ATTACHMENT_8_Advocates for Envioronment CEQA Comment Letter10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 dw@aenv.org
September 21, 2023
Konrad Bolowich
City Manager
City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road,
Grand Terrace, CA, 92313
Via U.S. Mail and email to kbolowich@grandterrace-ca.gov
re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report the Gateway at Grand
Terrace Specific Plan Project, SCH No. 2021020110
Dear Mr. Bolowich:
Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific
Plan Project (Project). The Project Site is located near the cross-streets of Taylor Street,
Van Buren Street, De Berry Street, and Commerce Way, in the City of Grand Terrace
(City), County of San Bernadino, and is on 112 acres of land. The Project includes the
construction and operation of approximately 335,700 square feet of mixed-use commercial
and residential buildings. We have reviewed the DEIR released in June 2022 and submit
comments regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR’s Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) analysis under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The City Should Require the Project to be Net-Zero
Given the current regulatory context and technological advancements, a net-zero
significance threshold is feasible and extensively supportable. GHG emissions from
buildings, including indirect emissions from offsite generation of electricity, direct emissions
produced onsite, and from construction with cement and steel, amounted to 21% of global
GHG emissions in 2019. (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2022, WGIII,
Mitigation of Climate Change, p. 9-4.) This is a considerable portion of global GHG
emissions. It is much more affordable to construct new building projects to be net-zero than
to obtain the same level of GHG reductions by expensively retrofitting older buildings to
comply with climate change regulations. Climate damages will keep increasing until we reach
net zero GHG emissions, and there is a California state policy requiring the state to be net-
zero by 2045. It therefore is economically unsound to construct new buildings that are not
net-zero.
Environmental groups have achieved tremendous outcomes by litigation under
CEQA. Two of the largest mixed-use development projects in the history of California,
Advocates for the Environment
A non-profit public-interest law firm
and environmental advocacy organization
City of Grand Terrace Page 2
CEQA Comments on the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Project September 21, 2023
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 dw@aenv.org
Newhall Ranch (now FivePoint Valencia), and Centennial (part of Tejon Ranch) decided to
move forward as net-zero communities after losing CEQA lawsuits to environmental groups.
The ability for these large projects to become net-zero indicates that it is achievable, even for
large-scale developments. The Applicant for this Project should do the same.
We urge the City to adopt net-zero as the GHG significance threshold for this
project, and require full fair-share mitigation. This threshold is well-supported by plans for
the reduction of GHG emissions in California, and particularly the CARB Climate Change
Scoping Plans. The CARB 2017 Scoping Plan states that “achieving no net additional
increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate
overall objective for new development.” (p. 101.) Additionally, the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
reaffirms the necessity of a net zero target by expressing: “it is clear that California must
transition away from fossil fuels to zero-emission technologies with all possible speed … in
order to meet our GHG and air quality targets.” (CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, p. 184.) CARB
further encourages a net-zero threshold in its strategies for local actions in Appendix D to
the 2022 Scoping Plan. (CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D p. 24-26.)
Moving this Project forward as a net-zero project would not only be the right thing for
the City to do, but also would also help protect the City and the Applicant from CEQA
GHG litigation.
GHG Mitigation is Insufficient under CEQA
The calculated project-related emissions amount to 20,964 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. The lead agency adopted a numeric GHG
significance threshold of below 3,000 MTCO2e, according to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines. Based on this threshold, City concluded the
Project would have significant and unavoidable GHG emissions. The DEIR referred to Air
Quality Mitigation Measures (MM-AQ) 2 through 4 and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measure (MM-GHG) 1 through 4 to reduce the GHG impact.
After accounting for the GHG reductions from the proposed mitigation measures, the
DEIR quantified mitigated emissions at 18,539 MTCO2e. (DEIR, p. 4.7-21.) Notably,
despite the availability of other GHG mitigation and Project alternatives, the DEIR declared
that the Project’s quantified emissions were unavoidable, stating: “Additional mitigation to
further reduce these emissions is not feasible at this time.” (DEIR, p. 4.7-22.) Yet, this
statement was not supported by substantial evidence; there are other readily available
mitigation measures, so the DEIR should include more mitigation to reduce the Project’s
GHG emissions to the extent required by CEQA.
City of Grand Terrace Page 3
CEQA Comments on the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Project September 21, 2023
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 dw@aenv.org
The EIR Identifies Unenforceable and Improperly Deferred Mitigation
Measures
Vague and unenforceable mitigation measures violate CEQA (California Clean Energy
Comm. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 180.) There is also no showing
that certain mitigation measures would commit the lead agency to future achievement of
performance standards and guarantees, which constitutes improper deferral.
For example, the performance standards in MM GHG-2 are voluntary and indicate a
lack of commitment by the City to any particular standard because of the use of alternative
options to achieve energy efficiency. Thus, the actual emissions reductions achieved is
unclear. There are three separate alternatives that are mentioned within MM GHG-2—1)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED); or 2) CALGreen Tier 2; or 3)
on-site renewable energy for future commercial development—without creating a
commitment to any one of them.
Overall, all mitigation measures should be detailed in the DEIR so as not to violate
CEQA’s requirement for specific and enforceable mitigation measures at the time of
adoption.
Infeasibility Finding Lacks Substantial Evidence
The conclusion that the Project will not be able to achieve any mitigation beyond
which was identified in MM-AQ 2 through 4 and MM-GHG 1 through 4 is not supported
with substantial evidence. Overall, as discussed in the next section of this letter, there are
abundant options available to mitigate emissions to the full extent of project emissions. The
lead agency carries the burden of including an adequate discussion of feasible mitigation
measures, including identifying the reasons for infeasibility, and the failure to do so here is a
violation of CEQA and insufficient to meet the City’s burden.
Proposed Mitigation Measures Can Be Modified to Be More Effective to the
Maximum Feasible Extent
CEQA requires that lead agencies identify specific reasons for infeasibility of further
mitigation when concluding significant and unavoidable impact. Here, there are many ways
that the currently identified mitigation measures could be feasibly modified to achieve
further GHG emissions reductions, but the City failed to present reasons why these
mitigation measures represent the maximum feasible GHG mitigation.
In particular, certain measures only pertain to the residential components of the
specific plan, rather than the commercial aspects, without given any reason why a Project-
wide measure would be infeasible. For example, MM GHG-1 requires solar panel
City of Grand Terrace Page 4
CEQA Comments on the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Project September 21, 2023
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 dw@aenv.org
infrastructure, but only for the residential buildings of the Project. The City did not provide
any reason why it is infeasible to apply this mitigation measure to the entire specific plan,
including commercial buildings. Similarly, MM GHG-3 requires energy efficient appliances
for residential buildings. As with MM GHG-1, the DEIR provided no reason or evidence
that this measure would be infeasible as applied to the commercial buildings of this Project.
It Is Feasible to Adopt Further Mitigation Measures
First, the City can require the Applicant to enter into an agreement with the future
tenant so that the operational vehicles adhere to the best available emissions control
technology. To reduce GHGs, diesel powered could be minimized, and Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) use on site could be emphasized or required. The City can make prospective
commercial tenants agree to maintain a hybrid, or even fully electrified vehicle fleet which
powers itself through solar panels on-site. Requiring non-diesel fuel types such as gasoline,
ethanol, or biofuels would effectively emit less GHGs. For instance, it is feasible for lease
agreements to include provisions to limit the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks. Agreements
signed concurrently with the tenant’s lease agreement could be an effective and binding way
for the Applicant to ensure that the tenants use zero-emission vehicles to the maximum
extent feasible.
Additionally, non-mobile emissions reductions are also feasible. There are several
measures, including renewable energy systems and batteries to power the commercial
buildings during non-peak hours, solar water heaters, automatic light switches, among many
other mitigation strategies that can be incorporated in the project as design features or as
mitigation measures, for both the residential and commercial components of the Project.
The City could also require the Applicant to purchase offsets for the GHG emissions
remaining after on-site mitigation measures, or require the Applicant to enter into an
agreement to buy clean power to offset the electricity usage of the commercial and residential
Project uses.
The Project’s GHG Impacts Must be Fully Mitigated
CEQA requires that the Project include fair-share mitigation for all significant
cumulative impacts. (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Board of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 364.) Here, this means mitigation of the full extent of the
Project’s GHG impacts. The DEIR claims that no mitigation measures are feasible, beyond
those described in the EIR. But that conclusion is incorrect, and not supported by
substantial evidence.
The amount of GHG emissions that comprises the Project’s fair share is clear. The
Project’s annual emissions, with proposed mitigation incorporated, was estimated at 18,539
MTCO2e according to CalEEMod, and the reasonable lifespan this Project is approximately
City of Grand Terrace Page 5
CEQA Comments on the Gateway at Grand Terrace Specific Plan Project September 21, 2023
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 dw@aenv.org
30 years, as indicated by the amortization of construction emissions. Therefore, by
multiplying the annual estimate by the estimated Project lifespan, the Project’s total
emissions are 556,170 MTCO2e.1 This would be a good starting point from which to
subtract the effect of non-offset mitigation measures, before implementing offset purchases.
Offsets Are Feasible
The DEIR did not mention offsets as an available mitigation measure when it
concluded that further mitigation is not feasible, nor did it provide any explanation of why
offsets would be infeasible. And offsets are acceptable mitigation measures under CEQA
(See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (c)(3).) Because the City has provided no reason why
CEQA- compliant offsets are infeasible, the EIR’s conclusion that it is not feasible to fully
mitigate the Project’s GHG emissions is not supported by substantial evidence. At a
minimum, the City should require the Applicant to purchase offsets to the extent necessary
to mitigate the Project’s emissions.
Conclusion
The DEIR fails to require fair-share mitigation, despite concluding that the significant
GHG impact will be unavoidable. The lead agency has not met its burden of showing that
such measures are infeasible, and therefore the DEIR should be amended to reflect all
feasible mitigation to the fair-share extent, including offsets.
Please put me on the interest list to receive updates about the progress of this project.
Sincerely,
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
Executive Director, Advocates for the Environment
1 (18,539 MTCO2e) x (30 years) = 556,170 MTCO2e