Agenda packet — Corona City Council, February 5, 2025 (part 5 of 33)

Services Coordinator role to a full-time position will be instrumental over a five-year period.

Staff requests an appropriation in the amount of $37,796 from the Opioid Settlement Fund 293 for the remainder of the fiscal year. The total recurring budget impact for this position is approximately $136,997 ($46,287 within the Measure X Fund 120 and $90,710 within the Opioid Settlement Fund 293).

2. Animal Enforcement Professional/Contractual Services Over the past several years, the cost of veterinary services has risen significantly, far surpassing the previously established budget for animal care. The City of Corona Animal Services section is fully committed to providing effective and humane treatment for all animals in its care, in strict accordance with animal care laws. However, the implementation of more stringent animal care regulations, coupled with the steady increase in the number of animals brought into the shelter each year, has resulted in substantially higher veterinary costs.

Staff requests an appropriation of $133,620 from the General Fund 110, increasing the annual budget for Animal Enforcement Professional/Contractual Services to a total of $330,000.

3. Down Payment for Vehicle Unit No. 33051 - Parks Division's New Truck The Public Works Department oversees the Vehicle Replacement Program. After the FY 2025 budget was approved, a calculation error was identified, resulting in the down payment for the Parks Division's new truck being understated.

Staff requests an appropriation of $8,000 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 684 to the Operating and Maintenance Vehicle Procurement Project No. 68344.

4. Additional Auto CAD Licenses
Public Works Engineering staff use AutoCAD for internal design and review of consultantdesigned project plans, construction as-builts, and coordination with outside agencies.

Current licenses are assigned to staff members who use the software in their daily work, and there are no current unused licenses with the addition of new staff in the CIP-Parks and Facilities division.

Staff requests an appropriation of $10,000 to the Public Works’ operating budget within the General Fund 110.

5. LMD 84-2, Zone 19 Tree Trimming on Valencia Road
Currently, the landscape district is underfunded and lacks sufficient revenue to cover the necessary costs for this work. This maintenance is essential to ensure the safety of residents by addressing potential hazards posed by the overgrown trees. The proposed

Page 831 of 4376 ends

increase will provide funding for deferred maintenance of overgrown trees in LMD 84-2, Zone 19, along Valencia Road, from California Avenue to Upper Drive.

Staff requests an appropriation of $10,005 to the Community Services’ operating budget within the LMD 84-2, Zone 19 Fund 468.

6. LMD 84-2, Zone 20 Concrete Repairs at Mt. Gate Greenbelt The proposed increase will fund concrete repairs at Mt. Gate Greenbelt to address lifted sidewalks, which pose a liability risk. These repairs are essential to ensure public safety and prevent further damage. Staff is requesting an appropriation of $85,000 to the Community Services operating budget within the LMD 84-2, Zone 20 Fund 470 to cover the costs of these repairs.

7. Create and Fund a New Operating and Maintenance Project Titled Temescal Desalter Clean-In-Place System Optimization
Recent failures of the Temescal Desalter’s Clean-in-Place (CIP) system highlighted the need for system upgrades to improve reliability and performance. A study by Separation Processes Inc. recommended installing a larger pump, accurate flow metering, and advanced monitoring systems. By implementing these enhancements, which will be performed by Utilities staff, the Desalter will achieve more effective cleanings, optimize chemical usage, establish reliable process trends for the CIP system, and extend the system’s lifespan.

Staff is requesting $200,000 from the Water Utility Fund (570) to create and fund this project. This funding will cover the cost of materials, equipment, and staff time, ensuring the cost-effective implementation of the recommended improvements.

Item b. Change Order to Increase Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. Purchase Order to $170,000.

Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. is a local vendor who supplies commercial grade irrigation parts used for repairs and maintenance of the citywide parks and LMD’s. Additional materials and supplies will be needed throughout FY25, as a result of regular irrigation inspections which require supplies to perform needed repairs. The purchase order increase of $75,000 to B250402 will allow for on-call irrigation supplies with Ewing Irrigation of City parks and facilities including LMD’s and CFD’s.

Item c. Change Order to Increase Workday Inc. Purchase Order to $608,473.

The City Council approved the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project on November 6, 2024. After the staff report was approved, purchase orders were issued to multiple vendors for software, project management, change management, and implementation services.

Workday was selected as the City’s new ERP system. The system integrates human resources and finance functions in a user-friendly platform, automating many manual processes. The purchase order request approved on November 6, 2024, was for

Page 832 of 4376 ends

$541,813 for the first year’s annual subscription fee. Additional one-time training costs of $66,660 were overlooked when preparing the staff report. The one-time costs will include Workday’s training of key finance and human resources staff to set up and implement the multiple modules. Staff is requesting an increase of $66,660 to purchase order P23756 for Workday to incorporate the training costs for the project implementation. No additional funding is needed as the change order will utilize contingency funding included in the project funding (project 77880) in the General Fund 110.

Item d. Change Order to Increase CanAm Technologies Inc. Purchase Order to $380,121.

CanAm Technologies is the vendor the City will be working with to improve the City's cashiering functionality by providing a system that integrates with Workday. enhance the City’s cashiering functionality by providing a system that integrates with Workday. The purchase order request approved on November 6, 2024, was for $99,216 for the first year’s annual licensing fees. Additional one-time costs of $280,904.50 were overlooked when preparing the staff report. The one-time costs include implementation services such as interface workshops, system configurations, testing, training, and travel. In addition, hardware items such as receipt printers, cash drawers, check scanners, and credit/debit devices need to be purchased. Staff requests an increase of $280,904.50 to purchase order P23703 for CanAm Technologies to incorporate the one-time costs. No additional funding is needed as the change order will utilize contingency funding included in the project funding (project 77880) in the General Fund 110.

Item e. Change Order to Increase Animal Enforcement Professional / Contractual Purchase Orders to a Total of $280,000.

City of Corona Animal Services relies on local vets for critical care, but rising costs, stricter regulations, and an increasing number of animals have exceeded their budget. Animal Services is actively working with the Purchasing Department to launch a Request For Proposal process to manage veterinary care costs better. In the meantime, staff is requesting to increase purchase orders for various local veterinary hospitals. i. Increase the purchase order for Animal Hospital of Eagle Glen by $25,000 for a purchase order total of $80,000.
ii. Increase the purchase order for Animal Medical Center of Corona by $65,000 for a purchase order total of $120,000.
iii. Increase the purchase order for Community Veterinary Hospital by $25,000 for a purchase order total of $80,000.

Item f. Change Order to Increase DXP Enterprise, Inc. Purchase Order to $350,000.

DXP Enterprise, Inc. is the exclusive local distributor for critical pump and motor brands identified in the Utilities Department's (UD) Notice Designating PCC 3400 Exclusive Standard Equipment and Products List. Since the 2022 approval, the Utilities Department has seen an increase in failure on pumps, specifically KSB Submersible Pumps and Seepex Positive Displacement Pumps, in addition to the price increases from the

Page 833 of 4376 ends

purchase of both new and refurbished pumps, that necessitate an increase in the annual purchase order amount for DXP.

The Utilities Department recommends increasing the annual purchase order total for DXP from $200,000 to $350,000 per fiscal year and extending the term through June 30, 2029, to accommodate the increased needs.

Item g. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-009, approving the City of Corona Position Library and Compensation Plan and repealing all prior Plans, including Resolution No. 2024-112, effective February 8, 2025.

State regulations for public employers require disclosure of position classifications and corresponding compensation. In an effort to ensure position compliance updates and for even greater transparency, the City Council regularly adopts and updates the Position Library and Compensation Plan(“Plan”). This document includes a list of all authorized employment positions for the City and their corresponding compensation ranges .

The Plan provides added organizational efficiency and permits departments to continue streamlining operations without impacting service levels. Additionally, it allows members of the public to see what any position, even those not currently filled, is paid. To this end, it is essential to note that this document is strictly a resource of all employment positions, and the positions listed will not necessarily be budgeted or funded in any given fiscal year.

A list of full-time budgeted positions is located on the City’s website and within the City’s Operating Budget.

Updates to the City of Corona Position Library and Compensation Plan have been made to reflect a title change from City Traffic Engineer to Transportation Manager/City Traffic Engineer, the elimination of the Community Assistance Manager classification, create a Real Estate/Business Retention Administrator classification, an increase in the salary range for the Environmental Compliance Coordinator and Supervisor, and the elimination of a footnote that is no longer applicable.

Item h. Authorize and Establish Ownership of Revenue for all Funds Deposited into the Designated Revenue Account for Acquisition, Replacement, and Installation of New Cameras to be Utilized in the Community Partner Camera Funding Agreement.

In accordance with the adopted Budget Resolution 2022-40, the City Council has the authority to approve specific revenues designated for particular purposes. These funds must be used solely for their intended purposes. Staff recommends the establishment of a new designated revenue account for the acquisition, replacement, and installation of new cameras throughout the City. This will serve as a pass-through account to be allocated for payment to the third-party vendors providing the services.

Item i. Authorize and Establish Ownership of Revenue for all Funds Deposited into the Designated Revenue Account for the Tree Trimming Service Pass-Through Fee, to be Allocated for Payment to the Third-Party Contractor Providing Tree Maintenance Services.

A recent update to the Urban Forest Management Plan, approved on October 2, 2024, introduced the Residential Pay Program, offering residents the option to pay for additional

Page 834 of 4376 ends

tree trimming services beyond the regularly scheduled pruning. This program is designed to accommodate residents who wish to enhance the appearance of their trees or reduce issues like leaf litter and fruit drop. The fees for the Residential Pay Program will be consistent with the City’s current contracted rates for tree maintenance services. Funds deposited into the designated revenue account will be passed through to the third-party contractor responsible for performing the tree maintenance services, ensuring that the funds are allocated for their intended purpose.

Item j. Authorize and establish ownership of lease and rental revenue for all funds deposited into the designated revenue account for the Corona Mall operations.

With the acquisition of certain Corona Mall properties, there will be related operating expenditures for maintenance, materials, and contract services. Lease and rental income received from the properties will be designated for the associated operating expenditures.

Upon approval, this designation will be effective retroactively to July 1, 2024.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Approval of recommended action will have financial impacts as noted below. There is sufficient fund balance or working capital available in each of the respective funds for approval of the recommended actions.

Fund Appropriations
Estimated
Revenue
Increase Net Impact
General Fund (110)
143,620
- 143,620
Opioids Settlement Fund (293)
37,796
- 37,796
LMD 84-2, Zone 19 Fund (468)
10,005
- 10,005
LMD 84-2, Zone 20 Fund (470)
85,000
- 85,000
Water Utility Fund (570)
200,000
- 200,000
Fleet Replacement Fund (684)
8,000
- 8,000
Total $ 484,421 $ - $ 484,421
Approval of recommended actions b through j will not have an additional financial impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

This action is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may

Page 835 of 4376 ends

have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This action is to approve budgetary adjustments for Fiscal year 2025, and there is no possibility that approval of the recommended actions will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no environmental analysis is required.

PREPARED BY: JULIE KENNICUTT, DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR
REVIEWED BY: KIM SITTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit 1 – Appropriations, Estimated Revenues, and Transfers

2. Exhibit 2 – Resolution No. 2025-009 Position Library and Compensation Plan

3. Exhibit 3 – Position Library and Compensation Plan – Clean

Page 836 of 4376 ends

DATE: 02/05/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Finance Department
2025-30

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBJECT:

FISCAL YEAR 2025 QUARTER 2 BUDGETARY ADJUSTMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This staff report asks the Council to consider budgetary adjustments for Fiscal Year 2025 based on the Quarter 2 results and staff recommendations for funding level changes.

Staff presents an update to the City Council on the current fiscal year revenue and expenditures quarterly. As part of the process, departments review the operating and capital improvement project funding levels and provide recommendations for budgetary adjustments. For Quarter 2, staff recommends appropriating $484,421, as noted in Exhibit

1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council:
a. Appropriate $484,421, as noted in Exhibit 1 - Appropriations, Estimated Revenues, and Transfers.
b. Change Order to increase Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. Purchase Order to $170,000.
i. Authorize an increase of $75,000 to B250402 for a total purchase order of $170,000.
c. Change Order to increase Workday Inc. Purchase Order to a total of $608,473.

Page 837 of 4376 ends

i. Authorize an increase of $66,660 to P23756 for a total purchase order of $608,473.
d. Change Order to increase CanAm Technologies Inc. Purchase Order to $380,121. i. Authorize an increase of $280,905 to P23703 for a total purchase order of $380,121.
e. Change Order to increase multiple Animal Enforcement Professional / Contractual Purchase Orders.
i. Authorize an increase of $25,000 to B250057 for a total purchase order of $80,000 for Animal Hospital of Eagle Glen.
ii. Authorize an increase of $65,000 to B250188 for a total purchase order of $120,000 for Animal Medical Center of Corona.
iii. Authorize an increase of $25,000 to B250189 for a total purchase order of $80,000 for Corona Community Veterinary Hospital.
f. Change Order to increase DXP Enterprise, Inc. Purchase Order to $350,000. i. Authorize an increase of $150,000 to B250025 for a total purchase order of $350,000.
g. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-009, approving the City of Corona Position Library and Compensation Plan and repealing all prior Plans, including Resolution No. 2024- 112, effective February 8, 2025.
h. Authorize and establish ownership of revenue for all funds deposited into the designated revenue account for the acquisition, replacement, and installation of new cameras to be utilized in the Community Partner Camera Funding Agreement. i. Authorize and establish ownership of revenue for all funds deposited into the designated revenue account for the tree trimming service pass-through fees. j. Authorize and establish ownership of lease and rental revenue for all funds deposited into the designated revenue account for the Corona Mall operations.

BACKGROUND & HISTORY:

On a quarterly basis, the Finance Department provides a budget update to the City Council. As part of the quarterly process, departments provide operating and Capital Improvement Project (CIP) adjustments that need to be addressed in the fiscal year (FY).

The Finance Department prepares a consolidated request for the City Council’s consideration.

ANALYSIS:

Item a - Appropriate $484,421 as noted in Exhibit 1 - Appropriations, Estimated Revenues, and Transfers.

Appropriations

1. Part-Time to Full-Time Emergency Services Coordinator Currently, the Emergency Services Coordinator position is a part-time position. One of the key initiatives in the Emergency Management Division involves enhancing the Department’s education and outreach efforts. The transition from a part-time Emergency

Page 838 of 4376 ends

Services Coordinator role to a full-time position will be instrumental over a five-year period.

Staff requests an appropriation of $133,620 from the General Fund 110, increasing the annual budget for Animal Enforcement Professional/Contractual Services to a total of $330,000.

Staff requests an appropriation of $8,000 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 684 to the Operating and Maintenance Vehicle Procurement Project No. 68344.

Staff requests an appropriation of $10,000 to the Public Works’ operating budget within the General Fund 110.

Page 839 of 4376 ends

increase will provide funding for deferred maintenance of overgrown trees in LMD 84-2, Zone 19, along Valencia Road, from California Avenue to Upper Drive.

Staff requests an appropriation of $10,005 to the Community Services’ operating budget within the LMD 84-2, Zone 19 Fund 468.

Item b. Change Order to Increase Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. Purchase Order to $170,000.

Item c. Change Order to Increase Workday Inc. Purchase Order to $608,473.

Page 840 of 4376 ends

Item d. Change Order to Increase CanAm Technologies Inc. Purchase Order to $380,121.

Item e. Change Order to Increase Animal Enforcement Professional / Contractual Purchase Orders to a Total of $280,000.

Item f. Change Order to Increase DXP Enterprise, Inc. Purchase Order to $350,000.

Page 841 of 4376 ends

purchase of both new and refurbished pumps, that necessitate an increase in the annual purchase order amount for DXP.

A list of full-time budgeted positions is located on the City’s website and within the City’s Operating Budget.

A recent update to the Urban Forest Management Plan, approved on October 2, 2024, introduced the Residential Pay Program, offering residents the option to pay for additional

Page 842 of 4376 ends

Item j. Authorize and establish ownership of lease and rental revenue for all funds deposited into the designated revenue account for the Corona Mall operations.

Upon approval, this designation will be effective retroactively to July 1, 2024.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Page 843 of 4376 ends

PREPARED BY: JULIE KENNICUTT, DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR
REVIEWED BY: KIM SITTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit 1 – Appropriations, Estimated Revenues, and Transfers

2. Exhibit 2 – Resolution No. 2025-009 Position Library and Compensation Plan

3. Exhibit 3 – Position Library and Compensation Plan – Clean

Page 844 of 4376 ends

Exhibit 1 - Appropriations, Estimated Revenues, and Transfers Item Department Fund Amount Description
2 Police General Fund (110) 133,620.0 Animal Enforcement Professional/Contractual Services 0 4 Public Works General Fund (110) 10,000.0 AutoCAD license for new staff in Parks and Facilities division 0 General Fund (110) Total 143,620.00
1 Fire Opioids Settlement Fund (293) 37,796.0 Part time to Full time Emergency Services Coordinator 0 Opioids Settlement Fund (293) Total 37,796.00
5 Community Services LMD 84-2, Zone 19 Fund (468) LMD 84-2 Zone 19 tree trimming on Valencia Road 10,005.00 LMD 84-2, Zone 19 Fund (468) Total 10,005.00
6 Community Services LMD 84-2, Zone 20 Fund (470) LMD 84-2 Zone 20 concrete repairs at Mt. Gate Greenbel 85,000.00 t LMD 84-2, Zone 20 Fund (470) Total 85,000.00
7 Utilities Water Utility Fund (570) 200,000.0 Create and fund O & M Project - Temescal Desalter Clean-In-Place System Optimization 0 Water Utility Fund (570) Total 200,000.00
3 Community Services Fleet Replacement Fund (684) 8,000.0 One-time budget increase / downpayment shortage within O&M Project No. 68344. 0 Fleet Replacement Fund (684) Total 8,000.00
Appropriations (All Funds) Total 484,421.00
Item Department Fund Amount Description
Total -
Estimated Revenues (All Funds) Total -
Item Project Fund Amount Description
Transfers Total -
Item Department Fund Amount Description
Community Services General Fund (110) 75,000.0 Increase PO with Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. 0 Information Technology General Fund (110) 66,660.0 Increase PO with Workday Inc. 0Information Technology General Fund (110) 280,905.0 Increase PO with Can Am Technologies Inc. 0Police Department General Fund (110) 25,000.00 Increase PO with Animal Hospital of Eagle Glen Police Department General Fund (110) 65,000.00 Increase PO with Animal Medical Center of Corona Police Department General Fund (110) 25,000.00 Increase PO with Community Veterinary Hospital Utilities Water Utility Fund (570) 150,000.00 Increase PO with DXP Enterprise Inc.

Total 687,565.00
Purchasing AppropriationsEstimated RevenuesTransfers
City of Corona Page 845 of 4376 Page 1 Fiscal Year 2025 Quarter 2 Budgetary Adjustments RESOLUTION NO. 2025-009

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY OF

CORONA POSITION LIBRARY AND COMPENSATION

PLAN AND REPEALING PRIOR PLANS, INCLUDING
RESOLUTION 2024-112
WHEREAS, pursuant to Corona Municipal Code (“CMC”) Sections 2.04.060(F) and 2.40.040(D), the City Manager or his designee is responsible for the preparation and submission to the City Council for its approval a Position Library and Compensation Plan covering all available positions; and
WHEREAS, the Position Library and Compensation Plan constitutes a comprehensive list of authorized employment positions for the City, although it is strictly a resource document of available employment positions, as the positions listed therein will not necessarily be budgeted or funded in any given fiscal year; and WHEREAS, any employment position listed in the Position Library and Compensation Plan can be filled with a full-time employee, part-time employee or seasonal employee, provided the position is included in the department’s budget or is filled by a provisional employee, or with a temporary employee if there are sufficient funds available in the department’s personnel budget; and
WHEREAS, the Position Library and Compensation Plan shall also include at least the following for each position: (1) the position title; (2) an authorized compensation range; (3) those departments or divisions authorized to utilize the employment position, subject to adjustment pursuant to the City Manager’s authority under CMC section 2.04.060(B); and (4) other notes applicable to the employment position; and
WHEREAS, the Position Library and Compensation Plan has been previously titled or referred to as a “position and classification listing”, a “position classification and salary listing”, a “classification library” or other similar names; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024 the City Council adopted the current version of the document by Resolution 2024-112; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this Resolution will make the following revisions: (1) Effective February 8, 2025 update the salary ranges for the Environmental Compliance Coordinator and Environmental Compliance Supervisor; and (2) Remove classifications of City Traffic Engineer and Community Assistance Manager, and add a classification for Transportation Manager/City Traffic Engineer and Real Estate/Business Retention Administrator; and (3) Repeal Resolution No. 2024-112.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Page 846 of 4376 ends

2 Corona, California as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council hereby adopts the Position Library and Compensation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2: The City Council hereby rescinds, repeals, vacates and sets aside in its entirety Resolution No. 2024-112, as well as previously adopted documents titled as a position and classification listing, a position classification and salary listing, a classification library or other similar names.

SECTION 3: This Resolution shall take effect on February 8, 2025.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 2025. __________________________________________
Mayor of the City of Corona, California
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Corona, California

Page 847 of 4376 ends

3 CERTIFICATION
I, Sylvia Edwards, City Clerk of the City of Corona, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Corona, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of February, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Corona, California, this 5th day of February, 2025.

City Clerk of the City of Corona, California
[SEAL]

Page 848 of 4376 ends

4 EXHIBIT “A”

POSITION LIBRARY AND COMPENSATION PLAN

Page 849 of 4376 ends

City of Corona
Position Library and Compensation Plan
Position Title
Comp Chart
Grade
Monthly
Step 1
Monthly
Step 2
Monthly
Step 3
Monthly
Step 4
Monthly
Step 5
Monthly
Step 6
Full
Time
Part
Time Dept.
40-Hour Battalion Chief F348 $15,686 $16,470 $17,294 $18,158 $19,066 N/A X Fire Department 40-Hour Fire Captain F296 $12,103 $12,708 $13,343 $14,010 $14,711 N/A X Fire Department 40-Hour Fire Engineer F256 $9,442 $9,914 $10,409 $10,930 $11,476 $12,050 X Fire Department 40-Hour Firefighter F227 $8,170 $8,579 $9,008 $9,458 $9,931 $10,427 X Fire Department 40-Hour Firefighter/Paramedic F253 $9,301 $9,766 $10,255 $10,767 $11,306 $11,871 X Fire Department Accounting/Grants Specialist G165 $5,364 $5,632 $5,914 $6,209 $6,520 N/A X Police Department Accounting Assistant G075 $3,424 $3,595 $3,775 $3,964 $4,162 N/A X Finance Accounting Manager M287 $9,857 $10,350 $10,867 $11,411 $11,981 N/A X Finance Accounting Supervisor M260 $8,615 $9,046 $9,498 $9,973 $10,472 N/A X Finance Accounting Technician I Flex G105 $3,977 $4,176 $4,384 $4,604 $4,834 N/A X Finance Accounting Technician II Flex G125 $4,394 $4,614 $4,844 $5,086 $5,341 N/A X Finance Administrative Assistant G126 $4,416 $4,637 $4,868 $5,112 $5,367 N/A X VAR Administrative Assistant I (Confidential) C126 $4,416 $4,637 $4,868 $5,112 $5,367 N/A X VAR Administrative Assistant II (Confidential) C146 $4,879 $5,123 $5,379 $5,648 $5,930 N/A X VAR Administrative Program Analyst C217 $6,952 $7,300 $7,665 $8,048 $8,450 N/A X Public Works Administrative Supervisor C184 $5,897 $6,192 $6,502 $6,827 $7,168 N/A X VAR Animal Care Attendant T044 $2,934 $3,080 $3,234 $3,396 $3,566 N/A X Police Department Animal Care Technician G096 $3,802 $3,992 $4,192 $4,401 $4,622 N/A X Police Department Animal Control Officer G116 $4,201 $4,411 $4,632 $4,863 $5,106 N/A X Police Department Animal Control Supervisor S201 $6,419 $6,740 $7,077 $7,431 $7,802 N/A X Police Department Applications Analyst G202 $6,451 $6,774 $7,112 $7,468 $7,841 N/A X Information Technology Aquatics Manager T100 $3,879 $4,073 $4,276 $4,490 $4,715 N/A X Community Services Asset Management Coordinator M226 $7,271 $7,635 $8,017 $8,418 $8,838 N/A X Public Works Assistant City Attorney/Assistant Legal & Risk Management Director E417 $18,851 $19,794 $20,783 $21,822 $22,914 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Assistant City Manager E431 $20,214 $21,225 $22,286 $23,401 $24,571 N/A X City Manager's Office Assistant Engineer G227 $7,308 $7,673 $8,057 $8,460 $8,883 N/A X Planning & Development Assistant Engineer - Traffic G227 $7,308 $7,673 $8,057 $8,460 $8,883 N/A X Public Works Assistant Planner G188 $6,016 $6,317 $6,633 $6,964 $7,312 N/A X Planning & Development Assistant Project Manager G227 $7,308 $7,673 $8,057 $8,460 $8,883 N/A X Public Works Assistant Recreation Coordinator T090 $3,690 $3,875 $4,068 $4,272 $4,485 N/A X Community Services Assistant to the City Manager M287 $9,857 $10,350 $10,867 $11,411 $11,981 N/A X City Manager's Office Assistant Utilities Director M362 $14,329 $15,045 $15,797 $16,587 $17,416 N/A X Utilities Associate Engineer G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X VAR Associate Engineer - Traffic G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Public Works Associate Engineer - Transportation G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Public Works Associate Planner G208 $6,647 $6,979 $7,328 $7,695 $8,080 N/A X Planning & Development Background Investigator C162 $5,284 $5,549 $5,826 $6,117 $6,423 N/A X Police Department Battalion Chief F318 $13,506 $14,181 $14,890 $15,635 $16,417 N/A X Fire Department Broadcast Operator T105 $3,977 $4,176 $4,384 $4,604 $4,834 N/A X City Manager's Office Broadcast Specialist C146 $4,879 $5,123 $5,379 $5,648 $5,930 N/A X City Manager's Office Budget Manager M287 $9,857 $10,350 $10,867 $11,411 $11,981 N/A X Finance Budget Supervisor M260 $8,615 $9,046 $9,498 $9,973 $10,472 N/A X Finance Building Inspection Supervisor S263 $8,745 $9,182 $9,641 $10,123 $10,630 N/A X Planning & Development Building Inspector I Flex G161 $5,258 $5,521 $5,797 $6,087 $6,391 N/A X Planning & Development Building Inspector II Flex G181 $5,810 $6,100 $6,405 $6,725 $7,062 N/A X Planning & Development Building Maintenance Technician T073 $3,390 $3,560 $3,738 $3,924 $4,121 N/A X Community Services Building Official S320 $11,621 $12,202 $12,812 $13,452 $14,125 N/A X Planning & Development Building Permit Technician I Flex G122 $4,329 $4,545 $4,772 $5,011 $5,261 N/A X Planning & Development Building Permit Technician II Flex G142 $4,783 $5,022 $5,273 $5,537 $5,813 N/A X Planning & Development Business Supervisor S239 $7,758 $8,146 $8,554 $8,981 $9,430 N/A X Utilities Chief Communications Officer M288 $9,906 $10,402 $10,922 $11,468 $12,041 N/A X City Manager's Office Chief Data Officer M309 $11,000 $11,550 $12,128 $12,734 $13,371 N/A X Information Technology Chief Deputy City Attorney E375 $15,288 $16,053 $16,855 $17,698 $18,583 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Chief Distribution Operator S312 $11,166 $11,724 $12,311 $12,926 $13,572 N/A X Utilities Chief Information Officer E386 $16,151 $16,958 $17,806 $18,696 $19,631 N/A X Information Technology Chief of Police E424 $19,521 $20,497 $21,522 $22,598 $23,728 N/A X Police Department Chief Reclamation Operator S312 $11,166 $11,724 $12,311 $12,926 $13,572 N/A X Utilities Chief Talent Officer E375 $15,288 $16,053 $16,855 $17,698 $18,583 N/A X Human Resources Chief Water Operator S312 $11,166 $11,724 $12,311 $12,926 $13,572 N/A X Utilities CIP Engineer G251 $8,237 $8,649 $9,081 $9,535 $10,012 N/A X Public Works CIP Manager/Assistant City Engineer M351 $13,564 $14,242 $14,954 $15,702 $16,487 N/A X Public Works CIP Supervisor S311 $11,110 $11,666 $12,249 $12,862 $13,505 N/A X Public Works City Attorney/Legal & Risk Management Director Contract $26,217 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X Legal & Risk Management City Clerk M307 $10,891 $11,436 $12,007 $12,608 $13,238 N/A X City Manager's Office City Clerk Specialist C147 $4,903 $5,149 $5,406 $5,676 $5,960 N/A X City Manager's Office City Clerk Technician C079 $3,493 $3,668 $3,851 $4,044 $4,246 N/A X City Manager's Office City Council Flat $1,900 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X Elected
City Management Fellow T075 $3,424 $3,595 $3,775 $3,964 $4,162 N/A X City Manager's Office City Manager Contract $30,600 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X City Manager's Office City Treasurer Flat $200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X Elected
Code Compliance Inspector I Flex G148 $4,928 $5,174 $5,433 $5,705 $5,990 N/A X Planning & Development Code Compliance Inspector II Flex G168 $5,445 $5,717 $6,003 $6,303 $6,618 N/A X Planning & Development Code Compliance Supervisor S225 $7,235 $7,597 $7,977 $8,376 $8,794 N/A X Planning & Development City Council Adoption Date: February 5, 2025
Effective Date: February 8, 2025
This is strictly a resource document of available employment positions for the City. The positions listed herein are not necessarily funded.

For current full time budgeted positions, please refer to the "Full Time Employee Budgeted Positions List". 1 OF 6 Page 850 of 4376
City of Corona
Position Library and Compensation Plan
Position Title
Comp Chart
Grade
Monthly
Step 1
Monthly
Step 2
Monthly
Step 3
Monthly
Step 4
Monthly
Step 5
Monthly
Step 6
Full
Time
Part
Time Dept.

City Council Adoption Date: February 5, 2025
Effective Date: February 8, 2025
This is strictly a resource document of available employment positions for the City. The positions listed herein are not necessarily funded.

For current full time budgeted positions, please refer to the "Full Time Employee Budgeted Positions List".

Code Compliance Technician G128 $4,460 $4,683 $4,917 $5,163 $5,421 N/A X Planning & Development Combination Plans Examiner G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Planning & Development Communications Coordinator C197 $6,292 $6,607 $6,937 $7,284 $7,648 N/A X City Manager's Office Community Outreach Assistant T065 $3,257 $3,420 $3,591 $3,771 $3,959 N/A X Police Department Community Outreach Specialist G137 $4,665 $4,898 $5,143 $5,400 $5,670 N/A X Police Department Community Services Director E380 $15,674 $16,458 $17,281 $18,145 $19,052 N/A X Community Services Community Services Leader T048 $2,993 $3,142 $3,299 $3,464 $3,638 N/A X Community Services Community Services Officer I Flex G102 $3,918 $4,114 $4,319 $4,535 $4,762 N/A X Police Department Community Services Officer II Flex G122 $4,329 $4,545 $4,772 $5,011 $5,261 N/A X Police Department Community Services Program Coordinator G170 $5,499 $5,774 $6,063 $6,366 $6,685 N/A X Community Services Construction Manager S302 $10,623 $11,154 $11,712 $12,297 $12,912 N/A X Planning & Development Construction Superintendent S287 $9,857 $10,350 $10,867 $11,411 $11,981 N/A X Public Works Crime & Intelligence Analyst G188 $6,016 $6,317 $6,633 $6,964 $7,312 N/A X Police Department Customer Care Assistant I T080 $3,511 $3,686 $3,870 $4,064 $4,267 N/A X Utilities Customer Care Specialist I Flex G086 $3,617 $3,798 $3,988 $4,187 $4,397 N/A X Utilities Customer Care Specialist II Flex G116 $4,201 $4,411 $4,632 $4,863 $5,106 N/A X Utilities Customer Care Supervisor S239 $7,758 $8,146 $8,554 $8,981 $9,430 N/A X Utilities Data Analyst C222 $7,128 $7,484 $7,858 $8,251 $8,664 N/A X Information Technology Data Scientist M268 $8,966 $9,414 $9,885 $10,379 $10,898 N/A X Information Technology Deputy Chief Information Officer M355 $13,837 $14,529 $15,255 $16,018 $16,819 N/A X Information Technology Deputy Chief Operator - Water S292 $10,106 $10,611 $11,142 $11,699 $12,284 N/A X Utilities Deputy Chief Operator - Water Reclamation S292 $10,106 $10,611 $11,142 $11,699 $12,284 N/A X Utilities Deputy City Attorney II (Litigation) M339 $12,776 $13,414 $14,085 $14,789 $15,529 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Deputy City Clerk M207 $6,614 $6,945 $7,292 $7,657 $8,039 N/A X City Manager's Office Deputy Finance Director M342 $12,968 $13,617 $14,297 $15,012 $15,763 N/A X Finance Deputy Fire Chief F355 $16,243 $17,055 $17,908 $18,804 $19,744 N/A X Fire Department Deputy Fire Marshal F221 $8,326 $8,742 $9,179 $9,638 $10,120 N/A X Fire Department Development Services Manager S312 $11,166 $11,724 $12,311 $12,926 $13,572 N/A X Planning & Development Digital Journalist C167 $5,418 $5,689 $5,973 $6,272 $6,585 N/A X City Manager's Office Digital Media Specialist G136 $4,642 $4,874 $5,117 $5,373 $5,642 N/A X City Manager's Office Economic Development Administrator M245 $7,994 $8,394 $8,814 $9,254 $9,717 N/A X Economic Development Economic Development Assistant C071 $3,356 $3,524 $3,700 $3,885 $4,080 N/A X Economic Development Economic Development Director E375 $15,288 $16,053 $16,855 $17,698 $18,583 N/A X Economic Development Economic Development Manager M276 $9,331 $9,797 $10,287 $10,802 $11,342 N/A X Economic Development Electric Utility Analyst G205 $6,548 $6,876 $7,220 $7,581 $7,960 N/A X Utilities Electric Utility Manager M299 $10,465 $10,988 $11,538 $12,115 $12,720 N/A X Utilities Emergency Services Assistant G113 $4,139 $4,346 $4,563 $4,791 $5,030 N/A X Fire Department Emergency Services Coordinator T220 $7,057 $7,410 $7,780 $8,169 $8,578 N/A X X Fire Department Emergency Services Manager M269 $9,011 $9,461 $9,934 $10,431 $10,953 N/A X Fire Department Engineering Assistant T055 $3,099 $3,254 $3,417 $3,587 $3,767 N/A X VAR Engineering Intern T055 $3,099 $3,254 $3,417 $3,587 $3,767 N/A X Planning & Development Engineering Technician G172 $5,555 $5,832 $6,124 $6,430 $6,752 N/A X Public Works Environmental Compliance Coordinator G198 $6,324 $6,640 $6,972 $7,320 $7,686 N/A X Public Works Environmental Compliance Supervisor S245 $7,994 $8,394 $8,814 $9,254 $9,717 N/A X Public Works Executive Assistant C164 $5,337 $5,604 $5,884 $6,179 $6,488 N/A X VAR Facilities Maintenance Technician I Flex G110 $4,077 $4,281 $4,495 $4,720 $4,956 N/A X Community Services Facilities Maintenance Technician II Flex G130 $4,505 $4,730 $4,967 $5,215 $5,476 N/A X Community Services Facilities Maintenance Supervisor S246 $8,034 $8,436 $8,858 $9,301 $9,766 N/A X Community Services Finance Director E386 $16,151 $16,958 $17,806 $18,696 $19,631 N/A X Finance Financial Analyst I C196 $6,261 $6,574 $6,903 $7,248 $7,610 N/A X Finance Financial Analyst II C216 $6,918 $7,264 $7,627 $8,008 $8,408 N/A X Finance Fire Cadet T050 $3,023 $3,174 $3,332 $3,499 $3,674 N/A X Fire Department Fire Captain F266 $10,421 $10,942 $11,489 $12,063 $12,666 N/A X Fire Department Fire Chief E424 $19,521 $20,497 $21,522 $22,598 $23,728 N/A X Fire Department Fire Engineer F226 $8,129 $8,536 $8,963 $9,411 $9,881 $10,376 X Fire Department Fire Inspector I F155 $5,990 $6,290 $6,605 $6,935 $7,281 N/A X X Fire Department Fire Inspector II F190 $7,133 $7,490 $7,864 $8,257 $8,670 N/A X X Fire Department Fire Marshal F294 $11,982 $12,582 $13,211 $13,871 $14,565 N/A X Fire Department Fire Prevention Assistant T044 $2,934 $3,080 $3,234 $3,396 $3,566 N/A X Fire Department Firefighter F197 $7,035 $7,386 $7,756 $8,144 $8,551 $8,978 X Fire Department Firefighter Trainee F187 $6,692 $7,027 $7,378 $7,747 $8,135 $8,541 X Fire Department Firefighter/Paramedic F223 $8,009 $8,409 $8,830 $9,271 $9,735 $10,221 X Fire Department Firefighter/Paramedic Trainee F187 $6,692 $7,027 $7,378 $7,747 $8,135 $8,541 X Fire Department Fleet Manager M282 $9,614 $10,095 $10,600 $11,130 $11,686 N/A X Public Works Fleet Superintendent S247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Public Works Fleet Technician I Flex G089 $3,672 $3,855 $4,048 $4,250 $4,463 N/A X Public Works Fleet Technician II Flex G119 $4,264 $4,478 $4,701 $4,936 $5,183 N/A X Public Works Forensic Specialist I Flex G157 $5,154 $5,412 $5,682 $5,967 $6,265 N/A X Police Department Forensic Specialist II Flex G177 $5,695 $5,980 $6,279 $6,592 $6,922 N/A X Police Department GIS Administrator M232 $7,492 $7,867 $8,260 $8,673 $9,107 N/A X Information Technology GIS Analyst G202 $6,451 $6,774 $7,112 $7,468 $7,841 N/A X X Information Technology Help Desk I G091 $3,709 $3,894 $4,089 $4,293 $4,508 N/A X Information Technology Help Desk II G111 $4,098 $4,302 $4,518 $4,743 $4,981 N/A X X Information Technology 2 OF 6 Page 851 of 4376
City of Corona
Position Library and Compensation Plan
Position Title
Comp Chart
Grade
Monthly
Step 1
Monthly
Step 2
Monthly
Step 3
Monthly
Step 4
Monthly
Step 5
Monthly
Step 6
Full
Time
Part
Time Dept.

For current full time budgeted positions, please refer to the "Full Time Employee Budgeted Positions List".

Help Desk III G141 $4,759 $4,997 $5,247 $5,509 $5,784 N/A X X Information Technology Help Desk Manager M255 $8,403 $8,823 $9,264 $9,728 $10,214 N/A X Information Technology Homeless Solutions Manager M288 $9,906 $10,402 $10,922 $11,468 $12,041 N/A X City Manager's Office Housing & Homeless Solutions Manager M308 $10,945 $11,493 $12,067 $12,671 $13,304 N/A X City Manager's Office Housing & Homeless Solutions Supervisor M258 $8,530 $8,956 $9,404 $9,874 $10,368 N/A X City Manager's Office Human Resources Analyst C217 $6,952 $7,300 $7,665 $8,048 $8,450 N/A X Human Resources Human Resources Manager M303 $10,676 $11,210 $11,770 $12,359 $12,977 N/A X Human Resources Human Resources Specialist C157 $5,154 $5,412 $5,682 $5,967 $6,265 N/A X Human Resources Human Resources Supervisor M277 $9,378 $9,846 $10,339 $10,856 $11,398 N/A X Human Resources Intern I T045 $2,948 $3,096 $3,250 $3,413 $3,584 N/A X VAR Intern II T055 $3,099 $3,254 $3,417 $3,587 $3,767 N/A X VAR IT Administrative Assistant T119 $4,264 $4,478 $4,701 $4,936 $5,183 N/A X Information Technology Jailer G148 $4,928 $5,174 $5,433 $5,705 $5,990 N/A X Police Department Janitor G052 $3,053 $3,206 $3,366 $3,534 $3,711 N/A X Police Department Junior Applications Analyst G178 $5,723 $6,009 $6,310 $6,625 $6,957 N/A X X Information Technology Junior Data Analyst G178 $5,723 $6,009 $6,310 $6,625 $6,957 N/A X X Information Technology Junior Network Analyst G178 $5,723 $6,009 $6,310 $6,625 $6,957 N/A X Information Technology Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Inspector G194 $6,199 $6,509 $6,834 $7,176 $7,535 N/A X Community Services Law Clerk T076 $3,441 $3,613 $3,794 $3,984 $4,183 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Lead Animal Control Officer G156 $5,129 $5,385 $5,654 $5,937 $6,234 N/A X Police Department Lead Customer Care Specialist G194 $6,199 $6,509 $6,834 $7,176 $7,535 N/A X Utilities Lead Facilities Maintenance Technician G190 $6,076 $6,380 $6,699 $7,034 $7,386 N/A X Community Services Lead Fleet Technician G179 $5,752 $6,040 $6,341 $6,659 $6,991 N/A X Public Works Lead Parks & Landscape Technician G190 $6,076 $6,380 $6,699 $7,034 $7,386 N/A X Community Services Lead Police Records Technician G139 $4,712 $4,947 $5,195 $5,454 $5,727 N/A X Police Department Lead Public Works Inspector G240 $7,797 $8,187 $8,596 $9,026 $9,478 N/A X Planning & Development Lead Purchasing Specialist G219 $7,022 $7,373 $7,742 $8,129 $8,535 N/A X Finance Lead Utility Maintenance Technician G236 $7,643 $8,025 $8,427 $8,848 $9,290 N/A X Utilities Lead Utility Service Worker G206 $6,581 $6,910 $7,256 $7,618 $7,999 N/A X Utilities Lead Warehouse Specialist G125 $4,394 $4,614 $4,844 $5,086 $5,341 N/A X Finance Lead Water Operator G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Utilities Lead Water Reclamation Operator G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Utilities Librarian I Flex G144 $4,831 $5,072 $5,326 $5,592 $5,872 N/A X Community Services Librarian II Flex G164 $5,337 $5,604 $5,884 $6,179 $6,488 N/A X Community Services Library Acquisitions Technician T076 $3,441 $3,613 $3,794 $3,984 $4,183 N/A X Community Services Library Assistant T067 $3,290 $3,455 $3,627 $3,809 $3,999 N/A X X Community Services Library Manager M280 $9,519 $9,995 $10,495 $11,019 $11,570 N/A X Community Services Library Specialist I Flex G081 $3,528 $3,704 $3,890 $4,084 $4,288 N/A X Community Services Library Specialist II Flex G101 $3,898 $4,093 $4,298 $4,513 $4,738 N/A X Community Services Library Supervisor S219 $7,022 $7,373 $7,742 $8,129 $8,535 N/A X Community Services Lifeguard T044 $2,934 $3,080 $3,234 $3,396 $3,566 N/A X Community Services Literacy Assistant T044 $2,934 $3,080 $3,234 $3,396 $3,566 N/A X Community Services Maintenance Manager S309 $11,000 $11,550 $12,128 $12,734 $13,371 N/A X Utilities Maintenance Planner G216 $6,918 $7,264 $7,627 $8,008 $8,408 N/A X Utilities Management Analyst I C191 $6,107 $6,412 $6,733 $7,069 $7,423 N/A X VAR Management Analyst II C217 $6,952 $7,300 $7,665 $8,048 $8,450 N/A X VAR Management Intern T044 $2,934 $3,080 $3,234 $3,396 $3,566 N/A X VAR Meter Service Technician G131 $4,527 $4,754 $4,991 $5,241 $5,503 N/A X Utilities Network Analyst G222 $7,128 $7,484 $7,858 $8,251 $8,664 N/A X Information Technology Nurse Educator G268 $8,966 $9,414 $9,885 $10,379 $10,898 N/A X Fire Department Occupational Health & Safety Manager M290 $10,006 $10,506 $11,031 $11,583 $12,162 N/A X Human Resources Office Assistant G071 $3,356 $3,524 $3,700 $3,885 $4,080 N/A X X VAR Office Assistant (Confidential) C071 $3,356 $3,524 $3,700 $3,885 $4,080 N/A X Human Resources Operations Manager M304 $10,729 $11,266 $11,829 $12,420 $13,042 N/A X Utilities Organizational Training & Development Officer M247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Human Resources Park Maintenance Assistant T073 $3,390 $3,560 $3,738 $3,924 $4,121 N/A X Community Services Park Planner G208 $6,647 $6,979 $7,328 $7,695 $8,080 N/A X Community Services Park Ranger T081 $3,528 $3,704 $3,890 $4,084 $4,288 N/A X Community Services Park Ranger Supervisor S202 $6,451 $6,774 $7,112 $7,468 $7,841 N/A X Community Services Parking Enforcement Officer T051 $3,038 $3,190 $3,349 $3,517 $3,692 N/A X Police Department Parks & Landscape Technician I Flex G110 $4,077 $4,281 $4,495 $4,720 $4,956 N/A X Community Services Parks & Landscape Technician II Flex G130 $4,505 $4,730 $4,967 $5,215 $5,476 N/A X Community Services Parks & Trails Manager M280 $9,519 $9,995 $10,495 $11,019 $11,570 N/A X Community Services Parks Supervisor S246 $8,034 $8,436 $8,858 $9,301 $9,766 N/A X Community Services Patron Services Assistant T044 $2,934 $3,080 $3,234 $3,396 $3,566 N/A X Community Services Payroll Analyst C217 $6,952 $7,300 $7,665 $8,048 $8,450 N/A X Finance Payroll Technician I C137 $4,665 $4,898 $5,143 $5,400 $5,670 N/A X Finance Payroll Technician II C157 $5,154 $5,412 $5,682 $5,967 $6,265 N/A X Finance Plan Check Engineer G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Planning & Development Plan Check Manager S302 $10,623 $11,154 $11,712 $12,297 $12,912 N/A X Planning & Development Planning & Development Director E386 $16,151 $16,958 $17,806 $18,696 $19,631 N/A X Planning & Development Planning Manager S312 $11,166 $11,724 $12,311 $12,926 $13,572 N/A X Planning & Development Planning Technician G138 $4,688 $4,923 $5,169 $5,427 $5,699 N/A X Planning & Development 3 OF 6 Page 852 of 4376
City of Corona
Position Library and Compensation Plan
Position Title
Comp Chart
Grade
Monthly
Step 1
Monthly
Step 2
Monthly
Step 3
Monthly
Step 4
Monthly
Step 5
Monthly
Step 6
Full
Time
Part
Time Dept.

For current full time budgeted positions, please refer to the "Full Time Employee Budgeted Positions List".

Police Cadet T050 $3,023 $3,174 $3,332 $3,499 $3,674 N/A X Police Department Police Captain P359 $15,510 $16,285 $17,099 $17,954 $18,852 $19,795 X Police Department Police Corporal P226 $7,989 $8,389 $8,808 $9,249 $9,711 $10,197 X Police Department Police Department General Assistant T045 $2,948 $3,096 $3,250 $3,413 $3,584 N/A X Police Department Police Detective P231 $8,191 $8,601 $9,031 $9,482 $9,956 $10,454 X Police Department Police Lieutenant P322 $12,896 $13,541 $14,218 $14,929 $15,675 $16,459 X Police Department Police Officer P216 $7,601 $7,981 $8,380 $8,799 $9,239 $9,701 X Police Department Police Officer Trainee Flat $5,723 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X Police Department Police Program Coordinator G157 $5,154 $5,412 $5,682 $5,967 $6,265 N/A X Police Department Police Records Supervisor S206 $6,581 $6,910 $7,256 $7,618 $7,999 N/A X Police Department Police Records Technician I Flex G079 $3,493 $3,668 $3,851 $4,044 $4,246 N/A X Police Department Police Records Technician II Flex G099 $3,859 $4,052 $4,255 $4,468 $4,691 N/A X Police Department Police Sergeant P277 $10,303 $10,819 $11,360 $11,928 $12,524 $13,150 X Police Department Pool Manager T068 $3,307 $3,472 $3,646 $3,828 $4,019 N/A X Community Services Principal Civil Engineer S311 $11,110 $11,666 $12,249 $12,862 $13,505 N/A X Public Works Principal Engineer S311 $11,110 $11,666 $12,249 $12,862 $13,505 N/A X VAR Project Coordinator G228 $7,344 $7,712 $8,097 $8,502 $8,927 N/A X Utilities Project Manager G247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Public Works Property & Evidence Technician G123 $4,350 $4,568 $4,796 $5,036 $5,288 N/A X Police Department Public Information Officer M233 $7,530 $7,906 $8,302 $8,717 $9,152 N/A X City Manager's Office Public Safety Communications Manager S279 $9,472 $9,945 $10,442 $10,964 $11,513 N/A X Police Department Public Safety Dispatch Call Taker G126 $4,416 $4,637 $4,868 $5,112 $5,367 N/A X X Police Department Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor S241 $7,836 $8,228 $8,639 $9,071 $9,525 N/A X Police Department Public Safety Dispatcher I Flex G157 $5,154 $5,412 $5,682 $5,967 $6,265 N/A X X Police Department Public Safety Dispatcher II Flex G177 $5,695 $5,980 $6,279 $6,592 $6,922 N/A X X Police Department Public Safety Emergency Communications Support Specialist G202 $6,451 $6,774 $7,112 $7,468 $7,841 N/A X Information Technology Public Safety Information Coordinator G212 $6,781 $7,120 $7,476 $7,850 $8,242 N/A X Police Department Public Safety Technical Support Engineer G222 $7,128 $7,484 $7,858 $8,251 $8,664 N/A X Information Technology Public Works Director E386 $16,151 $16,958 $17,806 $18,696 $19,631 N/A X Public Works Public Works Inspection Supervisor S263 $8,745 $9,182 $9,641 $10,123 $10,630 N/A X Planning & Development Public Works Inspector I Flex G161 $5,258 $5,521 $5,797 $6,087 $6,391 N/A X Planning & Development Public Works Inspector II Flex G181 $5,810 $6,100 $6,405 $6,725 $7,062 N/A X Planning & Development Public Works Permit Technician I Flex G122 $4,329 $4,545 $4,772 $5,011 $5,261 N/A X Planning & Development Public Works Permit Technician II Flex G142 $4,783 $5,022 $5,273 $5,537 $5,813 N/A X Planning & Development Purchasing Assistant G099 $3,859 $4,052 $4,255 $4,468 $4,691 N/A X Finance Purchasing Manager M287 $9,857 $10,350 $10,867 $11,411 $11,981 N/A X Finance Purchasing Specialist I Flex G139 $4,712 $4,947 $5,195 $5,454 $5,727 N/A X Finance Purchasing Specialist II Flex G159 $5,206 $5,466 $5,739 $6,026 $6,328 N/A X Finance Radio Technician T105 $3,977 $4,176 $4,384 $4,604 $4,834 N/A X X Information Technology Range Master G177 $5,695 $5,980 $6,279 $6,592 $6,922 N/A X Police Department Real Estate/Business Retention Administrator M245 $7,994 $8,394 $8,814 $9,254 $9,717 N/A X Economic Development Real-Time Information Center Operator G161 $5,258 $5,521 $5,797 $6,087 $6,391 N/A X Police Department Real-Time Information Center Supervisor S217 $6,952 $7,300 $7,665 $8,048 $8,450 N/A X Police Department Receptionist T045 $2,948 $3,096 $3,250 $3,413 $3,584 N/A X City Manager's Office Recreation Services Manager M280 $9,519 $9,995 $10,495 $11,019 $11,570 N/A X Community Services Recreation Specialist G123 $4,350 $4,568 $4,796 $5,036 $5,288 N/A X Community Services Recreation Supervisor S212 $6,781 $7,120 $7,476 $7,850 $8,242 N/A X Community Services Recycling & Program Analyst G175 $5,638 $5,920 $6,216 $6,527 $6,853 N/A X Utilities Regulatory Compliance Specialist I Flex G131 $4,527 $4,754 $4,991 $5,241 $5,503 N/A X VAR Regulatory Compliance Specialist II Flex G171 $5,527 $5,803 $6,093 $6,398 $6,718 N/A X VAR Risk Management Analyst M217 $6,952 $7,300 $7,665 $8,048 $8,450 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Risk Management Specialist C158 $5,180 $5,439 $5,711 $5,996 $6,296 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Risk Management Technician C139 $4,712 $4,947 $5,195 $5,454 $5,727 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Risk Manager M272 $9,147 $9,604 $10,084 $10,588 $11,118 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Safety Program Analyst C217 $6,952 $7,300 $7,665 $8,048 $8,450 N/A X Human Resources Safety Program Specialist C157 $5,154 $5,412 $5,682 $5,967 $6,265 N/A X Human Resources SCADA Engineer G227 $7,308 $7,673 $8,057 $8,460 $8,883 N/A X Utilities Security Analyst C202 $6,451 $6,774 $7,112 $7,468 $7,841 N/A X Information Technology Senior Accounting Technician G155 $5,103 $5,358 $5,626 $5,907 $6,203 N/A X Finance Senior Administrative Assistant (Confidential) C146 $4,879 $5,123 $5,379 $5,648 $5,930 N/A X VAR Senior Administrative Assistant G146 $4,879 $5,123 $5,379 $5,648 $5,930 N/A X VAR Senior Applications Analyst M237 $7,681 $8,066 $8,469 $8,892 $9,337 N/A X Information Technology Senior Building Inspector G211 $6,747 $7,085 $7,439 $7,811 $8,201 N/A X Planning & Development Senior Building Permit Technician G172 $5,555 $5,832 $6,124 $6,430 $6,752 N/A X Planning & Development Senior Code Compliance Inspector G198 $6,324 $6,640 $6,972 $7,320 $7,686 N/A X Planning & Development Senior Community Services Leader T063 $3,225 $3,386 $3,556 $3,734 $3,920 N/A X Community Services Senior Customer Care Specialist G146 $4,879 $5,123 $5,379 $5,648 $5,930 N/A X Utilities Senior Deputy City Attorney (Constitutional Policing Advisor) E365 $14,545 $15,272 $16,035 $16,837 $17,679 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Senior Engineer S281 $9,566 $10,045 $10,547 $11,074 $11,628 N/A X VAR Senior Engineer-Traffic S291 $10,056 $10,558 $11,086 $11,641 $12,223 N/A X Public Works Senior Facilities Maintenance Technician G160 $5,232 $5,493 $5,768 $6,057 $6,359 N/A X Community Services 4 OF 6 Page 853 of 4376
City of Corona
Position Library and Compensation Plan
Position Title
Comp Chart
Grade
Monthly
Step 1
Monthly
Step 2
Monthly
Step 3
Monthly
Step 4
Monthly
Step 5
Monthly
Step 6
Full
Time
Part
Time Dept.

For current full time budgeted positions, please refer to the "Full Time Employee Budgeted Positions List".

Senior Financial Analyst M246 $8,034 $8,436 $8,858 $9,301 $9,766 N/A X Finance Senior Fleet Technician G149 $4,953 $5,200 $5,460 $5,733 $6,020 N/A X Public Works Senior Human Resources Specialist C187 $5,986 $6,285 $6,600 $6,930 $7,276 N/A X Human Resources Senior Human Resources Analyst M247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Human Resources Senior Intern T075 $3,424 $3,595 $3,775 $3,964 $4,162 N/A X VAR Senior Librarian G184 $5,897 $6,192 $6,502 $6,827 $7,168 N/A X Community Services Senior Network Architect M304 $10,729 $11,266 $11,829 $12,420 $13,042 N/A X Information Technology Senior Office Assistant G086 $3,617 $3,798 $3,988 $4,187 $4,397 N/A X VAR Senior Paralegal/Claims Manager M272 $9,147 $9,604 $10,084 $10,588 $11,118 N/A X Legal & Risk Management Senior Park Ranger G138 $4,688 $4,923 $5,169 $5,427 $5,699 N/A X Community Services Senior Parks & Landscape Technician G160 $5,232 $5,493 $5,768 $6,057 $6,359 N/A X Community Services Senior Planner S264 $8,789 $9,228 $9,690 $10,174 $10,683 N/A X Planning & Development Senior Project Manager M291 $10,056 $10,558 $11,086 $11,641 $12,223 N/A X Public Works Senior Public Safety Dispatcher G197 $6,292 $6,607 $6,937 $7,284 $7,648 N/A X Police Department Senior Public Safety Technical Support Engineer G232 $7,492 $7,867 $8,260 $8,673 $9,107 N/A X Information Technology Senior Public Works Inspector G211 $6,747 $7,085 $7,439 $7,811 $8,201 N/A X Planning & Development Senior Public Works Permit Technician G172 $5,555 $5,832 $6,124 $6,430 $6,752 N/A X Planning & Development Senior Purchasing Specialist G189 $6,046 $6,348 $6,666 $6,999 $7,349 N/A X Finance Senior Regulatory Compliance Specialist G211 $6,747 $7,085 $7,439 $7,811 $8,201 N/A X Utilities Senior SCADA Engineer G257 $8,487 $8,912 $9,357 $9,825 $10,316 N/A X Utilities Senior Software Architect M304 $10,729 $11,266 $11,829 $12,420 $13,042 N/A X Information Technology Senior Street Maintenance Worker G149 $4,953 $5,200 $5,460 $5,733 $6,020 N/A X Public Works Senior Sustainability Specialist G211 $6,747 $7,085 $7,439 $7,811 $8,201 N/A X Utilities Senior Systems Engineer G222 $7,128 $7,484 $7,858 $8,251 $8,664 N/A X Information Technology Senior Utility Maintenance Technician G216 $6,918 $7,264 $7,627 $8,008 $8,408 N/A X Utilities Senior Utility Service Worker G166 $5,391 $5,660 $5,943 $6,241 $6,553 N/A X Utilities Social Media Specialist G136 $4,642 $4,874 $5,117 $5,373 $5,642 N/A X City Manager's Office Software Developer G232 $7,492 $7,867 $8,260 $8,673 $9,107 N/A X Information Technology Storm Water Compliance Specialist G185 $5,927 $6,223 $6,534 $6,861 $7,204 N/A X Public Works Street Light Maintenance Technician G147 $4,903 $5,149 $5,406 $5,676 $5,960 N/A X Public Works Street Maintenance Crew Leader G179 $5,752 $6,040 $6,341 $6,659 $6,991 N/A X Public Works Street Maintenance Worker I Flex G089 $3,672 $3,855 $4,048 $4,250 $4,463 N/A X Public Works Street Maintenance Worker II Flex G119 $4,264 $4,478 $4,701 $4,936 $5,183 N/A X Public Works Street Sign Maintenance Technician G147 $4,903 $5,149 $5,406 $5,676 $5,960 N/A X Public Works Student Aide T044 $2,934 $3,080 $3,234 $3,396 $3,566 N/A X VAR Support Services Manager S279 $9,472 $9,945 $10,442 $10,964 $11,513 N/A X Police Department Sustainability Specialist I Flex G131 $4,527 $4,754 $4,991 $5,241 $5,503 N/A X Utilities Sustainability Specialist II Flex G171 $5,527 $5,803 $6,093 $6,398 $6,718 N/A X Utilities Sustainability Supervisor S239 $7,758 $8,146 $8,554 $8,981 $9,430 N/A X Utilities Systems Administrator M237 $7,681 $8,066 $8,469 $8,892 $9,337 N/A X Information Technology Systems Engineer G202 $6,451 $6,774 $7,112 $7,468 $7,841 N/A X Information Technology Technical Intern T055 $3,099 $3,254 $3,417 $3,587 $3,767 N/A X Public Works Traffic Engineering Technician G153 $5,052 $5,305 $5,570 $5,849 $6,141 N/A X Public Works Traffic Maintenance Technician G147 $4,903 $5,149 $5,406 $5,676 $5,960 N/A X Public Works Traffic Management Technician I G187 $5,986 $6,285 $6,600 $6,930 $7,276 N/A X Public Works Traffic Management Technician II G207 $6,614 $6,945 $7,292 $7,657 $8,039 N/A X Public Works Traffic Signal Coordinator G227 $7,308 $7,673 $8,057 $8,460 $8,883 N/A X Public Works Traffic Signal Technician G187 $5,986 $6,285 $6,600 $6,930 $7,276 N/A X Public Works Trails Planner G208 $6,647 $6,979 $7,328 $7,695 $8,080 N/A X Community Services Transit Program Manager M254 $8,361 $8,779 $9,218 $9,679 $10,163 N/A X Community Services Transportation Manager/City Traffic Engineer M315 $11,334 $11,901 $12,496 $13,121 $13,777 N/A X Public Works UI/UX Digital Services Engineer M237 $7,681 $8,066 $8,469 $8,892 $9,337 N/A X Information Technology Utilities Director E409 $18,114 $19,019 $19,970 $20,969 $22,017 N/A X Utilities Utilities Operations Analyst C247 $8,074 $8,478 $8,902 $9,347 $9,814 N/A X Utilities Utility Billing and Administration Manager S304 $10,729 $11,266 $11,829 $12,420 $13,042 N/A X Utilities Utility Maintenance Superintendent S287 $9,857 $10,350 $10,867 $11,411 $11,981 N/A X Utilities Utility Maintenance Technician I Flex G176 $5,667 $5,950 $6,247 $6,560 $6,888 N/A X Utilities Utility Maintenance Technician II Flex G196 $6,261 $6,574 $6,903 $7,248 $7,610 N/A X Utilities Utility Service Worker Crew Leader/Equipment Operator G186 $5,956 $6,254 $6,567 $6,895 $7,240 N/A X Utilities Utility Service Worker I Flex G106 $3,997 $4,196 $4,406 $4,627 $4,858 N/A X Utilities Utility Service Worker II Flex G126 $4,416 $4,637 $4,868 $5,112 $5,367 N/A X Utilities Warehouse Specialist G095 $3,783 $3,972 $4,171 $4,380 $4,599 N/A X Finance Water Operator I Flex G151 $5,002 $5,252 $5,515 $5,791 $6,080 N/A X Utilities Water Operator II Flex G191 $6,107 $6,412 $6,733 $7,069 $7,423 N/A X Utilities Water Operator III Flex G231 $7,455 $7,828 $8,219 $8,630 $9,062 N/A X Utilities Water Reclamation Operator I Flex G151 $5,002 $5,252 $5,515 $5,791 $6,080 N/A X Utilities Water Reclamation Operator II Flex G191 $6,107 $6,412 $6,733 $7,069 $7,423 N/A X Utilities Water Reclamation Operator III Flex G231 $7,455 $7,828 $8,219 $8,630 $9,062 N/A X Utilities Water Resources Field Representative G131 $4,527 $4,754 $4,991 $5,241 $5,503 N/A X Utilities Water Safety Instructor T053 $3,068 $3,222 $3,383 $3,552 $3,729 N/A X Community Services Workers' Compensation Manager M272 $9,147 $9,604 $10,084 $10,588 $11,118 N/A X Legal & Risk Management 5 OF 6 Page 854 of 4376
General Notes:

2. Positions can be filled by full time, part time, seasonal and temporary employees at the discretion of the appointing authority.

1. Corona General Employees Association MOU, Corona Supervisors Association MOU, Management Group Employee Resoltuion, Confidential Group Employee Resolution and Executive Group Employee Resolution:

Effective October 19, 2013, Tier I miscellaneous employees within these associations and groups receive Tier I Longevity Pay equal to 3% over their base pay rate.

3. CalPERS retirees may be appointed by the City for a limited-time in an extra-help capacity assisting with overflow work so long as the appointment complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 21224. 6 OF 6 Page 855 of 4376
DATE: 02/05/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Planning and Development Department
2025-01

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBJECT:

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2020-0002 AMENDING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS ON A TOTAL OF 158.54 ACRES FROM MIXED USE II, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ESTATE RESIDENTIAL TO OPEN SPACE ON 103.73 ACRES, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON 5.5 ACRES AND MIXED USE II ON 49.31 LOCATED ON

THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF GREEN RIVER ROAD, WEST OF DOMINGUEZ RANCH ROAD (APPLICANT: PSIP WR GREEN RIVER LLC)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This staff report asks the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 2020-0002 (GPA2020-0002) as recommended by the Planning and Housing Commission amending the land uses on 158.54 acres in order to redistribute the existing land use designations of General Commercial and Mixed Use II, eliminate the existing Estate Residential designation, and establish an Open Space designation to support the development of a light industrial business park complex and future commercial development. The property is part of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan located west of Dominguez Ranch Road on the north and south side of Green River Road.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council:
a. Adopt Resolution 2025-007 certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Green River Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and business park development and relocation of proposed Constrained Linkage 1 of the Western

Page 856 of 4376 ends

Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (SCH# 2022080640), adopting environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
b. Adopt Resolution 2025-008 approving General Plan Amendment 2020-0002 amending the General Plan to change the land use designation of 5.5 acres located north of Green River Road and west of Dominguez Ranch Road from Mixed Use II (Industrial & Commercial) to General Commercial, and change the land use designations on the south side of Green River Road and west of Dominguez Ranch Road from General Commercial, Mixed Use II, and Estate Residential to 49.31 acres of Mixed Use II, and 103.73 acres of Open SpaceGeneral as part of Cycle 1 of the General Plan Amendments for 2025 (GPA2020- 0002).

BACKGROUND & HISTORY:

The purpose of GPA2020-0002 is to facilitate the development of a 49.31-acre light industrial business park consisting of five warehouse/industrial buildings totaling 746,167 square feet. The project site is part of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan that was originally approved by the City Council on February 7, 2001, encompassing approximately 165.33 acres of undeveloped land located on Green River Road, between Fresno Road and Dominguez Ranch Road.

The Green River Ranch Specific Plan was approved to permit commercial retail and service uses, light industrial and warehouse uses, and residential. The proposed amendment continues to allow the same land uses already permitted by the specific plan but will eliminate the residential land use and replace it with open space.

The General Plan aligns with the land use established by the specific plan; therefore, GPA2020-0002 is accompanied by a specific plan amendment, SPA2020-0006, to the Green River Ranch Specific Plan. The specific plan amendment will also redistribute the land uses of the specific plan to be consistent with GPA2020-0002.

ANALYSIS:

GPA2020-0002 proposes to change and redistribute the General Plan land use designations located with the Green River Ranch Specific Plan in the following manner.  Amend 5.05 acres located on the north side of Green River Road from Mixed Use II (MU II) to General Commercial (GC).
 Amend 8.12 acres from GC to MU II, expanding the MU II land use designation on the south side of Green River Road, resulting in a total of 49.31 acres of MU II from the original 53.1 acres.

Page 857 of 4376 ends

 Eliminate 103.73 acres of the Estate Residential (ER) designation and replace it with the Open Space General (OSG) designation.

Table 1 shows a comparison of the existing General Plan land uses and proposed land uses on the project site.

Table 1
Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Summary
Existing
General Plan and Acreage
Proposed
General Plan and Acreage
Mixed Use II

59.01 acres
Mixed Use II

49.31 acres
General Commercial

8.12 acres
General Commercial

5.50 acres
Estate Residential

98.2 acres
Estate Residential
0 acres
Open Space

3.4 acres
Open Space General
103.73 acres
California Housing Accountability Act
The state’s Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) was amended in 2019 to include the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 66300). The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 requires cities to maintain the residential capacity that existed at the time of adoption of the legislation to ensure a “no net loss” in the zoning for residential units. Cities are allowed to change a General Plan land use designation or rezone residential properties to a non-residential land use designation, or rezone to a less intense residential land use designation or zone only if the Ccity concurrently changes the land use designation or rezones another parcel to make up for the shortfall in housing units lost under the previous General Plan land use change or zoning.

However, Section 66300(e)(4) provides that the Housing Crisis Act does not apply to a housing development project located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Because the proposed project involves a housing development project or residential zoning on a site that is located entirely within a VHFHS Zone, the Housing Crisis Act does not apply to GPA2020-0002, allowing the ER designation to be eliminated without it being replaced elsewhere in the cCity.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The applicant paid the application processing fee of $12,810.95 to cover the cost of the General Plan Amendment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Green River Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Subsequent EIR

Page 858 of 4376 ends

The initial Green River Ranch Specific Plan EIR was certified by the City Council on February 7, 2001. The EIR evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the property of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan. The EIR identified environmental impacts that are capable of being reduced to a less than significant impact with the implementation of project mitigation measures. However, the EIR identified three environmental impacts, air quality, biological resources, and traffic, that will remain significant even with the implementation of project mitigation.

In accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Ccity prepared a draft Subsequent EIR to the certified Green River Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR to address the potential environmental impacts associated with GPA2020-0002, the amendment to the Green River Ranch Specific Plan (SPA2020-0006), and the proposed 49.31-acre light industrial business park development of the specific plan. The SEIR also includes the relocation of Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 (PCL-1) of the Western Riverside County’s Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), which is located south, and generally east of the project site.

Green River Ranch Project Amendment
The potential environmental impacts of the amended project are similar to the environmental impacts already evaluated in the 2001 EIR. In the areas of air quality, and transportation, the amended project would continue to have significant and unavoidable impacts, even with the implementation of mitigation measures. Table 2 provides a summary of these impacts.

Table 2
Environmental Impact Comparison
Environmental
Impact
Level of
Significance
(Environmental
Impact)
2001 GRR
Specific Plan EIR
Level of
Significance
(Environmental
Impact)
Proposed GRR
Specific Plan
Comparison
Explanation
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
Similar Would exceed the allowable
threshold for pollutant emissions
associated with volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
dioxide (NOx) associated with the
project’s operations. The sources
of the emissions include stationary
sources, which are on-site energy
sources, and the use of certain
products with chemicals such as
cleaning supplies, pesticides,
glues, adhesives, etc., and mobile
sources such as fuel from

Page 859 of 4376 ends

passenger vehicles and trucks
accessing the site.

Transportation Significant and
Unavoidable using
Level of Service
(LOS) analysis
and no VMT
analysis (2001
EIR pre-dates the
VMT analysis of
CEQA)
Similar using the
VMT analysis.

Would exceed the Ccity’s daily VMT
threshold. VMT measures the
number of miles that would be
traveled by vehicles associated with
the project. Although the
Subsequent EIR proposes
mitigation measures (ride share
programs, carpooling, etc.) to help
reduce the project’s VMT, no
amount of feasible mitigation would
fully reduce the project’s VMT below
the threshold, and therefore, the
project’s transportation impact is
considered to be significant.

However, the number of daily
vehicle trips generated by the
project would decrease by 61%
from 2001. The original project
showed 11,207 daily trips to and
from the project site and the
proposed project shows 4,370 daily
trips.

Like the 2001 EIR, the City Council has the authority to certify the Final SEIR for the amended project that includes significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, by adopting a statement of overriding consideration that indicates the project would have specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits that would outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and thereby make those effects acceptable.

A statement of overriding consideration is included in Resolution 2025-0007, certifying the Final SEIR, which indicates the benefits of the amended project will:
 Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the current City of Corona General Plan because it protects 103.73 acres of Open Space that will provide residents with opportunities to enjoy the natural environment, provide visual relief from urban development, protect significant plant and animal habitats and protect development from natural environmental hazard (Goal LU-16) and support wildlife conservation and wildlife habitat according to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conversation Plan; develop 49.31 acres for business park land uses that will promote a strong and diversified economic base by attracting quality businesses and encouraging existing businesses to expand their sales, facilities and employment (Goal ED-1), and facilitate the retention and expansion of existing job generating industries within existing and planned industrial areas to allow such industries to remain in Corona (Policy ED-1.5).

Page 860 of 4376 ends

 The average daily vehicular trips will be reduced from 11,207 trips to 4,370 trips, a 61% reduction, when compared to the original project and thereby result in fewer vehicles traveling to the Project site on Green River Road and State Route 91.  Provide convenient commercial and industrial/business park opportunities for the community by providing employment and shopping opportunities to existing Corona residents without having to travel to other jurisdictions, supporting the City’s labor and retail markets and sales and property tax revenues that sustain the services provided by the City for its residents and service population.  Create an aesthetically pleasing western gateway into the City of Corona because the project will utilize quality building materials, architectural elements, and an abundance of onsite landscaping that enhance the appearance of the Project site from Green River Road and Dominguez Ranch Road while preserving the natural hillsides located south of the business park development within the Open Space land use.

MSHCP Criteria Refinement
In December 2023, the Ccity submitted a Criteria Refinement Analysis (prepared by the applicant’s biology consultant, Glen Lukos Associates) on behalf of the applicant to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to have PCL-1 relocated westerly of the project site. Development of the land within the specific plan would require the applicant to also design a wildlife linkage that meets the requirements of the MSCHP.

Having PCL-1 relocated would align with the path of travel used by wildlife when crossing underneath the freeway using the existing culverts.

On February 20, 2024, and March 25, 2024, the Ccity and applicant received general agreements from the RCA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to have PCL-1 relocated onto land recently acquired by the RCA. The new alignment is located southwest of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan and outside of Corona’s city limits, within the jurisdiction of Riverside County. The new alignment was considered to be less constrained and superior compared to the current alignment to support wildlife movement.

PLANNING AND HOUSING COMMISSION ACTION:

At its meeting of November 25, 2024, the Planning and Housing Commission considered the subject matter and took the following action:

Motion was made, seconded (Siqueland/Longwell) and carried, with Chair Woody abstaining, that the Planning and Housing Commission adopt Resolution No. 2650 granting GPA2020-0002 as part of Cycle 1 of the General Plan Amendments for 2025, and recommend approval of GPA2020-0002 to the City Council based on the findings contained in the staff report and certify the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Green River Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2022080640).

Page 861 of 4376 ends

The minutes of the Planning and Housing Commission meeting are included as Exhibit

6. PREPARED BY: JOANNE COLETTA, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit 1 – Resolution No. 2025-007

2. Exhibit 2 - Resolution No. 2025-008

3. Exhibit 3 - Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

4. Exhibit 4 - Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report available at Draft SEIR Green River Ranch

5. Exhibit 5 – Planning and Housing Commission staff report

6. Exhibit 6 – Minutes of the Planning and Housing Commission meeting of November 25, 2024

Page 862 of 4376 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY

OF CORONA, CERTIFYING FINAL SUBSEQUENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GREEN

RIVER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT &

BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND

RELOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRAINED LINKAGE
1 OF THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE

SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (SCH
#2022080640); ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND AN UPDATED

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, the City Council of the City of Corona (“City”) adopted Resolution No. 2001-09 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Certified EIR”) for Green River Ranch Specific Plan (SCH #99091143) (“Approved Project”), made findings of fact and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Green River Ranch Specific Plan (SP00-001) area consists of approximately 165 acres and is located below the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains adjacent to the western boundary of the City of Corona (“Property”); and WHEREAS, PSIP WR Green River, LLC (“Applicant”), the owner of the Property, seeks to amend the Green River Ranch Specific Plan (SP00-001) to rearrange the specific plan land use designations, modify the planning area boundaries, designate a large portion of the Property as open space for permanent preservation, and develop 746,167 squarefeet of industrial building area within the proposed Business Park Industrial (BPI) designated portions of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan as amended (“SPA2020-0006”); and WHEREAS, in connection with SPA2020-0006, the Applicant has also applied for a General Plan amendment (“GPA2020-0002”) to change the land use designation of 5.5 acres of the Property located north of Green River Road and west of Dominguez Ranch Road from Mixed Use II (Industrial & Commercial) to General Commercial, and change the land use designations on the south side of Green River Road and west of Dominguez Ranch Road from General Commercial, Mixed Use II, and Estate Residential to 49.31 acres of Mixed Use II, and 103.73 acres of Open Space-General, a Tentative Tract Map (“TTM 37963”) to subdivide 154.90 acres of the Property into nine (9) lots within Specific Plan Planning Areas 1 through 6, and a Precise Plan (“PP2020-0004”) for the development of the proposed industrial park component

Page 863 of 4376 ends

2 within Specific Plan Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 (collectively referred to herein as the “Modified Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res.

Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) the City has determined that a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) to the Certified EIR should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to evaluate proposed changes to the Approved Project that was originally analyzed in the Certified EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a SEIR to the Certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Modified Project because substantial changes in the Approved Project and the circumstances under which the Modified Project is undertaken are proposed that would require revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and WHEREAS, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”) identifies areas of habitat within Western Riverside County to be conserved to ensure the longterm survivability of the covered species contained in the plan. The habitat areas located on private property are identified by criteria cells, core areas consisting of groups of criteria cells, and wildlife corridors linking core areas. The Green River Ranch Specific Plan area contains four criteria cells that support Proposed Constrained Linkage (PCL-1) that connects Core Area A to the north (Prado Basin/Santa Ana River) with Core Area B to the south (Cleveland National Forest). At the request of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (“RCA”), PCL-1 is proposed to be relocated to an alternate location on property owned by RCA known as the B Canyon property, which would ensure that areas to the north and south of State Route 91 and the Santa Ana River can be linked to provide a viable wildlife linkage (“PCL-1 Relocation”). The B Canyon property is located west of its current alignment and west of and adjacent to the Green River Ranch Specific Plan area. The Applicant has agreed to include environmental analysis of the proposed PCL-1 Relocation in the SEIR as a separate but related project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15086, on or about October 11, 2024 the City provided public notice of the availability of the Draft SEIR and consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others for a 45-day comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City received 16 comment letters/emails on the Modified Project and 1 comment letter on the PCL-1 Relocation during the public comment period for the Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2024, the Planning and Housing Commission of the City of Corona (“Planning Commission”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing to hear and consider evidence and testimony concerning the Modified Project and the contents and

Page 864 of 4376 ends

3 sufficiency of the Draft SEIR, and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission received evidence and reports, including all written comments received during the 45-day public review period and directed that a Final SEIR be prepared for certification by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received from public agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft SEIR and has prepared responses to the comments received during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Modified Project originally proposed reducing the existing Estate Residential land use designation from 49.31 acres to 20.39 acres to permit development of up to 32 single-family residential dwellings and to create 83.34 acres of open space; and WHEREAS, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 66300) restricts the City’s ability to adopt land use or zoning amendments that would result in the reduction of allowed residential density or intensity of land uses than what is allowed under the regulations in effect on January 1, 2018, unless a concurrent change in the land use or zoning designation of other parcels in the City is approved to replace the residential units lost with the land use or zoning amendment, thus ensuring a “no net loss” in the zoning for residential units; and
WHEREAS, Government Section 66300(e)(4) provides that the Housing Crisis Act does not apply to a housing development project located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Because the Modified Project is on a site that is located entirely within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the Housing Crisis Act does not apply to the Modified Project; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing on November 25, 2024, the Planning Commission determined that since the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 does not apply to the Modified Project, it would be preferable to eliminate the Estate Residential land use designation and increase the open space acreage from 83.34 acres to 103.73 acres and recommended that the Estate Residential land use designation be changed to Open Space General for GPA2020-0002 and SPA2020-0006; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with the requirements of Section 15362(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Modified Project and the PCL-1 Relocation (SCH # 2022080640), consisting of comments received during the public review and comment periods on the Draft SEIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft SEIR (“Final SEIR”). For the purposes of this Resolution, the “Final SEIR” shall refer to the Draft SEIR, as revised by the Final SEIR’s errata section, together with the other sections of the Final SEIR; and WHEREAS, in conformance with the requirements of CEQA and the State

Page 865 of 4376 ends

4 CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared, or caused to be prepared: (a) CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to the Modified Project and CEQA Findings relating to the PCL-1 Relocation, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full; (b) an Updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Modified Project and the Final SEIR; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which all persons wishing to testify in connection with GPA2020-0002, SPA2020- 0006 and the Final SEIR were heard and GPA2020-0002, SPA2020-0006 and the Final SEIR were comprehensively reviewed; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and comments of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to GPA2020-0002, SPA2020-0006, TTM 37963 and PP2020-0004, including the Final SEIR, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the Updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the Final SEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Modified Project and the PCL-1 Relocation have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Final SEIR, which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including, but not limited to, the Certified EIR, as revised by the Final SEIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all the meetings and hearings, all of which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for the purpose of making decisions on the merits of the Modified Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information

Page 866 of 4376 ends

5 requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CORONA, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council has determined that, based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to, written and oral evidence presented at meetings and hearings, and the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the Final SEIR prepared for the Modified Project, which consists of GPA2020-0002, SPA2020-0006, TTM 37963 and PP2020-0004, and the PCL-1 Relocation has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 2. Review of Final SEIR. The City Council has carefully reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR prior to acting upon the Modified Project.

SECTION 3. Independent Judgment. The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for the purpose of making decisions on the merits of the Modified Project.

SECTION 4. Adequate Assessment. Based upon the information contained in the Final SEIR, the City Council finds that the Final SEIR provides an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Modified Project.

SECTION 5. CEQA Findings for Modified Project. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and which: (a) documents and supports the conclusion that even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures recommended in the Final SEIR, it is infeasible to reduce certain impacts of the Modified Project to a level of insignificance; and (b) further sets forth the overriding benefits of the Modified Project, which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Modified Project. Accordingly, the City Council finds and determines that the Modified Project’s overriding benefits outweigh the Modified Project’s unavoidable environmental impacts.

SECTION 6. CEQA Findings for PCL-1 Relocation. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings, which are included in Exhibit “A” and which conclude that all environmental effects of the PCL-1 Relocation are less than significant and do not require mitigation measures.

Page 867 of 4376 ends

6 SECTION 7. Updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Modified Project.

SECTION 8. Certification of Final SEIR. Based on all the foregoing, the City Council hereby certifies the Final SEIR.

SECTION 9. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the findings set forth in this Resolution have been based are located at City of Corona City Hall, 400 S. Vicentia Avenue, Corona, California 92882. The custodian for these records is Joanne Coletta, Planning and Development Director.

This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 10. Notice of Determination. A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final approval of GPA2020-0002, SPA2020-0006, TTM 37963 and PP2020-0004.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5
th day of February, 2025.
________________________________________
Mayor of the City of Corona, California
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Corona, California

Page 868 of 4376 ends

7 CERTIFICATION
I, Sylvia Edwards, City Clerk of the City of Corona, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Corona, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5 th day of February 2025, by the
following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Corona, California, this 5
th day of February, 2025.

City Clerk of the City of Corona, California

Page 869 of 4376 ends

8 EXHIBIT “A”

FINDINGS OF FACT
[SEE ATTACHED 168 PAGES]

Page 870 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 1

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Corona, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Green River Ranch SPA & Business Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1 (“Project”), evaluated in the Draft Subsequent EIR (“Draft SEIR”) and Final Subsequent EIR (“Final SEIR”) for the Project.

SECTION I.

INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant

Page 871 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 2
environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v.

City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)

Page 872 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 3
The City Council of the City of Corona (“City Council”) certifies that it has been presented with the Final SEIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR prior to making the following findings. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15090, the City Council certifies that the Final SEIR has been completed and certified in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further certifies that the Final SEIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis.

SECTION II.

SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Green River Ranch Specific Plan
The current ±165.0-acre Green River Ranch Specific Plan (GRRSP) Planning Area is located below the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains adjacent to the western boundary of the City of Corona (City). The City is generally situated southwest of the City of Riverside, south of the City of Norco, and northwest of the City of Lake Elsinore. The GRRSP Planning Area is located south of SR 91, southwest of Dominguez Ranch Road, and southeast of Fresno Road. Green River Road bisects a small portion of the Planning Area in an east-west alignment.

The City first approved the GRRSP in 2001 and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse #99091143. The GRRSP as currently approved guides development of up to

8.12 acres of general commercial land uses, 45.64 acres of Mixed-Use land uses, 13.37 acres of Hotel/Mixed-Use/Office land uses, and 98.2 acres of Estate Residential land use (32 dus) in the Planning Area. After approval of the GRRSP, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WR-MSHCP) was approved in 2004 by Riverside County. The GRRSP Planning Area is overlain by four Criteria Cells (1702, 1704, 1811, and 1812) and Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 (PCL-1) as defined by the WR-MSHCP.

The Modified Project
The Project Applicant, PSIP WR Green River, LLC, seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Precise Plan to rearrange and change the previously approved GRRSP land uses, slightly modify the Planning Area boundary, designate a large portion of the site as Open Space for permanent preservation in compliance with the WRMSHCP, and develop 746,167 square-feet of industrial building area within the proposed Business Park Industrial (BPI) designated portions of the proposed GRRSP as amended. The proposed reconfigured and changed land uses include 5.5 acres of General Commercial uses on proposed PA 4; ±49.31 acres of BPI uses on proposed PAs 1, 2, and 3; and ±103.73 acres of Open Space on proposed PA 6.

Since the time of the preparation of the Draft SEIR, the Modified Project was revised. As originally proposed, GPA2020-0002 and SPA2020-0006 included 20.39 acres of Estate Residential and 83.34 acres of Open Space. However, during the public review and hearing on the Project, the City’s Planning and Housing Commission recommended that the Estate Residential land use designation be replaced with an Open Space land use designation pursuant to Senate Bill

Page 873 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 4
330, due to that acreage’s location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). As a result of incorporating that recommendation, the total acreage being placed into the Open Space land use designation increased from 83.34 acres to 103.73 acres, and the Estate Residential land use acreage was deleted. The environmental effects of these Project revisions are not significant, particularly as they reduce – rather than increase – the development uses that could theoretically be placed on the site. As such, these revisions constitute minor amendments and clarifications, and do not require new or additional analysis in the SEIR.

The proposed changes to the GRRSP and development of the BPI PAs represent the “Modified Project” or “Project” under scrutiny in the Subsequent EIR (SEIR). A detailed description of these proposed Modified Project is provided in the Final SEIR.

Over the past 20 years since the WR-MSHCP was approved, discussions regarding the existing location of PCL-1 have occurred because of several known constraints associated with its alignment. The four Criteria Cells (1702, 1704, 1811, and 1812) and PCL-1 that currently overlay the GRRSP Planning Area are intended to connect Core Area A to the north (Prado Basin/Santa Ana River) with Core Area B to the south (Cleveland National Forest). Proposed Constrained Linkage 2 (PCL-2) is located further to the east, and both PCL-1 and PCL-2 are intended to connect Core Areas A and B. To this end, Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) purchased the property known as B Canyon located adjacent to and west of the GRRSP Planning Area for the purposes of relocating PCL-1. At the request of RCA, the City and the Project Applicant agreed to include environmental analysis of the relocation of PCL-1 to the alternate B Canyon property alignment.

The relocated PCL-1 alignment has been approved by RCA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). A detailed description of these proposed Relocated PCL-1 Project is provided in Section 3.3 of the Draft SEIR.

SECTION III.

RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information.

New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement.

Here, the Modified Project was revised from the original proposal presented in GPA2020-0002 and SPA2020-0006. GPA2020-0002 and SPA2020-0006 originally included 20.39 acres of Estate Residential and 83.34 acres of Open Space. Now, the Modified Project proposes increasing Open Space land use from 83.34 acres to 103.73 acres and removing all the Estate Residential land use.

This change to the Modified Project does not necessitate the recirculation of the SEIR because it does not constitute “significant new information” deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to

Page 874 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 5
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project. Rather, the revision actually reduces the environmental impacts of the Modified Project in response to public input and recommendations from the City’s Planning and Housing Commission. Therefore, recirculation of the SEIR is not required under CEQA.

SECTION V.

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas and Visual Character
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to the Prior EIR are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.1-13)
Explanation:

With implementation of the Modified Project, the northern half of the property (approximately 5.5 acres) would be developed with approximately 19,600 sf of General Commercial uses (PA 4), approximately 746,167 sf of BPI uses (PAs 1, 2, and 3) . The southern half of the Modified Project (approximately 83.34 acres) in PA 6 is proposed for Open Space to be acquired by the RCA and would therefore remain undeveloped in perpetuity.

Development of the Modified Project would be required to comply with the development standards and design guidelines of the GRRSP as amended, while development within the BPI Development portions of the Project would also be required to comply with the site-specific components included as part of Precise Plan No. 2020-0004. The GRRSPA and Precise Plan No. 2020-0004 implement the City’s General Plan policies related to aesthetics and comply with the City’s Landscape Design Guidelines. Development in conformance with the GRRSPA and Precise Plan No. 2020-0004 would ensure that the property is developed in a manner that is consistent with applicable design guidelines in the GRRSPA and General Plan, ensuring scenic resources are unaffected by the development and the development is aesthetically compatible with the existing visual character of surrounding developed structures.

The northern 5.5-acre portion of the Modified Project site are planned for General Commercial land uses in PA 4. This portion of the Modified Project occurs at the property’s lowest elevations

Page 875 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 6
and are not highly visible from off-site locations. This portion of the property is currently surrounded by the SR 91 freeway and railroad tracks to the north and Green River Road to the south. Additionally, lands to the east of this portion of the site are developed with business park and commercial retail uses, with residential and commercial uses occurring along the north side of SR 91. No specific development plans are proposed for this portion of the Project site at this time, and future development of the General Commercial uses would be governed by the GRRSP as amended. Development of the General Commercial land uses would appear as a continuation of existing development patterns in the local area, and the proposed development would be visually compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Additionally, due to the relatively low topography of this portion of the Project site as compared to surrounding areas, development of commercial retail uses as proposed would not obstruct any views of scenic resources, such as the existing hillforms in the southern portions of the site. Development of the proposed General Commercial land uses would not result in an adverse effect on any existing scenic vistas, and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The Modified Project’s proposed BPI land uses would occur in PAs 1, 2 and 3 on approximately

37.82 acres south of Green River Road in areas that largely contain gently sloping terrain. This portion of the site would be visible from areas to the north as well as from the existing residential homes to the east of the site. In order to visualize the appearance of the proposed Project, a series of renderings were prepared as depicted on Figure 4.1-2, Conceptual Rendering – Aerial Perspective and Figure 4.1-3, Conceptual Rendering – Westerly Perspective. The renderings were prepared only for the BPI Development proposed as part of Precise Plan No. 2020-0004. The renderings do not depict views of the General Commercial uses in the northern portions of the site, as there are currently no development plans proposed for these areas.

Figure 4.1-2 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed BPI Development buildings proposed as part of Precise Plan No. 2020-0004. This conceptual rendering depicts views from an aerial perspective, looking south.

As shown in the figure, the northern portions of the BPI Development would be graded to provide level pads for development. Landscape buffers are proposed along manufactured slopes to the north of the proposed buildings. While grading would occur at the base of the prominent hillforms on site, the proposed slopes would be contour graded to match the existing topography of these hillforms, and the manufactured slopes would be landscaped with hydroseed and trees. The large hillforms in the southern 83.34 portions of the property proposed for Open Space would continue to be visible from off-site locations.

Figure 4.1-3 depicts views from the existing single-family residential neighborhood to the east of the BPI Development site, looking west. As shown from this perspective, the proposed BPI buildings would be visible from this location. As shown, the BPI development would not obstruct scenic vistas from this location. The hillsides in the southern portion of the Modified Project site would continue to be prominently visible from this location, and the proposed buildings would not obstruct distant views of the Chino Hills hillsides, which also are visible in the distance.

Page 876 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 7
Figure 4.1-3 depicts views from the existing single-family residential neighborhood to the east of the BPI Development site, looking west. As shown from this perspective, the proposed BPI buildings would be visible from this location. As shown, the BPI development would not obstruct scenic vistas from this location. The hillsides in the southern portion of the Modified Project site would continue to be prominently visible from this location, and the proposed buildings would not obstruct distant views of the Chino Hills hillsides, which also are visible in the distance.

The conceptual renderings depicted on Figure 4.1-2 and Figure 4.1-3 demonstrate that development of the proposed BPI Development would not obstruct scenic vistas of the hillforms in the southern portions of the property, or distant views of the Chino Hills that are available from the existing single-family neighborhood to the east of the BPI Development site, and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Furthermore, and as previously noted, areas to the east and north of the BPI site are developed with a mixture of commercial retail, business park, and residential land uses, and the proposed BPI Development buildings would further existing development patterns in the local area. Development of the proposed BPI Development would not adversely affect scenic vistas in the area resulting in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Furthermore, the planned 32 single-family homes would not obstruct or detract from views of other off-site scenic resources within the existing viewshed as the PA’s would be the southernmost development. Moreover, the planned single-family homes would be visually compatible with and less intense than the existing residential development to the east of the Project site. Therefore, within implementation of PDF AES-1, GRRSP as Amended, development of the planned 32 single-family homes would not result in a significant, adverse effect on a scenic vista, and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. As a result, impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts related to scenic vistas or the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would occur with implementation of the proposed Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. The proposed Modified Project’s impacts are consistent with the impacts identified in the 2001 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.1-13 – 4.1-20.)

2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.1-20.)
Explanation:

The 2001 EIR concluded SR 91 and Green River Road were not identified as a Scenic Highway

Page 877 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 8
or Corridor in the then current General Plan. The current General Plan identifies Palisades Drive and the segment of Green River Road between Palisades Drive and SR 91 as a City Designated scenic corridor, while SR 91 and SR 71 are identified as “State Eligible” scenic highways. Thereby, SR 91 and SR 71 are not officially designated as state scenic highways. Similar to the Approved Project, development of the Modified Project would be visible from these facilities. Nonetheless, potential visual effects to these facilities is provided as follows based on the Visual Impact Analysis prepared for the Modified Project assessed.

As previously depicted on Figure 4.1-3, the Modified Project site does not contain any visually prominent rock outcroppings, and there are no historic buildings on site. Numerous trees are scattered throughout the property, primarily in association with the existing single-family homes in the northeastern portions of the property along the Dominguez Ranch Road frontage and the Green River Road frontage.

As previously discussed, the development of General Commercial uses in the northern portion of the Modified Project site (PA 4) is at a relatively low elevation compared to the surrounding area and completely surrounded by SR 91 and railroad tracks to the north, and Green River Road to the south. There are no scenic resources on this portion of the Modified Project site, such as prominently visible trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Impacts to scenic highways from development of the General Commercial uses in PA 4 would be less than significant.

Building elevations depicted on Figure 4.1-4 through Figure 4.1-9 from the Visual Impact Analysis visualize the effects of the proposed BPI buildings on Green River Road. The elevations depict street-level views of the BPI Development along Green River Road that is a City designated scenic corridor. As shown within these elevations, the proposed BPI buildings would be developed on level development pads, with manufactured slopes heavily landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover designed to be a buffer between Green River Road and the proposed buildings.

The existing scattered trees onsite would be the only potential scenic resources on this portion of the Project site, however not visually prominent from off-site locations. As seen in Figure 4.1-10, Conceptual Landscape Plan, the existing trees would be replaced with ornamental tree species included as part of the BPI Development’s conceptual landscape plan. Therefore, development of the proposed “Business Park Industrial” buildings would not substantially affect scenic resources visible from nearby scenic highways, and impacts would therefore be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

As stated in the Visual Impact Analysis, the Modified Project would result in a substantial change in the visual character of the property. However, with mandatory compliance of the GRRSP development standards and design guidelines (PDF AES-1), and the site-specific development plans included as part of Precise Plan No. 2020-0004 (PDF AES-2), such compliance would ensure that the Modified Project’s aesthetic design would be aesthetically pleasing and would not substantially damage scenic resources visible from nearby scenic highways. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts related to scenic resources as viewed from a

Page 878 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 9
scenic highway would occur with implementation of the proposed Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. The proposed Modified Project’s impacts are consistent with those identified in the 2001 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.1-20 – 4.1-37.) B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-7.)
Explanation:

No changes in the location, size, or boundaries of the GRRSP Planning Area boundary have occurred since adoption of the GRRSP in 2001. As discussed in the Project Description, the Modified Project would modify the size and boundaries of the GRRSP, however minimally in the northern portion of the Project site. In addition, the eastern portion of the Project site has been slightly expanded to incorporate appropriate grading limits within the hilly terrain.

Since certification of the EIR in 2001, a revised Important Farmland Map has been issued by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Based on the revised California Important Farmland Map (Department of Conservation, 2022) and similar to the analysis within the 2001 EIR, there are no Prime and Unique Farmland within the Specific Plan area. However, the Farmland of Local Importance located on the GRRSP Planning Area (northeastern) designated by the FMMP is not designated as such in the General Plan EIR, Figure

5.2-1, Agricultural Resources. Although the Modified Project increases the GRRSP Planning Area, the Modified Project would have no change in impacts in comparison to those identified in the 2001 EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-7.)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-8.)
Explanation:

Page 879 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 10
The Modified Project would not include any new the land use designations beyond those previously analyzed in the 2001 EIR. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an existing zoning for an agricultural use. As stated in the City’s General Plan EIR, a Williamson Act contract for a preserve in the City was terminated, and there were no Williamson Act contracts in the City.

However, the General Plan EIR concluded development of the General Plan would convert Williamson Act Land to nonagricultural uses and the associated loss of agricultural preserve lands under would be significant and unavoidable.

As previously stated, there are no lands currently within the City that are in an existing Williamson Act contract. As a result, no conflicts with Williamson Act contract lands would occur. The Modified Project would result in no conflicts with Williamson Act contract lands. Although not specifically analyzed in the 2001 EIR, the Modified Project would result in no impact to Williamson Act Contract lands. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-8.)

3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: 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))?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-8.)
Explanation:

The Modified Project proposes a minor increase in acreage, and changes to the land use designations within the GRRSP boundary. However, the proposed changes are designed to accommodate build out of the GRRSP and the proposed BPI Development. The GRRSPA would result in minor changes in land uses and these changes would result in no conflicts with existing zoning.

Although not discussed in the 2001 EIR, the City’s General Plan EIR concludes no forest land or timberlands are located within the City. The Cleveland National Forest is southerly adjacent to the City limits, however not within the City. The Modified Project is not zoned for any forest land or timberland uses. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-8.)

4. Loss of Forest Land

Page 880 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 11
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-9.)
Explanation:

As previously discussed in Impact AGF-3, the Modified Project would have no impact on forestland or timberland. The 2001 EIR did not address this topic, however the General Plan EIR determined that there are no current or planned fixed commercial timber operations subject to a Timber Harvesting Plan in southwest Riverside County (CALFIRE) and there are no timber production zones in the City or its SOI. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in loss or conversion of timberland to non-forest uses. It can be concluded the GRRSP Planning Area similarly does not contain any forest land or timberland uses, and implementation of the Modified Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to nonforest uses. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-

9.)

5. Change in Existing Environment
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-9.)
Explanation:

As discussed above in Impacts AGF-1 through AGF-5, there are no farmlands in the vicinity of the GRRSP Planning Area that would be subject to potential conversion to non-agricultural use, and there are no forest lands in or within the vicinity of the Project. As concluded, the Farmland of Local Importance located on the GRRSP Planning Area (northeastern) designated by the FMMP is not designated as such in the General Plan EIR, Figure 5.2-1, Agricultural Resources. The Modified Project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural uses or forest land to non-forest uses. The Modified Project would not result in impacts to the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could convert Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-9.) C. AIR QUALITY

Page 881 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 12

1. Other Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-27.)
Explanation:

As discussed in the AQIA, the Modified Project has the potential to generate objectionable odors from construction and operation related activities. Potential odor sources associated with construction related activities from the Modified Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities.

However, standard construction requirements would minimize odor related impacts from construction activities and equipment. Furthermore, the construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction. Therefore, construction odor related impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Land use operations that are generally associated with objectionable odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
As stated in the AQIA, potential odor related sources during operation of the Modified Project would primarily occur from development of Phase 2 which includes the super convenience gas station (with 12 vehicle fueling stations). Additionally, the refuse that would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations would be a potential odor related source. Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 461 the proposed gas station land

Page 882 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 13
use would be required to utilize gas dispensing equipment that minimizes vapor and liquid leaks.

Furthermore Rule 461 requires the equipment be maintained at proposed worker odor, which will minimize odor impacts occurring from the gasoline and diesel dispensing facilities. With required compliance of SCAQMD Rule 402 and Rule 461, odors associated with the Modified Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The 2001 determined the Approved Project would result in less than significant and no mitigation was required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-27 – 4.3-28.)
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.5-6.)
Explanation:

An adverse effect is found when a project may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic resource that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA, Title 14, Chapter 3, p78; Federal Register, 36 CFR Part 800).

As discussed in the Project Description, no changes in the location, size, or boundaries of the GRRSP Planning Area boundary have occurred since adoption of the GRRSP in 2001. In addition, the Modified Project would modify the size and boundaries of the GRRSP, however minimally in the northern portion of the Project site. In addition, the eastern portion of the Project site has been slightly expanded to incorporate appropriate grading limits within the hilly terrain. As such, BFSA conducted this updated assessment to locate and record any cultural resources identified within the Modified Project boundary in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and following City of Corona Environmental Guidelines.

As stated in the CRA prepared for the Modified Project, the previously discussed 1939 culvert recorded by LSA has been completely replaced when the City of Corona conducted improvements to Green River Road between 2015 and 2016. Although the 1939 culvert has been replaced, additional historic features were identified in the Modified Project’s CRA within the GRRSP Planning Area. Within the CRA, BFSA identified these features as Site Temp-1 of which consist of a board-formed concrete water tank, a concrete-lined reservoir, and a front-gabled cinderblock garage. Based upon aerial photographs and property research, Site Temp-1 appears to be associated

Page 883 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 14
with the ranching operations first visible on aerial photographs from 1946. However, Site Temp1 is not eligible for listing on the CRHR and do not qualify as significant resources under CEQA.

As determined in the CRA prepared for the Modified Project, there are no significant resources identified within the GRRSP Planning Area. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts related to historical resources would occur with implementation of the proposed Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.5-6 – 4.5-7.) E. ENERGY

1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.6-18.)
Explanation:

Construction
Construction of the Modified Project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of construction materials, preparation of the site for grading and building activities, and construction of the building. All or most of this energy would be derived from nonrenewable resources. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities.

Construction of the Modified Project is proposed to be developed in three (3) phases. Phase 1 would include the construction of the 746,167 square-foot BPI Development within PAs 1, 2, and

3. Phase 2 would include Phase 1 plus the construction of PA 4 comprised of 19,600 square feet of GC uses. Project buildout Phase 3 would include Phases 1 and 2 plus the addition of 32 ER residential lots. Construction of PAs 1, 2, and 3 is expected to occur over 11 months, and construction of PAs 4 and 5 would occur over seven (7) months.

Based on estimations provided in the Energy Analysis prepared for the Modified Project, the estimated total electricity usage during construction, after full Project build-out, was calculated to be approximately 549,793 kWh. In addition, construction-related vehicle trips would result in approximately 1.28 million VMT and consume an estimated 271,647 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined. The construction-related equipment would not be powered by natural gas and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction, therefore would not involve the consumption of natural gas.

Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or

Page 884 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 15
energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. In addition, CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. BACMs inform construction equipment operators of this requirement. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. Moreover, given the cost of fuel, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.

Although the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for owners and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the Modified Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the construction-related impacts related to electricity and fuel consumption would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Operation
Electricity and Natural Gas
Operation of the Modified Project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Building operations would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, and electronics. Based on CalEEMod energy use estimations, operations for the Modified Project would result in approximately 15,108,857 kWh of electricity and 23,731,098 kBTU per year of natural gas annually.

Development of the Modified Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. Therefore, operational impacts related to electricity and natural gas consumption would be less than significant requiring no mitigation.

Fuel
Operational gasoline and diesel energy would also be consumed during vehicle trips associated with the Modified Project. Fuel consumption would be primarily related to passenger vehicle use by residents, visitors, and employees as well truck trips to and from the BPI and commercial uses.

Based on CalEEMod energy use estimations, project-related vehicle trips would result in approximately 28.78 million VMT and consume an estimated 1,522,736 gallons of gasoline and

Page 885 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 16
diesel combined, annually.

The Modified Project is partially surrounded by urban uses, and the availability of existing transportation facilities and infrastructure would provide future residents, visitors, and employees associated with the Modified Project good access to a mix of nearby land uses, further reducing fuel consumption demand. Additionally, the Modified Project would provide parking and EV infrastructure that would further promote fuel efficient vehicles. For these reasons, operationalrelated transportation fuel consumption would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, the operational impact related to vehicle fuel consumption would be less than significant requiring no mitigation.

Construction Plus Operation
Overall, the Modified Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary of energy resources during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.6-18 – 4.6-20.)

2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.6-20.)
Explanation:

Construction
As previously discussed in Impact EN-1, the Modified Project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on- road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. The Modified Project would comply with these regulations. There are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase. Thus, it is anticipated that construction of the Modified Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, construction- related energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation.

Operation

Page 886 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 17
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) establishes a goal of renewable energy for local providers to be 44 percent by 2040. Similarly, the State is promoting renewable energy target to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas emissions reductions. As previously discussed in Impact EN-1, the Modified Project would result in approximately 15,108,857 kWh of electricity and 23,731,098 kBTU/year of natural gas annually.

Future development projects would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation.

Compliance with the aforementioned mandatory measures would ensure that future development projects would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation.

Construction Plus Operation
Overall, the Modified Project would be consistent with applicable plans and policies and would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of nonrenewable energy sources. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the or the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.6-20 – 4.6-21.) F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-12.)

Page 887 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 18
Explanation:

Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
As stated previously, the GRRSP Planning Area is not within a State of California defined AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone and no known active faults transect the Project site. As determined in the Geotechnical Study (Appendix G-1), no known surface traces of active or potentially active faults traverse any portion of the Modified Project site and field observations did not reveal evidence of ground rupturing faulting at the surface. Therefore, the potential for substantial adverse effects due to surface rupture along a known earthquake fault is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-12 – 4.7-13.)

2. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-13.)
Explanation:

The GRRSP Planning Area is located in a seismically active area of southern California. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards that may affect the Modified Project site are dependent on both the distance to causative faults and the intensity and duration of the seismic event. Although surface rupture is considered less than significant, the Modified Project could be subject to future seismic shaking and strong ground motion resulting in structural damage.

Future construction of the Modified Project and the construction of the proposed BPI Development and future construction of the balance of the Modified Project would be subject to applicable ordinances and requirements of the current California Building Code (CCR Title 24). The CBC provides requirements for foundation strength, tie-downs, shear strength, and other building requirements designed to withstand significant ground-shaking. Similar to the Approved Project, with implementation of design and construction techniques tailored to withstand ground shaking to an acceptable level defined by the CBC, potential impacts to the proposed BPI Development and balance of the Modified Project would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure

4.10.1A was identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project to require adherence to obligatory design and construction techniques related to mitigating the affects from ground shaking.

However, such mitigation is not necessary because the requirements are obligatory. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-

13.)

Page 888 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 19

3. Seismic-related Ground Failure
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-13.)
Explanation:

The secondary effects of seismic activity that are typically considered as potential hazards to a particular site include several types of ground failure. The general types of ground failure that can occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking include liquefaction. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the causative fault, topography, soil, and groundwater conditions and other factors.

Liquefaction occurs when dynamic loading of a saturated sand or silt causes pore-water pressures to increase to levels where grain-to-grain contact is lost or significantly reduced and material temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid. Typically, these conditions must be present within 30 to 35 feet of the ground surface. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, settlement and tilting of engineered structures, flotation of buoyant buried structures and fissuring of the ground surface. A common surface manifestation of liquefaction is the formation of sand boils.

As stated in the Geotechnical Study, only dry-sand settlement appears to be a potential concern with respect to development of the Modified Project including proposed BPI development project.

However, as stated in the 2001 EIR and consistent with the findings in the current Geotechnical Study, liquefaction beneath the Modified Project site is considered unlikely because groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings completed to a maximum depth of 87 feet below grade. As a result, the potential for the occurrence of liquefaction beneath the GRRSP Planning Area with impact to the development is considered less than significant.

In addition, the effects of seismic-related ground failure would be further mitigated through remedial grading, and the incorporation of strengthened foundation systems (i.e. mat or posttensioned) into the project design which are obligatory requirements of State and local laws and ordinances, including Chapter 18 of the CBC as the City has adopted in its Municipal Code. These requirements include implementation of specific recommendations for remedial grading and foundation design determined in the design-phase geotechnical report. Remedial grading would include excavation and recompaction of near-surface soils to increase the relative density of the surficial dry sandy soils.

Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p .4.7-13 – 4.7-14.)

Page 889 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 20

4. Landslides
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-14.)
Explanation:

Landslides or large unstable slopes can result in soil movement downslope that damages property or results in injury to persons located downslope. The potential for such soil movements can be evaluated to determine the presence of weak soil or rock layers, or unstable materials that may contribute to the occurrence of landslides..

Cut slopes up to approximately 180 feet in height have been proposed to facilitate building pad construction of the BPI Development. As stated in the Geotechnical Study, it is anticipated that the upper portion of these slopes will consist of very old alluvial fan deposits, while the lower portions and the toe of these slopes are likely to expose bedrock. As such, the proposed slope configurations are likely to be stable with adequate factors of safety under static conditions. As discussed previously, the BPI Development site is very close to active faulting associated with the Elsinore fault and therefore seismic shaking potential at the BPI Development site is very high as previously analyzed.

Preliminary results from the Geotechnical Study indicated that typical 2:1 slopes of 180 feet in height may not achieve adequate factors of safety. The Geotechnical Study identified one landslide surface within the southwesterly cut slope of the BPI Development; however, it will be removed during designed grading of the cut slope. Implementation of specific recommendations for remedial grading determined in the design-phase geotechnical report will include detailed evaluation of the slope stability and any landslides at the site for determination of appropriate design measures. The design-phase geotechnical report will include a pseudo-static analysis which takes into account the potential ground shaking at the site. The stability analysis will ensure an adequate factor of safety will be constructed at the slope, including modifications to the design if needed such as a further laid back or further stabilized such that the potential for seismically induced slope failure will be less than significant. With implementation of these obligatory requirements included in the BPI Development Project’s design, impacts associated with slope stability and from a future landslide would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-14 – 4.7-15.)

5. Soil Erosion

Page 890 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 21
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-15.)
Explanation:

As previously discussed, construction of the Modified Project would include the grading of slopes of moderate to significant height within the Modified Project site as it pertains to the proposed BPI Development. Potential runoff from precipitation or uncontrolled irrigation, erosion of graded areas could occur during construction of all portions of the Modified Project that would result in offsite transport of the non-cohesive surface soils.

Reduction of the erosion potential during construction activities can be accomplished through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices (BMPs) for temporary erosion controls. As part of the SWPPP, standard erosion control measures would be implemented for development of each phase of development of the Modified Project including the BPI Development to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. The SWPPP requires the inclusion of an erosion control plan that prescribes measures such as phasing grading, limiting areas of disturbance, designating restricted-entry zones, diverting runoff from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, outlet protection, and provisions for revegetation or mulching. The erosion control plan(required under Section 15.36.060, Erosion Control Plan, of the City’s Municipal Code) would also include treatment measures to trap sediment, including inlet protection, straw bale barriers, straw mulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams, terracing, and siltation or sediment ponds.

Such standards include proper implementation of storm water BMPs (as mandated by the City’s water quality ordinance) prior to commencement of earthwork operations within the Modified Project site including the BPI development, as well as diligent maintenance of erosion control devices throughout the early phases of construction until such time as the permanent storm water conveyance system has been constructed and activated. During the post-construction and occupancy period, the potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil would remain less than significant through proper maintenance of irrigation systems and permanent storm water conveyance devices, as well as though compliance with the City’s water quality ordinance.

The 2001 EIR concluded construction of the Approved Project would create the potential for alluvium slope raveling and slope instability causing potential erosion impacts. With implementation of specific design recommendations from the Approved Project’s geotechnical study as detailed in mitigation measures MM 4.10.3A through MM 4.10.3E identified in the 2001 EIR, potential impacts related to slope stability would be reduced to less than significant. However, it can be assumed implementation of standard obligatory regulations would reduce impacts from soil erosion and loss of topsoil associated with development of each phase of the Modified Project’s development to less than significant.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the

Page 891 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 22
Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-15 – 4.7-16.)

6. Unstable Soils
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-17.)
Explanation:

Based on testing and a review of the borings and laboratory testing provided in the Geotechnical Study, existing soils within the low-lying/northerly portion of the BPI Development site are considered unsuitable. As a result, these soils are unsuitable for development and should be removed to underlying competent alluvial fan soils and replaced as properly compacted fill.

Localized areas of deeper excavation of unsuitable soils may be necessary, and should be anticipated. Removal of soils in the natural canyon areas that extend southward into the hilly portion of the Modified Project site will likely be required down to bedrock. As such, the unsuitable soils and the recommendations detailed in the Geotechnical Study, over excavation and remediation of soils is required to render impacts to below a level less than significant.

In order to provide suitable support for the proposed BPI Development and similar conditions for future development of the GRRSP Planning Area, existing compressible materials should be overexcavated and the excavated material replaced as properly compacted, engineered fill. As stated in the Geotechnical Study, the depth of required over-excavation will vary below existing grades and actual remedial grading depths will need to be determined during supplemental investigations and during grading based on on-site field observations by the Project geotechnical consultant.

Detailed recommendations for remedial and design grading should be provided in the comprehensive design-phase geotechnical report. Additionally, the remedial recommendations should consider the need to protect any adjacent offsite properties and other restrictions that may be imposed by property limit boundaries.

Remedial and design grading within the Modified Project site including the BPI Development site would be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances, current standards of practice in the area, and the site-specific recommendations to be provided by the Project geotechnical professional. Based on the preceding findings, it is expected that excessive settlement resulting from compression and/collapse of existing near surface soils will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the detailed recommendations contained in the designphase geotechnical report, during supplemental investigations, and during grading based on onsite field observations by the Project geotechnical consultant. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those

Page 892 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 23
identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-17 – 4.7-18.)

7. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-18.)
Explanation:

Expansive soils are types of soil that expand or contract when they absorb or lose moisture. This can cause problems for buildings with concrete surfaces or rigid floors, like cracking or shifting.

As stated in the Geological Study (Appendix G-1), laboratory testing determined near- surface soil and bedrock is anticipated to generally have a very low expansion potential. Similar to the conclusions in the 2001 EIR, the Geotechnical Study indicated clayey alluvial materials located in the northern portion of the proposed BPI Development have a higher expansion potential. The CBC, Section 1808.6, as adopted by the City, contains provisions for design of building foundations and floor slabs to address the potential detrimental effects of expansive soils.

As mentioned in the Geotechnical Study, construction at the Modified Project will include mass grading and mixing of the various materials that are currently beneath the site. As stated in the 2001 ERI, properly compacted-engineered fill would be considered adequate in strength and consolidation characteristics to support the future structures constructed as part of the Approved Project without detrimental settlement. After completion of grading, the Geotechnical Study determined any identified near-surface soils within building pad areas exhibit an elevated expansion potential, those expansive soils would be addressed through design of structural foundations and floor slabs in compliance with the provisions of Section 1808.6 of the CBC, as adopted by the City Development Code, to prevent structural damage to the structures. With implementation of these obligatory procedures, impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant and no further mitigation is required.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-18.)

8. Septic Tanks
Threshold: 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 conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Page 893 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 24
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-19.)
Explanation:

As discussed in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, sewer services within the GRRSP Planning Area and BPI Development area would be provided by the City of Corona Water Utilities Department. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the Modified Project. Soils would not be required to support septic tanks once the project is implemented. As a result, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-19.) G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
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? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-17.)
Explanation:

No changes in the location, size, or boundaries of the GRRSP Planning Area boundary have occurred since adoption of the GRRSP in 2001. As discussed in the Project Description, the Modified Project would modify the size and boundaries of the GRRSP, however minimally in the northern portion of the Project site. In addition, the eastern portion of the Modified Project has been slightly expanded to incorporate appropriate grading limits within the hilly terrain.

All fuels, solvents and other materials used during construction of each phase of the Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable standards and regulations related to hazardous materials and hazardous waste as discussed in the 2001 EIR. Nonetheless, development of the GRRSP as proposed for amendment would result in an incremental increase over existing conditions in the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials during routine transportation and disposal of hazardous materials. All materials used during construction and operation would be required to comply with applicable standards and regulations related to hazardous waste as specified in the 2001 EIR and as currently regulated through existing procedures and therefore no new or substantially greater impacts would occur. The Modified

Page 894 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 25
Project’s impacts associated with hazards from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and from the release of hazardous materials from upset and accident conditions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR This topic will not be evaluated further in this SEIR. (Draft SEIR, p.

4.9-17.)

2. Schools
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-17.)
Explanation:

As noted in the Prior EIR, there were no schools within 0.25 mile of the Approved Project. No schools have been built within 0.25 mile of the Modified Project since approval of the Approved Project. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project as compared to the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-

17.)

3. Airports
Threshold: Would the Project be 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-19.)
Explanation:

There are no public or private airports in the vicinity of the GRRSP Planning Area that would be affect or be affected by the Modified Project. Development of the Modified Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the GRRSP Planning Area. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project. The Modified Project’s impacts regarding public and private airports are consistent with the impacts identified in the Prior EIR and the level of impact (no impact) remains unchanged. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-

19.)

Page 895 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 26

4. Emergencies
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-19.)
Explanation:

The Modified Project would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards associated with vehicular and emergency access, which would ensure that access would be properly provided for adequate emergency access and evacuation to and from each phase of the Modified Project’s development. Access to the BPI Development site would be provided to and from Green River Road via Street “A” and emergency vehicle access would be provided via a driveway on Dominguez Ranch Road. Traffic from all of the Modified Project would not use Fresno Road for site access. Construction activities that could temporarily restrict vehicular traffic on public roadways would be required to implement a Traffic Management Plan as part of building permit approval to ensure adequate access is maintained. Compliance with existing regulations for emergency access and evacuation would ensure impacts related to emergency access and response is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Members of the public expressed concerns regarding the Modified Project’s potential to further limit the ability for emergency response vehicles to travel along Green River Road, Dominguez Ranch Road, and other roadways in the vicinity when responding to calls during congested weekday a.m. and p.m. peak commute periods. These concerns were expressed at the public scoping meeting held at City Hall on September 22, 2022 and in letter/email form in response to the Notice of Preparation distributed for review August 29, 2022 through September 28, 2022. The following analysis addresses these concerns.

At the time the 2001 EIR was prepared, the area currently proposed for BPI land uses in revised PAs 1, 2, and 3 was planned for Mixed-Use (MU) land uses as shown in the existing GRRSP.

Because this MU land use category allows a wide range of land use types, analysis of impacts was conducted based on development of retail shopping uses. These uses entail the highest trip generation potential and therefore was used in the analysis assumptions of the Approved Project in the 2001 EIR in order to ensure impacts associated with air quality, noise and traffic were adequately assesses and not underestimated. Section 4.2 of the 2001 EIR estimated trip generation for the Approved Project to be 11,207 trips per day with 913 occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 965 occurring during the p.m. peak hour. As identified in Section 4.17 of this SEIR, trip generation for the Modified Project is estimated to be 4,370 trips per day with 429 occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 386 occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Table 4.9.A summaries the trip generation estimates contained in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project and in Section 4.17 of this SEIR for the Modified Project.

As shown in Table 4.9.A, the Modified Project would result in a substantially reduced trip

Page 896 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 27
generation in comparison to the Approved Project. On a daily basis the Modified Project would generate approximately 61% fewer trips per day, approximately 53% fewer trips in the a.m. peak commute hour, approximately 60% fewer trips in the p.m. peak commute hour Approved Project.

Traffic conditions at the time the 2001 EIR was approved were similarly congested as they are currently. Although improvements to SR-91 and Green River Road have been constructed and completed, regional population growth has outpaced these improvements and traffic congestion persists. Nonetheless, this congestion is an existing condition not created by the Modified Project and traffic congestions is no longer used as the definition of a traffic impact. For these reasons and based on the substantially reduced quantity of trips estimated for the Modified Project in comparison to the Approved Project, it reasonable to conclude the Modified Project’s impacts associated with physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan are consistent with the impacts identified in the Prior EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project as compared to the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p.

4.9.-19 – 4.9-21.)

5. Wildfires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Finding: See Section 4.20 of the SEIR for a detailed analysis of the Wildfire as required under CEQA. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-21.)
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Groundwater
Threshold: 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 ?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-23.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project is located within the Coastal Plain of Orange County westerly adjacent to the Temescal Groundwater Basin. As analyzed in the Drainage Report and WQMP, development of the GRRSP Planning would introduce approximately 36.65 acres of impervious surfaces to the site. Buildout of the GRRSP Planning would require 107.02 acres of irrigated surfaces and landscaping of the proposed BPI development would achieve the minimum 15.65 acers of irrigated landscape. Future development within the GRSSP Planning Area would be required to implement a project-specific WQMP as previously stated to achieve the required impervious surface. The

Page 897 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 28
proposed BPI development would include the project design features, PDF HYD-1, of which would consist of 10 Biotreatment Units (Modular Wetland System) and two underground detention chambers to provide water quality treatment for Drainage Management Areas (DMA) 2 through DMA 11. DMA 1 was identified as a Self- Treating Area due to the lack of impervious surfaces and requires no BMP. In total, the proposed BPI development would incorporate approximately

16.1 acres of landscape acreage, thereby above the required acreage according the WQMP.

Furthermore, the Project site is not located within an area known for hydrogeologic groundwater.

As a result, the Modified Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; and the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. No mitigation is required.

The proposed Modified Project’s impacts are consistent with the impacts identified in the 2001 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-23 – 4.10-24.)

2. Flooding
Threshold: 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?
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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-25.)
Explanation:

As discussed previously, the Modified Project site is classified as Flood Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. In addition, the Modified Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a body of water such as a natural stream or river that would increase the potential for flooding. Also, as discussed previously, the Modified Project would introduce approximately 36.65 acres of impervious surfaces to the GRRSP Planning Area, which would increase stormwater runoff from the Project site. However, the Modified Project, consistent with the 2001 EIR, would implement mitigation to reduce flooding hazards on- or offsite impacts to a less than significant level. As detailed below, MM 4.11.2.A requires that all proposed storm drain facilities and equipment shall be designed, installed and maintained in a manner to convey peak flows estimated for the Modified Project. In addition, the MM 4.11.2A also requires future development of the GRRSP Planning Area drainage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of

Page 898 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 29
grading permits. As it relates to the proposed BPI development, as previously stated, will incorporate PDF HYD-1 for the proposed on-site storm drain system consisting of catch basin inlets and storm drain pipes proposed to convey the runoff across the site to the designated discharge points. In addition, 10 Biotreatment Units (Modular Wetland System) and two underground detention chambers will be installed to provide water quality treatment for the proposed Drainage Management Areas (DMA). PDF HYD-1 shall be constructed to accommodate storm flows from the site designed, installed and maintained in a manner to reduce on-site runoff to a level that can be accommodated by the existing culverts beneath Green River Road.

Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the post construction stormwater requirements would be confirmed during Project plan check prior to Project approval. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.11.2A and project design PDF HYD-1, the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact on flood flows and flooding hazards on- or offsite.

3. Runoff
Threshold: 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, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-26.)
Explanation:

The Modified Project site would include development of approximately 36.65 acres of impermeable surfaces, which would be an increase from the existing undeveloped vacant impervious surface area. Project site existing drainages flow from the south to a low point within the northern portion of the site, ultimately conveyed into the existing drainage pipelines/culverts crossing Green River Road and to SR 91.

Page 899 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 30
would accommodate existing stormwater infrastructure capacity by holding the entire design capture volume in the chamber and allow high flows to discharge from the site at a reduced flowrate. The existing southerly drainage pattern is not maintained; however, times of concentration are preserved through the use of dual underground infiltration systems. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-26 – 4.10-27.)

4. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-27.)
Explanation:

As discussed previously, the Modified Project site is classified as Flood Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. The GRRSP Planning Area is located approximately 27 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the Modified Project is not located within a tsunami zone. Similarly, a seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. The nearest body of water is the Prado Reservoir, approximately 1.1 miles to the north.

According to the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not within a dam inundation zone, nor in the vicinity of any impounded bodies of water; therefore, the Project is not at risk of a seiche.

5. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-27.)
Explanation:

As previously discussed, the Modified Project and BPI development would comply with the Construction General Permit by developing and implementing a site-specific SWPPP and construction stormwater BMPs throughout the construction phase. The Modified Project and BPI development would also comply with the MS4 Permit by incorporating LID BMPs into project design, which would avoid or minimize the amount and type of pollutants leaving the project,

Page 900 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 31
entering receiving waters, and impacting water quality and beneficial uses defined for these waters by the Basin Plan. In addition, LID BMPs would allow stormwater infiltration into the local aquifer and minimize or avoid impacts to groundwater quality, and to beneficial uses of the Coastal Plain of Orange County Basin.

The Modified would not include a groundwater well, and the Project would not demand water at a rate exceeding what the City of Corona could supply (see Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, for discussion of Project water demands relative to water supplies). The Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan; no impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-2 – 4.10-28.)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.11-7.)
Explanation:

Since approval of the 2001 EIR, the horse boarding operation has ceased existence and the only active land use within the Modified Project boundary are the two homes located in the east and central portions of the Planning Area. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would necessitate the removal of these facilities homes and other faculties. However, the on-site land uses do not represent an identified community. In addition, the GRRSP Planning Area is located at the western edge of the City and is not surrounded by a community. Development of the Modified Project would not physically divide an established community resulting in a less than significant impact requiring no mitigation. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.11-7 – 4.11-8.)

2. Conflict With Plans
Threshold: 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?

Page 901 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 32
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4..11-8.)
Explanation:

As discussed previously, land use regulation of the Modified Project site are governed by the existing GRRSP. The main change to the existing GRRSP proposed as part of the GRRSPA involves replacing the current Mixed-Use (MU) land use in PAs 1, 2, and 3 with a more focused or specific Business Park Industrial (BPI) land use type and the permanent designation of approximately 80.77 acres in the southern half of the GRRSP Planning area for dedication to the Riverside Conservation Agency for the purposes of providing consistency with the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WR-MSHCP). In contrast to the wide range of land uses allowed in the MU designation including retail, service and support commercial, light industrial, hotel/motel, or office uses the proposed BPI land use would lock down the land use types allowed by focusing on accommodating single- and multitenant light industrial, warehouse, and incubator uses with supporting offices. The balance of the GRRSP planned land uses would remain essentially the same as originally approved with GC allowed in the approximately 5-acre area PA north of Green River Road and south of the railroad tracks, ER south of and above the proposed BPI Development but on a reduced amount of property, and Open Space further south.

The Modified Project also results in 103.73 acres of newly designated Open Space land use. Since the preparation of the Draft SEIR, the Modified Project was revised from the original proposal presented in GPA2020-0002 and SPA2020-0006. GPA2020-0002 and SPA2020-0006 originally included 20.39 acres of Estate Residential and 83.34 acres of Open Space. The Applicant incorporated this Project component in order to include additional residential density. During the public review and hearing on the Project, the Planning and Housing Commission recommended that the Estate Residential land use be removed from the Project and replaced with the Open Space land use pursuant to SB 330 due to the Project’s location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The change to the Project resulted in the Open Space land use increasing from

83.34 acres to 103.73 acres, and removing all the Estate Residential land use. The effects of these Project revisions are negligible and decrease potential environmental impacts Therefore, the revision does not require new or additional analysis in the SEIR because the change in land use designation does not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation that purports to avoid or mitigation adverse environmental impacts.

Consistency discussions with applicable Connect SoCal goals are provided in Table 4.11-2. As discussed in Table 4.11-2, the proposed Project is consistent with applicable Connect SoCal goals.

Consistency discussions with applicable City General Plan goals are provided in Table 4.11-3.

As presented in the discussions contained in Table 4.11-2, the Modified Project would be consistent with applicable Connect SoCal goals regarding sustainable communities, efficient transportation systems, and GHG reduction measures. As presented in the discussions contained in and 4.11-3, the Modified Project would conform with applicable City General Plan Goals

Page 902 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 33
regarding: Type, Distribution and Form of Land Uses; Growth and Development; Community Quality and Sense of Place; General Residential; Existing Residential Neighborhoods; New Residential Neighborhoods; Commercial and Office Districts; Industrial Districts; Mixed Use Districts; Housing Production; Neighborhood Quality; Fair Housing; Community Design Context; City Entries and Monumentation; Community Signage and Wayfinding; Visual Resources; Paleontological Resources; Economic Base; Labor Force; Fiscal Viability; Financing Opportunities; Economic Development Program; Local Thoroughfares and Routes; Intercity and Regional Transportation; Transportation Management; Public Transportation; Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities; Goods Movement; Parking; Water System; Sewer/Reclaimed Water; Storm Drainage; Solid Waste Management; Energy; Telecommunications; Seismic and Geologic Hazards; Flooding and Inundation; Hazardous Materials; Police Services; Fire Hazards; Transportation Noise; Reduction in Pollution Exposure; Safe and Sanitary Housing; Water Resources; Biological Resources; and Air Resources. The Modified Project’s consistency with applicable goals in SCAG’s Connect SoCal and conformance with applicable goals in the City General Plan results in a less than significant impact regarding a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.11-8 – 4.11-22.)
J. MINERALS

1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources / Locally-Important Mineral Resource Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? 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 plan ?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.12-4.)
Explanation:

The City’s General Plan Figure ER-8 maps locations of industrial minerals within the City’s SOI, showing the southern portion of the GRRSP Planning Area partially covered by an MRZ- 3a area, indicative of areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. General Plan Figure ER-9 maps the location of aggregate resources within the City’s SOI, showing none of the GRRSP Planning Area is mapped as an aggregate zone. General Plan Figure ER-10 maps the location of areas of regional mineral significance within the City’s SOI, showing none of the GRRSP Planning Area is mapped as an area of regional mineral significance.

The southern portion of the GRRSP Planning Area that is mapped as MRZ-3b is part proposed PA 6, planned for Open Space General and dedication to the RCA for inclusion in the habitat reserve

Page 903 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 34
assembly in accordance with the WR-MSHCP. For these reasons, the Modified Project would not result in the loss of or availability of a locally or regionally significant mineral resource resulting in a less than significant impact requiring no mitigation. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.12-4.) K. NOISE

1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project generate 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.13-8.)
Explanation:

Construction Noise
Noise generated by during construction of each phase of the Modified Project will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages of construction: demolition; site preparation; grading; building construction; paving; and architectural coating. As shown in Table 4.13-2, Municipal Code Section

17.84.040[D][2] states that construction noise is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and federal holidays to prevent high levels of construction noise from impacting noise-sensitive land uses.

The Noise Study evaluated potential construction noise impacts by adding construction noise estimated for each stage of construction to existing noise levels measured at receiver locations in the northern and eastern edges of the GRRSP boundary. Using typical construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, construction noise levels were calculated and associated impacts were identified assuming multiple pieces of equipment were in operations simultaneously at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. To assess the upper end of potential noise levels and therefore avoid under estimating potential impacts, the construction noise analysis used the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level was operating at the closest point from the edge of construction to each receiver location. Based on these conservative assumptions, the construction noise levels were determined to range from

46.6 to 69.9 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels were determined to range from 56.7 to

69.9 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver location R1 located north of proposed PA 4, north of SR-91 and Prado Road, near existing single-family residences on Pennyroyal Drive. The Noise Study determined a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is a reasonable

Page 904 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 35
threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. Based on the highest construction noise level of 69.9 dBA Leq calculated at receiver location R1, daytime construction noise would satisfy the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during construction of all phases of the GRRSP (Modified Project). Therefore, construction noise impacts are considered less than significant at all receiver locations and no mitigation is required.

Although a noise variance from the City of Corona is required, nighttime concrete pouring activities may occur as a part of construction activities to reduce concrete mixer truck delivery times during off peak traffic periods and to take advantage of naturally occurring lower nighttime air temperatures. These activities are typically limited to the actual building area. Since the nighttime concrete pours may take place outside the permitted hours of construction, the Project Applicant or Contractor would be required to obtain prior authorization for nighttime work from the City and receipt of a Noise Variance application pursuant to Municipal Code Section

17.84.040(H). The noise variance would need to be approved prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit associated with the nighttime work.

The Noise Study estimated noise levels during concrete pour activities (paving) and determined noise levels would range from 43.4 to 62.5 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receiver locations.

Based on a nighttime noise level significance threshold of 70 dBA Leq, the Noise Study concluded noise levels during nighttime concrete pour activities would satisfy the nighttime construction noise level significance threshold. Therefore, the unmitigated nighttime concrete pour noise level impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

For these reasons, the Modified Project would not result in a construction noise impact during construction of all phases of the GRRSP’s development and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater construction noise impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project.

Operational Traffic Noise
Off-site transportation noise level impacts were determined based estimating roadway noise levels using traffic volumes from the GRRSPA Traffic Study for each phase of the proposed GRRSPA and for existing, opening year, and future horizon year scenarios. Noise contours were developed measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels.

A summary of the noise levels for each scenario with buildout of the GRRSP follows.

Existing Plus Project Buildout Traffic Noise Level Impacts: An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the entire GRRSP was provided to fully analyze project level impacts attributable to the Modified Project. Although there are no development plans included as part of the Modified Project for the GC (PA 4) and ER (PA 5), the buildout condition was provided for informational purposes and is not expected to occur.

Existing with Project Buildout traffic noise levels were estimated to range from 66.2 to 73.2 dBA CNEL. The noise level increase attributable to the Modified Project was determined to range from

0.2 to 0.8 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table

Page 905 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 36

4.13-2, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to project- related traffic. For these reasons, the Modified Project would not result in an operational traffic noise impact in the existing condition with all phases of the GRRSP’s development and no mitigation is required.

Opening Year Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Traffic Noise Level Impacts: Opening Year Cumulative with Project Buildout traffic noise levels were estimated to range from 66.4 to 72.0 dBA CNEL. The noise level increase attributable to the Modified Project was determined to range from 0.2 to 1.7 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4.13-2, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to project- related traffic. For these reasons, the Modified Project would not result in an operational traffic noise impact in the opening year cumulative scenario with all phases of the GRRSP’s development and no mitigation is required.

Future Horizon Year Plus Project Buildout Traffic Noise Level Impacts: Future Horizon Year with Project Buildout traffic noise levels were estimated to range from 66.4 to 72.4 dBA CNEL. The noise level increase attributable to the Modified Project was determined to range from 0.2 to 1.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4.13-2, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to project- related traffic. For these reasons, the Modified Project would not result in an operational traffic noise impact in the future horizon year scenario with all phases of the GRRSP’s development and no mitigation is required.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater operational traffic noise impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project.

On-Site Operational Noise
The Noise Study evaluated potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations resulting from the operation of the proposed GRRSPA. Because there are no development details for the proposed GC uses in PA 4, the underlying uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the proposed GRRSPA for the GC land use designation by were used to estimate operational noise levels from this area of the GRRSP.

To estimate operational commercial noise, several commercial noise sources were assumed throughout the GC area in PA 4 to ensure potential noise from the potential GC are addressed. At the time the Noise Study was prepared, future tenants of the Modified Project including the BPI Development were unknown. Therefore, the operational noise analysis defined noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of daytime and nighttime activities associated with the range of land uses that could occur in each of the GRRSP PAs. It was assumed the GC land uses would operate during normal business hours and the BPI Development would operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The BPI industrial and warehouse operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and

Page 906 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 37
unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The GC and BPI on-site project-related noise sources could include a wide range of noise sources. Operational noise levels from these types of activities were used to estimate expected noise levels resulting from development and operation of the Modified Project. The reference noise level measurements represent typical noises from a range of operational activities including: loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, gas station activity, parking lot vehicle movements, drive-thru activity, trash enclosure activity, car wash tunnels and car wash vacuums. The projected noise levels assume a worst-case noise condition in which these noise activities were in operation continuously, although these sources of noise will likely vary throughout the day.

Noise level measurements were collected from existing noise activity locations to obtain reference noise levels. The resulting referenced noise levels used in the analysis of operational noise impacts are as follows:
• Loading Dock Activity: Reference noise level measurements were taken in the center of loading docks, and represent multiple concurrent noise sources resulting in a combined noise level of 65.7 dBA Leq at a uniform distance of 50 feet. • Truck Movements: Truck movements reference noise level measurement were taken over a 15-minute period and represent multiple noise sources producing a reference noise level of 58.0 dBA Leq at 50 feet.
• Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units: The noise level measurements collected represent a single mechanical roof-top air conditioning unit, a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise level is 57.2 dBA Leq. • Gas Station Activity: A noise level measurement was collected at a gas station that included six cars fueling at once, car doors closing, engines starting, fuel pump running, TV sounds, and background car pass-by events within a 3-minute period.

At 50 feet from the gas station, a reference noise level of 48.2 dBA Leq was measured.
• Parking Lot Vehicle Movements: A 29-hour reference noise level measurement was collected in the center of warehouse distribution center staff parking lot of a.

At 50 feet from the center, the parking lot produced a reference noise level of 56.1 dBA Leq
• Drive-Thru Activity. A noise level measurement was collected at drive-thru with speakerphones and vehicle activity. The noise sources included in the reference noise level measurement consisted of voices of the employees over the speakerphone, customers’ voices ordering food, car engines idling, car radios playing music, and cars queuing in the drive-thru lane. At 50 feet from the speakerphone, a reference noise level of 51.5 dBA Leq was measured.

Page 907 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 38
• Trash Enclosure Activity: The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50- foot reference distance is 57.3 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The reference trash enclosure activity included two metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floors, dumpster movement on metal wheels, trash dropping into the metal dumpster, and background parking lot vehicle movements. • Car Wash Tunnel: A reference noise level measurement was collected at a car wash to define typical noise from air blowers used in a car wash tunnel. A reference noise level of 74.3 dBA Leq was measured at a uniform distance of 50 feet. The reference noise level measurement includes an exposed five-unit air blower system with background pressure washer noise. The air dryers within were assumed to be operating continuously during the peak operating conditions. The car wash tunnel would be limited to daytime hours only.
• Car Wash Vacuum: A reference noise level measurement was collected at an express car wash, representing up to four vacuums operating simultaneously. At a uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the vacuum reference noise level was 54.6 dBA Leq. The car wash vacuum would be limited to the daytime hours only.

Using the reference noise levels described above, operations of the GC and BPI Development land uses would include noise from loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, gas station activity, drive-thru activity, trash enclosure activity, car wash tunnels and car wash vacuums. Based on the reference noise levels and their location within the GRRSP Planning Area, project-related noise level increases would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. were estimated to range from 32.3 to 53.6 dBA Leq. Operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. were estimated to range from 30.6 to 49.6 dBA Leq.

Evaluation of project-only operational noise levels for compliance with the City’s exterior noise level thresholds was conducted. As concluded in the Noise Study, the operational noise levels associated with full development of the GRRSPA described above would meet the City’s 55 dBA Leq daytime and 50 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all the nearest receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Project operational noise level increases at the nearest receiver locations were compared to ambient conditions to evaluate the change in noise attributable to the Modified Project. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels defines the Project noise level increase to the ambient noise environment. The Modified Project would generate operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 4.2 dBA at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Table 4.13-2. Therefore, the incremental increase in noise to the ambient environment attributable to the proposed Modified Project is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Page 908 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 39
As summarized previously, the 2001 EIR determined construction noise impacts from the Approved Project would remain significant and unavoidable to the residences within 200 feet of eastern/southern property line during grading even with implementation of mitigation. As detailed above, construction noise impacts attributable to the Modified Project were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater construction noise impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.13-8 –

4.13-14.)

2. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.13-14.)
Explanation:

Groundborne vibration and noise generated during the operational phase of a typical development project are barely perceptible beyond the boundary of a given project and rarely produce a nuisance to neighboring land uses. For this reason, the Noise Study analyzed potential construction vibration impacts associated with construction of the Modified Project.

Construction can result in varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the construction equipment and vehicles used, construction methods employed, distance to the affected location, and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from the Modified Project’s construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Estimated construction equipment vibration estimated during construction of the Modified Project were calculated for the nearest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 246 feet to 986 feet from typical construction activities at the Modified Project site boundary, construction vibration levels were estimated to range from 0.0000 to 0.003 in/sec RMS at the nearest receiver locations. These vibration levels would not exceed the City’s maximum acceptable vibration standard of 0.05 in/sec (RMS).

Further, impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating proximate to the Project site perimeter and construction would be restricted to daytime hours consistent with City requirements thereby eliminating potential vibration impact during nighttime hours. Vibration impacts associated with construction of the Modified Project are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater construction groundborne vibration impact would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.13-14 – 4.3-15.)

3. Airport Noise

Page 909 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 40
Threshold: 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? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.13-15.)
Explanation:

The nearest airport to the GRRSP Planning Area is Corona Municipal Airport, located approximately three miles to the northeast. Since the Project is located more than two miles away from the nearest airport, potential impacts associated with exposure of people residing or working within the Modified Project area to excessive aircraft noise levels is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.13-15.) L. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth
Threshold: 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)?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.14-7.)
Explanation:

Since the preparation of the Draft SEIR, the Modified Project was revised. As originally proposed, GPA2020-0002 and SPA2020-0006 included 20.39 acres of Estate Residential and 83.34 acres of Open Space. The Applicant incorporated the Estate Residential land use acreage in order to include additional residential density. However, during the public review and hearing on the Project, the Planning and Housing Commission recommended that the Estate Residential land use designation be removed from the Project and replaced with the Open Space land use designation pursuant to SB 330 due to the Project’s location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

The change to the Project resulted in the Open Space land use acreage increasing from 83.34 acres to 103.73 acres, and deleting all the originally proposed Estate Residential land use. The effects of these Project revisions are negligible, and do not require new or additional analysis in the SEIR because the Open Space land use is less impactful in comparison to the Estate Residential land use and housing is incompatible with the prior Estate Residential site.

Page 910 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 41
In addition, the Modified Project would potentially add to the population indirectly with development of the 746,167 sf Business Park Industrial (BPI) Development and 19,600 sf of general commercial (GC) uses. The 746,167 sf BPI Development would produce approximately 995 employees (746,167 sf x one employee per 750 of building area). The 19,600 sf of GC use would produce approximately 130 employees (19,600 sf x one employee per 750 of building area).

Combined, the BPI and GC uses would generate 1,125 total employees. Compared to the City’s 2024 estimated population from DOF of 156,615, any additional residents that may be a portion those new employees is negligible. This increase would not be considered substantial population growth and would not induce substantial unplanned population, resulting in less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.14-7 – 4.4-8.)

2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.14-8.)
Explanation:

The Modified Project does not contain any existing housing that constitutes a community or neighborhood. Two residences are located in the lower elevations of PAs 1, 2, and 3 and remnants of the former horse boarding facilities are scattered around PAs 1, 2, and 3. These and all structures would be demolished and removed as part of Project construction. In addition, the St. James Christian Orthodox Monastery has been abandoned and would be demolished and removed. For these reasons, the Modified Project would not significantly displace existing people or housing and would not impact housing or housing options in the City or vicinity. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.14-8.) M. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection
Threshold: 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 fire protection?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the

Page 911 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 42
Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.15-12.)
Explanation:

The City’s General Plan EIR determined future facilities and infrastructure could be required to accommodate General Plan build-out. However, as discussed previously under Section 4.14, Population and Housing, Project buildout would generate a similar number of residents and would likely attract existing residents from the City. Moreover, future single-family homes of the Modified Project would be constructed within the smaller PA 5 footprint of 20.39 acres which is

77.81 acres smaller than the Approved Project’s PA 6 of 98.2 acres. Therefore, the Modified Project’s homes would be constructed in a more accessible configuration when compared to the Approved Project.

Additionally, implementation of the Modified Project including the BPI development would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code (CFC), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.12.020, as part of the permitting process all project plans within the Modified Project would be reviewed by the City’s Building Division to ensure that the plans of the BPI development and future projects meet the fire protection requirements. Furthermore, the Project applicant including future project applicants would be required to pay standard City development impact fees (DIF) (Municipal Code Section 16.23.040), which include a fee for fire service impacts as determined in the 2001 EIR.

Impact fees mitigate the overburdening of existing facilities, equipment, and levels of service.

Provision of a new or physically altered fire station would not be required that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services from the Modified Project would be less than significant.

2. Police Protection
Threshold: 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 police protection?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.15-13.)
Explanation:

Page 912 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 43
The City of Corona Police Department is located at 730 Public Safety Way, which is 6.1 miles east from the GRRSP Planning Area. The Police Department staff consists of 250 sworn officers and support personnel. Based on the previously stated population City of 156,615 (2024, DOF) for the City, the City has approximately 1.59 officers per 1,000 residents. As previously stated, the additional 1,104 residents/employees (113 ER residents + 991 BPI/GC residents), not previously considered to be a substantial population growth nor induce substantial unplanned population, the Modified Project would require 0.7 percent of an additional officer. Therefore, the Modified Project’s incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels.

As previously stated, the Project applicant including future project applicants would be required to pay standard City DIF, which include a fee for police service impacts as determined in the 2001 EIR. Impact fees mitigate the overburdening of existing facilities, equipment, and levels of service.

Provision of a new or physically altered police station would not be required that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts related to police protection services from the Modified Project would be less than significant.

3. Schools
Threshold: 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 schools?
Finding: The Modified Project result in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.15-14.)
Explanation:

Development of the Modified Project would allow for up to 32 additional homes, resulting in an increase of 113 ER residents in the City of Corona served by CNUSD. The CNUSD estimates the number of students that will be generated by new residential development by using district-specific rates in order to plan for future facilities expansions or constructions. Specific to the Modified Project, CNUSD’s student generation rates for single-family development are 0.3650 for elementary school (ES), 0.1136 for middle school (MS), and 0.2337 for high school (HS).

Buildout of the Modified Project would generate 11.68 ES students,3.64 MS students, and 7.5 HS students in the City of Corona. The CNUSD would have adequate capacity for students generated by the Modified Project.

Page 913 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 44
As previously stated, the Project applicant for the ER component would be required to pay standard City DIF, which include a fee for CNUSD impacts as determined in the 2001 EIR. Impact fees mitigate the overburdening of existing facilities, equipment, and levels of service. Therefore, impacts related to school services from the Modified Project would be less than significant.

4. Parks
Threshold: 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 parks?
Finding: The Modified Project result in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.15-14.)
Explanation:

See Section 4.16 Recreation, Subsection 4.16.7 Impact REC-1 and REC-2, for a thorough discussion of the Modified Project’s impacts associated with parks. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.15-14.)

5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: 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 other public facilities?
Finding: The Modified Project result in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.15-15.)
Explanation:

As previously summarized, the 2001 determined the Approved Project’s incremental increase in demands for government services such as recreation facilities, libraries and social services was anticipated to be less than significant.

Any additional employees due to the implementation of the Modified Project, impacts can be

Page 914 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 45
considered similar to those determined in the 2001 EIR. Because the GRRSP Planning Area is already served by other services and the Modified Project would result in a limited increase in population, the Modified Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

As such, impacts would be less than significant.

1. Noise Standards
Threshold: 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? 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)?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.16-6.)
Explanation:

The Modified Project does not include development of a new or renovated off-site park or recreational facility that would result in an impact to the environment. Up to 32 ER residences would potentially be developed in PA 5, directly adding to the City’s population. In addition, the Modified Project would potentially add to demand on parks and recreational facilities from employees working at the proposed 746,167 sf BPI Development and planned 19,600 sf of GC uses. As described previously in Section 4.14 Population and Housing, the 32 ER homes would accommodate approximately 113 residents, the 746,167 sf BPI Development would produce approximately 995 employees, and the 19,600 sf of GC use would produce approximately 130 employees. Even if 25% of the employees and their households were to move to the City, the resulting growth in population would be approximately 1,104 people. Compared to the City’s 2024 estimated population from DOF of 156,615, the additional 1,104 residents would represent a less than one-tenth of one percent increase in population. This increase would not be considered substantial population growth and would not result in substantial increased demand on parks and recreational facilities. Construction of a new or renovated park or recreational facilities would not be required and impacts to the environment would not occur, resulting in a less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.16-6 – 4.16-7.)

Page 915 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 46
O. TRANSPORTATION

1. Plans, Polices and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.17-9.)
Explanation:

The General Plan Circulation Element describes the circulation system within the City and contains policies mostly pertaining to the broader circulation system the Modified Project would not impact. Each increment of development associated with the Modified Project including the BPI Development would be required to comply with obligatory requirements of the Municipal Code that implement policies of the General Plan pertaining to all forms for circulation. Each phase of the Modified Project would be required to provide sidewalks on all driveways, adequate parking and parking stalls, and street and driveway sections that meet City design criteria and support all form of transportation.

Consistent with existing requirements of the Municipal Code and policies of the General Plan, the BPI Development component will construct several roadway improvements along the project frontages and nearby offsite locations. These improvements are summarized as follows. • Prior to issuance of first occupancy permits in PAs 1, 2, and 3, the Developer of Pas 1, 2, and 3 shall install: a traffic signal at Street A/Green River Road; construct an eastbound right turn lane on Green River Road at the intersection approach with a minimum of 100-feet of storage; a westbound left turn lane on Green River Road at the intersection approach with 175-feet of storage; and a northbound left turn lane on Green River Road at the intersection approach with 150-feet of storage. For PA 4, the Developer of PA 4 will modify the signal to accommodate a northern leg with an eastbound left turn approach lane with a minimum of 150-feet of storage. • Prior to issuance of first occupancy permits in PAs 1, 2, and 3, the Developer of Pas 1, 2, and 3 Construct Green River Road to its ultimate General Plan roadway cross- section as a Major Arterial along the Project frontage (right-of-way varies from 118- feet to as wide as 200-feet, ultimate width to be determined at the time of Precise Plan Implementation for the adjacent Planning Areas). The ultimate Green River Road improvement width is constrained near Fresno Road pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan to a width of 118-feet. Roadway, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements on the south side of Green River Road to be installed by the developer of PAs 1, 2, and 3 and on the north side of Green River Road to be

Page 916 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 47
installed by the developer of PA 4 shall be made as required by the final Conditions of Approval for the Project and applicable Specific Plan and City of Corona standards.
• Prior to issuance of first occupancy permits in PAs 1, 2, and 3, the Developer of Pas 1, 2, and 3 shall construct Street A as a private collector (89-foot right-of-way and 65- foot curb-to-curb width) consistent with the applicable Specific Plan and City of Corona standards or as required by the final Conditions of Approval for the Project. However, Street A will narrow to have a minimum 64-foot right-of-way with a 44-foot curb-to-curb width (will not include a raised median) and a 10-foot parkway. The 10- foot parkway will include a 5-foot-wide (minimum) sidewalk on either side of the street.

Impacts associated with conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.17-9 – 4.17-10.)

2. Design Hazards
Threshold: 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)?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.17-11.)
Explanation:

Development of Modified Project would comply with existing development review procedures in accordance with the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and the GRRSP that would reduce hazards (e.g., intersection design, roadway design, driveway design, etc.). The design of the Modified Project has been reviewed by the project traffic engineer and City’s engineering and fire departments for inconsistencies with design standards and hazardous conditions, and none have been identified. The Modified Project would not create hazardous conditions or incompatible land uses resulting in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.17-11.)

3. Inadequate Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: See Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Subsection 4.9.7 Impact

Page 917 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 48
HAZ-6, for a thorough discussion of the Modified Project’s impacts associated with interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.17-11.)
P. UTILITIES / SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Threshold: 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 which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.19-26.)
Explanation:

Water
As previously stated, water services including domestic water, irrigation, and fire suppression to the GRRSP Planning Area will be provided by the City of Corona CUD. A connection will be made to the existing underground water line located at the Project entrance on Green River Road.

The tie-in would be designed and coordinated through CUD during the building permitting process to ensure the water distribution system meets peak flow rate and fire flow requirements. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed development and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code and the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.70.070, Landscaping, and Chapter 13.14, Water and Sewer Regulations and would be reviewed for compliance by the City during Project plan check. The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed structures is included as part of the Modified Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this DSEIR. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 4.3, Air Quality and 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section 4.13, Noise. In addition, Project implementation would not require off-site improvements. Therefore, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded offsite water facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Wastewater Treatment
As stated in the Preliminary Wastewater Report, the City’s 2005 Sewer Master Plan determined the existing 10-inch gravity sewer lines in Green River Road and Palisades Drive west of the existing SDO LS are identified as being deficient under existing conditions. Furthermore, the existing 10-inch gravity sewer lines in Green River Road and Palisades Drive west of the existing SDO LS are identified as being deficient under existing conditions.

Page 918 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 49
In anticipation of the increased sewer flows associated with future developments throughout the City of Corona, the Preliminary Wastewater Report states the Department of Water and Power has proposed several Capital Improvement Projects to address current and future deficiencies in the existing sewer system. In addition, the City has plans to construct a new lift station at the intersection of Green River Road and Palisades Drive to replace and upgrade the existing SDO LS. The proposed lift station will accommodate flows from existing and future developments, which include the proposed sewer flows from the development of the Modified Project. The new lift station is included in the City’s Fiscal Year 2021 through Fiscal year 2025 Capital Improvement Program and also includes 2,600 linear feet of 12-inch gravity sewer and 1,500 lineal feet of 12-inch force main. Such improvements would be required to be analyzed under current CEQA guidelines.

The Project would install 8-inch sewer lines within the BPI portion of the site that would connect to the existing sewer sub within an existing public utility easement. The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the Modified Project, is included as part of the Modified Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Draft SEIR. For example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section 4.3, Air Quality and 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section 4.13, Noise. As the Modified Project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Storm Water Drainage
As discussed subsequently in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality the Modified Project site would include development of approximately 36.65 acres of impermeable surfaces, which would be an increase from the existing undeveloped vacant impervious surface area. Project site existing drainages flow from the south to a low point within the northern portion of the site, ultimately conveyed into the existing drainage pipelines/culverts crossing Green River Road and to SR 91.

Use of the subsurface infiltration chamber would regulate the rate and velocity of stormwater flows and would control the amount of discharge into the off-site drainage system. As discussed above, the Modified Project would not result in significant impacts related to water quality. In addition, the drainage facilities proposed for the BPI development have been sized to adequately accommodate the stormwater flows from the proposed development and are consistent with the County drainage plans and MS4 permit requirements. The proposed oversized infiltration system would accommodate existing stormwater infrastructure capacity by holding the entire design capture volume in the chamber and allow high flows to discharge from the site at a reduced flowrate. The existing southerly drainage pattern is not maintained; however, times of concentration are preserved through the use of dual underground infiltration systems. With implementation of Modified Project, estimated stormwater flows will be adequately

Page 919 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 50
accommodated. Therefore, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded off-site storm water facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Electric Power
SCE would provide electrical service to the Modified Project. An on-site connection to the existing electrical supply and distribution network within the area surrounding the Project would be made during construction and operation. The existing electrical supply is underground and located at the south side of the Project entrance at Green River Road and tie-in would be identified prior to construction with proper mark out. Compliance with the existing building code and SCE construction and design regulations would ensure the Modified Project’s connection to the existing electrical infrastructure is conducted safely and provides adequate service. Therefore, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded off-site electrical facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required Natural Gas
SoCalGas would provide natural gas services to the Project. Similar to the previous services mentioned, on-site connection to the existing nature gas infrastructure would be made during construction for operation. The existing gas line runs under Green River Road east to west and tiein would be made at the Project entrance at Street A. Compliance with the existing building code and SoCalGas construction and design regulations would ensure the Modified Project’s connection to the existing natural gas infrastructure is conducted safely and provides adequate service.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded off-site natural gas facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Telecommunications
Telecommunications facilities within the Project area are not owned by the City but are owned and operated by multiple service providers including AT&T and Time Warner Cable. As with buildout of the Modified Project including the proposed BPI development, Project implementation would not result in a significant impact to telecommunications facilities, as each individual future developer would be required to contract with the respective telecommunications company and coordinate with the City to connect to such facilities, as required by applicable regulations and requirements. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the need for construction of other new telecommunication facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

2. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the

Page 920 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 51
project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.19-29.)
Explanation:

According to the City of Corona 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), CUD receives water supplies from treated surface water, untreated surface water, and desalinated brackish groundwater. Further, through a combination of these resources, the UWMP indicates that the City has the ability to meet current and projected water demands through 2045 during normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year periods (UWMP 2020).

The UWMP applied SCAG future population projections to estimate overall water demand from 2020 to 2045 throughout the City for all land use types (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.).

However, according to the WSA prepared for the Modified Project, the water demand for the Modified Project was not explicitly accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. The UWMP only considered future demands associated with population growth and minor infill projects. For this reason, water demand for the Modified Project was calculated independently within the WSA.

According to the UWMP, projected normal 2025 water use in the City of Corona for Commercial/ Institutional uses was projected in the amount of 3,078 AF, Residential Single Family was 18,839 AF, and total water use was 37,555 AF (UWMP 2020). Furthermore, the projected normal 2045 total water use was 38,351, while the single dry year demand in 2025 was 39,358 and 40,192 in 2045. According to the UWMP, the total supply for water during normal and dry years is 46,222 AF.

As stated in the WSA, the Modified Project’s water demand during normal years would be 104 AF per year. Furthermore, the WSA determined Based on the finding that there is sufficient supply under normal year, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions through 2045 due to the availability of water resources. Furthermore, the Modified Project would also limit water use by inclusion of low-flow plumbing and irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements and would comply with City permits and fees as necessary. As a result, the Modified Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project, and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant.

3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by wastewater treatment

Page 921 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 52
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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.19-31.)
Explanation:

No septic systems are proposed as part of the Modified Project. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold UTL-1, the Modified Project would be provided sanitary sewer service by the CUD.

Impacts associated with the Modified Project’s proposed sewer improvements are inherent to the Modified Project’s construction phase, and impacts have been evaluated throughout this SEIR under the appropriate subject headings (e.g., air quality, biological resources, etc.). Where significant direct or cumulative impacts are identified, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the Project’s impacts to the maximum feasible extent. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the Project’s proposed sewer improvements that have not already been addressed in pertinent sections of this SEIR. Additionally, the analysis of Impact UTL-1, demonstrates that the CUD would not need to expand any wastewater treatment facilities as a result of the proposed Project. As such, with the mitigation measures specified in this SEIR, Project impacts due to the proposed construction of sewer facilities would be less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.19-31.)
Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project.

4. Solid Waste
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.19-31.)
Explanation:

Solid waste generated by the Modified Project would be disposed of at either the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, or Badlands Landfill. As previously indicated, the El Sobrante Landfill is currently permitted to receive 16,054 tpd, while the average daily tonnage in December 2022 was 9,291.25 tpd. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is permitted to receive 5,000 tpd, while data from December 2022 shows that the Lamb Canyon Landfill received a daily average of approximately 1,890.14 tpd. The Badlands Landfill is permitted to receive 4,800 tpd, while in January 2023 the Badlands Landfill received an average of 3,166.88 tpd. (RCDWR, 2022a RCDWR, 2022b; RCDWR, 2023)

Page 922 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 53
As stated in the City’s 2020-2040 General Plan, in 2015, the latest year for which data was approved, the target disposal rates for Corona were 8.6 pounds per day (ppd) per resident, and 18.6 ppd per employee; actual disposal rates in 2015—6.7 ppd per resident and 15.5 ppd per employee—were below target rates and thus were consistent with AB 939 (CalRecycle 2019f).

As stated in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the Modified Project would result in approximately 113 residents and approximately 1,125 total employees. The Modified Project’s solid waste generation, buildout and occupancy of the Modified Project is estimated to produce approximately 10.92 tpd of solid waste, or approximately 3,986.3 tons per year (tpy). Compliance with AB 939, which applies to the Modified Project and the City, up to 50% of its solid waste would need to be diverted from area landfills. In conformance with the City’s 2020- 2040 General Plan and AB 939, the Project Applicant is required to work with future contract refuse haulers to implement recycling and waste reduction programs for solid wastes.

Based on the average daily tonnage received at these landfills in June 2022, the Project’s daily generation of solid waste would represent 0.1% of the tpd permitted to receive at the El Sobrante Landfill. Because the Modified Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities and average daily tonnage for the El Sobrante Landfill, it is anticipated that these regional landfill facilities would have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Modified Project. As such, because regional solid waste facilities would have adequate capacity to handle solid waste generated by the Modified Project’s construction and operational phases, impacts would be less than significant.

5. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.19-32.)
Explanation:

Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste. The Modified Project solid waste needs would be served by a contract waste hauler that complies with State standards. Additionally, new development projects approved by the City of Corona pursuant to the 2020-2045 General Plan would contain storage areas for recyclable materials in conformance with California Public Resources Code Sections 42900 et

Page 923 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 54
seq., and City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 8.20, Collection of Refuse and Recyclable Materials. Furthermore, solid waste diversion programs in the City would continue operating and would have adequate capacity to accept all future wastes and recyclables to reduce landfilled waste including buildout of the Modified Project. With compliance to all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.

1. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.20-12.)
Explanation:

A wildfire will generally spread uphill due to preheating of the fuel and up-slope draft unless the prevailing wind is strong enough to overcome these two forces. The flames are closer to the fuel on the uphill side and they receive more radiant heat. This results in more preheating and faster igniting of the fuel. The heated air rises along the slope increasing the draft that further increases the rate of spread. As a result of winds blowing up-slope, more convective heat also reaches the fuel in front of the fire, and it is pre-heated more quickly to the ignition temperature. The opposite is true at night. When the slope becomes shaded, the surface generally loses heat rapidly and becomes cool. The air adjacent to the surface also cools and becomes denser thus heavier and it can begin to flow down-slope.

Historically, wildfires have occasionally burned into the City from the Cleveland National Forest often pushed by moderate west to southwest winds. Because a portion of the Modified Project site is located on the hillside of the Santa Ana Mountains impacted by these winds, and more importantly being located within a Very High FHSZ, the risk for the Modified Project site to exacerbate wildfire spreading is a potentially significant impact.

As identified in the 2001 EIR, future development resulting from the GRRSP would be required to prepare a Fuel Modification Program to be approved by the City prior to grading activities. As included in detail above in PDF FIRE-1, the FPP (Appendix X) addresses issues related to wildfire potential in the vicinity of the development of the BPI development in relation to the type of construction material and design, and landscaping and vegetation that would be allowed within the

Page 924 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 55
BPI Project area (GRRSP PAs 1, 2, and 3). Moreover, the purpose of the FPP is to implement Fuel Modification Zones (PDF FIRE-2) to ensure all proposed structures are safe from future wildland fires to the maximum extent feasible, as shown in Figure 4.20-1.

Overall, the Modified Project, would be constructed in compliance with the CFC and CBC, along with being compliant with CFD requirements as reflected in the Project’s FPP including the Fuel Modification Program. Additionally, with the implementation of standard conditions of approval PDF FIRE-1 and -2, the Project occupants would not be exposed to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire by exacerbating wildfire risks. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required in a similar manner as identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, P. 4.20-12 – 4.20-13.)

2. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: 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 ongoing impacts to the environment?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.20-15.)
Explanation:

As previously discussed in Threshold FIRE-2, the Modified Project site is in a Very High FHSZ and as a standard condition of approval for the Approved Project, future development would be required to prepare a Fuel Modification Program to be approved by the City prior to grading activities. As part of the development of the BPI Project design, improvements outlined in the FPP and Fuel Modification Program (PDF FIRE-1) would be approved by the City to reduce fire risk to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, the BPI development would incorporate the four main FMZs (PDF FIRE-2) as identified in the FMP, previously shown in Figure 4.20-1, which include the augmentation and long-term maintenance of surrounding vegetation to reduce risks from wildfires to life and property to the maximum extent feasible. The FPP also requires Zone Markers, bright orange markers on steel fence posts to clearly mark the boundary between Zone 2 and wildland areas for easier maintenance and inspection. Furthermore, the FPP identifies the Modified Project’s Open space areas within the Project area to be managed the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority upon acquisition.

As a result, with implementation of the FPP and FMP as outlined in PDF FIRE-1 and -2, the proposed BPI development and balance of the Modified Project would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required in a similar manner as identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.20-15.)

3. Runoff Risks

Page 925 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 56
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.20-15.)
Explanation:

Vegetation is crucial in maintaining existing drainage patterns and the stability of soils on slopes and hillsides. Leaves, stems and branches capture and slow drainage, allowing it to more effectively percolate into the soil. Removal of surface vegetation reduces the ability of the soil surface to absorb rainwater and can allow for increased runoff that may include large amounts of debris or mud-flows. This risk is especially high under post-fire conditions as the rate of surface water runoff is increased as water percolation into the soil is reduced. This risk is especially high after wildfires, where fire-altered soil may repel water (become hydrophobic) and further reduce absorption. As shown in Figure 4.20-2, Wildfire History, since 1900 approximately one (1) to eight (8) fires have burned onto the Project site. The majority of the historic fires have burned on the undeveloped hillsides of the Santa Ana Mountains.

The Modified Project would be developed at the base of and on the hillsides of the Santa Ana Mountains. Under existing conditions, if a fire were to occur in the area, vegetation that stabilizes soils on the Project site could be burned and lead to increased erosion. As part of the Modified Project, a FPP would be drafted and approved by the City and CFD as required. Moreover, as included as PDF FIRE-1, the BPI development would implement the FPP requirements including the installation of FMZs (PDF FIRE-2) that incorporate defensible space zones to reduce wildfire impacts and improve erosion control on slopes. In the unlikely event of a fire, the BPI development construction materials and design, landscaping and vegetation area would lower rates of erosion and siltation of the slopes compared to pre-project conditions.

Once developed, the BPI development would be graded to a flat surface with manufactured slopes.

As discussed previously in Section 4.6 Geology and Soils, although the Project area is susceptible to earthquake induced landslides, no history of landslides were identified as part of the site-specific geotechnical analysis. While vegetation thinning associated with the FMZ would reduce some of the vegetation in the sloped area south of the BPI Project, not all vegetation would be removed.

This will allow root systems to remain and stabilize the slope. A fire burning through the area of thinned vegetation would burn at a lower intensity due to the reduced fuels available. This would result in a higher likelihood that root systems survive and continue to provide slope stabilization after the fire event. A fire burning through untreated fuels would burn at a higher intensity and possibly result in no vegetative matter remaining which would increase erosion potential. With the specific fire protection features designed for the BPI Project such as the water supply system, fire sprinklers, ignition resistant construction, fire access, and FMZ, it is unlikely that a fire would spread from the Project site to this vegetated area.

Soils on the Project would be stabilized during construction, including installation of infrastructure

Page 926 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 57
for diverting stormwater, and would include thinning of vegetation fuels on the most prominent slope which would reduce fire intensity, giving existing plants the best chance to survive and continue to provide slope stabilization. Due to those factors, the Project would not expose people or structures to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.20-15 – 4.20-17.) SECTION IV.

IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
The City hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the SEIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The following statutory finding applies to all of the impacts described in this Section (IV): Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate the significant effects on the environment (to less than significant levels). (See Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(1); State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows
A. AESTHETICS

1. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.1-37.)
Explanation:

As described in the Visual Impact Analysis, the entire Modified Project site (approximately 160 acres) is largely vacant and undeveloped with the exception of the disturbance from the prior equestrian uses and therefore contains no sources of artificial lighting. Implementation of the Modified Project would result in the introduction of new lighting elements to illuminate parking areas, truck docking areas, commercial signage, and building entrances. Lighting elements primarily would be associated with the General Commercial land uses and BPI Development proposed in the northern portions of the site in PAs 1 through 4. .

Lighting elements on site would be governed by applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code (CMC). Specifically, Chapter 17.84 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that “[a]ll areas of exterior lighting shall be designed to direct light downward with minimal spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses and open space.” In addition, Chapter 17.76 of the City’s Municipal

Page 927 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 58
Code requires that “[a]ll outdoor lighting within parking areas shall be designed and arranged with the approval of the City Engineer to restrict to a minimum the effects of stray light on adjacent property and city streets.” Such requirements were also stated in the previously certified mitigation measures MM 4.6.1M through MM 4.6.1O.

In order to show compliance with the CMC, the BPI Development’s Precise Plan application materials include photometric plans showing anticipated lighting levels depicted on Figure 4.1- 11, Site Photometrics – Building 1, and Figure 4.1-12, Site Photometrics – Buildings 2, 3, 4 and

5. The photometric plans demonstrate that proposed lighting associated with the BPI Development would not expose neighboring properties to excessive lighting levels and would not generate lighting levels that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the local area. Photometric plans also would be required in the future prior to development within the General Commercial planned uses in PA 4, which would be required to demonstrate that lighting levels would not adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the local area. For this reason, the Modified Project’s impacts due to the creation of new sources of substantial light that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be less than significant with implementation of the GRRSP.

With respect to glare, a majority of the building elements proposed for the BPI Development would consist of tilt-up concrete panels containing ancillary office uses with glass elements. Similarly, glass elements would be used in the planned General Commercial buildings eventual development in PAs 4 . While window glazing has a potential to result in minor glare effects, such effects would not adversely affect daytime views of surrounding properties, including motorists along adjacent roadways, because the glass elements for the proposed industrial buildings would be lowreflective. Areas proposed for window glazing also would be limited in the BPI Development, as proposed on the application materials and described previously as Project Design Feature, PDF AES-3. The potential for glare would also be further reduced due to landscaping and perimeter walls and fencing associated with the BPI Development. With implementation of PDF AES-3, and MM 4.1.6M through MM 4.1.6O and compliance with the CMC, glare impacts from proposed building elements would be less than significant.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts related to glare would occur with implementation of the proposed Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. The proposed Modified Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the 2001 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.1-37 – 4.1-40.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.6.1A: Visual Intrusiveness of Development: The visual intrusiveness of development shall be minimized. Rather than relying on substantial land form modification to

Page 928 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 59
create artificial building pads, new development shall be designed to fit quietly into the natural character of the area.
• Except within bedrock, where manufactured slopes in excess of 5 vertical feet cannot feasibly be avoided, they shall be landform graded. "Landform grading" is a contour grading method which creates artificial slopes with curves and varying slope ratios in the horizontal and vertical planes designed to simulate the appearance of surrounding natural terrain. Grading plans shall identify which slopes are to be landform graded and which are to be conventionally graded. • Site design should utilize varying setbacks, structure heights, innovative building techniques, and retaining walls to blend structures into the terrain. • Allow for different lot shapes and sizes, as well as the provision of split development pads, with the prime determinant being the natural terrain. Within the lower elevations of PA 5, allow flag lots in areas where it is demonstrated that the end result is the preservation of natural topography by minimizing grading, and if the lot can be designed to provide adequate visibility for emergency vehicle response.
• Structures shall be sited in a manner that will:
a) fit into the hillside's contour and relate to the form of the terrain; b) retain outward views from the maximum number of units while maintaining the natural character of the hillside;
c) preserve vistas of natural hillside areas and ridgelines from public places and streets; and
d) preserve existing views and allow new dwellings access to views similar to those enjoyed from existing dwellings.
• Streets should follow the natural contours of the hillside to minimize cut and fill.

Streets may be split into two, parallel one-way streets (thereby effectively functioning as a two-way street with a median) in steeper areas to minimize grading and blend with the terrain. Cul-de-sacs or loop roads are encouraged where necessary to fit the terrain. On-street parking and sidewalks may be eliminated, subject to City Engineer approval, to reduce required grading. • Driveways which serve more than one lot (when approved by the Fire Department), as well as diagonal driveways running along contour lines, are encouraged as a means of reducing unnecessary grading, paving, and site disturbance. • Clustered development is encouraged as a means of preserving the natural appearance of the hillside and maximizing the amount of open space. Under this concept, dwelling units are grouped in the more level portions of the site, while steeper areas are preserved in a natural state. The effect of permitted clustering is to enhance the environmental sensitivity of a development project, and facilitate the permanent protection of key features of the natural environment, such as steep slopes, biological habitats, ridgelines, and scenic areas, including the retention of protected open space areas. Clustering is not be used to increase the overall density of an area beyond that which is otherwise permitted by the Specific Plan, nor is

Page 929 of 4376 ends

Green River Ranch SPA & Business Park Industrial Development Project and Relocation of PCL-1
Final Subsequent EIR
CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Corona Page 60
clustering to be used to create suburban style subdivisions within the Specific Plan area. All development, including clustered development is to be rural in character. a) The location of clustered units is to be restricted to portions of a site with less than a 35 percent actual slope.
b) Clustered development must preserve open space in its natural state.

Adequate legal provisions shall be made during additional environmental review of any clustered development projects to ensure the preservation of open space areas in perpetuity.
• The use of retaining walls and structures is encouraged when it significantly reduces site grading. Except where employed to facilitate construction of a residential dwelling, retaining structures shall be located and restricted to 4 vertical feet in height so that they do not become a dominating visual feature. When taller retaining structures are built to accommodate a single family dwelling unit, the retaining structure should be located behind the dwelling so as to be screened from view by the home.
• Where retaining walls face or will be visible from public streets, they should be faced with materials that help blend the wall into the natural character of the terrain. a) Large retaining walls in a uniform plane should be avoided. Break retaining walls into elements and terraces, and use landscaping to screen them from view.
b) The overall scale and massing of structures shall respect the natural surroundings and unique visual resources of the area by incorporating designs which minimize bulk and mass, follow natural topography, and minimize visual intrusion on the natural landscape.
• Houses shall not be excessively tall so as to dominate their surroundings. Structures shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height, but may be constructed on split, flat pads contained within a limited envelope parallel to the finished grade, rather than "jutting out" over natural slopes.
• Building forms shall be scaled to the particular environmental setting so as to complement the hillside character and to avoid excessively massive forms that fail to enhance the hillside character.
• Building facades shall change plane or use overhangs as a means to create changing shadow lines to further break up massive forms.
• Wall surfaces facing towards viewshed areas shall be minimized through the use of homes placed on split pads, setbacks, roof pitches, and landscaping. • Roof lines and elements shall reflect the naturally occurring ridgeline silhouettes and topographical variation, or create an overall variety, that blends with the hillside.
• Architectural style, including materials and colors, should be compatible with the natural setting. The use of colors, textures, materials and forms that will attract attention by not relating to other elements in the neighborhood is to be avoided. • As part of submittal requirements for tentative tract and parcel maps within PA 5, require that building pads be identified for all proposed development, that tentative

Page 930 of 4376 ends

Corona City CouncilFebruary 5, 2025

Corona City Council
February 5, 2025