because no development would occur, there would also be no beneficial utilities and service
systems to be constructed and Alternative 1 would be environmentally inferior in this regard . As such,
overall, Alternative 1 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project.
Wildfire
Alternative 1 would result in a similar potential for wildfire impacts on the Project site since the Project
site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or within a State Responsibility Area.
Therefore, the Alternative 1 would result in a less than significant impact and would be environmentally
equivalent in comparison to the Project. Alternative 1 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project
regarding wildfire.
Alternative 1 Summary
This Alternative would reduce some of the Project’s environmental impacts, although other
environmental impacts would be greater and the majority of impacts would be similar, as illustrated in
Table 6-1, Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project. This Alternative
also fails to meet most of the Project’s basic objectives, as the Project site would remain in its existing
condition. The Project site would not provide housing or employment opportunities and would not
provide economic stimulation or roadway improvements in the City. Therefore, this Alternative is
considered and rejected because it does not meet the Project objectives.
6.3.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative
The Reduced Retail Development by 20 Percent Alternative or “Alternative 2” assumes the development
of commercial uses, but at a smaller retail square footage (20 percent less) than what is proposed for the
Project. The Project proposes a projected maximum net development of approximately 335,700 SF of
general commercial uses, which include 232,800 SF of retail space, 11,000 SF of restaurant space, and
91,900 SF of self-storage space. Alternative 2 would reduce the Project’s proposed retail space from
232,800 SF to 186,240 SF (or 5.34 to 4.07 acres). This would result in a 20 percent reduction of projected
workforce, and customer base, resulting in a trip generation reduction of 20 percent from 8,616 daily trips
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-11 6.0 | Alternatives
to approximately 6,893 daily trips. Residential units are assumed to be the same. Although the overall
project area would be built out in a similar manner as the Project, Alternative 2 would have a smaller
development footprint.
Thus, Alternative 2 would minimize impacts related to the scale of the Project. However, the Project’s
other proposed components would remain consistent under Alternative 2.
Comparison of Project Impacts
An evaluation of the potential environmental impacts with the development of Alternative 2, as compared
to those of the Project, is provided below.
Aesthetics
The same general aesthetic impacts would occur under Alternative 2 when compared to the Project.
Although the building footprint of commercial development would be reduced, the general mass and scale
of the other Project components would remain the same. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated
Alternative 2 would be similar when compared to the Project and Alternative 2 would be environmentally
equivalent to the Project regarding aesthetic impacts.
Air Quality
As concluded in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the Project would conflict with an applicable air quality plan and
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants due to operational emissions.
Despite implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and compliance with LORs AQ -1 through AQ-6,
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 2 would also assume commercial development, but the retail development would be reduced
to 186,240 square feet. The Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NO X emissions, the
majority of which would originate from mobile sources. While Alternative 2 would generally reduce
Project operational emissions by reducing retail development by 20 percent, the overall project area
would be built out in a similar manner (both residential and commercial uses) as the Project. Given
Alternative 2’s smaller commercial development footprint, construction and operation emissions under
this Alternative would be similar but slightly reduced when compared to the Project. The overall built out
daily trips for Alternatives 2 would decrease to 15,556, compared to the Project’s total daily trips of
17,279. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a l decrease of operational emissions from mobile sources.
The daily trips for retail use, generated from Alternative 2 would be approximately 6,893 or 1,723 less
than the Project. However, the vehicular traffic is not anticipated to be significantly reduced under
Alternative 2 since the overall development footprint would not be greatly reduced and the daily trips
would remain high. Consequently, Alternative 2 would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact
to the environment. However, because the alternative would result in a reduction of operational
emissions, Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the Project.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
Biological Resources
Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to biological resources since the
potentially affected special-status species, sensitive vegetation communities, nesting birds, jurisdictional
waters, and riparian areas would not be avoided. As with the Project, MMs BIO-1 through BIO-3 would
be required to reduce biological resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts
would occur with implementation of Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would be an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding
biological resources, as the same habitat, wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, and riparian areas would
be impacted by construction activities under Alternative 2.
Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 and the Project would result in similar impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources,
including human remains. Despite reduced retail uses, Alternative 2 has a similar potential to discover
unknown human remains during ground disturbance activities. As with the proposed Project,
implementation of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be required to reduce cultural resources impacts to a
level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would be an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding
cultural resources, as a similar footprint would be modified or impacted.
Energy
Alternative 2 and the Project would require energy during both the construction and operational phases
of the Project. However, Alternative 2 would require less energy resources during construction and
operation activities due to the 20 percent reduction in retail building footprint, compared to the Project.
However, under Alternative 2, the overall project area would be built out in a similar manner as the
Project. Given Alternative 2’s smaller development footprint, Alternative 2 would consume less energy
compared to the Project. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the Project
regarding energy impacts, as a decrease in energy consumption would occur compared to the Project.
Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 and the Project would result in similar geology and soils impacts. Alternative 2 and the
Project would be subject to regional seismicity and would be required to adhere to all applicable state
and local design standards to withstand seismicity impacts. Both Alternative 2 and the Project would
involve construction activities including, but not limited to, demolition and grading activities that would
potentially result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would be
required to implement MM GEO-1 and construction design features to reduce impacts associated with
grading operations and unstable or expansive soils. Furthermore, all construction activities would also be
subject to Best Management Practices (BMPs) set in a Project-Specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) and water quality management plan (WQMP) to reduce impacts from runoff associated
with soil erosion. Lastly, Alternative 2 would also implement MM GEO-2 to reduce impacts to unknown
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-13 6.0 | Alternatives
paleontological resources to a level of less than significant. Therefore, similar impacts would occur under
implementation of Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding geological, soils, and
paleontological resources. The exposure of people to seismic, geologic, and soil hazards under this
Alternative would be equivalent to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impacts were associated with the exceedance of emissions
thresholds in the operational phase of the Project regarding the generation of GHG emissions, would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulations, and would generate cumulative GHG emissions.
Although mitigation is proposed to minimize the potential emissions impacts associated with Project
implementation, emissions under Alternative 2 are still anticipated to exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO 2e
maximum threshold.
Under Alternative 2, the overall project area would be built out in the same manner as the Project;
however, the retail development would be reduced by 20%, resulting in a corresponding reduction in
workforce, customers, and total trips. Alternative 2 would likely reduce emissions impacts through a
reduction in energy use within a smaller building footprint. However, even with a reduction in energy use
emissions, the mobile source emissions associated with vehicular travel would not be substantially
reduced. Therefore, Alternative 2 would likely remain in excess of the City’s GHG emissions thresholds.
Associated impacts would be expected to remain significant and unavoidable.
Although impacts under Alternative 2 would still be significant and unavoidable, Alternative 2 would be
environmentally superior due to a decrease in GHG emissions and due to its potential to reduce energy
and transportation impacts compared to the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative 2, the overall project area would be built out in the same manner as the Project;
however, the retail development would be reduced by 20%, resulting in a corresponding reduction in
workforce, customers, and total trips. Given Alternative 2’s smaller development footprint, Alternative
2’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar but reduced compared to th e
Project. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would be subject to the same applicable federal and state regulations
and provisions pertaining to hazardous materials and implement MMs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5. Additionally,
all development projects within the Project site would be required to submit a waste management plan,
implement BMPs pursuant to NDPES permitting, and prohibit the storage of certain hazardous materials
that may accidentally seep into the environment. The anticipated impacts from hazards and hazardous
materials, resulting from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. As such, with
reduced development footprint, Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts to hazards
and hazardous materials, similar to the Project.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding hazards and hazardous
materials.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-14 6.0 | Alternatives
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 and the Project would both have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water
quality due to implementation and compliance of Best Management Practices, preventative low impact
design, and drainage improvements that minimize runoff, erosion, and storm water pollution. The
proposed beneficial water quality improvements would still occur under Alternative 2. Although the
Project would result in less than sig nificant impacts related to hydrology and water quality, Alternative 2
proposes a reduced retail development footprint and would therefore reduce impervious surfaces
because commercial and retail uses have high percentages of impervious cover than residential
development. This would result in reduced impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the
Project.
Alternative 2 would be slightly environmentally superior to the Project regarding hydrology and water
quality, since impervious surfaces would decrease when compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning
The Project requires adoption of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement and approval of the
proposed Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map. Alternative 2 would require the same entitlements. As
such, Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding land use and planning,
since land uses would be added, and land use entitlements would be required.
Noise
Both Alternative 2 and the Project would generate noise and vibration during both the construction and
operations phases of the Project. Due to the reduced retail footprint, Alternative 2 would decrease the
amount of noise generated from traffic compared to the Project and potentially result in reduced long-
term operational traffic related noise.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding noise and vibration, because
while the short-term construction-related and long-term operational vehicular noise level and vibration
increases associated with Alternative 2, while reduced, would remain similar to the Project.
Population and Housing
Both Alternative 2 and the Project proposes the development of 695 dwelling units and, therefore, would
generate the same population and housing growth. However, the 20 percent reduction of retail
development would reduce the employment growth anticipated to result from the proposed Project. As
of 2022, the City’s jobs-housing ratio is 1.33 which suggests there is not a suitable number of housing units
available in the area to accommodate the workforce. Consequently, the reduction of employment growth
would push the City into a more balanced jobs-to-housing ratio.
Although Alternative 2 and the Project would cause less than significant impacts, Alternative 2 would be
considered environmentally superior to the Project concerning population and housing because it better
aligns with a preferred jobs-to-housing ratio.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-15 6.0 | Alternatives
Public Services
The need for public services is anticipated to be greater under the proposed Project than under
Alternative 2, because Alternative 2 reduces retail development by 20 percent compared to the Project.
Both Alternative 2 and the Project would require additional public service needs compared to the existing
conditions on the site. However, there would be a considerable reduction in development fees as well.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the Project.
Recreation
The Project proposes both public and private on-site park and recreational facilities that would be
consistent under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would have the same recreational
impacts since the residential development capacity would remain the same. Additionally, both
Alternative 2 and the Project would pay applicable park impact fees pursuant to the Quimby Act and local
City regulations (provision of on-site park and recreational facilities may be credited against required
Quimby Act fees).
Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding recreation.
Transportation
The Project would have a less than significant impact on transportation, specifically as it relates to
program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the Project would not have an impact or conflict with CEQA
Guidelines §15064.3. Per these guidelines, the Project-generated VMT is estimated to be lower than the
adopted significance threshold for the City. Alternative 2 would further reduce the overall Project retail
footprint by 20 percent, which would further reduce VMT due to the reduction of on-site employees and
consumers. Lastly, because the overall alternative area would be built out in a similar manner as the
Project, the construction and availability of other roadways and bicycle/pedestrian facilities would be
equivalent to the Project.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would be slightly environmentally superior to the proposed Project regarding
transportation and traffic, and specifically impacts associated with VMT.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The Project would cause a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources with the implementation
of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2. Despite reduced retail uses, Alternative 2 has the same potential to impact
unknown tribal cultural resources and would be required to implement MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2. In
addition, the alternative would be subject to the same applicable federal, state, and local regulations
pertaining to tribal cultural resources as the Project. Since this Alternative does not propose a significant
reduction in building footprint, it would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the Project.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding tribal cultural resources. There
would be a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources with implementation of MM CUL-1 and
MM CUL-2.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-16 6.0 | Alternatives
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would reduce the demand of public utility services, and impacts concerning water demand,
and wastewater and solid waste generation, compared to the Project, although the Project has a less than
significant impact with regard to utilities and service systems. A 20 percent reduction in retail uses,
compared to the Project, is anticipated to result in a corresponding decrease in utility demand and
construction of utilities. Reduced retail development during operations would use less water, natural gas,
and electricity and would generate less wastewater and solid waste production. Therefore, Alternative 2
would be environmentally superior, although it would not avoid impacts or substantially lessen utility and
service system impacts compared to the Project.
Wildfire
Alternative 2 and the Project would result in the same less than significant impacts regarding wildfire since
the Project is not located within or near a State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact and would
be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding wildfire.
Alternative 2 Summary
This Alternative would reduce some of the Project’s environmental impacts due to the 20% reduction in
commercial retail development. However, the majority of impacts would remain similar, as illustrated in
Table 6-1. Alternative 2 would likely lead to reduced impacts in air quality, energy, greenhouse gas
emissions, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, transportation, and utilities and service
systems, but would not result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of any of these impacts.
Additionally, this Alternative would fulfill most Project objectives, as Alternative 2 is generally consistent
with the Project’s proposed land uses. Therefore, this Alternative is under consideration.
6.3.3 Alternative 3: no commercial alternative
The No Commercial Alternative or “Alternative 3” assumes that the Project Applicant would not develop
any commercial development and would limit the Project’s commercial component as a zone change only.
Development under Alternative 3 would only consist of the development of 695 dwelling units, and would
forgo the 335,700 SF of combined retail, restaurant, and self-storage spaces that are proposed by the
Project. Parcels that would be rezoned for commercial use would remain undeveloped or would be
developed by a separate project applicant in the foreseeable future. Additionally, The Specific Plan would
not include entitlements for commercial development and any future commercial development (by
others) would be subject to the Specific Plan’s applicable design standards and provisions. All other Project
components would stay the same.
Comparison of Project Impacts
By eliminating commercial uses proposed by the Project, Alternative 3 would significantly reduce impacts
related to the scale of the Project. Therefore, many environmental impact areas could see significant
improvements regarding potential impact significance. Overall, the Project was able to achieve a less than
significant impact with mitigation incorporated in all environmental impact areas except air quality and
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-17 6.0 | Alternatives
GHG. Alternative 3 would still have significant and unavoidable impacts concerning air quality and GHG.
An evaluation of the impacts associated with the development of Alternative 3 are described below.
Aesthetics
The commercial uses proposed by the Project would be eliminated under this alternative. Alternative 3
proposes the development of 695 dwelling units and would leave the remaining land vacant for the
foreseeable future until it is developed by others. The same general aesthetics would apply to Alternative
3 when compared to the Project. Although no commercial development by the applicant would occur,
future development (by others) within the rezoned commercial land uses are required to adhere to the
Specific Plan’s commercial guidelines. In addition, although Alternative 3 would eliminate commercial
development, the Project area lacks officially designated scenic vistas and the Project site is not
considered a visually sensitive area.
Accordingly, Alternative 3 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding aesthetics
impacts, and result in less than significant impacts similar to the Project.
Air Quality
As noted above, the Project would conflict with applicable air quality plans and result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of criteria pollutants due to operational emissions. Specifically, the Project
would be inconsistent with AQMP Criterion No. 1 and No. 2 due to the significant and unavoidable impact
in the criteria pollutants NOX and ROG despite implementation of MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5 and
compliance with LORs AQ-1 through AQ-6.
As noted above, most of the ROG emissions are from area and mobile sources and the majority of NO x
and CO emissions are from mobile sources. The overall built out daily trips for Alternatives 3 would be
5,189 daily trips, compared to the Project’s total daily trips of 17,279. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result
in an associated decrease in operational emissions from mobile sources. The daily trips generated from
Alternative 3 would be approximately 12,090 less than the Project. Accordingly, Alternative 3 is expected
to significantly reduce emissions since operational mobile emissions from the commercial component
would not occur.
Although Alternative 3 would cause a significant and unavoidable impact to air quality, Alternative 3 is
still considered to be environmentally superior to the Project because of the significant decrease in
operational emissions and therefore less air quality impacts.
Biological Resources
Both the Project and Alternative 3 would potentially result in similar impacts to biological resources since
the potentially affected special-status species, sensitive vegetation communities, riparian areas, and
jurisdictional waters were identified outside the Project’s commercial planning areas. Additionally, the
Project and Alternative 3 would implement MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 to reduce impacts to biological
resources to less than significant levels.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-18 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative 3 is an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding biological
resources, as the habitat, wildlife species, riparian areas, and jurisdictional waters would not be modified
nor impacted by changes in commercial development, with the exception of the burrowing owl that could
occur within the proposed commercial land use area.
Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 and the Project would result in similar cultural resources impacts. Although Alternative 3
avoids potential impacts to cultural resources caused by the Project’s commercial uses, Alternative 3
proposes residential uses that would potentially impact cultural resources. Similar to the Project,
Alternative 3 would be required to implement MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 to reduce impacts to existing
historical resources and unknown archeological resources. Furthermore, Alternative 3 and the Project
have the potential to reveal unknown human remains during construction activities.
Although Alternative 3 and the Project both require implementation of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 to
minimize impacts regarding cultural resources and both have a less than significant impact, Alternative 3
would be considered an environmentally superior alternative to the Project due to a reduced
development footprint.
Energy
Both Alternative 3 and the Project would require energy during both the construction and operations
phases of the Project, but energy usage during construction and operational activities would be
significantly reduced under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, electricity, natural gas, and transportation
fuel for vehicle trips from the commercial development would be eliminated. This is due to the reduction
of development by the Applicant and reduction of daily trips. Therefore, although Alternative 3 and the
Project would both have less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to
the Project regarding energy impacts because the energy usage would be significantly reduced.
Geology and Soils
Both Alternative 3 and the Project would involve construction activities including, but not limited to,
ground disturbing grading activities that would potentially result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil.
Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would be required to implement MM GEO-1 and construction design
features to reduce impacts associated with grading operations and unstable or expansive soils.
Furthermore, all construction activities would also be subject to Best Management Practices (BMPs) set
in a Project-Specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and water quality management plan
(WQMP) to reduce impacts from runoff associated with soil erosion. Lastly, Alternative 3 would also
implement MM GEO-2 to reduce impacts to unknown paleontological resources to a level of less than
significant. The Project would have a smaller development footprint under Alternative 3, thereby reducing
the amount of ground disturbing grading activities that would potentially result in soil erosion and the
loss of topsoil. This would reduce the risk of exposing people to geological hazards, making Alternative 3
the environmentally superior option.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-19 6.0 | Alternatives
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impacts were associated with the exceedance of emissions
thresholds and cumulative GHG emissions. Although proposed mitigation would minimize the potential
emissions impacts associated with Project implementation, emissions are still anticipated to exceed the
City’s 3,000 MTCO2e maximum threshold.
Alternative 3 is anticipated to result in reduced GHG mobile emissions during construction and operations
due to the elimination of the workforce and significant reduction in total daily trips, associated with the
commercial development. Although Alternative 3 would continue to result in a significant unavoidable
impact, Alternative 3 is still environmentally superior to the Project regarding GHG emissions because of
the significant reduction in GHG emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project would have a less than significa nt impact on hazards and hazardous materials. The Project
requires the implementation of MMs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 to reduce impacts associated with listed
hazardous materials sites. Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would not avoid impacts resulting from
roadway improvements of Taylor Street to Commerce Way, that would potentially unearth hazardous
soils. Regardless, Alternative 3 would be subject to the same applicable federal and state regulations and
provisions pertaining to hazardous materials. Additionally, all development projects under Alternative 3
would be required to submit a waste management plan, implement BMPs pursuant to NDPES permitting,
and prohibit the storage of certain hazardous materials that may accidentally seep into the environment.
Nevertheless, Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of significant hazards to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials associated with the construction and operations of commercial development, when
compared to the Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Project
regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Compared to the Project, Alternative 3 would disturb a smaller footprint and result in less impervious
surfaces than the proposed Project. Alternative 3 and the Project would both have a less than significant
impact on hydrology and water quality due to implementation of BMPs, preventative low impact design,
and drainage improvements that minimize runoff, erosion, and storm water pollution. These proposed
beneficial water quality improvements would still occur under Alternative 3, despite the reduced land
uses and footprint. Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to hydrology
and water quality, Alternative 3 proposes a reduced development footprint and reduced impervious
surfaces, and therefore would reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed
Project.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding hydrology and water
quality.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-20 6.0 | Alternatives
Land Use and Planning
The Project requires adoption of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement as well as approval of the
proposed Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and Tentative Tract Map. Alternative 3 would require
the same entitlements. As such, Alternative 3 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project
regarding land use and planning, since land uses would be added, and land use entitlements would be
required.
Noise
Both Alternative 3 and the Project would generate noise and vibration during both the construction and
operational phases of the Project. Alternative 3 would result in a shorter construction time frame since
no commercial development would be constructed, as it would be with the proposed Project.
Consequently, a reduced short-term construction noise impact would occur. Additionally, Alternative 3
would decrease the amount of traffic compared to the Project and result in reduced long-term operational
traffic related noise. Because the proposed Project would have a greater short-term construction noise
impact and long-term operational noise impact, Alternative 3 noise impacts would be reduced, although
the Project’s impacts would also be less than significant.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding noise and vibration.
Population and Housing
Since Alternative 3 assumes that no commercial development would occur, long-term employment or
economic growth would not occur compared to the Project. However, economic growth does not
constitute an environmental impact under CEQA. Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would induce
planned population growth in the City, and not displace substantial numbers of exist ing people or housing.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would be environmentally equivalent, when compared to the Project’s impacts
concerning population and housing.
Public Services
Both Alternative 3 and the Project would require additional public service needs compared to the existing
conditions on the site. However, Alternative 3 would result in less demand of public services since no
commercial development would occur. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the payment of development
impact fees from the applicant would be lower.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior when compared to the Project regarding
public services.
Recreation
Both Alternative 3 and the Project propose the development of 695 dwelling units. Therefore,
Alternative 3 and the Project would have the same recreational impacts since the residential development
capacity would remain the same. Also, both Alternative 3 and the Project would pay applicable park
impact fees pursuant to the Quimby Act and local City regulations (provision of on -site park and
recreational facilities may be credited against required Quimby Act fees).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-21 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative 3 would be an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding
recreation.
Transportation
The Project would have a less than significant impact on transportation specifically as it relates to a
program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the Project would not have an impact or conflict with CEQA
Guidelines §15064.3. Per these guidelines, the Project-generated VMT is estimated to be lower than the
adopted significance threshold for the City. Under Alternative 3, Project-generated VMT would be
significantly lower due to the reduction of trips from the Project’s proposed commercial component.
Although Alternative 3 would result in the same less than significant impact, when compared with the
Project, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding transportation and
traffic, and specifically impacts associated with VMT.
Tribal Cultural Reso urces
The Project would cause a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources with the implementation
of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2. Similarly, Alternative 3 has the same potential to impact unknown tribal cultural
resources and would be required to implement MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2, and would be subject to the same
applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to tribal cultural resources. Although the Project
would result in less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, Alternative 3 proposes a reduced
overall development footprint that would be less impactful to tribal cultural resources.
Although Alternative 3 would have an impact on tribal cultural resources, Alternative 3 would be
environmentally superior due to the elimination of commercial development and reduced development
footprint.
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would significantly reduce demand of public utility services, and impacts concerning
wastewater and solid waste generation, compared to the Project. Temporary increases in utility demand
and construction of utilities would still occur during construction, but these increases would be lower than
with the proposed Project. Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to
utilities and service systems, Alternative 3 proposes a reduced overall development footprint and,
therefore, would reduce impacts to utilities and service systems compared to the Project.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior, compared to the Project, regarding impacts
to utilities and service systems.
Wildfire
Alternative 3 and the Project would result in the same less than significant impacts since the Project is not
located in or near a State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding wildfire.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-22 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative 3 Summary
This Alternative would reduce a majority of the Project’s environmental impacts, although other impacts
would be similar, as illustrated in Table 6-1. Alternative 3 would likely lead to reduced impacts in
aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, transportation and
traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. This Alternative fails to meet Project
objectives pertaining to the development of a variety of businesses that provide new jobs and services.
6.4 E NVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of
reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior
Alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives.
Based on the summary of information presented in Table 6-1, the environmentally superior alternative is
Alternative 3: Residential Only. Because Alternative 3 would reduce the Project to only its residential
components, this Alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the Project or any of the other
alternatives.
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the “No Proje ct” alternative is found to
be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among
the other alternatives. The No Project Alternative was not found to be environmentally superior.
The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors
including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less than significant level, the Project objectives,
and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the objectives with minimal impa cts to the existing site and
surrounding environment. According to Table 6-1, the Residential Only Alternative would be the
environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce some of the potentially significant impacts
of the Project. However, while the Residential Only Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,
it is not capable of meeting all of the basic objectives of the Project.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 6-23 6.0 | Alternatives
Table 6-1: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project
EIR Resource Section
Alternatives Heading
Project - Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Alternative 1: No
Project
Alternative 2:
Reduced Retail by
20 Percent
Alternative 3:
Residential Only
Aesthetics Less than Significant - = =
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable * * *
Biological Resources Less than Significant - = =
Cultural Resources Less than Significant - = -
Energy Less than Significant - - -
Geology and Soils Less than Significant - = -
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Significant and
Unavoidable * * *
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Less than Significant + = -
Hydrology and Water
Quality Less than Significant + - -
Land Use and Planning Less than Significant = = =
Noise Less than Significant - = -
Population and Housing Less than Significant + - =
Public Services Less than Significant = = -
Recreation Less than Significant = = =
Transportation Less than Significant + - -
Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant - = -
Utilities and Service
Systems Less than Significant = - -
Wildfire Less than Significant = = =
Compliance with Project
Objectives?
Meets all of the
Project Objectives
Does not meet
Project Objectives
Meets Most of the
Project Objectives
Meets some of the
Project Objectives
Notes:
A minus (-) sign means the Project Alternative is environmentally superior when compared to the Project.
A plus (+) sign means the Project Alternative is environmentally inferior when compared to the Project.
An equal sign (=) means the Project Alternative is environmental equivalent when compared to the Project.
*Although the Alternative would result in reduced impacts, the impact levels would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 7-1 7.0 | Effects Found Not to Be Significant
7.0 E FFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
California Public Resources Code (PRC) §21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons
and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the
process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial,
governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better
applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in
the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) §15126.2(a), which states
that “[a]n EIR (Environmental Impact Report) shall identify and focus on the significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project” and §15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant
effects on the environment.” State CEQA Guidelines §15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement
briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to
be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR.
The Project is a specific plan that serves as the regulatory mechanisms to guide all future development
proposals within the approximately 112-acre Project site. Currently, there are no development projects
proposed. All subsequent development projects, including constr uction and operations, undertaken
within the Project’s Planning Areas (PAs) will be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and
approval.
The Project proposes 22 PAs that encompass future development of residential, commercial, public
utilities, and public park and open space uses, including associated on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements. The Project consists of applications for a Specific Plan (SP 00 -17), General Plan
Amendment (GPA 17-01), Zone Change (ZC 17-02), Tentative Tract Map No. 20501 (TTM 18-01), and a
Development Agreement.
During the environmental evaluation conducted for this EIR, certain impacts of the proposed Project were
found to have “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. This section briefly describes those effects
found to have no impact or a less than significant impact based on the analysis conducted during the Draft
EIR preparation process. Several issues, indicated as having no impact or less than significant impact, are
nonetheless addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this Draft EIR as a matter of disclosure and
clarification for the reader.
7.1 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Agricultural Resources
During the early years of the City, most of the Specific Plan area was used for orchards. Over the years
some land was converted to dry farming or left vacant. For more than two decades, the City has attempted
to foster development in the Specific Plan area. According to the California Dep artment of Conversation
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the City contains Prime Farmland located near the
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 7-2 7.0 | Effects Found Not to Be Significant
southeastern corner of the City.1 However there are no areas presently in the City limits that are classified
as being used for the managed production of agricultural resources.
Impact 7.1 -1: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Prime Farmland is considered land used for irrigated agriculture at some time in the four years prior to its
designation. Farmland of Statewide Importance is also land that has been found suitable for sustained
crop production. However, Farmland of Statewide Importance does not include public lands that have
adopted policies that prevent agricultural use. Unique Farmland does not meet the criteria of Prime
Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. However, this land must still have been used for irrigated
agriculture within the four years prior to its designation.
The City allows agricultural uses under the City’s Agricultural and Agricultural 2 Overlay. However, the
Project is not within an agricultural overlay zone and does not propose agricultural lan d uses. According
to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project
site is classified as Urban Built-Up Land, grazing land, other land. Therefore, the Project would not alter
any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
Impact 7.1-2: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private land owners to restrict
parcels of land for agricultural or related open space use in return for financial assistance in the form of
lower property tax assessments.2 3 Portions of the City contain an Agricultural Overlay zoning designation;
however, the Project site is not located within an Agricultural Overlay District.4 Therefore, no impacts
related to existing agricultural zoning would occur.
1 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed November 2022.
2 California Department of Conservation. (2019). Williamson Act Program. Retrieved from: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa.
(accessed November 2022).
3 California Department of Conservation (2017) State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. Retrieved from
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/Attachment%20B%20Refe rences/Califor
nia%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf (accessed November 2022).
4 City of Grand Terrace. (2017). Zoning Code Map. Retrieved at: https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning (accessed November 2022).
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 7-3 7.0 | Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
Impact 7.1-3: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Impact 7.1 -4: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
According to PRC §§12220(g), 4526, and 51104(g), the Project site does not contain forestland and does
not meet the definition of lands designated as forestland or timberland. Therefore, no impact would occur
to timberland.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are needed.
Impact 7.1-5: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
As stated above, the Project is not within an agricultural overlay zone and does not propose agricultural
uses. The Project does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, does not contain forestland, and does not meet the definition of lands designated as
forestland or timberland. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in the conversion of farmland to
non-farmland or forest land to non-forest use.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 7-4 7.0 | Effects Found Not to Be Significant
7.2 MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 7.2 -1: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
Impact 7.2-2: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plans?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The City of Grand Terrace General Plan does not contain goals and policies pertaining to mineral
resources. Furthermore, no mineral resource areas are identified within the City . The Project site is
located within a State Department of Conservation designated Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3).5 MRZ-3
is defined as an area containing minerals of undetermined significance. However, according to the City’s
General Plan EIR, there are no known or identified mineral resources of regional or statewide importance
within the General Plan Area.6 No mineral resource or mineral resource extraction or processing activity
occurs on or adjacent to the Project site. Buildout of the Project would not result in the loss of City or
State-identified mineral resources. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of mineral resources
would occur and no mitigation is required.
7.3 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
California Department of Conservation (2017) State of California Williamson Act Contract Land.
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20St
udy/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Will
iamson%20Map%202016.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. (2019). Williamson Act Program. Retrieved from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa
City of Grand Terrace. (2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan Draft EIR. Retrieved from
https://www.grandterrace-ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning
City of Grand Terrace General Plan Draft EIR, January 2010. Chapter 7, page 308
City of Grand Terrace. (2017). Zoning Code Map. https://www.grandterrace-
ca.gov/departments/planning_development_services/planning.
Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete Grade Aggregate in the San
Bernardino Production-Consumption (P C) Region, California Geologic Survey, 2008. Retrieved
from: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Special-Reports/SR_240-
MLC-Report.pdf.
5 Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production -Consumption
(P-C) Region, California Geologic Survey, 2008. Retrieved from: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Special-
Reports/SR_240-MLC-Report.pdf.
6 City of Grand Terrace General Plan Draft EIR, January 2010. Chapter 7, page 308.
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 8-1 8.0 | Organizations and Persons Consulted
8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PREPARATION
This section is consistent with the requirements set forth in §21153 of the Public Resources Code (PRC)
and §15129 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: “The EIR shall identify all federal, state, or local
agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the
persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” Refer to Section 2.3,
EIR Scope, Issues, and Concerns, for a summary of public notification and consultation.
The NOP and NOP comment letters are provided in Appendix L, Notice of Preparation. The City provided
multiple opportunities for public input, both as part of the CEQA process and as part of Project scoping.
In addition to required public notifications under CEQA, the City has engaged in consultation with the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of
Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Cahuilla Band of Indians, and
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, as discussed further in Section 4.16,
Tribal Cultural Resources.
8.1 EIR CONSULTATION
CEQA Lead Agency
City of Grand Terrace
Planning Department
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
Contacts: Konrad Bolowich, City Manager/Acting Planning Director
Cheryl Tubbs, Lilburn Corporation, City CEQA Peer Reviewer
Project Applicant
Lewis Management Corporation
1156 N. Mountain Ave.
Upland, CA 91786
Contacts: Adam Collier, Vice President
Waen Messner, Project Manager
Interested Parties
As noted above, the City engaged in public and agency consultation through the NOP and public scoping
process. The following entities provided comments on the NOP, which have been considered as part of
this EIR preparation process:
· City of Riverside
· California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Inland Deserts Region
· California Department of Transportation – District 8
· San Bernardino County – Department of Public Works
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 8-2 8.0 | Organizations and Persons Consulted
· Mitchell M. Tsai – Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
· Patricia Farley – Resident
· Cathy Armstead – Resident
· Burt Seuylemezian – Resident
· Colton Joint Unified School District
· Southern California Association of Governments
· Bryan Grissinger – Frontera Real Estate Investments on behalf of De Berry Self-Storage Associates, L.P.
· South Coast Air Quality Management District
8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PREPARERS
Environmental Consultant
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Contacts: Kari Cano, Project Manager
Achilles Malisos, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Health Risk
Assessment/Noise/Energy
Alex Pohlman, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk Assessment/Noise/Energy
Elena Ajdari, Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Health Risk
Assessment/Noise/Energy
Meghan D. Karadimos, Senior Environmental Analyst
Aldo Perez, Environmental Analyst, Graphics
Sabrina Wallace, Environmental Analyst
Cameron Bauer, Environmental Analyst
Hannah Thurlow, Environmental Analyst
Amanda McCallum, Document Production
8.3 TECHNICAL STUDY PREPARATION
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(Air Quality Assessment)
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment)
100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
Contact: Mr. Ace Malisos
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 8-3 8.0 | Organizations and Persons Consulted
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(Acoustical Assessment)
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Contact: Mr. Alex Pohlman
Glen Lukos Associates, Inc.
(Biological Technical Report)
1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Contacts: David F. Moskovitz
BCR Consulting
(Updated Cultural Resources Records Search)
(Cultural Resources Records Search)
505 W 8th Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Contacts: David Brunzell, M.A./RPA
CRM Tech
(Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1167-161-03 and -04)
(Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Grand Terrace Crossing Project)
(Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reconnaissance))
(Update and Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report)
(Summary of Cultural Resources Survey Coverage)
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Contacts: Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A., Principal Investigator
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
(Geotechnical Feasibility Investigations, Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments)
6121 Quail Valley Court
Riverside, CA 92507
Contacts: John P. Leuer, President
Robert M. Markoff, Engineering Geologist
Mathew L. Hunt, Environmental Scientist
KWC Engineers
(Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Sewer System Analysis)
1880 Compton Avenue, Suite 100
Corona, CA 92881
Contact: Brandon Barnett, P.E.
Stephen M. Nielsen
The Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2023 8-4 8.0 | Organizations and Persons Consulted
Q3 Consulting
(Hydrology and Hydraulics Report)
27042 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 110
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Contact: Thomas J. Ryan, P.E.
Fehr & Peers
(Transportation Impact Analysis Report)
27042 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 110
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Contacts: Paul Herrmann
Ethan Yue Sun
Logan Aspeitia
Engineering Resources of Southern California
(Water Supply Assessment)
1861 W. Redlands Boulevard,
Redlands, CA 92373
Contact: John G. Egan, P.E.
Benjamin R. Booth, P.E.