Loading...
ATTACHMENT_8_ Grand Terrace Responses to Advocates for Environment CEQA Comment Letter 1 Responses to Advocates for the Environment Comments 1. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise any specific comments or concerns about the environmental analysis in the Dra� EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec�on 15088(a), a lead agency is only required to evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues. As such, no further response is required. The comment incorrectly references June 2022 as the date of the Dra� EIR’s release. To clarify, the Dra� EIR was released in June 2023. In accordance with CEQA, the Dra� EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period, from June 26, 2023, to August 14, 2023. The comment leter, which is dated September 21, 2023, was submited following the close of the public review period on the Dra� EIR and, as such, was not included in the Final EIR, which provides responses to comments on the Dra� EIR submited during the public review period. Nevertheless, responses are provided here to each of the comments in the leter. Specific comments regarding the Dra� EIR are provided and responded to below. 2. The GHG thresholds applicable to the Project are described in Sec�on 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Dra� EIR at pages 4.7-16 to -18. As explained therein, the City has not developed its own thresholds, but instead relies on SCAQMD’s recommended Tier 3 screening thresholds to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. As discussed under the “Tier 3 Screening Thresholds” discussion in Sec�on 4.7 of the Dra� EIR, the SCAQMD determined the 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold for residen�al 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 conserva�ve analysis, the City will apply the 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold recommended by SCAQMD for residen�al and commercial projects. Agencies have discre�on to choose significance thresholds and the choice will be upheld if it is supported by substan�al evidence. Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 206. Further, CEQA Guideline § 15064.7(c) authorizes lead agencies to consider thresholds of significance “previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts”. SCAQMD is such an expert and the City’s decision to rely on SCAQMD’s threshold is supported by substan�al evidence. The commenter provides no support for the claim that the City’s decision is not jus�fied or that a net-zero significance threshold is feasible or supportable. In addi�on, all new buildings proposed as part of the project will comply with climate change regula�ons, and in fact exceed energy efficiency requirements. The EIR imposes MM GHG-1 which requires the installa�on of photovoltaic solar panels on residen�al buildings to offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires all buildings to be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards or meet or exceed the CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the �me, which improve energy efficiency over the requirements of Title 24 by a minimum of 15 percent. Alterna�vely, the Project design could include on-site renewable energy for future commercial development such that 15% of the on-site energy consump�on is offset. MM GHG-3 requires that the residen�al buildings to be all electric, and with no natural gas. Dra� EIR 4.7-21 to - 24. As such, the residen�al buildings will be net-zero, and the commercial buildings will exceed the energy efficiency requirements by a minimum of 15 percent, reducing GHG emissions from buildings significantly, as shown in Dra� EIR Table 4.7-3. As discussed in the Dra� EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan. Consistent with 15064(h)(3) and 2 15064.4(b)(3) the City can consider these regula�ons of vehicle emissions as substan�al evidence that such emissions. As explained in Sec�on 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Dra� EIR, the Phase I residen�al por�on of the Project and the Parks por�on of the Project would be net zero energy. However, mobile emissions for the residen�al and commercial por�ons of the Project raise the Project’s emissions above the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance used for the analysis. While the Project and the City do not have the ability to regulate vehicle emissions, state and federal regula�ons will con�nue to improve engine efficiency and thus emissions. California has set a goal of requiring all new vehicles sold in 2035 and beyond to be zero-emission vehicles. The approvals and ensuing li�ga�on over the projects cited in the comment pre-date the state’s current zero-emission goals for vehicles. The implementa�on of exis�ng regula�ons and improved fuel efficiency are already resul�ng in cleaner fuels and energy, and GHG emissions, including those associated with the Project’s mobile emissions, will con�nue to be reduced through these standards and implementa�on of the Scoping Plans referenced in the comment. For example, the California Air Resources Board es�mated in the 2017 Scoping Plan that fossil fuel demand would decrease by more than 45 percent by 2030 and stated programs like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Renewables Por�olio Standard are delivering cleaner fuels and energy (2017 Scoping Plan, Execu�ve Summary, p. ES-8). Thus, the new buildings are net-zero which is consistent with commenters request that the new budlings be net-zero. 3. The comment refers to the Project’s quan�fied GHG emissions before and a�er mi�ga�on, and the Dra� EIR’s conclusion that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions. The commenter refers to the Dra� EIR’s statement that addi�onal mi�ga�on to further reduce these emissions is not feasible at this �me, which the comment claims is not supported by substan�al evidence. To the contrary, the Dra� EIR includes a comprehensive discussion of feasible mi�ga�on measures and the reasons for infeasibility of addi�onal mi�ga�on measures, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. As explained in Sec�on 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Dra� EIR, the Phase I residen�al por�on of the Project and the Parks por�on of the Project would be net zero energy. However, mobile emissions for the residen�al and commercial por�ons of the Project raise the Project’s emissions above the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance used for the analysis. As the Dra� EIR explains, the TDM program required by MM AQ-2 would reduce GHG emissions resul�ng from commuter trips; however, it would not reduce delivery trips and retail customer trips, and the emissions associated with mobile sources would remain above the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold. The Dra� EIR goes on to explain that addi�onal mi�ga�on to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City of Grand Terrace to address emissions resul�ng from mobile sources and/or emissions generated by cars and trucks outside of the City’s limits. The detailed discussion included on pages 4.7-22-23 of the Dra� EIR further explains that the Project’s mobile and transporta�on related GHG emissions are a func�on of emissions control technology and VMT, and that the City has no regulatory control over emissions control technology and therefore has limited ability to control or mi�gate emissions associated with mobile source emissions. The Project’s non-mobile residen�al emissions are adequately mi�gated through the imposed regula�ons and standard condi�ons, as well as the Project’s mi�ga�on measures. MM GHG-1 requires the installa�on of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions in residen�al buildings. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed the voluntary CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further 3 improve energy efficiency. MM GHG-3 requires the residen�al 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. Furthermore, MMs AQ-2 through AQ-4 iden�fied in Dra� EIR Sec�on 4.2, Air Quality, of the Dra� EIR to reduce opera�onal emissions would also reduce GHG emissions. MM AQ-2 requires the implementa�on of a qualifying Commute Trip Reduc�on (CTR)/ Transporta�on 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 Covenants, Condi�ons and Restric�ons (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used on-site shall be 100 percent electrically powered. The comment indicates that the EIR should include more mi�ga�on to reduce GHG emissions but does not iden�fy measures that would reduce the Project’s GHG emissions from mobile sources and as explained above, the Project’s residen�al buildings would be net zero energy as the commenter requests. While the commenter requests offset credits below, those are not mi�ga�on measures that reduce the project’s emissions. 4. The comment refers to general CEQA principles regarding the adequacy of mi�ga�on measures and suggests that the performance standards in MM GHG-2 are voluntary and vague. To the contrary, consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the case law cited in the comment, MM GHG-2 is fully enforceable and will be implemented as a condi�on of development. All of the Project mi�ga�on measures iden�fied in the Dra� EIR will become enforceable as condi�ons of approval and through the Mi�ga�on Monitoring Repor�ng Program. The comment suggests that the use of alterna�ve op�ons to achieve energy efficiency pursuant to MM GHG-2 indicates a lack of commitment by the City to any par�cular standard. However, as stated in the measure and clarified in the Dra� EIR Errata with the language provided below, for commercial buildings, the 15% reduc�on in building efficiency over Title 24 standards standard in the mi�ga�on measure must be achieved prior to the issuance of building permits. The proposed commercial buildings may do so in one of three ways: by mee�ng Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards, by mee�ng or exceeding CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the �me, or by including renewable energy that would offset 15% of the on-site energy consump�on of the proposed and designed building. As a program EIR, no specific commercial buildings are proposed at this �me, thus selec�on of a par�cular method that would all achieve the performance standard is not possible or necessary. Iden�fying a specific performance standard (15% reduc�on), ensuring it is met via building permits and iden�fying the methods that may be used to achieve the standards is all that is required. See Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502. Revised MM GHG-2: Building Energy Efficiency. Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development within the Project shall be designed to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a minimum of 15 percent through any of the following methods: achieveing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards or mee�ng or exceeding CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the �me in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a minimum of 15 percent. Alterna�vely, the Project design shall include on-site renewable energy for future 4 commercial development, for example the incorpora�on of solar panels into future Project commercial development, such that 15 percent of the on-site energy consump�on is offset. 5. As discussed in Response to Comment 3 above, contrary to the comment’s sugges�on, the Dra� EIR does include a comprehensive discussion of feasible mi�ga�on measures to reduce GHG emissions and the reasons for infeasibility of addi�onal mi�ga�on measures, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. As explained in the Dra� EIR, a�er mi�ga�on, mobile emissions associated with the Project would generate nearly all (93 percent) of the Project’s GHG emissions. While the Project and the City do not have the ability to regulate vehicle emissions, state and federal regula�ons will con�nue to improve engine efficiency and thus emissions. California has set a goal of requiring all new vehicles sold in 2035 and beyond to be zero-emission vehicles. Therefore, as vehicle emissions decrease in the future, GHG impacts associated with the Project will also decrease and this is how the state will achieve net zero. As discussed in Response to Comment 3 above, the implementa�on of exis�ng regula�ons and improved fuel efficiency are already resul�ng in cleaner fuels and energy, and GHG emissions, including those associated with the Project’s mobile emissions, will con�nue to be reduced through these standards and implementa�on of the Scoping Plans referenced in the comment. For example, the California Air Resources Board es�mated in the 2017 Scoping Plan that fossil fuel demand would decrease by more than 45 percent by 2030 and stated programs like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Renewables Por�olio Standard are delivering cleaner fuels and energy (2017 Scoping Plan, Execu�ve Summary, p. ES-8). The comment does not iden�fy any mi�ga�on measures for evalua�on to reduce mobile source emissions to less than significant levels. Please refer to Response to Comment 3 for addi�onal informa�on regarding the Project’s GHG mi�ga�on measures and the Dra� EIR’s discussion of why addi�onal mi�ga�on to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible. 6. Contrary to the comment’s sugges�on, the Dra� EIR explains on page 4.7-21 that MM GHG-1 only applies to residen�al buildings as specific development for commercial buildings is not proposed at this �me. While specific tenants and commercial developments are not yet iden�fied, the Project’s commercial development will be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Current Title 24 requirements include mandatory requirements for appliances and conformance with efficiency levels, as well as new solar and batery storage standards. In addi�on, MM GHG-2 requires that future development within the Project shall be designed to achieve LEED standards or meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the �me of building permit issuance in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a minimum of 15 percent. Alterna�vely, MM GHG-2 requires that the Project design shall include on-site renewable energy for future commercial development, for example, the incorpora�on of solar panels into future Project commercial development, such that 15 percent of the on-site energy consump�on is offset. Further, as shown in Table 4.7-3: Opera�onal Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in Sec�on 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Dra� EIR, most of the emissions associated with the commercial component of the Project are mobile source emissions. As explained in Response to Comments 3 and 5 above and in the Dra� EIR, addi�onal mi�ga�on to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City of Grand Terrace to address emissions resul�ng from mobile sources and/or emissions generated by cars and trucks outside of the City’s limits. The detailed discussion included on pages 4.7-22-23 of the Dra� EIR further explains that the Project’s mobile and transporta�on 5 related GHG emissions are a func�on of emissions control technology and VMT, and that the City has no regulatory control over emissions control technology and therefore has limited ability to control or mi�gate emissions associated with mobile source emissions. 7. As explained in Response to Comment 6 above and in the Dra� EIR, specific development for commercial buildings is not proposed at this �me. As explained in Sec�on 3.0, Project Descrip�on, of the Dra� EIR, the proposed Project areas designated General Commercial are iden�fied for the development of general commercial land uses, including retail, personal service, entertainment, office, and restaurants. Commenter frequently comments on large warehouse developments and a few very large industrial warehouses have agreed to such mi�ga�on measures but the measures suggested by the comment regarding vehicle fleets and the use of solar panels by prospec�ve tenants are not typically applicable to or viable for the types of general commercial land uses iden�fied as poten�al land uses as part of the Project which do not have vehicle fleets as suggested by the comment. Further, as explained in Responses to Comments 3, 5, and 6 above, and in the Dra� EIR, most of the emissions associated with the commercial component of the Project are mobile source emissions. Neither the lead agency nor the Project applicant has authority to control the rates of GHG emissions from vehicles that would travel to and from the proposed Project. The emissions from these mobile sources primarily depend on the preroga�ve of future employees and retail customers with regard to their preferred method of transporta�on. As these individual preferences are beyond the control of the Project applicant and City, it is not feasible to reduce the emissions to below the threshold. As further explained above and in the Dra� EIR, the City has no regulatory control over emissions control technology and therefore has limited ability to control or mi�gate emissions associated with mobile source emissions. As such, addi�onal mi�ga�on to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City of Grand Terrace to address emissions resul�ng from mobile sources and/or emissions generated by cars and trucks outside of the City’s limits. With regard to the non -mobile emissions reduc�on measures suggested in the comment, the Project’s commercial development will be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Current Title 24 standards include renewable energy and batery storage standards. Further, as explained in the Dra� EIR and in Response to Comment 6 above, MM GHG-2 requires that future development within the Project shall be designed to achieve LEED standards or meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the �me of building permit issuance in order to exceed 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a minimum of 15 percent, and these measures may include the items specified by commenter including renewable energy, solar water heaters, and automa�c light switches. Alterna�vely, MM GHG-2 requires that the Project design shall include on-site renewable energy for future commercial development, for example, the incorpora�on of solar panels into future Project commercial development, such that 15 percent of the on-site energy consump�on is offset. 8. This comment refers to CEQA requirements regarding mi�ga�on measures, including the implementa�on of feasible mi�ga�on measures that avoid and reduce a project’s adverse environmental impacts. To clarify, the “fair-share mi�ga�on” referenced in the case cited in the comment was not related to GHG emissions but was for a traffic-related fee to raise funding for roadway improvements. In the discussion cited in the comment, the court stated: “Fee-based infrastructure can be an adequate mi�ga�on measure under CEQA…, and can be par�cularly useful 6 where, as here, traffic conges�on results from cumula�ve condi�ons, and not solely from the development of a single project.” Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 363-364 (internal citations omitted). As explained in the case cited in the comment: “An EIR need not analyze every imaginable alterna�ve or mi�ga�on measure; its concern is with feasible means of reducing environmental effects. Under the CEQA statute and guidelines a mi�ga�on measure is ‘feasible’ if it is ‘capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of �me, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.’ In keeping with the statute and guidelines, an adequate EIR must respond to specific sugges�ons for mi�ga�ng a significant environmental impact unless the suggested mi�ga�on is facially infeasible. While the response need not be exhaus�ve, it should evince good faith and a reasoned analysis.” Id. at 360 (internal citations omitted). Contrary to the comment’s sugges�on, CEQA does not require the full extent of a project’s impacts to be mi�gated if it is not feasible to do so. As set forth in CEQA and confirmed in caselaw, “[CEQA] allows a project to con�nue even if there are significant environmental effects that have not been mi�gated, if ‘the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.’” Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502, 524 (2018), ci�ng Public Resources Code Sec�on 20181(b). Further, “[a] lead agency may adopt mi�ga�on measures that do not reduce the project’s adverse impacts to less than significant levels, so long as the agency can demonstrate in good faith that the measures will be at least par�ally effec�ve at mi�ga�ng the project’s impacts.” Id. at 511. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the case law cited in the comment, the Dra� EIR presents a comprehensive assessment of the Project’s poten�al significant environmental impacts and iden�fies project design features and feasible mi�ga�on measures that avoid and reduce the Project’s adverse environmental impacts. 9. The comment refers to Sec�on 15126.4(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which iden�fies off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mi�gate a project’s emissions as one of several examples of mi�ga�on measures related to GHG emissions that a lead agency “may” include. Contrary to the comment’s sugges�on, offsets are not required; they are iden�fied in the CEQA Guidelines as an example of a type of GHG mi�ga�on measure a lead agency may consider. As explained above in Response to Comments 3, 5, 6 , and 7, mobile emissions associated with the Project would generate nearly all of the Project’s GHG emissions. The City has no regulatory control over emissions control technology and therefore has limited ability to control or mi�gate emissions associated with mobile source emissions. While the Project and the City do not have the ability to regulate vehicle emissions, state and federal regula�ons will con�nue to improve engine efficiency and thus emissions. California has set a goal of requiring all new vehicles sold in 2035 and beyond to be zero-emission vehicles. Therefore, consistent with 15064(h)(3) and 15064.4(b)(3) the City can consider these regula�ons of vehicle emissions as substan�al evidence that such emissions will decrease in the future, GHG impacts associated with the Project will also decrease. 10. The comment is conclusory in nature. Responses to the commenter’s specific comments regarding the Dra� EIR are provided above (please refer to Responses to Comments 2 through 9 above). The Dra� EIR presents a comprehensive assessment of the Project’s poten�al significant environmental 7 impacts, iden�fies project design features and feasible mi�ga�on measures that avoid and reduce the Project’s adverse environmental impacts, addresses a reasonable range of alterna�ves to the proposed Project, and, on an overall basis, informs the governmental decision-makers and the public regarding the Project’s poten�al short-term and long-term significant environmental impacts. In these ways, the Dra� EIR achieves the basic objec�ves for CEQA review, as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines (See CEQA Guidelines Sec�ons 15121(a) and 15362). The commenter has been added to the interested par�es list.