Agenda packet — Corona City Council, February 5, 2025 (part 6 of 33)

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 61
maps identify the type of construction (e.g., slab-on-grade, post and beam, etc.), and that tentative maps establish a three-dimensional building envelope for each dwelling.
• Overhead utilities (e.g., electrical, telephone, etc.) should only be permitted under the following circumstances:
a) within the right-of-way of roadways connecting development areas; b) within the rights-of-way of roadways where all lots are 5 acres in size or greater.

In cases where aboveground utilities are permitted within the right-of-way of a roadway, connections to individual dwellings shall be underground. Utilities shall continue to be underground within subdivisions and parcel maps along roadways serving parcels smaller than 5 acres, as currently required. Where overhead utilities are permitted, their adverse visual impact on surrounding properties is to be mitigated through sensitive placement. Clear cutting of vegetation for an overhead utility corridor shall not be permitted.

MM 4.6.1B: The interface between new development and natural open space shall be designed to provide a gradual transition from manufactured areas into natural areas. By extending fingers of planting into existing and sculptured slopes, the new landscape should blend in with the natural vegetation. It is intended that the transition between manufactured areas and natural areas occur sufficiently beyond residential structures so as to permit the development to meet applicable Fire Department brush clearance requirements.

MM 4.6.1C: Planting along the slope side of development shall be designed to allow controlled views out, yet partially screen and soften the architecture. In general, 50 percent screening of new structures with plant materials should be accomplished.

MM 4.6.1D: Trees and shrubs are to be arranged in informal, randomly spaced masses, and shall be placed selectively to reduce the scale of long, steep slopes.

MM 4.6.1E: To protect the public health and safety, development within PAs 1, 5, and 6 shall ensure the ongoing maintenance of manufactured slopes.

MM 4.6.1F: Development within hillside areas shall be conditioned upon the following:
a) Where a manufactured slope over 5 feet in height is created in order to develop a single family dwelling, landowners should be required to record a deed restriction which provides an acknowledgment of the existence of the manufactured slope, requires that such slope be maintained by landowner, and indemnifies the City from damages should the slope fail in the future.
b) In the case of a parcel map or tentative tract map, a declaration of covenants,

Page 931 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 62
conditions, and restrictions shall be prepared and recorded providing for the development and maintenance of manufactured slopes over 5 feet in height, and indemnifying the City from damages should the slope fail in the future.

MM 4.6.1G: In addition, the applicant for such a land division or subdivision shall include a program and/or make provision for staff for preventive maintenance of manufactured slope areas in excess of 5 feet in height. Such program must be approved prior to approval of a final map, and shall include homeowner slope maintenance requirements and guidelines to be incorporated into the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

MM 4.6.1H: A minimum five-year revegetation monitoring and maintenance program is to be required for all development requiring slope bank and/or habitat vegetation. The revegetation monitoring program shall include monthly inspection for months 1 through 12, quarterly inspection for months 12 through 36, and semi- annual inspection for months 36 through 60. Inspections shall be performed by a qualified botanist subject to City approval.

MM 4.6.1I: Primary ridgelines should be protected from any construction activities including, but not limited to roads, structures, water tanks, antennae, utilities, etc. so as to maintain a natural skyline.

MM 4.6.1J: New parcels that have, as their only feasible building site, a primary ridgeline shall not be created. Where the only feasible building site within an existing parcel is on a primary ridgeline, the structure shall be sited at the lowest possible elevation on the site, and along the least visible portion of the ridge upon which a structure can feasibly be constructed.

MM 4.6.1K: Where development is proposed to occur adjacent to a primary ridgeline (a ridge which is visible against the sky as viewed from a public street), it should be set back a sufficient distance so as to be located below the ridgeline. The intent of this requirement is to maintain a natural skyline.

MM 4.6.1L: Planting shall be used along recontoured secondary (non-skyline) ridges to recreate a natural silhouette, and to act as a backdrop for structures. Trees shall be planted to create a continuous linear silhouette since gaps in the planting will not give the desired effect.

MM 4.6.1M: Sources of lighting within the Specific Plan area should be limited to the minimum standard to ensure safe circulation and visibility.

MM 4.6.1N: Street lighting should be limited to intersections and other locations needed to maintain safe access (e.g., sharp curves).

Page 932 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 63
MM 4.6.1O: Exterior lighting for buildings should be of a low profile and intensity.

MM 4.6.2A: Access: Roadways within PA 5 should provide for minimum safe passage of two cars along a paved road section, except in limited circumstances. Within the upper elevations of PA 5, a further reduction in required roadway width for private roadways which will ultimately serve a maximum of four dwellings, based on the maximum allowable density permitted by the Specific Plan, and where not providing such a reduction would effectively preclude access may be permitted upon the approval of the City Engineer. For such roadways, a curb- to-curb width which does not allow for passage of two vehicles (minimum 16 feet, measured edge-to-edge) for a distance of up to 150 feet in any one segment may be permitted upon the approval of the City Engineer.

Where such a reduction in roadway width is permitted, owners whose land is served by such a roadway should be required to provide adequate assurance that the roadway will be kept properly maintained at all times. In addition, such landowners will be required to record a deed restriction that prohibits further subdivision of the property, and provides an acknowledgment of this special circumstance. Such owners will also be required to indemnify the City or any other service provider against any liability regarding emergency or non- emergency vehicle access.

MM 4.6.2B: Roadway grades and curves should accommodate safety and emergency vehicles.

Existing roadway grade standards shall be applied to all proposed subdivisions and parcel maps. However, the City Engineer may grant exceptions to existing roadway standards for grades and curves where, in his judgement, existing or future access cannot reasonably meet such standards. These exceptions are to be limited to providing access to a single family dwelling on an existing lot of record along roadways which will ultimately serve a maximum of four dwellings, based on the maximum allowable density in the Specific Plan, and where not providing such an exception would effectively preclude access to an existing lot of record.

Where the City Engineer grants an exception to roadway grade standards, owners whose land is served by such a roadway will be required to provide adequate assurance that the roadway will be kept properly maintained at all times. In addition, such landowners and/or developer will be required to record a deed restriction at the time of tract map recordation that prohibits further subdivision of the property, and provides an acknowledgment of this special circumstance.

Such owners will also be required to indemnify the City or any other service provider against any liability regarding emergency or non-emergency vehicle access.

MM 4.6.2C: The provision of adequate flood control and/or erosion control measures for public and private roadways shall occur in a manner consistent with the rural character of

Page 933 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 64
PA 5. Require the provision of concrete curbs and gutters to the portions of PA 5 area where they are needed to prevent erosion, as determined by the City Engineer.

Within PA 5, rolled curbs are to be the preferred road edge along paved roads where such curbing will be adequate to contain drainage and prevent erosion.

MM 4.6.3A: Preservation of Open Space: Development projects are to be designed to protect habitat values and to preserve significant, viable habitat areas and habitat connections in their natural condition. Manufactured slopes shall be landscaped or revegetated with natural or naturalized, fire-resistant vegetation.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant B. AIR QUALITY

1. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-22.)
Explanation:

Localized Impact Analysis
The AQIA includes a Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis based on SCAQMD methodology. The analysis quantified localized impacts (maximum daily emissions) for all nearest sensitive and non-sensitive receptors compared to the thresholds established by the SCAQMD.

Consistent with LST Methodology, the LST emissions were calculated using an air dispersion model because the Project exceeds five acres.

During the peak phases of construction, the LST analysis determined no exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds would occur as shown in Table 4.3-5. Impacts would be less than significant.

Notwithstanding, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 would further reduce localized emissions in Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3.

The LST operational analysis generally includes on-site sources (area, energy, mobile, TRUs, and on-site cargo handling equipment). The Modified Project operational emissions would not exceed the numerical localized thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant as shown below in Table 4.3-6. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related operational-source emissions, and no mitigation is required.

CO Hot Spot Analysis

Page 934 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 65
The AQIA conducted a CO hot spot analysis to determine if the Modified Project's vehicular traffic additions would result in CO concentrations at nearby roadways and intersections that would result in a violation of ambient air quality standards. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by emissions from vehicles idling at congested intersections. As vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent resulting in the replacement of older vehicles by newer vehicles in the vehicle fleet, plus the introduction of cleaner burning fuels, CO is now designated as attainment in the SCAB. The AQIA determined the Modified Project along with background and cumulative development would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot based on empirical data derived from a 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study and based on representative Bay Area AQMD CO threshold considerations. Localized air quality impacts related to CO hot spots from the Modified Project’s mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.

Health Risk Analysis Impacts
The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared for the Modified Project evaluated potential health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing homes and residents to the east/southeast of the GRRSP Planning Area off Dominguez Ranch Road and workers associated with future development of the proposed Project. Health risk impacts result from exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) including diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks accessing the site. The analysis was conducting in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. DPM emissions concentrations were calculated using the EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model using site specific, area climate, and Project inputs. Project data inputs include the detailed construction assumptions for each phase of the Modified Projects development contained in the AQIA. The phases analyzed were: Phase 1 = 746,167 sf of BPI uses in PAs 1, 2, 3; Phase 2 = Phase 1 plus 19,600 sf of GC uses in PA 4; Phase 3 = Phase 2 plus 32 ER DUs in PA 5.

The individual land use with the maximum exposure to emissions from a project is referred to as the maximally individual receptor (MEIR). The MEIR the proposed Project’s construction and operational DPM source emissions was identified as the backyard of an existing residence on San Viscaya Circle approximately 246 feet east of PAs 1, 2 and 3. As shown in Table 4.3-5, the maximum incremental cancer risk at the MEIR attributable to the proposed Project construction and operational DPM source emissions is estimated at 5.14 in one million, which is less than SCAQMD’s risk threshold of 10 in one million. Also shown in Table 4.3-5, noncancer risks were estimated to be 0.003 at the MEIR, which is less than SCAQMD’s hazard risk threshold of 1.0.

The Modified Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of construction and operational activity. All other receptors during construction and operational activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. Health risk impacts from the Modified Project’s DPM emissions would therefore be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Page 935 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 66
As discussed previously, the 2001 EIR determined the Approved Project would not result in emissions that would affect sensitive receptors. The Modified Project would not result in CO hot spot impacts, construction-related LST impacts from NOx and PM10 emissions, or operationalrelated LST impacts from CO, ROC, and NOx emissions. In addition, the Modified Project would not result in health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. 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.

Friant Ranch Case
The California Supreme Court held in 2018 that air quality analyses in an EIR must address the connection between identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of the identified air quality impacts, or meaningfully explain why such an analysis cannot be provided given correlation of a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to specific health impacts is challenging. SCAQMD expressed at the time it may be “difficult to quantify health impacts for criteria pollutants,” an important opinion coming from one of the State’s are districts with the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capabilities. Using O3 as an example, SCAQMD expressed why it is impracticable to determine specific health outcomes from criteria pollutants for all but very large, regional-scale projects. First, forming O3 “takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.” Second, “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions (NOX and VOCs) to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region,” referencing a 2012 study showing that “reducing NOX by 432 tons per day (157,680 tons/year) and reducing VOC by 187 tons per day (68,255 tons/year) would reduce ozone levels at the SCAQMD’s monitor site with the highest levels by only 9 parts per billion.” SCAQMD concluded it “does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects.” The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) ties the difficulty of correlating the emission of criteria pollutants to health impacts to how ozone and particulate matter are formed, stating that “[b]ecause of the complexity of ozone formation, a specific tonnage amount of NOX or VOCs emitted in a particular area does not equate to a particular concentration of ozone in that area.” Similarly, the quantity of particulate matter “emitted does not always equate to the local PM concentration because it can be transported long distances by wind,” and “[s]econdary PM, like ozone, is formed via complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between precursor chemicals such as sulfur dioxides (SOX) and NOX,” meaning that “the tonnage of PM-forming precursor emissions in an area does not necessarily result in an equivalent concentration of secondary PM in that area.” The disconnect between the amount of precursor pollutants and the concentration of ozone or PM formed makes it difficult to determine potential health impacts, which are related to the concentration of ozone and PM experienced by the receptor rather than levels of NOX, SOX, and VOCs produced by a source.

Most local agencies lack the data to do their own assessment of potential health impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions, as would be required to establish customized, locally specific

Page 936 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 67
thresholds of significance based on potential health impacts from an individual development project. The use of national or “generic” data to fill the gap of missing local data would not yield accurate results because such data does not capture local air patterns, local background conditions, or local population characteristics, all of which play a role in how a population experiences air pollution. Because it is impracticable to accurately isolate the exact cause of a human disease (for example, the role a particular air pollutant plays compared to the role of other allergens and genetics in cause asthma), existing scientific tools cannot accurately estimate health impacts of the proposed Project’s air emissions without undue speculation. Instead, readers are directed to the proposed Project’s air quality impact analysis above, which provides extensive information concerning the quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risks related to the Project’s construction and long-term operation.

The LST analysis above determined the proposed Project would not result in emissions exceeding SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

As the proposed Project’s emissions will comply with federal, state, and local air quality standards, the proposed Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-23 – 4.3-27.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM AQ-1: During grading of Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3, all Construction Contractors shall ensure that offroad diesel construction equipment complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/CARB Tier 4 Interim emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications..

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: New information that would result in new or more severe impacts from the Modified Project requiring revisions to the Prior EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-

Page 937 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 68

32.)
Explanation:

Coulter's Matilija Poppy
Findings: As previously stated in the 2001 EIR, construction of the Approved Project would result in the loss of common plant species. One special status plant species was observed with the updated survey for the Modified Project and includes Coulter's matilija poppy. This species is a covered species under the MSHCP. This species is not a state or federally listed species, but is classified as Rank 4. As summarized in Table 3-1 of the Biological Study, Rank 4 species are currently thought to be limited in distribution or range whose vulnerability or susceptibility to threat is currently low. Given the low sensitivity of this species and the limited presence within the Modified Project site, impacts to the matilija poppy would be less than significant.

Southern California Rufous-Crowned Sparrow, Least Bell’s Vireo and Yellow Warbler Findings: Three special-status birds were observed during the updated biological surveys for the Modified Project including yellow warbler, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow and least Bell’s vireo. The Project would impact habitat for the rufous-crowned sparrow, least Bell’s vireo, and yellow warbler. Additionally, the Project would remove habitat with the potential to support white-tailed kite and would reduce the suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat (e.g., chaparral, coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and scrub oak chaparral). The rufous-crowned sparrow is not listed and is not a California Species of Concern, but does have a S3 State Ranking, and therefore is marginally considered to have special-status. However, based on the relatively low sensitivity ranking, broad distribution, and limited impact by the Project compared to the large range of species and the Project’s adjacency to MSHCP conservation areas to the south and to the west where proximate foraging habitat is available, impacts to the rufous-crowned sparrow would be less than significant.

Impacts to the least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler that would occur upon development of the Commercial component would be potentially significant. However, as the MSHCP provides coverage for both species, the Project’s participation in the MSHCP through mandatory MSHCP fee payments and compliance with the biological requirements of the MSHCP ensures that any impacts to covered special status plants would be less than significant. In addition, the loss of habitat for the least Bell’s vireo would require mitigation and the impacts would require the approval of a DBESP by the Wildlife Agencies.

Construction of the BPI Industrial Development would potentially impact least Bell’s vireo, and as part of the JPR process for the development project RCA is requiring construction mitigation for such indirect impacts. This is considered to be a significant impact requiring mitigation. MM

4.7.3.A and MM 4.7.3.B (alternative) remain applicable to the Modified Project to reduce impacts to Migratory Birds to a less than significant level. With the inclusion of additional construction mitigation contained in MM BIO-1 for indirect impacts to the least Bell’s vireo, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.

Page 938 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 69
MM BIO-1: If construction will occur within 300 feet of potential vireo habitat between March 15 and September 30, a biologist shall determine whether vireo individuals are present within the adjacent habitat. If work will start prior to March 15 and continue into the vireo season, or will start between March 15 and April 30, the biologist shall survey the adjacent habitat weekly for eight weeks[1] starting on or around March 15 until vireo are detected, or until eight visits are completed and the vireo is confirmed absent. If construction work will start after April 30, then surveys will start on or around April 10 (the formal start of the vireo survey period), and surveys will follow the survey intervals as stated above. If vireo individuals are detected, the biologist will determine necessity and applicability of measures to address edge effects for construction activities occurring within 300 feet of occupied vireo habitat to protect the vireo. At minimum the following are recommended.
1) Noise: Given the proximity of the vireo habitat to the existing Green River Road and the adjacent SR-91, there is already an existing noise baseline from heavy traffic use, and it is possible that construction noise would not exceed that baseline. The Project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to perform noise monitoring to determine the ambient noise level at the habitat edge without construction activities occurring within 300 feet of the habitat edge, and then determine noise levels while construction activities are occurring. If it is determined that with construction, the noise levels exceed the ambient levels, then noise attenuation measures may be implemented, including the construction of a temporary noise attenuation barrier (sound wall) along the disturbance limits north of Green River Road. If it is determined that noise levels cannot be attenuated, then the specific construction activities resulting in the noise will need to be temporarily ceased until August 31, or prior if it is determined through surveys that the vireo are no longer present. 2) Lighting: Any night lighting needed during construction within 300 feet of occupied vireo habitat will be down shielded or directed away from the vireo habitat to prevent the illumination of the adjacent habitat.
3) Dust Emissions: The Project, as a part of standard best management practices (BMPs) pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, will introduce dust control measures for the duration of construction activities to minimize any dust-related effect on adjacent vireos.
4) Trespassing: Prior to the start of construction activities along the northern side of Green River Road, the edge of the disturbance limits adjacent to the vireo habitat will be demarcated with orange construction fencing to prevent trespassing into the adjacent habitat. In addition, the Project proponent will implement an Environmental Awareness Training program prior to the start of construction to advise workers of sensitive biological areas adjacent to the development footprint, including the habitat areas north of Green River Ranch Road.

Crotch Bumble Bee – State Candidate Endangered Species
Findings: In 2019 the Crotch Bumble Bee was listed as a State Candidate Endangered (SCE)

Page 939 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 70
Species. Crotch bumble bee was observed onsite during focused surveys for this species. The overall Study Area supports potentially suitable habitat for the Crotch bumble bee primarily within the non-native grasslands and within the scrub; however, this species is a habitat generalist as it will occur in a variety of plant communities throughout its range. Individuals were detected on the lower slopes in the southern portion of the Project’s impact footprint where the grassland areas are less disturbed and native scrub vegetation is present. Furthermore, if Crotch bumble bee remains as a SCE or has otherwise been confirmed as a State Endangered species at the time of Project site disturbance, then an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) may be required prior to the disturbance of the occupied habitat. Impact would be considered potentially significant. The following mitigation measure which includes the conservation of 50.96 acres of scrub habitat and 26 acres of non-native grasslands and conservation of open space will offset impacts to the Crotch Bumble Bee and bring impacts to a less than significant level.

MM BIO-2: If the Crotch bumble bee is still a Candidate species or has been confirmed as a State listed species at the time of Project site disturbance, then prior to the issuance of a grading permit that would remove Crotch bumble bee habitat:
1) The Project proponent shall have conveyed or have an agreement to convey approximately

50.96 acres of various scrub habitats and 26 acres of non-native grassland in the southern portion of the Project site to the RCA, which constitutes avoidance of suitable habitat. 2) If the land to be conserved in the southern portion of the Project site has not been conveyed to the RCA and no agreement is yet in place to convey the property, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to address the extent of impacts and determine whether an ITP for Crotch bumble bee would be required. If an ITP were required, then mitigation may be required by CDFW as part of the ITP process, and the conservation of the comparable open space habitat would be presented to support the ITP.

This impact is new information or more severe impact as a result of the Modified Project, however, with the addition of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Plummer’s Mariposa Lily and Intermediate Mariposa Lily
Findings: As identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project, suitable habitat occurs onsite for Plummer’s mariposa lily and intermediate mariposa lily and they have a moderate potential to occur onsite. These species were not observed during the updated surveys for the Modified Project.

Many-Stemmed Dudleya and Brauton’s Milk-Vetch
Findings: Many-stemmed dudleya and Brauton’s milk-vetch have a low likelihood of occurring onsite. These species were not observed during the updated surveys for the Modified Project, therefore impacts remain similar to those identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project, which is less than significant.

Page 940 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 71
Species Not on Federal or State Listings
Findings: Several sensitive wildlife species were observed on site during the updated surveys for the Modified Project. Several other sensitive wildlife species have at least a moderate potential to occur on site, identified within Appendix A and Append B of the Biological Technical Report.

As identified within the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project, short-term impacts may occur to the species as a result of construction activities. These species are not protected by federal or state listings as threatened or endangered and any loss of individuals would not threaten their regional populations. Removal of their habitat represents a less than significant impact to regional populations of these species.

California Gnatcatcher
Findings: As identified within the 2001 EIR, implementation of the Approved Project would result in a direct loss of at least one California gnatcatcher and occupied live-in habitat for the species. While the loss of habitat for the species is now covered by the MSHCP, the Modified Project prohibits clearing occupied habitat during breeding season (March 1 through August 31).

These impacts remain potentially significant for the Modified Project. MM 4.7.1.A remain applicable to the Modified Project to reduce impacts to California gnatcatcher to a less than significant level.

The 2001 EIR concluded implementation of the Modified Project would result in potential impacts to migratory birds and the nests. MM 4.7.3.A and MM 4.7.3.B (alternative) remain applicable to the Modified Project to reduce impacts to Migratory Birds to a less than significant level.

With the inclusion of the additional Mitigation Measure for the Crotch Bumble Bee, Impacts would be more severe impacts from the Modified Project requiring revisions to the Prior EIR. With the include of the additional Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 for the Crotch Bumble Bee, impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft SEIR, 4.4-32 – 4.4-35.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.7.1.A: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each increment of development, applicable pre-construction California gnatcatcher surveys shall be conducted and a survey report approved by the City. The report shall identify mitigation for impacts to the California gnatcatcher consisting of acquiring and preserving California gnatcatcher habitat of equal or greater quality at a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1 (acquire at least 1 acre for each acre impacted). The Modified Project would impact 8 acres of habitat used by the California gnatcatcher; therefore, mitigation shall consist of the acquisition and preservation of at least 8 acres of occupied habitat. The acquired habitat shall be in a location that facilitates management for the species (i.e., currently supports the species and is contiguous with a larger area that will be managed for conservation of the species). Potential suitable locations include areas adjacent to

Page 941 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 72
existing reserves (such as Stephens' kangaroo rat reserves) or within established mitigation banks for the California gnatcatcher.

Project impacts to the California gnatcatcher and its designated critical habitat may require consultation or other permitting for compliance with the federal ESA that may result in requirements for additional mitigation measures beyond those described above MM 4.7.3A. Prior to the commencement of tree removal or grading on the proposed project site during the nesting season (March-July), all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. In addition, a biologist shall be present on site to monitor the tree removal and grading to ensure that any nests detected during the initial survey are not disturbed.

MM 4.7.3B. (Alternative): Tree removal and grading shall be delayed until after the nesting season (March-July).

MM BIO-1: If construction will occur within 300 feet of potential vireo habitat between March 15 and September 30, a biologist shall determine whether vireo individuals are present within the adjacent habitat. If work will start prior to March 15 and continue into the vireo season, or will start between March 15 and April 30, the biologist shall survey the adjacent habitat weekly for eight weeks starting on or around March 15 until vireo are detected, or until eight visits are completed and the vireo is confirmed absent. If construction work will start after April 30, then surveys will start on or around April 10 (the formal start of the vireo survey period), and surveys will follow the survey intervals as stated above.

If vireo individuals are detected, the biologist will determine necessity and applicability of measures to address edge effects for construction activities occurring within 300 feet of occupied vireo habitat to protect the vireo. At minimum the following are recommended. 1) Noise: Given the proximity of the vireo habitat to the existing Green River Road and the adjacent SR-91, there is already an existing noise baseline from heavy traffic use, and it is possible that construction noise would not exceed that baseline. The Project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to perform noise monitoring to determine the ambient noise level at the habitat edge without construction activities occurring within 300 feet of the habitat edge, and then determine noise levels while construction activities are occurring. If it is determined that with construction, the noise levels exceed the ambient levels, then noise attenuation measures may be implemented, including the construction of a temporary noise attenuation barrier (sound wall) along the disturbance limits north of Green River Road. If it is determined that noise levels cannot be attenuated, then the specific construction activities resulting in the noise will need to be temporarily ceased until August 31, or prior if it is determined through surveys that the vireo are no longer present.
2) Lighting: Any night lighting needed during construction within 300 feet of occupied vireo habitat will be down shielded or directed away from the vireo habitat to prevent the

Page 942 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 73
illumination of the adjacent habitat.
3) Dust Emissions: The Project, as a part of standard best management practices (BMPs) pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, will introduce dust control measures for the duration of construction activities to minimize any dust-related effect on adjacent vireos.
4) Trespassing: Prior to the start of construction activities along the northern side of Green River Road, the edge of the disturbance limits adjacent to the vireo habitat will be demarcated with orange construction fencing to prevent trespassing into the adjacent habitat. In addition, the Project proponent will implement an Environmental Awareness Training program prior to the start of construction to advise workers of sensitive biological areas adjacent to the development footprint, including the habitat areas north of Green River Ranch Road.

MM BIO-2: If the Crotch bumble bee is still a Candidate species or has been confirmed as a State listed species at the time of Modified Project site disturbance, then prior to the issuance of a grading permit that would remove Crotch bumble bee habitat the following measures shall be implemented:
• The Project proponent shall have conveyed or have an agreement to convey approximately 50.96 acres of various scrub habitats and 26 acres of nonnative grassland in the southern portion of the Project site to the RCA, which constitutes avoidance of suitable habitat.
• If the land to be conserved in the southern portion of the Project site has not been conveyed to the RCA and no agreement is yet in place to convey the property, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to address the extent of impacts and determine whether an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Crotch bumble bee would be required. If an ITP were required, then mitigation may be required by CDFW as part of the ITP process, and the conservation of the comparable open space habitat would be presented to support the ITP.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

2. Riparian
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the

Page 943 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 74
Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-35.)
Explanation:

Under the Modified Project, a total of 2.10 acres of Regional Board jurisdiction would be permanently impacted (all non-wetland waters), including 2.07 acres onsite and 0.03 acre offsite.

A total of 3.66 acres of CDFW Jurisdiction would be permanently impacted as part of the BIP Development. This includes 2.51 acres of non-riparian streambed and 1.15 acres of riparian streambed.

As identified in the 2001 EIR of the Approved Project, a total of 1.76 acres of Corps/RWQCB jurisdiction and 9.81 acres of CDFW jurisdiction would be impacted as a result of the Approved Project implementation. Per the 2001 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7.2.A, impacts to riparian habitat would be replaced through creation of new riparian habitat at a minimum of 1.5:1 onsite or alternatively, or in combination with onsite crease, riparian or wetlands mitigation credits shall be acquired in an offsite mitigation bank at a replacement ratio of 2:1.

While RWQCB impacts have slightly increase for the Modified Project, these impacts are minor.

Furthermore, impacts to CDFW jurisdiction as a result of the Modified Project has decreased significantly. Mitigation Measure 4.7.2.A remains applicable for the Modified Project with the clarification that impacts to the 3.66 acres of CDFW jurisdiction shall be mitigated at a greater than 3:1 ratio (11.14 acres). The Mitigation would be a combination of onsite restoration and preservation, and purchase of offsite mitigation bank (Riverpark Mitigation Bank). The onsite mitigation would consist of restoration of 2.57 acres of riparian oak woodland and preservation of

3.80 acres of oak woodlands and streams. The remaining balance of 4.68 acres would be purchased at a Mitigation bank. As such, Mitigation Measure 4.7.2.A would be clarified to include the following language.

MM 4.7.2A: All riparian habitat impacted (i.e., removed) by the proposed project shall be replaced through creation of new riparian habitat of equal or greater quality. Permanent impacts to 3.47 acres of CDFW jurisdiction (including 1.96 acres of potential Corps/RWQCB jurisdiction) shall be mitigated through the combination of onsite restoration and preservation, and offsite mitigation (Riverpark Mitigation Bank: Should Riverpark Mitigation Bank become unavailable in the future, an alternative mitigation strategy through another mitigation bank within the MSHCP Plan Boundary shall be reviewed and approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) prior to issuance of a grading permit). The onsite mitigation will consist of the restoration of 2.57 acres of riparian oak woodland and the preservation of 6.36 acres of oak woodlands and streams. The balance of mitigation would consist of 4.62 acres would be purchased at a Mitigation bank.

It is anticipated that project construction will require permits or approvals from the CDFW (per Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Code), and RWQCB (per Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act).

Page 944 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 75
With the clarification language for the Modified Project, impacts would be less than significant within mitigation, as previously identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. (Draft SEIR,

4.4-36 – 4.4-37.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.7.2A: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each increment of development, applicable pre-construction riparian area surveys shall be conducted and a survey report approved by the City.

The report shall identify all riparian habitat impacted (i.e., removed) by the proposed project and such impacted areas shall be replaced through creation of new riparian habitat of equal or greater quality. Permanent impacts to 3.47 acres of CDFW jurisdiction (including 1.96 acres of potential Corps/RWQCB jurisdiction) shall be mitigated through the combination of onsite restoration and preservation, and offsite mitigation (Riverpark Mitigation Bank: Should Riverpark Mitigation Bank become unavailable in the future, an alternative mitigation strategy through another mitigation bank within the MSHCP Plan Boundary shall be re-viewed and approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS) prior to issuance of a grading permit). The onsite mitigation will consist of the restoration of 2.57 acres of riparian oak woodland and the preservation of 6.36 acres of oak woodlands and streams. The balance of mitigation would consist of 4.62 acres would be purchased at a Mitigation bank.

It is anticipated that project construction may require permits or approvals from the CDFW (per Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Code) and RWQCB (per Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act).

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-37.)
Explanation:

The biological studies prepared for the Modified Project determined the site does not support any wetlands. Consequently, no impact to state or federally protected wetlands would occur and no mitigation is required. Nonetheless, MM 4.7.2A is being imposed to reduce project-specific and cumulative impacts to biological resources with respect to jurisdictional waters, as specified above. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-37.)

Page 945 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 76
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.7.2A: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each increment of development, applicable pre-construction riparian area surveys shall be conducted and a survey report approved by the City.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

4. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-37.)
Explanation:

The Modified Project will impact the lower portions of north-south ridges and canyons that terminate at the flat portion of the property at Green River Road that support the local movement of wildlife.

As discussed above, the City is currently pursuing a Criteria Refinement through the RCA and Wildlife Agencies to formally relocated PCL-1 west to coincide with the B Canyon area.

Additional information and environmental analysis of the Alternative Alignment of PCL-1 can be found in Section 5.0. The processing of the Criteria Refinement coincides with the RCA’s recent acquisition of approximately 740 acres of lands located south and west of the Project site that

Page 946 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 77
contain B Canyon. The RCA issued Criteria Refinement Review Findings (CR# 24- 01-10-01, dated February 20, 2024) in support of the Criteria Refinement stating approval of the realignment of PCL-1. The findings letter is included as Appendix D-4.

The formal relocation of PCL-1 removes the Modified Project site from the Linkage and thereby greatly reduces the relative importance of the Project site to facilitate wildlife movement and to connect Core A and Core B. In further support of the assembly of PCL-1, the Modified Project proponent is proposing to conserve 80.77 acres of land within the southern half of the site. The proposed conservation is contiguous with the lands recently acquired by the RCA for the MSHCP Reserve. The 80.77 acres of proposed conservation contains the structural topography and vegetative cover to facilitate regional wildlife movement. It aligns with the wildlife linkage/corridor conservation goals of the MSHCP.

The Modified Project includes the construction of a wildlife fence between the proposed MSHCP conservation areas and the of the Project. The fencing will be constructed along the western and southern edges of the Project site to direct wildlife to the west along the re- relocated PCL-1 Route in B Canyon. The fence will start at the eastern property boundary, extending west along the limits of the proposed MSHCP Conservation until the fence reaches the western boundary shared with the existing MSHCP Additional Reserve Lands. Then the fence will turn north along the property boundary to the terminus of Fresno Road, then northwest where the fence will terminate at the limits of Caltrans’ easement for SR-91. The fence is proposed to be chain link (at least 8 feet tall) and will include one-way swing gates to allow for wildlife escape access to the open space to the south and west.

Temporary disturbances to wildlife movement may occur during construction; however, these disturbances would primarily occur during day-time hours during construction activities and would not interfere significantly with wildlife movement on a landscape level. The Project’s consistency with the MSHCP and adherence to mandatory MSHCP requirements would reduce impacts to wildlife movement to a level of less than significant under CEQA.

Additionally, no native wildlife nursery sites were observed within the Project area and therefore, no impacts to wildlife nursery sites would occur.

The Project’s construction activities have the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15). To avoid impacts to nesting birds, as identified within the 2001 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.A and Mitigation Measure

4.7.3.B (alternative) remain applicable to the Modified Project to reduce impacts to Migratory Birds to a less than significant level. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-37 – 4.4-38.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.7.3A. Prior to the commencement of tree removal or grading on the proposed project site during the nesting season (March-July), all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the

Page 947 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 78
presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. In addition, a biologist shall be present on site to monitor the tree removal and grading to ensure that any nests detected during the initial survey are not disturbed.

MM 4.7.3B. (Alternative): Tree removal and grading shall be delayed until after the nesting season (March-July).

Mitigation Measures 4.7.1A, 4.7.3A, 4.7.3B, BIO-1 and BIO-2 are required to reduce projectspecific and cumulative impacts to biological resources and habitats. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which upon implementation would mitigate or avoid the potentially significant project-specific and cumulative impact to biological resources.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

5. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-39.)
Explanation:

The 2001 EIR identified 3.90 acres of coast live oak that would be impacted as a result of the Approved Project. Mitigation Measures 4.7.4.A through 4.7.4.E was included to mitigate for the impacts associated with coast live oak woodlands to a less than significant level.

The Modified Project would also implement Mitigation Measures 4.7.4.A through 4.7.4.E to reduce impacts to coast live oak. However, the Modified Project would impact 1.13 acres of coast live oak woodland, which is significantly less impacts than the Approved Project. Furthermore, the Modified Project would avoid and conserve 3.50 acres of coast live oak woodland. Therefore, the Modified Project reduces impacts to coast live oak woodland in comparison to the Approved Project.

While the City has no direct tree preservation ordinance, the City’s 2020–2040 General Plan

Page 948 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 79
includes several goals and policies relating to biological resources. The goals and policies of the General Plan are intended to support consistency with the MSHCP and to protect and preserve biological resources including plants and wildlife, vegetation communities, and wetlands and drainages.

Additionally, the Project – as modified at the recommendation of the City’s Planning and Housing Commission – now includes the designation of 103.73 acres of Open Space land use. Such a designation promotes the protection of biological resources by ensuring these areas are managed in compliance with all local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources rather than set aside for development.

The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

The Project proponent is proposing permanent conservation of 80.77 acres of land within the southern half of the Study Area, and all development associated with the Modified Project will comply with the requirements of the MSHCP. The conservation of native land and compliance with the MSCHP in conjunction with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation will render the Project compliant with and not conflict with the biological resource policies of the City of Corona 2020–2040 General Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7.4.A through 4.7.4.E, impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-39.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.7.4A: Prior to issuance of grading permits for PA 1, 2, 3, and 5, and 6, the project shall comply with the City’s Hillside Development Overlay Ordinance. This mitigation was previously introduced as mitigation measure 4.6-1. This Ordinance promotes the use of residential clustering techniques and their measures to minimize impacts on hillside sites, typically areas containing oak trees. Home sites shall be clustered into the fewest number of acres possible to minimize the spread of impacts over a large portion of the property to reduce fragmentation of the remaining natural areas.

MM 4.7.4B: Prior to issuance of grading permits for PAs 1, 2, 3, and 5, the applicant shall design an oak woodland management plan which includes the following:
• Provisions for ongoing maintenance, management, and construction impact practices for all oaks on site.
• Provisions for enhancing oak woodlands not within the development zone. • Provisions for limiting human and vehicular access to existing oak woodland areas in order to preserve habitat quality.
• Limitations on the use of herbicides or pesticides within the oak woodland areas.

Page 949 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 80
MM 4.7.4C: Prior to grading within PAs 1, 2, 3, and 5, and 6, the applicant shall conduct a revised Tree Survey, based on the staking of the specific limits of grading, to assess opportunities for transplanting the oak trees.

MM 4.7.4D: Prior to issuance of building permits within PAs 1, 2, 3, and 5, and 6, a qualified native plant horticulturist shall determine the sensibility and likelihood of survival of transplanting 10 percent of the oak trees.

MM 4.7.4E: Prior to certification of occupancy, the applicant shall replant 15- gallon size oaks at a ratio of 10 to 1 for all oaks lost but not transplanted. The location and methods for these plantings would be specified by a qualified native plant biologist/horticulturist.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

6. Habitat Conservation Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-39.)
Explanation:

The Modified Project occurs within the MSHCP Temescal Area Plan, specifically in Subunit1 (Santa Ana River to Santa Ana Mountains), Criteria Cells 1702, 1704, 1811, and 1812 [Exhibit 5A – MSHCP Overlay Map]. Lands described for conservation within these Criteria Cells are intended support the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 (“PCL-1”) and Proposed Constrained Linkage 2 (“PCL-2”) further to the east. The City is currently pursuing a Criteria Refinement through the RCA and Wildlife Agencies to formally relocate PCL-1 west to coincide with the B Canyon area. Additional information and environmental analysis of the Alternative Alignment of PCL-1 can be found in Section 5.0. The processing of the Criteria Refinement coincides with the RCA’s recent acquisition of approximately 740 acres of lands located south and west of the Specific Plan Project that contain B Canyon. The RCA issued Criteria Refinement Review Findings (CR# 24-01-10-01, dated February 20, 2024) in support of the Criteria Refinement stating approval of the realignment of PCL-1. The findings letter is included as Appendix D-4.

The formal relocation of PCL-1 removes the Modified Project site from the Linkage and thereby greatly reduces the relative importance of the Project site to facilitate wildlife movement and to connect Core A and Core B. Even with the approval of the Criteria Refinement, i.e., the relocation of PCL-1, the Modified Project is still subject to JPR for the RCA to determine the Project’s overall consistency with the MSHCP; however, the Modified Project would no longer be required to conserve lands in support of the original PCL-1 alignment. Regardless, the Modified Project would

Page 950 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 81
conserve approximately 80.77 acres of land within the southern half of the site to contribute to the MSHCP Reserve. The conserved lands would be dedicated to the RCA and managed and protected in perpetuity.

The Modified Project would impact approximately 3.66 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, including 1.15 acres of riparian vegetation and 2.51 acres of unvegetated riverine areas. The functions of impacted MSHCP riparian areas must be replaced such that the resulting project is “biologically equivalent or superior” to the existing site conditions. A DBESP must be approved by the wildlife agencies (USFWS and CDFW) for the proposed Modified Project. Per the submitted DBESP prepared by GLA on January 17, 2022 and revised August 29, 2024 included as Appendix E-2, the modified Project avoids a total of 80.77 acres in the southern portion of the site, and protect in perpetuity 6.36 acres which contain 2.57 acres of riparian/riverine areas and

3.80 acres of coast live oak woodland.

In comparison, of the 3.66 acres of impacts to riparian/riverine areas, more than half of the impacts (2.07 acres) include drainage features in the northern portion of the Project site that have been disturbed through past land uses, with 1.01 acres mapped as disturbed or developed; 0.96 acre as supporting vegetation associated with ruderal areas, including non-native grasses and forbs; and

0.10 acre in areas mapped as residential/urban/exotic. These drainage features do not contain habitats described for conservation, nor do they contain habitat that support Section 6.1.2 species.

However, the Project will impact 1.59 acres of riverine areas supporting native vegetation communities, including 1.12 acres of coast like oak woodland, 0.03 acre of elderberry stands, and

0.44 acre of native upland scrub. The coast live oak woodland and elderberry stands are classified as riparian communities.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7.2.A, impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, with the realignment and conservation of PCL-1, the Project would conserve 80.77 acres of lands, which increases habitat for sensitive and listed species. These lands would be protected in perpetuity via the MSHCP Reserve to support Covered Species.

Lastly, the Project will conserve and protect 2.57 acres of riparian/riverine areas, including 3.80 acres of coast live oak woodland and 0.64 acre of native upland scrub communities(chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub. The Project will conserve habitat functions at a 2.5:1to nearly 3:1 ratio to the quantity impacted. In addition, the Project will further mitigate impacts to 3.66 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas through the onsite restoration of 2.57 acres of oak woodland and the additional purchase of 4.62 acres of mitigation credits at the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-39 – 4.4-41.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.7.2A: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each increment of development, applicable pre-construction riparian area surveys shall be conducted and a survey report approved by the City.

The report shall identify all riparian habitat impacted (i.e., removed) by the proposed project and

Page 951 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 82
such impacted areas shall be replaced through creation of new riparian habitat of equal or greater quality. Impacts to 3.66 acres of CDFW jurisdiction (including 2.10 acres of potential RWQCB jurisdiction) shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio (10.98 acres) through the combination of onsite restoration and preservation, and offsite mitigation (Riverpark Mitigation Bank). The onsite mitigation will consist of the restoration of 2.57 acres of riparian oak woodland and the preservation of 6.36 acres of oak woodlands and streams. The balance of mitigation would consist of 4.62 acres would be purchased at a Mitigation bank. It is anticipated that project construction may require permits or approvals from the CDFW (per Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and Game Code) and RWQCB (per Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act).

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant D. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Change in Circumstance or New Information Requiring Major or Minor EIR Revisions. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.5-7.)
Explanation:

The archaeological surveys conducted within the GRRSP Planning Area for the 2001 EIR revealed no archaeological or cultural resources. Similarly, the CRA prepared for the Modified Project (Appendix E) determined that no significant resources were identified within the GRRSP Planning Area boundary. However, the CRA states that given the prior disturbance and historic use of the Project site, and the proximity to multiple natural sources of water, unknown buried archaeological deposits may be encountered within the Planning Area during grading operations. Due to current best practices and the City’s General Plan, it is understood that unknown resources may be encounter during development of the Modified Project may occur resulting in a significant impact.

As stated below in Mitigation Measure, MM CUL-1, all earthwork for development of the Modified Project would be required to be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and protocols within the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) are to be followed. As a result, with implementation of MM CUL-1 impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. However, no substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.5-7 – 4.5-8.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

Page 952 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 83
MM CUL-1 Unanticipated Discoveries of Cultural Resources: Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Cultural Resources/ Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan CR/TCR-MMP shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the City for dissemination to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh), Pechanga Band of Indians (Pechanga), and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Soboba). All parties shall review be provided with an opportunity to comment upon, the plan in a reasonable time period as determined by the City prior to permitting for the Project. If consensus among the Project archeologist, the City and Tribe(s) about monitoring and treatment methods cannot be reached, the City shall make the determination in its best judgement regarding the appropriate measures for inclusion in the CR/TCR-MMP considering input and recommendations from archaeologist and the consulting Tribes. Any non-responsive party shall be assumed to have agreed to the plans without comment.

Any and all findings of discovered resources will be subject to the protocol detailed within the CR/TCR-MMP.

Page 953 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 84
methods for data recovery in the CR/TCR-MMP.
6) All cultural material collected shall be subject to the culturally appropriate treatment and mitigation standards outlined in the TCR-CRMP, which may include reburial on-site in an area that will be protected in perpetuity or relinquishment to the culturally affiliated consulting tribal government for culturally appropriate treatment. 7) A Phase 4 report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed, in consultation with the consulting tribal monitor(s), and submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms.
8) Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR and) shall be curated at an institution meeting the State and federal standards for curation.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.5-8.)
Explanation:

As previously stated, no changes in the location, size, or boundaries of the Specific Plan area have occurred since the 2001 EIR. In addition, the Modified Project would modify the size and boundaries of the GRRSP, however minimally. No evidence suggesting the area has been utilized in the past for human burials has been identified in the approved GRRSP Planning Area.

Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Modified Project construction should Project-related construction activities extend into previously undisturbed soils.

As stated in Mitigation Measure, MM CUL-2, in the unlikely event human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities within the area, compliance with State law (Health and Safety Code § 7050.5) (HSC § 7050.5) would be required. As stated in the City’s General Plan, these requirements have been imposed on any construction activity in which human remains are detected after certification of the 2001 EIR. Therefore, the potential to encounter human remains would occur as a result of the Modified Project and implementation of MM CUL-2 would be required per State Law and render potential impacts to less than significant. However, no substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.5-8.)

Page 954 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 85
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM CUL-2: If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
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 Geotechnical Study identified the existence of very old alluvial fan sediments and sedimentary formations beneath the Modified Project that are considered to possess high paleontological resource sensitivity. Consequently, ground breaking activities during Project construction are considered to have a potential for impact to paleontological resources and therefore mitigation is required. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be required in undisturbed fossil-bearing formations starting at the surface during surficial grading, excavation, or utility trenching activities associated with site preparation. This same conclusion was reached by the earlier investigations contained in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. For this reason, the Geotechnical Study recommended a draft PRIMP that would replace the PRIMP contained in MM 4.9.1A of the prior 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. The revised and updated PRIMP would be comparable to the Approved Project’s mitigation, consistent with the provisions of CEQA, the City’s GP policies regarding paleontological resources, and the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Upon implementation, the revised and updated PRIMP would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological fossil resources, if present, to less than significant. The updated and revise PRIMP acknowledges that paleontological monitoring may be reduced or halted if the excavations are unlikely to yield paleontological resources based upon the

Page 955 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 86
observations and recommendations of the professional-level project paleontologist.

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 with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM PAL-1. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.7-19. – 4.7-20.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM PAL-1:
1) Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Full time monitoring of grading or excavation activities should be performed starting from the surface in undisturbed areas of very old Quaternary (middle to early Pleistocene) alluvial fan deposits, and the Tertiary-aged Sespe, Vaqueros, Santiago, and Silverado formations within the project. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.
2) Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils are collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Notes are taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, and the site is photographed before it is vacated and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, any discovered fossil site is protected by red flagging to prevent it from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils are collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils.

Precise location of the site is determined with the use of handheld Global Positioning System units. If the site involves a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, Brian F.

Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) will send a fossil recovery crew in to excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment is solicited to help remove the jacket to a safe location before it is returned to the BFSA laboratory facility for preparation. 3) Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the

Page 956 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 87
sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material.

For vertebrate fossils, the test is usually the observed presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, as many as 20 to 40 five-gallon buckets of sediment can be collected and returned to a separate facility to wet-screen the sediment. In the laboratory, individual fossils are cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks are repaired, and the specimen, if needed, is stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).
4) Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.
5) Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center, 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet, California 92543). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
6) Preparation of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location. The report, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency (City of Corona), will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any paleontological resources.
7) Decisions regarding the intensity of the MMRP will be made by the project paleontologist based upon the significance of the potential paleontological resources and their biostratigraphic, biochronologic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, and taxonomic attributes, not upon the ability of a project proponent to fund the MMRP Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant F. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Plans, Policies, and Regulations Threshold: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directed or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs?
Finding: Under changed circumstances the Modified Project results in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.8-18.)

Page 957 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 88
Explanation:

As stated in the GHG Analysis, the Modified Project would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O and Refrigerants. Direct Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Project-related GHG emissions were quantified with CalEEMod Version 2022.1, which relies upon vehicle trip rates and Project-specific land use data to calculate emissions. As shown below in Table 4.8-1, the Modified Project would result in a total of approximately 19,208.02 MTCO2e/yr.

As noted previously, instead of showing consistency with an adopted numeric threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the City’s CAP utilizes a point system to show consistency through use of a point system. Calculation of the points is conducted using the CAP Screening Tables, which allocates points for specific features of a project or features that can be added to a project to obtain the necessary points. The points are based on the GHG reduction value of the feature. For this reason, the Modified Project’s GHG emissions of 19,208.02 MTCO2e/yr, is not specifically evaluated because the CAP implements a project efficiency based determination of consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) by considering whether the Modified Project is consistent with applicable regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

The Modified Project shall show CAP consistency with the CAP through use of the Screening Table Measures to show the Project’s GHG reduction features obtain a minimum of 100 points.

The Modified Project would be consistent with the CAP’s requirement to achieve at least 100 points for both the residential and non-residential portions of the Project and thus the Project would be considered to have a less than significant individual and cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions. The City shall verify incorporation of the identified Screening Table Measures within the Project building plans and site designs prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable).

As previously stated, a minimum of 100 points will be required for both the residential and nonresidential portions of the Modified Project. The City shall verify incorporation of the identified Screening Table Measures within the Project building plans and site designs prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). Projects that achieve a total of 100 points or more are considered to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on GHG emissions.

In order to ensure the appropriate GHG reduction features are implemented, new Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1, shall be required to ensure each phase of the Modified Project includes applicable measures from the CAP Screening Tables (Appendix C to the CAP) to achieve a minimum of 100 points for both the residential and non-residential portions of the Modified Project. Alternatively, specific measures may be substituted for other measures that achieve an equivalent amount of GHG reduction, subject to City of Corona Building Division review.

As previously discussed, the Project would not generate significant GHG emissions, nor conflict

Page 958 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 89
with any applicable plan, policy or regulation. Therefore, a less than significant impact is expected with mitigation measure MM GHG-1 incorporated.

Overall, the Modified Project implemented under changed circumstances would result in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the Prior EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.8-18 – 4.8-20.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM GHG 1: Prior to issuance of a building permit for each increment of development in the GRRSP, the Project applicant shall provide documentation to the City of Corona Building Division demonstrating that the improvements and/or buildings subject to a building permit application include the measures from the CAP GHG Emissions Screening Tables (Appendix C to the CAP), as needed to achieve a minimum of 100 points for both the residential and non-residential portions of the Project. Alternatively, specific measures may be substituted for other measures that achieve an equivalent amount of GHG reduction, subject to City of Corona Building Division review.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 67962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ?
Finding: The Modified Project would result in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the prior EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-18.)
Explanation:

The ESA prepared to assess hazardous conditions affecting the BPI Development and ER portions of the Modified Project found these properties do not appear on the hazardous database reports obtained for the assessment. There is one adjacent facility to the northeast listed on the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste, CERS TANKS, facility and Manifest Data (HAZNET), Underground Storage Tank (UST), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) NonGen databases. This facility is listed Kaykel Investments Properties DBA Green River 76 located at 4350 Green River Road. The CERS Hazardous Waste and TANKS have CERS descriptions listed as “Hazardous Waste Generator” and “Underground Storage Tank”, respectively. There are multiple violations described that have all been returned to compliance.

The HAZNET listing lists the waste code as “aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent with the disposal method listed as “other recovery of reclamation for reuse including

Page 959 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 90
acid regeneration”. The UST database lists four tanks total. The RCRA Non-Gen database lists the classification as “non- generator” with a description of “handler: non-generators do not presently generate hazardous waste” with no violations found. There are 24 additional facilities listed on the database report within the various search distances specified by ASTM E 1527-13. Due to the status listings, distances and/or locations (hydro-geologically down-or crossgradient), these facilities do not represent an environmental concern to the Site. Therefore, the ESA determined no evidence exists of a recognized environmental condition in connection with the subject Site.

However, the ESA noted that prior to demolition of any of the existing Site structures, existing federal and state regulations require asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) surveys be performed.

In addition, there is evidence of an environmental concern at the subject Site that is a common concern frequently found on properties with former historical agricultural use. The northern portion of the Site has historically been used for agricultural purposes from at least 1946 to at least 1953. Historically, some agricultural sites have utilized pesticides that are currently considered a health risk and no longer used and consideration should be given to performing limited site testing of near surface soils prior to site preparation and grading in order to test for elevated concentrations of these chemicals. This is significant impact requiring mitigation. Implementation of new Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Overall, the Modified Project implemented under changed circumstances would result in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the Prior EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9-18 – 4.9-19.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for each phase of development requiring demolition and removal of onsite structures, the Project applicant shall provide documentation to the City of Corona Building Division demonstrating that the improvements and/or buildings subject to a demolition permit application include survey testing for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paints (LBP) in accordance with existing federal and state regulations.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant H. HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-21.)

Page 960 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 91
Explanation:

Construction
Construction of the GRRSP Planning Area and the proposed BPI development would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Additionally, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction-related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents, and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and, if mixed with surface water runoff, could wash into and pollute waters.

Consistent with the 2001 EIR, short-term storm water pollutant discharges from each individual site within the GRRSP Planning Area would be prevented through compliance with the applicable NPDES permitting process. Coverage with applicable permits would prevent sedimentation and soil erosion through implementation of an SWPPP and periodic inspections by RWQCB staff.

During the construction period, the development associated with the GRRSP would utilize a series of BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation consistent with those identified in the Certified EIR.

To ensure that future development within the GRRSP Planning Area obtains coverage under the NPDES General Construction permit, implementation of the 2001 EIR Mitigation Measures

4.11.1A, 4.11.3A, 4.11.3.B, and 4.11.4A have been identified. As a result, with implementation of mitigation measures 4.11.1A, 4.11.3A, 4.11.3.B, and 4.11.4A the Modified Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The Modified Project would include the proposed BPI development consisting of five industrial buildings totaling in approximately 746,167 square feet within the business industrial designation.

The GRRSP Planning Area is comprised of approximately 160.0 acres of undeveloped vacant land, and has been modified for the future 5.5 acres general commercial parcel north of Green River Road and the 20.39 acres Estate Residential situated on the southern portion of the property.

Potential pollutants associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality.

Section 15.36 of the City’s Municipal Code requires implementation of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) based on the anticipated pollutants that could result from new development and redevelopment projects. The Project’s WQMP was created to comply with the requirements of the City of Corona, the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan, and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program. The BMPs would include pollutant source control features and pollutant treatment control features.

Page 961 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 92
The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. For the purposes of stormwater quality, an underground bioretention/biofiltration system is proposed. The proposed BPI development would include the project design features, PDF HYD-1, of which would consist of 10 Biotreatment Units (Modular Wetland System) and twounderground 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. The proposed biotreatment units and underground detention chambers would capture, treat, and slow stormwater runoff for the 10-year and 100-year storm events.

However, in order to prevent impacts to operational water quality, the Modified Project would be required to prepare a site-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to identify lowimpact development storm water retention strategies and appropriate hydromodification controls to mitigate potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Consistent with the 2001 EIR, applicable Mitigation Measures 4.11.1.B, 4.11.2.A, 4.11.2B,

4.11.3.C, 4.11.3.D, and 4.11.4B have been identified. With implementation of PDF HYD-1, NPDES requirements and the WQMP, pursuant to the City Municipal Code, and City Council Ordinance No. 2291 and 2828 (included as 2001 EIR mitigation measures 4.11.1A, 4.11.1.B,

4.11.2.A, 4.11.2B, 4.11.3A, 4.11.3.B, 4.11.3.D, and 4.11.4A); which would be verified during the plan check and permitting process for the Modified Project, the Modified Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts related to the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements 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. 4.10-21 – 4.10-23.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.11.1A: The project applicant shall obtain all required permits and clearances from the Corps, the RWQCB, and the CDFG prior to the disturbance of any existing drainage.

MM 4.11.1B: Drainage facilities within engineered slopes/fills shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City of Corona standards.

MM 4.11.2A: All proposed storm drain facilities and equipment shall be designed, installed and maintained in a manner to convey peak flows estimated for the project. Drainage plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

MM 4.11.2B: On-site detention basins shall be constructed to accommodate storm flows from the project site. Such facilities shall be designed, installed and maintained in a manner to reduce onsite runoff to a level that can be accommodated by the existing culverts beneath Green River Road.

Page 962 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 93
All required drainage structures shall be designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with applicable City of Corona standards
MM 4.11.3A: The construction and/or grading contractor shall establish and implement a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and post- construction Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with NPDES permit issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB.

MM 4.11.3.B: In accordance with issuance of a NPDES permit, the construction and/or grading contractor shall establish and implement specific Best Management Practices (BMP) at time of project implementation. Construction erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. BMPs to minimize erosion and/or sedimentation impacts shall include (but not be limited to) the following:
• Collection of runoff entering developing areas into surface and subsurface drains for removal to nearby drainages.
• Capture of runoff above steep slopes or poorly vegetated areas and conveyance to nearby drainages.
• Conveyance of runoff generated on paved or covered areas via drains and swales to natural drainage courses.
• Revegetation of disturbed areas and vegetation of non-disturbed but highly erosive areas.
• Use of drought tolerant plants and irrigation systems which minimize runoff. • Use of other erosion control devices such as rip-rap, gabions, concrete lining, small check dams, etc. to reduce erosion in gullies and active stream channels. • During the time that on-site soils are exposed, the soil surface shall be approximately 2 feet below the surrounding grade. Any storm water falling on exposed soils will infiltrate on site.
• To the maximum extent possible, on-site vegetation shall be maintained. • Limit grading disturbance to essential project area.
• Limit grading activities during the rainy season.
• Balance and limit, to the extent possible, the amount of cut and fill. • Water entering and exiting the site shall be diverted through the placement of interceptor trenches or other erosion control devices.

Page 963 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 94
• Water shall be sprayed on disturbed areas to limit dust generation. • The construction entrance shall be stabilized to reduce tracking onto adjacent streets.
• Dikes, drains, swales or other features shall be used to divert and/or redirect runoff.

MM 4.113. C: Manufactured slopes shall be stabilized. Where appropriate, retaining wall designs shall include waterproofing and weep holes, subdrains or backdrains for relieving possible hydrostatic pressures.

MM 4.11.3.D : Manufactured slopes shall be revegetated to help ensure stability. Revegetation plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Plant selection shall comply with the Plant Palette contained in Section 4.3.6 of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan.

MM 4.11.4A: Development within the Specific Plan area shall comply with applicable provisions of the NPDES permit and the applicable standards and regulations of responsible agencies.

MM 4.11.4B: Precast “stormceptors” shall be installed in parking areas and/or in areas where fuels, oils, solvents or other pollutants may enter the stormwater stream (i.e., gas stations, loading areas). Such devices shall be adequately maintained (including the cleaning/replacing of absorbent fiberglass “pillows” and periodic removal of accumulated sand and silt).

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

2. Erosion or Siltation
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 surface, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-24.)
Explanation:

Although the GRRSP Planning Area does not include, a natural stream, river or other body of water, the Project site does contain several ravines (non-wetland waters) which convey natural drainage across the Modified Project site to off-site tributaries. Under existing conditions, development of the Modified Project would alter the course of a stream thereby impacting the existing drainage pattern.

As previously discussed, a SWPPP would be implemented during construction to control drainage

Page 964 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 95
and maintain drainage patterns across the Modified Project (MM 4.11.3A). As discussed in the WQMP (Appendix K) existing drainage patterns would remain unchanged, which would result in a decrease in time of concentration due to increase in imperviousness. To address this increase, the BPI development, proposes a biofiltration system that would capture runoff prior to discharge off-site (PDF HYD-1). All storm water runoff will be carried via typical street sections and an onsite storm drain system. In addition, the Drainage Report determined, a 10-year storm event would be contained below the top of curb and a 100-year storm event would be protected from the industrial building pads. Additionally, the installation of onsite landscaping, a biofiltration system, and catch basins would be designed to accommodate the increased flow volume. Moreover, impacts from the erosion of existing natural downstream canyons and hillsides will be mitigated to a less than significant level by properly designed grading, detention basins, energy dissipators and erosion protection rip-rap pads at the outlet of storm drain system (MM HYD-1).

Additionally, according to the FEMA’s FIRM Map #06065C0668G, #06065C0669G, and #06065C1335GG the Project site is zoned as Flood Zone X, area with minimal flood hazard. The City would review the Modified Project permit applications to ensure the proposed BPI and future development within the GRRSP would not be subject to significant flood hazard and structures would be floodproofed and would not impede or redirect flood flows. As such, with implementation of mitigation measures MM HYD-1, and 4.11.3A, the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing drainage pattern.

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. 4.10-24 – 4.10-25.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.11.3A: The construction and/or grading contractor shall establish and implement a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and post- construction Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with NPDES permit issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB.

MM HYD-1: Erosion of existing natural downstream canyons and hillsides will be mitigated by properly designed grading, detention basins, energy dissipators and erosion protection rip-rap pads at the outlet of storm drain system.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant

3. Flooding and Flood Flows
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 surface, in a manner which would

Page 965 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 96
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 surface, 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 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.

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. 4.10-25 – 4.10-26.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant

Page 966 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 97
Mitigation Measures:

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant I. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Listed, Eligible or Defined Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Finding: Change in Circumstance or New Information Requiring Major or Minor EIR Revisions. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.18-15.)
Explanation:

As determined in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the Modified Project site includes a boardformed concrete water tank, a concrete-lined reservoir, and a front-gabled cinderblock garage, however, does not contain resources eligible for listing on a register of historical resources. In addition, the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix E) prepared for the Project included a records search for the Modified Project site and surrounding area was conducted through the Eastern Information Center at the University of California Riverside and did not identify any historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) on the site. However,

Page 967 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 98
as previously stated in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, given the prior disturbance and historic use of the Project site, and the proximity to multiple natural sources of water, unknown buried archaeological deposits may be encountered within the Planning Area during grading operations.

Due to current best practices and the City’s General Plan, it is understood that unknown resources may be encounter during development of the Modified Project may occur resulting in a significant impact. As stated in Section 4.5.10, Mitigation Measure, MM CUL-1, all earthwork for development of the Modified Project would be required to be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and protocols within the Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (CR/TCR-MMP) are to be followed.

Furthermore, the SLF search (Appendix E-2) completed by the NAHC to determine if recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within a one-mile radius of the Project site, yielded negative results. Given that there are no known tribal cultural resources on or adjacent to the Modified Project site, there is a limited potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources. However, as part of the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation processes, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) have indicated there is a high potential to impact TCRs during grading activities of the Modified Project due to the prehistoric activities that occurred within and around the GRRSP Planning Area. The Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians provide suggestions regarding the treatment and mitigation of cultural and tribal cultural resources during the CEQA public comment period on eh Draft SEIR. In consideration of the three tribes suggestions regarding mitigation, Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and CUL-2 and MM TCR-1 thru TCR-2 would be included to reduce the potential impact to unknown Tribal Cultural Resource unearthed during grading construction activities. Thus, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM TCR-1 thru TRC-2. However, no substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.18-15.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor(s) Prior to Commencement of GroundDisturbing Activities.

A. The Project applicant shall retain, via a monitoring agreement, a Native American Monitor(s) authorized to represent Kizh Nation, Pechanga, and Soboba on a rotating basis for all “ground-disturbing activities” in native soil and previously unexamined fill soils that occur within the proposed project area. The monitor(s) shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, all grading activities, archaeological investigations, demolition, pavement removal, subsurface testing of any kind, weed abatement, potholing,

Page 968 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 99
auguring, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor(s) will complete daily monitoring activity logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural and Tribal Cultural Resource materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe(s). Tribal monitoring activity logs will be provided to the City and Applicant with any confidential information, as provided by law, not being subject to a Public Records Act Request.

D. On-site tribal monitoring for site preparation activities and for construction within each Planning Area shall conclude upon the sooner of (1) when the consulting Tribe(s)’ monitor(s) confirms through a written confirmation that all grading and ground-disturbing activities are no longer within archaeological and cultural resources soils or (2) a determination by the City and written notification to the Tribal monitor(s) that soil-disturbing construction activities have concluded at the site.

MM TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
A. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made.

If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendant ("MLD”). The MLD shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

B. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute, unless there are multiple Ancestral remains comprising a burial site, which may also be a Tribal Cultural Resource. In the event that funerary objects are located, additional treatment measures will be imposed and implemented pursuant to the provisions of a Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

Page 969 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 100
and after seeking recommendations from the MLD and the culturally affiliated consulting tribe(s).

C. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the City, after consulting with the project archeologist and after seeking recommendations from the named MLD and consulting Tribe(s), determines that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable.

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. If multiple Native American human remains are uncovered, additional treatment and measures will be required for the site as agreed upon by the project archeologist and the City, after seeking recommendations from the MLD and consulting Tribe(s).

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

MM CUL-1 Unanticipated Discoveries of Cultural Resources: Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Cultural Resources/ Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan CR/TCR-MMP shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the City for dissemination to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh), Pechanga Band of Indians (Pechanga), and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Soboba). All parties shall review and be provided with an opportunity to comment upon, the plan in a reasonable time period as determined by the City prior to permitting for the Project. If consensus among the Project archeologist, the City and Tribe(s) about monitoring and treatment methods cannot be reached, the City shall make the determination in its best judgement regarding the appropriate measures for inclusion in the CR/TCR-MMP considering input and recommendations from archaeologist and the consulting Tribe(s). Any non-responsive party shall be assumed to have agreed to the plans without comment. Any and all findings of discovered resources will be subject to the protocol detailed within the CR/TCR-MMP.

This CR/TCR-MMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification in the form of a letter from the project archaeologist to the City stating that a certified archaeologist has been retained to implement the CR/TCR-MMP. 2) The project applicant shall provide Native American monitoring from the consulting Tribe(s) on a rotating basis during all grading and ground disturbing activities. The Native American monitor(s) shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe ground disturbances to fulfill the provisions of the CR/TCR-MMP. 3) The certified archaeologist and the consulting tribal monitor(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the CR/TCRPage 970 of 4376 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 101
MM.
4) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist in consultation with the tribal monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources tribal cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the City at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the tribal monitor(s) and City, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The City must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, the CR/TCR-MMP shall address culturally appropriate methods and treatment, including additional steps to mitigate impacts as determined by the City.
5) Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, any cultural resources or tribal cultural resources that cannot be avoided and preserved in place shall be addressed though the methods and processes identified in the CR/TCR-MMP. The project archaeologist in consultation with the consulting tribal monitor(s) shall identify the methods for data recovery in the CR/TCR-MMP.
6) All cultural material collected shall be subject to the culturally appropriate treatment and mitigation standards outlined in the TCR-CRMP, which may include reburial on-site in an area that will be protected in perpetuity or relinquishment to the culturally affiliated consulting tribal government for culturally appropriate treatment. 7) A Phase 4 report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed, in consultation with the consulting tribal monitor(s), and submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms.
8) Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR and) shall be curated at an institution meeting the State and federal standards for curation.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant J. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Storm Water Drainage
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage 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

Page 971 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 102
Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, pp. 4.19-28 and 4.19-29.) Explanation:

As discussed previously in Section IV. Impacts That Are Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated, 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 onor 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 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 feature PDF HYD-1, the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact from the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

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. 4.19-28 – 4.19-29.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.11.2A: All proposed storm drain facilities and equipment shall be designed, installed and maintained in a manner to convey peak flows estimated for the project. Drainage plans shall be

Page 972 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 103
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant K. WILDFIRE

1. Emergency Response Plan
Threshold: Would the Project substantially impair 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. 4.20-10.)
Explanation:

As previously stated, the City has prepared an EOP to ensure the most effective allocation of resources for the maximum benefit and protection of the civilian population in time of emergency.

In addition, the City’s LHMP is designed to identify local hazards and provide mitigation measures to address these hazards. Although the proposed GRRSP Amendment includes adjustments to land use dedication and acreages, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes as previously analyzed in the 2001 EIR or as envisioned in the current EOP. As previously identified, the Project site is within the response area of Corona Fire Department, Fire Station 5, within a Local Responsibility Area designated as a Very High FHSZ.

Construction
Development of the Modified Project includes development of the proposed BPI development and off-site utilities and roadway improvements. Construction of the BPI development in PA’s 1, 2, and 3 includes five (5) light industrial buildings totaling 746,330 square feet. The off-site improvements to roadways and utilities would occur in public rights-of-way and along the Project frontage. During construction activities, temporary full or partial lane closures may be necessary, especially for Green River Road widening and utility and roadway improvements at the Palisades Drive and Green River Road connection. The full or partial lane closures could result in the redistribution of traffic along adjacent and surrounding roadways. As construction progresses, access for emergency vehicles could be impaired as result of reduced roadway widths (or capacity) and increased volumes of construction-related traffic or redistributed traffic. As a result, construction could impair or physically interfere with adopted Emergency Response Plans or Emergency Evacuation Plans.

As previously stated, the City has several policies regarding public safety related to emergencies, including those found in the General Plan Safety Element, the EOP and the LHMP. The Modified Project would be required to comply with all of these policies. In addition, current construction best practices as implemented by MM HAZ-1 in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,

Page 973 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 104
would require the preparation and implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan that would allow for access for emergency vehicles to be maintained at all times. Furthermore, the plan would require that police, fire, and emergency services be notified of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities that could hinder or delay emergency access through the construction period. As a result, compliance of City plans, policies, and incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1, construction- related impacts would be reduced to less than significant in a similar manner as identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project.

Operation
Once constructed, the proposed circulation improvements around and within the Project site would provide additional access for potential movement of emergency equipment. Improvements such as widening of Green River Road and provision of emergency access locations would improve the ability of emergency personnel to access the site while the interior roadways constructed to CFD fire apparatus access standards would improve their ability to navigate within the site. Due to the circulatory improvements associated with the Project, it can be determined that implementation of the Modified Project would improve emergency access to the Project site and nearby uses and would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 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. 4.20-10 – 4.20-11.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant SECTION VI.

IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED

TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City hereby finds that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures or Program Alternatives identified in the SEIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level:

Page 974 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 105
A. AIR QUALITY:

1. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: The Modified Project result in new or more severe impacts requiring revisions to the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-16.)
Explanation:

Projects are considered consistent with the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors (e.g., population, employment) is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP. The future emissions forecasts are primarily based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by SCAG. Thus, demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories developed by SCAG in their current 2020-2045 RTP/SCS were in turn used to estimate future emissions by SCAQMD in their current 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2022).

Pursuant to SCAQMD’s consistency analysis guidelines contained in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the AQMP is affirmed when a project: (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation; and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.

AQMP Consistency Criterion 1: The Modified Project would result in long-term operational pollutant emissions that exceed CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD, as demonstrated below; therefore, the proposed Modified Project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. A detailed discussion of this conclusion follows. As shown below in Table 4.3-1, the Modified Project construction-source emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX emissions. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure, MM AQ-1 as presented in Section 4.3.10, the Modified Project construction source emissions impacts would be reduced to less than significant as shown in Table 4.3-2.

Implementation of MM AQ-1 requires that all grading construction contractors ensure offroad diesel construction equipment complies with EPA/CARB Tier 4 Interim emissions standards or equivalent and ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. As a result, the Modified Project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds for construction activity with mitigation incorporated.

Thus, construction activities related to the Modified Project would be consistent with the first criterion.

As shown below in Table 4.3-3, the Modified Project’s long-term operational activities would exceed summer VOC emissions thresholds and NOX emissions thresholds for both summer and winter. As a result, the Modified Project has the potential to exceed the applicable regional

Page 975 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 106
significance thresholds during operational activities. The Modified Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305, the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, which requires owners and operators associated with warehouses 100,000 square feet or larger are required to directly reduce NOX and PM emissions, or to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities. As such, the Modified Project would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 to reduce operational-related emissions, specifically designed to improve truck efficiency. However, the estimated long-term operational emissions generated under full buildout of the Modified Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional operational significance thresholds. In addition, Project operational-source VOC emissions during summer cannot be definitively reduced below applicable SCQMD thresholds and therefore would therefore exceed regional operational significance thresholds.

The proposed Project’s main operational-source emissions source would be generated by passenger cars and trucks accessing the Modified Project, and no feasible mitigation beyond the measures to be implemented exist that would reduce Project operational-source VOC and NOX emissions to levels that are less than significant. As a result, the Modified Project would conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion.

AQMP Consistency Criterion 2: The Modified Project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used by SCAQMD to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. The Approved Project land uses are consistent with the City’s GP and are therefore consistent with the AQMP growth projections. The Modified Project’s land uses are less intense than the Approved Project, and therefore are also consistent with the AQMP growth projections.

Per the City’s General Plan, PAs 1, 2, and 3 are designated for MU2 and GC uses, and PAs 4 and 5 are designated for MU2 and ER in accordance with the Approved Project. The MU2 land use designation allows for light industrial and commercial uses. The GC land use designation allows for the development of supermarkets, department stores, apparel stores, theaters, and nonretail uses such as offices and banks. The ER land use designation includes the development of single-family homes, light agriculture uses, and accessory buildings. The Modified Project’s proposed uses and development would be consistent with the land use designation intensities stated in the General Plan and the Approved Project (i.e., the GRRSP.)
The Project would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for operational-source activity for emissions of summer VOC and NOX. Even with implementation of feasible mitigation, this threshold exceedance is considered significant and unavoidable. Thus, the Modified Project would have the potential to conflict with the second criterion.

As previously discussed, Modified Project operational-source emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for summer VOC and NOX with mitigation incorporated. In addition, the Project’s proposed land use designation for the GRRSP Planning Area would potentially affect the development intensities. As a result, the Project would conflict

Page 976 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 107
with the AQMP and result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

In summary, the Modified Project would result in a new increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The Modified Project would result in new or more severe impacts in comparison to those identified for the Approved Project in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-16 – 4.3-18.) Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.3.1A: The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

MM 4.3.1B: The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.

MM 4.3.1C: The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.

MM 4.3.1D: The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.

MM 4.3.1.E: The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.

MM 4.3.1F: Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.

Page 977 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 108
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin
MM 4.3.1G: The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible precoated/natural colored building materials, water-based or low-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge.

MM 4.3.2A: The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. The project applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans:
• Planting trees to provide shade and shadow to building • Solar or low-emission water heaters shall be used with combined space/water heater unit. • Refrigerator with vacuum power insulation.
• Double-pained glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows
• Energy-efficient low-sodium parking lot lights shall be used.

MM 4.3.2B: Use of transportation demand measures (TDM) such as preferential parking for vanpooling/carpooling, subsidy for transit pass or vanpooling/carpooling, flextime work schedule, bike racks, lockers, showers, and on-site cafeteria shall be incorporated in the design of the commercial land uses.

MM 4.3.2C: The project proponent shall determine with the City and the electrical purveyor if it is feasible to pre-wire houses for electrical charges for EV cars and/or opticfibers for home offices.

If feasible, install EV charges and/or optic-fibers per the electrical purveyor's direction prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

MM AQ -1: During grading of Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3, all Construction Contractors shall ensure that offroad diesel construction equipment complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/CARB Tier 4 Interim emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all

Page 978 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 109
construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

MM AQ-2: Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB anti- idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Lead Agency (City of Corona) shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.

MM AQ-3: Prior to tenant occupancy for Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3, the Project Applicants or successors in interest shall provide documentation to the Lead Agency (City of Corona) demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleanerthan-required engines and equipment.

MM AQ-4: The minimum number of automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 shall be provided. Final designs of Project buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable

2. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-18.)
Explanation:

The CAAQS designate the Modified Project area as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Modified Project area as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. As presented in the AQIA , the analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Page 979 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 110
Construction Impacts
As detailed in the AQIA , the estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on Table 4.3-1 below. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Modified Project construction will exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of NOX during construction activity. The exceedance is a result of on-site equipment operations occurring during the 2024 grading activities.

The estimated maximum daily construction emissions with mitigation are summarized on Table

4.3-2 below. As presented above in Impact AQ-1, implementation of MM AQ-1 would be required to reduce the severity of the impacts from construction equipment. As a result, construction-source emissions would be reduced below the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, with implementation of MM AQ-1, Modified Project construction-source emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operation Impacts
Operational activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions
• On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions
• Transportation Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Emissions
• Gasoline Dispensing Emissions
As shown in Table 4.3-3, the Modified Project’s operational‐source NOX emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds without implementation of mitigation resulting in a significant impact requiring mitigation.

As previously stated in Impact AQ-1, the Modified Project would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measures, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 to reduce operational-related emissions. The estimated maximum daily operational emissions with mitigation are summarized on Table 4.3-4 below.

As shown in Table 4.3-4, the Modified Project’s operational‐source NOX emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds with implementation of mitigation resulting in a significant impact requiring mitigation. As stated in the AQIA, no feasible mitigation beyond the measures to be implemented exist that would reduce Project operational-source VOC and NOX emissions to levels that are less than significant. As a result, the Modified Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Page 980 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 111
As discussed previously, the 2001 EIR determined the Approved Project would produce construction-related impacts from NOx and PM10 emissions and operational-related emissions from CO, ROC, and NOx that would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, no new impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. However, additional mitigation measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-4 have been identified for the Modified Project to reduce impacts from construction and operations of the Modified Project to the fullest extent feasible. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.3-18 – 4.3-22.)
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM AQ -1: During grading of Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3, all Construction Contractors shall ensure that offroad diesel construction equipment complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/CARB Tier 4 Interim emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

MM AQ-2: Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB antiidling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Lead Agency (City of Corona) shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable

Page 981 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 112
B. TRANSPORTATION:

1. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b)
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Eliminated, Reduced, or No Changes to Impacts and No Changes to the Prior EIR are Required. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.17-10.)
Explanation:

Based on the results of the VMT Study, the Modified Project’s retail component (GC uses in PA 4) meets the local serving screening criteria. However, the remaining BPI Development and ER components do not meet any available screening criteria and therefore the VMT Study included a detailed VMT analysis. The VMT analysis was conducted consistent with the City VMT Guidelines.

The Modified Project’s VMT per service population was calculated to be 62.0. With a baseline City threshold VMT per service population of 40.6, the Modified Project would exceed the City’s impact threshold by 52.7%. Consequently, the Modified Project would result in a significant impact requiring mitigation. CEQA requires that feasible mitigation measures be implemented to reduce a project’s level of impact.

The VMT study determined mitigation of the BPI Development and ER VMT impact should involve development and implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that are considered feasible and will contribute to reducing project generated VMT. Features to promote the use of alternative transportation modes such as sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and bicycle racks would be included as part of the BPI Development. As part of the TDM Plan, property owner associations and/or building occupants would be required to implement a TDM Plan to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips for employees and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, transit, walking, and biking. Mitigation Measure MM TRA-1 defined in section

4.17.10 would reduce VMT impacts associated with the BPI and ER components of the Modified Project. Sufficient TDM reduction strategies do not exist to reduce the project’s daily VMT per service population by 52.7% as required to fully mitigate the impact. Consequently, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, VMT service population thresholds would not be met resulting in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact. As concluded in the 2001 EIR, the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts.

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.

However, the Modified Project requires implementation of new Mitigation Measure MM TRA-1. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.17-10 – 4.17-11.)

Page 982 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 113
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.17.1 / MM TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the BPI Development in PA 1, 2 and 3 , separate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans shall be prepared to reduce project VMT. Applicable trip reduction strategies may include but are not limited to the following:
• Implement voluntary local hiring programs.
• Mark preferred parking spaces for vanpools and carpools. • Provide on-site secured bike parking facilities.
• Provide information on carpooling and vanpooling opportunities to employees. • Provide an on-site message board in each building or other comparable system to encourage and provide information about public transit, carpooling, and vanpooling, and carpool and vanpool ride-matching services.

The TDM Plan shall include an estimate of the vehicle trip reduction anticipated for each strategy proposed based on published research such as California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (December 2021) (CAPCOA Handbook).

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable SECTION VII.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
C. AESTHETICS
The cumulative aesthetics study area for the Project is the viewshed from public areas that can view the Project alignment and locations that can be viewed from the Project alignment. As previously determined, the proposed realignment does not require any new development or any temporary construction activities, therefore implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any impacts to a scenic vista, scenic highway, nor would it degrade the existing visual character or create glare. In addition, there are no cumulative projects identified within the vicinity of proposed Project as identified in Section 2.0 that would contribute to development that is consistent with planned uses in the Project area. The Project would result in no impact associated with scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and lighting. Consequently, the proposed Project would result in no impacts associated with aesthetics and no mitigation is required. (Draft

Page 983 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 114
SEIR, p. 4.1-43.)
D. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The Approved Project’s cumulative impacts associated with agricultural and forestry resources was not specifically addressed in the 2001 EIR. However, the cumulative effect of development in the region was already resulting in the conversion of agricultural lands to non- agricultural uses at the time the 2001 EIR was certified. It can be inferred both the Approved and Modified Project would not result in any cumulative impacts associated with farmland and forestry resources because there is no farmland or forestry zoned properties or operations within or near the GRRSP Planning Area. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a change in cumulative impacts that would require further analysis and the level of impact would remain the same as can be inferred from the time the 2001 EIR was certified.(Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-10.) E. AIR QUALITY
As stated within the AQIA, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. Due to the Modified Project’s construction-source air pollutant emissions not resulting in exceedances of regional thresholds with implementation of mitigation, cumulative impacts are considered to be less than significant. Alternatively, the Modified Projects operational‐ source NOX emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Per SCAQMD significance guidance, these impacts at the Project level are considered cumulatively significant and would persist over the life of the Project. The 2001 EIR determined the Approved Project would result in cumulatively considerable construction impacts from emission of NOx that would contribute to regional ozone formation. The 2001 EIR determined both long-term stationary (onsite energy consumption) and mobile (vehicular traffic) sources would contribute to regional criteria pollutant emissions, resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, no new or substantially greater cumulative 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-

28.)
F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant. “Related projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed Project.

Anticipated cumulative impacts are addressed by the MSHCP, which, as currently adopted, addresses 146 “Covered Species” that represent a broad range of habitats and geographical areas within western Riverside County, including threatened and endangered species and regionally- or locally-sensitive species that have specific habitat requirements and conservation and management needs. The MSHCP addresses biological impacts for take of Covered Species within the MSHCP

Page 984 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 115
area. Impacts to Covered Species and establishment and implementation of a regional conservation strategy and other measures included in the MSHCP are intended to address the federal, state, and local mitigation requirements for these species and their habitats.

Impacts to the special-status vegetation communities could be potentially cumulatively significant, prior to mitigation. These vegetation communities are Coast Live Oak Woodland, Coastal Sage Scrub, Elderberry Savannah, and Riparian/Riverine resources for the Modified Project. For those non-riparian/riverine vegetation communities, the MSHCP provides full mitigation for proposed impacts. For the proposed impacts to riparian/riverine resources, the MSHCP requires equivalent or superior preservation that is detailed in a DBESP. As presented above, the Modified Project would mitigate 3.04 acres of riparian/riverine resources (1.11 acres of riparian and 1.93 acres of unvegetated streambed). This would mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant under CEQA and would be consistent with MSHCP requirements in that equivalent or superior preservation is provided.

The proposed BPI Project would remove several Coulter’s matilija poppy, a non-listed special status plant species that is covered and adequately conserved by the MSHCP. The removal of Coulter’s matilija poppy by the Modified Project would not pose a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of this species.

Impacts to the following animal species would be potentially cumulatively significant, prior to mitigation, as a result of the loss of potential habitat for these species: Crotch’s bumble bee, least Bell’s vireo, Cooper’s hawk, yellow warbler, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, western mastiff bat, western yellow bat, coast horned lizard, coast patch-nosed snake, coastal whiptail, orange throat whiptail, red-diamond rattlesnake, and southern California legless lizard.

Some of these species are fully covered species under the MSHCP and as such any proposed impacts would be fully mitigated under the MSHCP. For others such as the bat species, impacts would be potentially cumulatively significant, however the Project is proposing permanent natural land conservation in the southern portion of the Project site. With implementation of Project mitigation in combination with the Project’s proposed design feature of open space conservation, the potential for the Project to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of any of these species would not occur.

With implementation of the Modified Project’s open space and in combination with Mitigation Measure 4.7.1.A for impacts to California gnatcatchers, Additional information and environmental analysis of the Alternative Alignment of PCL-1 can be found in Section 5.0. for Crotch bumble bee, Mitigation Measure 4.7.2.A for mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional features, Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.A for nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 for least Bell’s vireo, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 for Crotch’s bumble bee, Mitigation Measure 4.7.4 through 4.7.4.E for oak woodlands mitigation, the Modified Project would have a less than significant with mitigation cumulative impact regarding biological resources. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.4-41 – 4.4-42.) G. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Page 985 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 116
As stated in the 2001 EIR, the cumulative impact area for cultural resources is the City of Corona.

Similar to the Modified Project, the 2001 EIR determined no significant prehistoric or historic archeological resources were located within the Project area. Moreover, the previously identified concrete culvert located at the north end of the Project area was evaluated for consideration as a historic resource is not considered a historic resource and is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Therefore, as determined in the 2001 EIR, there are no cumulative impact anticipated by the implementation of the Modified Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.5-9.) H. ENERGY
Development of the proposed BPI Development would be required to comply and be consistent with obligatory energy efficiency requirements in the City’s General Plan and Development Code as well as all obligatory State-level energy programs and requirements. Similarly, as future development projects within PAs 4 and 5 of the GRRSP are received and reviewed by the City in subsequent years, those projects would also be reviewed for compliance consistency with the General Plan and Development Code and all relevant State-level energy programs and requirements. All development associated with the Modified Project would implement the most current version of Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, as required by State law. Consistency with the General Plan, Development Code and other mandatory State-level programs would ensure that the Modified Project’s contributions to inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary energy use would be less than significant. Moreover, as identified above, implementation of the Modified Project would not be expected to cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As a result, the Modified Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative energy impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable requiring no mitigation. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.6-21 – 4.6-22.) I. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Future development within the Modified Project vicinity would result in the potential for loss of paleontological resources. However, each development project is required to implement appropriate mitigation during earth moving activities in the same manner as identified for the Modified Project (prior EIR MM 4.9.1.4 and new MM PAL-1). For this reason, cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to below a level of significance in the same manner as concluded in the 2001 EIR. Pursuant to local paleontological protection measures contained in the County of Riverside’s and City’s GPs, and the provisions of CEQA, impacts to paleontological resources from projects within the cumulative impact area that require discretionary action by a public agency would be assessed. Similar to the conclusion reached in the prior EIR, it is reasonable to assume appropriate mitigation would be required for all cumulative projects and impacts would be reduced to less than significant on a project and cumulative level. Therefore, no new or substantially greater cumulative 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. 4.7-20.)
J. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Page 986 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 117
GHG emissions impacts are assessed in a cumulative context, since no single project can cause a discernible change to climate. Climate change impacts are the result of incremental contributions from natural processes, and past and present human-related activities. Therefore, the area in which a proposed project in combination with other past, present, or future projects, could contribute to a significant cumulative climate change impact would not be defined by a geographical boundary such as a project site or combination of sites, city or air basin. Even though the emissions of GHGs cannot be defined by a geographic boundary and are effectively part of the global issue of climate change, CEQA places a boundary for the analysis of impacts at the state’s borders. Thus, the geographic area for analysis of cumulative GHG emissions impacts is the State of California.

Therefore, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions that would contribute to cumulative emissions in California.

The Modified Project would not generate significant GHG emissions, nor conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation with mitigation measure MM GHG-1 incorporated resulting in a less than significant impact. As a result, with the implementation of mitigation and GHG reduction strategies, the Modified Project’s cumulative GHG emissions would be considered less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.8-20.)
K. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Project-specific hazardous material impacts resulting from individual future development projects will be mitigated via application of applicable regulations or addressed separately in future CEQA documents. Anticipated future development will contribute through increases in population and the number of outlets that transport or dispose of hazardous materials, to a cumulative increase in risk for hazardous material incidents. Although each project has unique hazardous materials considerations, future cumulative projects would comply with the local, State, and Federal regulations and requirements as these are required for all development projects. As a result, cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Cumulative aircraft hazard impacts consist of future development within the boundaries of applicable Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) accident potential zones. The risk to or from each future project is based on the specific accident potential zone. The risks associated with development in these accident potential zones can only be reduced through conformance with land use guidelines and policies identified by the ALUP. Because the surrounding cities as well as the County of Riverside have implemented comprehensive land use plans that incorporate applicable ALUP recommendations, it is anticipated cumulative development within the accident potential zones would in a less than significant cumulative impact associated with aircraft accident hazards.

Similar to the conclusions for the Approved Project contained in the 2001 EIR, the Modified Project would be required to comply with local, State, and Federal regulations and requirements related to hazardous materials. With adherence to these measures, the Modified Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a change in cumulative impacts that would require further analysis and the level of impact would remain the same as can be inferred from the time the 2001 EIR was certified. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.9- 21 – 4.9-22.)

Page 987 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 118
L. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As concluded in the preceding analysis, the Modified Project would not change the significance of Hydrology and Water Quality impacts as compared to the prior 2001 EIR.

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality includes the Santa Ana River Watershed. Implementation of the Modified Project would include compliance with all required laws, permits, ordinances, and plans, such as the MS4 Permit, and Construction General Permit requirements, that would reduce incremental effects to hydrology and water quality. The Modified Project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the watershed and is required to include pervious surfaces to retain storm water drainage on site. This increase in impervious surfaces with implementation of the proposed BMPs (PDF HYD-1) as required by the MS4 Permit would not lead to an increase in surface runoff or significant pollutant loadings.

Other future developments within the urban and developed subwatershed would have similar effects as the Modified Project. The areas surrounding the Modified Project area are of similar urban nature, and any future development would also include compliance with all required laws, permits, ordinances, and plans, such as the MS4 Permit, and Construction General Permit requirements, in order to meet runoff requirements. This would help reduce impacts to water quality and retain runoff and ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to water quality. For example, each related project would be required to develop a SWPPP (for construction), a WQMP (for operation), and a hydrology report, and would be evaluated individually to determine appropriate BMPs and treatment measures to reduce impacts to surface water quality and hydrology. In addition, cities review all development projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that sufficient local and regional drainage capacity is available. Furthermore, the analysis in a Project’s hydrology report is cumulative in nature due to the project and existing developments impact on storm drainage within the watershed area.

Combined impacts to water quality, to the storm drain system, and from the creation of flooding hazards from past, present, and future projects would be less than significant cumulatively.

Therefore, because water quality, drainage, and flooding would not be adversely affected by the Modified Project, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.10-28 – 4.10-29.) M. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As discussed under Impact LU-1, the Modified Project would not physically divide an established community. Similarly, the Modified Project was found to be consistent with applicable Connect SoCal and General Plan land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Lastly, as detailed in Section 4.3 of this SEIR, the Modified Project was found to be consistent with the WR-MSHCP. The Modified Project’s impacts associated with these three topics were determined to be less than significant. All three of these topics are inherently cumulative in nature, and therefore the Modified Project’s cumulative impacts are less than significant. The Modified Project’s impacts associated with land use and

Page 988 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 119
planning are consistent with the impacts identified in the 2001 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.11-22.) N. MINERAL RESOURCES
As discussed under Impact MIN-1 and MIN-2, the Modified Project would not result in the loss of or availability of a locally or regionally significant mineral resource. Consistency with the City’s General Plan goals regarding mineral resource protection and adherence to the Municipal Code’s obligatory requirements regarding mineral resource protection, all development projects within the City will ensure mineral resources are adequately protected. Therefore, the Modified Project’s effect on mineral resources are cumulatively less than significant. The Modified Project’s cumulative impacts associated with mineral resources are consistent with the impacts identified in the 2001 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged. (Draft SEIR, p.

4.12-4 – 4.12-5.)
O. NOISE
The cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Modified Project are all located more than 1,000 feet away from the GRRSP Planning Area, and therefore would not contribute substantially to cumulative noise and vibration impacts at receptors near the proposed GRRSP during short- term construction or long-term operational activities. Noise naturally attenuates at 6 dB every doubling of distance of the reference noise source. Most construction equipment has a reference noise source of 50 feet. Therefore, at 500 feet noise will have naturally attenuated over 20 dB, which also does not account for other natural attenuation such as topography, vegetation, or other structures. As a result, the Modified Project’s potential to contribute to any noise or vibration- related cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.13-15.) P. POPULATION AND HOUSING
As discussed under impact POP-1 and POP-2, the Modified Project would not result in growth inducement or displacement of people or housing. The Modified Project is located at the western edge of the City and areas further to the west are unlikely to develop, and therefore development of the Modified Project and associated infrastructure connections would not induce growth by removing an impediment to growth. The Modified Project’s cumulative impacts associated with population and housing are consistent with the impacts identified in the 2001 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.14-8 – 4.14-9.) Q. PUBLIC SERVICES
The geographic context for an analysis of cumulative impacts with regards to public services is the local service area within the City for fire and police services, schools, and libraries. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this DEIR, cumulative development in the City and surrounding would be minimal. Past and present development has resulted in increased population, which in turn has resulted in an increase in demand for all public services. Growth in the City to date has been consistent with the growth projections in the City’s 2020-2040 General Plan. In addition, each of

Page 989 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 120
the public service providers conducts an annual budgeting process where future facility/staffing needs are identified. Because past and present development is consistent with growth identified in the City’s 2020-2040 General Plan and there are mechanisms in place to ensure provision of adequate service, there would be no significant cumulative environmental impact on public services from implementation of the Modified Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.15-15.) R. RECREATION
As discussed under impact REC-1 and REC -2, the Modified Project does not propose construction of a new or renovation of an existing park or recreational facility that would result in and impact to the environment. Cumulative impacts associated with parks and recreational facilities are mitigated by City park fees paid by residential development and City DIF fees paid by all development. These monies are collected and used to fund future park and recreational facilities subject to environmental review. Therefore, the Modified Project’s cumulative impacts are considered less than significant and consistent with the impacts identified in the 2001 EIR for the Approved Project. The level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged. (Draft SEIR, p.

4.16-7.)
S. TRANSPORTATION
As discussed previously, VMT traffic impacts associated with the Modified Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of all feasible mitigation.

The VMT metric is inherently a cumulative analysis, because VMT baselines are directly related to the land use pattern of a given area. Also discussed previously, the Approved Project’s impacts associated with LOS impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

Therefore, no new or substantially greater cumulative traffic 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 4.17-12.)
T. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cumulative study area for tribal cultural resources includes the City of Corona region, which contains the same general tribal historic setting. Other projects throughout the City that would involve ground disturbances could reveal buried tribal cultural resources.

Cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced by compliance with applicable regulations and consultations required by SB 18. As described above, the GRRSP Planning Area is not known to contain tribal cultural resources; however, Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 thru TCR-2 would be implemented to ensure that impacts would not occur in the case of an inadvertent discovery of a potential tribal cultural resource.

These mitigation measures ensure that the Modified Project would not contribute to a cumulative loss of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant. However, no substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project when compared to those identified in the 2001 EIR. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.18-16.)

Page 990 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 121
U. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The cumulative study area used for the analysis of water and wastewater includes areas within CUD’s service area for water and wastewater services, and is based on the buildout of the City’s 2020-2040 General Plan and the general plans of cities within CUD service area. The cumulative study area for solid waste comprises western Riverside County, as all areas of western Riverside County are served by WMIE, and is based on the buildout of the City’s 2020-2040 General Plan and the general plans of cities within western Riverside County. For the remaining issue areas, the cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the GRRSP Planning Area.

As discussed under the analysis of Impact UTL-1, the Modified Project would require a number of improvements related to water, wastewater treatment, and storm drainage systems, although such improvements are inherent to the Modified Project’s construction phase as discussed in the 2001 EIR. Cumulatively-considerable impacts associated with Modified Project construction activities have been evaluated throughout this SEIR, and where necessary mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the Modified Project’s cumulatively- considerable effects to the maximum feasible extent. There are no components of the Modified Project’s proposed water, wastewater, or storm drainage systems that could result in impacts not already evaluated by other sections of this SEIR. Accordingly, impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, and stormwater drainage systems would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The analysis of Impact UTL-2. demonstrates that the CUD would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project as well as other reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The City’s UWMP and the Modified Project’s WSA (Appendix Q) evaluate the water demands of both the Modified Project and other cumulative developments within CUD’s service area, and the Modified Project is well below the growth assumptions utilized in the CUD for the Project site. Because the UWMP demonstrates that the CUD has the capacity to serve future development within its service area, cumulativelyconsiderable impacts to water supply would be less than significant.

As discussed under the analysis of Impact UTL-3. And UTL-4, the Modified Project would require a number of improvements to provide sewer service to the Project site, although impacts associated with such improvements are inherent to the Modified Project’s construction phase. Cumulativelyconsiderable impacts associated with Modified Project construction activities have been evaluated throughout this SEIR, and where necessary mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the Modified Project’s cumulatively-considerable effects to the maximum feasible extent. There are no components of the Modified Project’s proposed wastewater improvements that would result in impacts not already evaluated by other sections of this SEIR. Accordingly, impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment conveyance facilities would be lessthan-cumulatively considerable.

The Modified Project’s wastewater generation would not result in or require the expansion of the existing facilities. Although the Project and other cumulative developments ultimately would

Page 991 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 122
contribute to the need for expanded capacity, impacts associated with such expansion would be subject to CEQA once plans for such expansion have been prepared by the CUD. As no such plans are currently available, it would be speculative to evaluate potential cumulatively-considerable impacts associated with the proposed expansion (CEQA Guidelines § 15145). As such, Modified Project impacts due to wastewater capacity would be less-than-cumulatively considerable.

As previously discussed in the analysis provided under Impact UTL-5, solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Modified Project would represent nominal proportions of the daily disposal capacity at the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and/or Badlands Landfill. The landfills are currently projected to remain open until as far into the future as 2051 (El Sobrante Landfill) and have sufficient daily capacity to handle solid waste generated by the Modified Project and other cumulative developments both during construction and long- term operation. The Modified Project would not directly result in the need for expanded solid waste disposal facilities, as the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and Badlands Landfill have sufficient existing capacity to handle solid waste generated by the Modified Project. Rather, the Modified Project’s incremental contribution to solid waste generation may contribute to an ultimate need for expanding the solid waste disposal facilities that would serve the Modified Project and/or the construction of additional solid waste disposal facilities. Moreover, it is possible that as other developments in the region are proposed, the WMIE may opt to construct new solid waste disposal facilities to serve those developments, and such facilities may or may not receive solid waste generated by the Modified Project. Although the Modified Project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the demand for new or expanded solid waste disposal facilities, the construction of which could significantly impact the environment, it is too speculative for evaluation in the absence of a proposed expansion or development plan (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15145). Therefore, the Modified Project’s cumulatively-considerable impacts to solid waste disposal facilities are evaluated as less than significant.

The Modified Project would adhere to regulations set forth by local and State regulations (including AB 341 and AB 939) during both construction and long-term operations. Other cumulative developments would also be required to comply with such regulations. As such, the Modified Project as well as other cumulative developments in the area would not result in cumulative impacts with respect to compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes. Impacts would be less-than-cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative impacts associated with the provision of facilities for electricity, natural gas, communications systems, stormwater drainage, street lighting, maintenance of facilities, construction of off-site sewer and water lines, and other governmental services are inherent to the Project’s construction phase and have been evaluated throughout the appropriate issue areas in this EIR. In all cases, where cumulatively-considerable impacts associated with any Project component are identified, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce such impacts to the maximum feasible extent. Accordingly, cumulatively-considerable impacts associated with the provision of utility facilities to serve the proposed Project would be less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.19- 33 – 4.19-35.)
V. WILDFIRE

Page 992 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 123
The Project will have a less than significant impact directly or indirectly to an emergency response or evacuation plan and mitigation is not required. The nearest Fire Station is less than a mile from the Project site and would adequately provide emergency services during construction and once in operation. As discussed in Threshold A (i), Section 3.2.4, Public Services, the Project’s incremental impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant due to the proposed Project’s approximate population increase of less than one-tenth of one percent of the City’s current population. The Project includes design features, such as a Fire Protection Plan and Fuel Modification Plan conditionally approved by the City and CFD. Those design features minimize the Project’s potential to exacerbate fire danger within the surrounding area, as well as post-fire flooding or landslides. Although the surrounding area to the north and west is generally built out and was developed under different provisions of the CFC, CBC, and CFD all future cumulative projects within the Project area including nearby properties located in the VHFHSZ would be required to adhere to current provisions of the CFC, CBC and CFD to reduce impacts from wildfire. With implementation of the Project’s design features PDF FIRE-1 and -2 in combination with cumulative project compliance with the CFC, CBC, and CFD requirements, the Project would have a less than significant cumulative wildfire impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 4.20-19.) SECTION VIII.

RELOCATION OF PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. AESTHETICS

1. Aesthetic Impacts
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-4.)
Explanation:

According to the WR-MSHCP, a Constrained Linkage is a constricted connection expected to provide for movement of identified Planning Species between Core Areas, where options for assembly of the connection are limited due to existing patterns of development and land use. As summarized in Section 3.0, Project Description, the WR-MSHCP designated a wildlife corridor named PCL-1 to provide a constrained connection between the wildlife habitats located in Core

Page 993 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 124
Area A to the north (Prado Basin/Santa Ana River) and Core Area B to the south (Cleveland National Forest). There have been discussions about relocating PCL-1 to alternative and superior yet still constrained locations for the past 20 years, including the most recent proposal in 2016 that wasn't approved due to various limitations. However, there is agreement among relevant authorities that a new alignment in B Canyon as envisioned by the proposed Relocation of PCL-1 would be more beneficial for wildlife movement.

Consequently, the proposed realignment would not result in and does not require any new development or any temporary construction activities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any impacts to a scenic vista, scenic highway, nor would it degrade the existing visual character or create glare. No mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-

4.)

2. Cumulative Impacts – Less Than Significant
The cumulative aesthetics study area for the Project is the viewshed from public areas that can view the Project alignment and locations that can be viewed from the Project alignment. As previously determined, the proposed realignment does not require any new development or any temporary construction activities, therefore implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any impacts to a scenic vista, scenic highway, nor would it degrade the existing visual character or create glare. In addition, there are no cumulative projects identified within the vicinity of proposed Project as identified in Section 2.0 that would contribute to development that is consistent with planned uses in the Project area. The Project would result in no impact associated with scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and lighting. Consequently, the proposed Project would result in no impacts associated with aesthetics and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-5.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-7.)
Explanation:

As previously stated, the proposed Project would relocate the PCL-1 alignment to improve connectivity between designated wildlife habitats within the WR-MSHCP. It can be anticipated that all of the realignment would be used for wildlife movement and not to support existing farmland, Prime Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the proposed realignment does not require any new development or any temporary construction activities that

Page 994 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 125
would otherwise impact farmland.

According to the current FMMP map, the approximately 711.28-acre Project alignment consists of Grazing Land and Other Land designations. Consequently, there are no Prime and Unique Farmland within the Project alignment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), to non-agricultural use. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-7 – 5-8.)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-8.)
Explanation:

As stated in the City’s General Plan EIR, there are no Williamson Act contracts in the City.

Therefore, no conflicts with Williamson Act contract lands would occur. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-8.)

3. Forestland Zoning / Loss of Forest Land / Conversion of Farmland or Forestland S Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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))?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-8.)
Explanation:

As stated in the Criteria Refinement Analysis (Appendix Q), the Project alignment is heavily vegetated with coastal sage scrub, chaparral, non-native grasslands, coast live oak woodland, and riparian forest located within the Santa Ana Mountains of the Cleveland National Forest.

According to CALFIRE, there are no current or planned fixed commercial timber operations

Page 995 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 126
subject to a Timber Harvesting Plan in southwest Riverside County. As stated in the City’s General Plan EIR, there are no timber production or agricultural zones in the City or its SOI. Moreover, the proposed Project does not require any new development or any temporary construction activities, nor would the Project include any new the land use designations. Consequently, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in loss or conversion of timberland to non-forest uses, or the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. In addition, the implementation of the proposed Project will not result in the conversion of any land to municipal or agricultural uses. As such, there would be no changes in the existing environment which could result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to non‐agricultural or non‐forest use. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-8.)

4. Cumulative Impacts
Agricultural Resources
The cumulative study area for agricultural resources is the City and the County of Riverside as these resources are regularly assessed on the countywide level as part of the state’s FMMP.

Throughout the County, numerous development projects exist that would result in the additional conversion of agricultural land, including Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to nonagricultural uses. There are no agricultural uses, Williamson Act contracts, or agricultural zones within the immediate vicinity of the Project alignment and within the peripheries of the City.

As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to agricultural resource impacts.

Thus, cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources would not occur. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-8 – 5-9.)
Forest Resources
The cumulative study area for forestry resources is the City and the County of Riverside.

There are no forest resources or woodland vegetation within the immediate vicinity of the Project site and limited lowland woodlands within the peripheries of the City. As discussed above, Project implementation would not directly impact forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to forest resource impacts. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-9.)
C. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Plan and Air Quality Standards / Pollutant Concentrations / Other Pollutants
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Page 996 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 127
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-11.)
Explanation:

Land use development projects must conform with the AQMP and other regulations under the SCAQMD. As previously stated, the proposed Project would relocate the PCL-1 alignment to improve connectivity between designated wildlife habitats within the WR-MSHCP and no new development is proposed. Consequently, no construction or operational emissions would occur.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of any air quality plan, nor result in any increase of a criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in other emissions. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-11.)

2. Cumulative Impacts – No Impact
The SCAQMD 2022 AQMP evaluates regional conditions within the Basin and sets regional emission significance thresholds for both construction and operation of development projects that apply to project-specific impacts and cumulatively-considerable impacts. Therefore, per SCAQMD’s methodology, if an individual project would result in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants.

As described above, no new development is proposed by the Project, therefore no construction or operational emissions will occur. Construction and operational emissions would not be generated by the Project and therefore impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

In addition, the Project would not result in human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses because no construction or operational emissions would be generated. Therefore, impacts on human health risks would not be cumulatively considerable.

Furthermore, the Project would not expose surrounding uses to objectionable odors. Thus, there is no potential for odors from the Project to combine with odors from surrounding development Projects and expose nearby sensitive receptors to offensive odors. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to odors. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-11 – 5-12.)

Page 997 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 128
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Species and Sensitive Natural Communities
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-26.)
Explanation:

As part of the Criteria Refinement, a total of 378.44 acres of native vegetation will be included within the new limits of PCL-1. The alternate PCL-1 alignment would result in removal of 82.8 acres of described lands, specifically 11.5 acres of residential/urban/exotic, 2.0 acres of coastal sage scrub, 37.4 acres of chaparral, 30.3 acres of non-native grassland, 1.1 acres of coast live oak woodland, and 0.5 acres of riparian. alternate PCL-1 would conserve 465.8 acres of Undescribed Replacement Land, specifically, 16.0 acres of residential/urban/exotic (increase of 4.5 acres), 51.6 acres of coastal sage scrub (increase of 49.6 acres), 332.9 acres of chaparral (increase of 295.5 acres), 54.2 acres of non-native grasslands (increase of 23.9 acres), 10.4 acres of coast live oak woodland (increase of 9.3 acres), and 0.7 acres of riparian (increase of 0.2 acres).

The additional acreage of native vegetation communities includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, non-native grasslands, coast live oak woodland, and miscellaneous riparian habitat. These habitats are identified as suitable habitat for special status species known in the area. Furthermore, proposed alternative alignment of PCL-1 would support nesting, foraging, and live-in habitat for mountain lion, bobcat, Cooper’s hawk, and coastal gnatcatcher which are identified within Section

3.2.3 of the MSHCP.

In addition to the four MSHCP Planning Species identified above, with the increase of habitat and realignment of PCL-1, suitable habitat would potentially increase for other MSHCP Covered Species. These include Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.3), as identified by the NEPSSAs; Criteria Area Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2) identified by the CAPSSAs; animals species (burrowing owl, mammals, amphibians) identified by survey areas (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2); and species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats, i.e., least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellowbilled cuckoo, and designated fairy shrimp (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2).

Page 998 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 129
Therefore, no impact would occur with the proposed Project, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-26 – 5-27.)

2. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-27.)
Explanation:

With the alternative PCL-1 alignment, there will be no impacts to state or federally protected wetlands. In additional, the alternate PCL-1 would increase conserved land of these features.

Therefore, no impact would occur with the proposed Project, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-27.)

3. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-27.)
Explanation:

The alternate PCL-1 would provide connection to Prado Basin and the Chino Hills and exceed the minimum conservation goal for the combined independent Cells but would also exceed the highrange goal of the targeted conservation range. Furthermore, the alternative conservation configuration would shift conservation to the west and would still functionally contribute to PCL1. The existing and alternate PCL-1 alignments do not each represent distinctly separate alignments. Moreover, 245.5 acres are shared between the two alignments, with 82.7 acres being removed from the northern portion of the existing PCL-1 alignment and 465.7 acres being added in replacement, mostly to the west and connecting to the B Canyon Undercrossing at SR- 91.

According to the CRA, the alternate PCL-1 alignment is superior to the existing PCL-1 alignment in achieving connection between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Chino Hills. The reasons for this superiority are because it is not impacted by the high volume of traffic on Green River Road; it crosses SR-91 rather than running alongside the freeway for a stretch of approximately 1,200 feet; wildlife would navigate the BNSF railroad line from SR-91 instead of navigating both obstacles sequentially; wildlife could use the existing footbridge across the Santa Ana River; and it leads to Aliso Canyon, which is the largest canyon in Chino Hills State Park, and therefore is a

Page 999 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 130
natural travel corridor for mountain lions (Puma concolor), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and other wildlife. Therefore, this conservation configuration would provide superior biological value in comparison to the existing alignment of PCL-1 through further enhancement of the movement of wildlife. Therefore, no impact would occur with the proposed Project, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-27 – 2-58.)

4. Local Policies
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-28.)
Explanation:

Alternate PCL-1 will not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Therefore, no impact would occur with the proposed Project, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-28.)

5. Habitat Conservation Plan
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?s? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-28.)
Explanation:

The MSHCP states that individual public and private projects within the Plan Area are expected to be designed and implemented in accordance with the Criteria for each Area Plan presented in Volume I, Section 3.2 of the MSHCP document. The goal of the MSHCP is to have a total Conservation Area in excess of 500,000 acres, including approximately 347,000 acres on existing Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands, and approximately 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) to be acquired within the MSHCP Criteria Area. Projects located within the Criteria Area must be evaluated to determine if lands within those properties are described to contribute to Reserve Assembly. Criteria Refinements may be initiated by Local Permittees, or at the request of private entities to Local Permittees if agreed to by the applicable Local Permittee, either for purposes of correcting minor discrepancies or inaccuracies or for evaluating alternative conservation proposals involving single or multiple landowners and jurisdictions that are of equivalent or superior benefit to Covered Species. Such Criteria Refinements may involve changes to Cores and Linkages as long as it is demonstrated that the Refinements would clearly benefit Covered Species and would be consistent with MSHCP policies and species conservation goals.

A Criteria Refinement can be approved with lesser conservation in one or more Cells provided

Page 1000 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 131
that the decrease is made up with other lands in the Criteria Area not described by the Criteria that satisfy the goals for Covered Habitats, Covered Species, etc., or with lands outside of the Criteria Area that similarly satisfy the goals.

As described above, although the current alignment of PCL-1 is unconstrained to the south, there are a number of existing land uses that constrain PCL-1 at its northern terminus, including SR-91, the BNSF railroad line and Green River Road. The CRA (Appendix Q) analyzed the effectiveness of the existing PCL-1 in comparison to the effectiveness of an alternative PCL-1 alignment in meeting the stated MSHCP goals for PCL-1, including the potential to connect with the Prado Basin and the Chino Hills. Several wildlife movement studies were conducted in 2006 and 2007 for the properties that contain a majority of both the existing PCL-1 and alternate PCL-1 alignments, referred to at that time as the “Corona 850” property. The Study documented areas of wildlife movement from the Cleveland National Forest through the Corona 850 property and to SR-91. Furthermore, the movement patterns of bobcat and coyote after the widening of California State Route (SR 71) near SR-91 included analysis of camera data for other underpasses in the vicinity, including the underpass at B Canyon (u17) within the alternate PCL-1 route.

The proposed Criteria Refinement presents the alternate alignment for PCL-1, which will be made up existing MSHCP Conserved Lands and lands that have been acquired by the RCA. A total of 711.28 acres of land will be assembled for the alternate PCL-1, consisting of ten parcels. The alternate PCL-1 alignment is located immediately west of the existing PCL-1 alignment. The existing alignment begins at the boundary with Core B (Cleveland National Forest) and extends north across undeveloped land, Green River Road, and SR-91, terminating just north of SR- 91.

The alternate alignment would also begin at the boundary with Core B and extend across undeveloped land before terminating at SR-91 (Figure 3.3). Approximately 538.45 acres of the 711.28-acre total will be associated with the six Criteria Cells, with approximately 172.83 acres associated lands located outside of, but adjacent to, the Criteria Area.

Of the approximately 328.30 acres described for conservation based on the existing Cell Criteria, approximately 82.75 acres of the described lands would not be part of the alternate PCL-1, as these lands represent the northernmost part of the existing alignment that would be removed as part of the Criteria Refinement. As required by the MSHCP, all lands to be proposed as replacement via a Criteria Refinement must not be described for conservation by the current Cell Criteria. In place of those lands to be removed, approximately 292.90 acres of land would be added in alternate locations of the six Criteria Cells, i.e., areas not described for conservation, in addition to the 172.83 acres of lands to be conserved that are not in Criteria Cells.

The proposed Criteria Refinement will have a positive effect on PCL-1 by designating a superior, alternate alignment to connect Core A with Core B, thereby supporting the goal of PCL-1. The alternate PCL-1 alignment is less constrained for wildlife movement than the existing PCL-1; is more conducive to the north-south movement needed to support the connectivity goals of PCL-1; and contains a greater amount of habitat types applicable to the Planning Species for PCL-1, including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, coast live-oak woodland, and riparian habitats.

The proposed Criteria Refinement will have a positive effect on the MSHCP Conservation Area

Page 1001 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 132
by conserving a greater amount of high-quality habitat that will support the intended functions of PCL-1, including connectivity between Core A and Core B, and live-in habitat for the PCL-1 Planning Species. As noted above, the new lands proposed for the alternate alignment will include habitats (i.e., coast live oak woodland) not characterized in the Cell Criteria for the assembly of PCL-1. The total amount of lands to be conserved for PCL-1 will increase by more than 382 acres, with most gains consisting of chaparral vegetation, but also including coastal sage scrub, grassland, and the coast live oak woodland. Furthermore, the alternate PCL-1 alignment is less constrained for wildlife movement when compared with the existing alignment, is more conducive to northsouth wildlife movement, and contains a greater amount of habitat to support the Planning Species, as discussed previously.

Therefore, no impact would occur with the proposed Project and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-28 – 5-30.)

6. Cumulative Impacts
Volume I, Section 6.5 (Criteria Refinement Process [CRP]) of the MSHCP states that individual public and private projects within the Plan Area are expected to be designed and implemented in accordance with the Criteria for each Area Plan presented in Volume I, Section 3.2 of the MSHCP document. In cases where refinements to the Criteria are desirable to facilitate Reserve Assembly, resulting in adjustments to the Criteria, the CRP described in Volume I, Section 6.5 shall apply.

Such Criteria Refinements may involve changes to Cores and Linkages as long as it is demonstrated that the Refinements would clearly benefit Covered Species and would be consistent with MSHCP policies and species conservation goals. Furthermore, the CRP cannot be used for Criteria changes that would result in reductions in the Criteria Area.

As discussed previously, PCL- 1 is intended to connect Existing Core A (Prado Basin/Santa Ana River) with Existing Core B (Cleveland National Forest) to the south and is intended to provide live-in/dispersal habitat for four Planning Species (mountain lion, bobcat, coastal California gnatcatcher, and Cooper’s hawk). The northern portion of the existing PCL-1 alignment is severely constrained and the topography of the existing PCL-1 alignment is not ideal to facilitate north to south wildlife movement. The northern portion of the alignment is topographically oriented north to south along ridgelines and canyons, while the southern portion of the alignment bisects steep east-west ridgelines and canyons causing wildlife to move west and east perpendicular to the intended alignment for PCL-1.Lastly, the habitat types located within the existing alignment, though mostly native, are dominated by chaparral, which is not suitable for two of the MSHCP Planning Species (coastal California gnatcatcher and Cooper’s hawk).

The alternate PCL-1 location is heavily used by wildlife, with documented and extensive movement of large to medium-size mammals from the National Forest Boundary to the SR-91 undercrossing. Lands within the alternate alignment are topographically oriented north to south from the National Forest boundary to the freeway, including multiple access roads, ridgelines, and canyon routes. Furthermore, the habitat types within the alternate PCL-1 alignment have a greater suitability for the Planning Species, including habitats dominated by coastal sage scrub vegetation, as well as a greater riparian component.

Page 1002 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 133
The Alternative Alignment of PCL-1 would result in net gain of 382.98 acres of Conserved Land compared with the existing PCL-1 alignment, with 465.73 acres of lands offsetting the 82.75 acres of lands to be removed from the northern portion of the existing alignment.

In conclusion, the proposed Project would result in a superior MSHCP Conservation Area configuration compared with the existing PCL-1 alignment. The re-alignment would result in an increase in conservation lands for the MSHCP Reserve, including an increase in native habitat types benefitting Covered Species. The alternate PCL-1 alignment will indirectly benefit the existing Core Areas (A and B) by providing a less-constrained connection between the Core Areas.

Overall, the proposed Refinement would support the goals of the MSHCP as it applies to linking the Cleveland National Forest to the Prado Basin, Santa Ana River, and the Chino Hills. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-30 – 5-31.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources / Archaeological Resources / Human Remains Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-33.)
Explanation:

As previously stated, the proposed Project would relocate the PCL-1 alignment to improve connectivity between designated wildlife habitats within the MSHCP. No development is proposed by the Project and consequently, no construction or groundbreaking activities would occur. Thus, the proposed Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

Since no development is proposed as part of the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment, the potential for encountering human remains during grading, excavation, or construction activities is nonexistent. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-33.)

2. Cumulative Impacts – No Impact
Historic Resources: The proposed PCL-1 alignment would not result in groundbreaking activities

Page 1003 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 134
nor new development. Therefore, Project implementation would have no potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to historical sites and/or resources.

Archaeological Resources: The proposed PCL-1 alignment would not result in groundbreaking activities nor new development. Therefore, Project implementation would have no potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to archaeological sites and/or resources.

Disturbance of Human Remains: The proposed PCL-1 alignment would not result in groundbreaking activities nor new development and therefore no potential to uncover or disturb human remains would occur. Therefore, Project implementation would have no potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to human remains. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-33.) F. ENERGY

1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-34.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project would relocate the PCL-1 alignment to improve connectivity between designated wildlife habitats within the MSHCP and no new development is proposed. Therefore, the Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No impacts would occur relative to the proposed Project and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-34.)

2. Local Plan
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-35.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project would relocate the PCL-1 alignment to improve connectivity between designated wildlife habitats within the MSHCP and no new development is proposed. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed Project only involves the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment and does not authorize any new development and no impacts would occur. No mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-35.)

Page 1004 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 135

3. Cumulative Impacts
As previously stated, the proposed Project would not result in construction or operational energy consumption as no new development or construction activities are proposed. Therefore, energy consumption would not occur in a cumulatively wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-35.)
G. GEOLOGY / SOILS

1. Adverse Geological Impacts
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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 an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-38.)
Explanation:

Page 1005 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 136
There are mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City limits associated with the Chino Fault and Glen Ivy segment of the Elsinore Fault. As previously stated, the proposed Project alignment is located within the Elsinore Fault Zone, although not within a Alquist-Priolo.

Earthquake Fault Zone. No new development or construction activities would result from the proposed Project. Consequently, the Project area would remain vacant and undeveloped, therefore no impact would occur.

Other geologic hazards include earthquake liquefaction and landslides. The western portion of the Project alignment adjacent to SR-91 is located within an area with moderate liquefaction susceptibility. Due to the Project’s location and topography, the hillsides or steep slopes may result in landslides from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetation, seismic activity, or combinations of these and other factors. As previously stated, the Project area would remain vacant and undeveloped, therefore no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-38 – 5-39.)

2. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-39.)
Explanation:

Septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are not proposed as part of the Project.

No impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-39.)

3. Paleontological Resource
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-39.)
Explanation:

Although the Project site located within an area of which may have high Paleontological sensitivity, the Project proposes the relocation of PCL-1 alignment and does not involve earth moving and/or construction of new development. As a result, no impacts would occur., and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-39.)

4. Cumulative Impact – No Impacts

Page 1006 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 137
Geology and Soils: The Project proposes the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment and does not involve construction of new development. No impacts associated with geologic resources would occur.

Paleontological Resources: The proposed Project does not involve earth moving and/or construction of new development that would otherwise impact such resources. No impact to palaeontologic resources would occur. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-39.) H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Plans, Policies and Regulations Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-41.)
Explanation:

The Project proposes the relocation of PCL-1 alignment and does not involve construction of new development. The proposed Project alignment area would remain vacant and undeveloped.

Therefore, the Project will not indirectly or directly generate GHGs that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As such, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-41.)

2. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in this section, the proposed Project would not result in new development resulting in construction or operational GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-41.) I. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazards
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 create a significant hazard to the public or

Page 1007 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 138
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-44.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project consists of the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment. No physical improvements or additional construction activities would occur which could include the use or storage of hazardous substances. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-44.)

2. Waste Site
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that is compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-44.)
Explanation:

As previously stated, the Project area does not contain facilities and/or sites that are identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements. In addition, there is no construction or groundbreaking activities as a result of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-44.)

3. Airports
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 be 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-44.)
Explanation:

The Corona Municipal Airport is located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of Project alignment.

Consequently, the Project site is not within two miles of an airport. In addition, the Project

Page 1008 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 139
alignment is not located within any land use compatibility zone for the nearest airport, nor is it within an airport safety zone. Although the Project proposes no construction or operational activities, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project areas, and no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-44.)

4. Emergencies
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-45.)
Explanation:

The Project will not construct any physical barriers or disturb any roadways. The Project would not interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-45.)

5. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-45.)
Explanation:

Although the Project alignment is within a Very High Hazard Fire Severity Zone (CALFIRE), there would be no new construction as a result of the proposed Project that would otherwise expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-45.)

6. Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in construction of any new development.

As a result, no cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials, emergency response, wildland fires, and airport safety hazards would result. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-45.) J. HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 violate any water quality standards or waste

Page 1009 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 140
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-47.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project alignment lies within Temescal Wash Sub-watershed, which drains to the Santa Ana River and eventually drains to the Pacific Ocean in Orange County. The watershed is under the authority of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The proposed Project does not consist of any new development and therefore will not require earth moving, construction, or operational activities and therefore will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-47 – 5-48.)

2. Groundwater
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-48.)
Explanation:

The relocation of PCL-1 alignment does not include new development, and thus, will not have a direct impact on substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-48.)

3. Drainage
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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 offsite? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of

Page 1010 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 141
a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-48.)
Explanation:

The relocation of PCL-1 alignment would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area because the proposed Project does not include new development. The proposed Project would not result in the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No impacts would occur. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-48.)

4. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the relocation of PCL-1 risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-49.)
Explanation:

According to FEMA’s National Flood Layer Viewer, the Project alignment is classified as Flood Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. The Project alignment is located approximately 26 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the Project alignment 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 1.2 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. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-49.)

5. Water Quality Control Plan

Page 1011 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 142
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-49.)
Explanation:

The proposed relocation of PCL-1 alignment would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable ground water management plan because the proposed Project does not include new development. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-49.)

6. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed previously, the proposed Project would not require construction or operational activities. Consequently, compliance with obligatory construction and development related hydrology and water quality related procedures is not required. The proposed Project alignment would not result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the watershed, nor increase surface runoff or significant pollutant loadings and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-49.)
K. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Established Community
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 physically divide an established community?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-50.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project alignment is comprised of undeveloped lands with dirt access roads, and heavily vegetated with access roads and canyon routes. The existing zoning for the proposed Project alignment overlays Residential Rural (R-R) (Riverside County) and Rural Mountainous (SOI) land uses; however, the Project does not propose any new development. The Project proposes to improve wildlife linkage with a superior corridor by connecting wildlife habitats while conserving additional lands. The proposed relocation of PCL-1 alignment would not physically divide an established community. As a result, there would be no impact, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-50.)

2. Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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 1012 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 143
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-51.)
Explanation:

The Project proposes the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment. The existing zoning for the proposed Project alignment overlays Residential Rural (R-R) (Riverside County) and Rural Mountainous (SOI) land uses. Although residential development would be allowed within the Project alignment, the Project does not propose any new development. Therefore, future development will conform with the City’s 2020-2040 General Plan and any policies or regulations that the City has adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-51.)

3. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed under Impact LU-1, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Similarly, the proposed Project was found to have no impact with applicable General Plan land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Lastly, as detailed in Section 5.4 of this section, the proposed Project was found to be consistent with the MSHCP. All three of these topics are inherently cumulative in nature, and therefore the proposed Project would not result in cumulative impacts. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-51.)
L. MINERALS

1. Mineral Resources and Mineral Resource Recovery
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-53.)
Explanation:

The Project alignment is located within an area classified as the MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. MRZ1 and MRZ-3 classifications do not include mineral resources of statewide, regional, or local significance. The proposed Project does not include any new development, nor require construction or groundbreaking activities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of know mineral resources that would be of value to the region, the state, or the local community. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-53.)

Page 1013 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 144

2. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of or availability of a locally or regionally significant mineral resource. Therefore, the proposed Project’s effect on mineral resources would have no cumulatively impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-53.) M. NOISE

1. Ambient Noise and Groundbourne Vibration
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 generate of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-55.)
Explanation:

The Project proposes the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment. The Project does not include any new development, and therefore, does not involve any grading or construction of new buildings and/or facilities. The proposed Project will not generate a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, or produce excessive ground borne noise levels. As a result, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-

55.)

2. Airports
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 Relocation of PCL-1 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-55.)
Explanation:

As previously discussed, the Corona Municipal Airport is located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of Project alignment. The Project does not include any new development. Therefore, the proposed relocation of the PCL-1 alignment would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project alignment. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation

Page 1014 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 145
measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-55.)

3. Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in short-term construction or long-term operational noise generating activities as no new development is proposed. As a result, the proposed Project’s potential to contribute to any noise or vibration- related impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-55.)
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Unplanned Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-56.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project would not involve the construction of any homes, business, or other uses that would result in population growth. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-56.)

2. Displacement
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-57.)
Explanation:

As discussed above, the Project alignment is comprised of vacant undeveloped land and the existing environment will remain intact. Although residential uses are allowed within the Project alignment, the Project does not propose any development. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-57.)

3. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in growth inducement or displacement of people or housing because no development is proposed and no residences would be removed.

As a result, impacts related to cumulative growth would be less than significant and not

Page 1015 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 146
cumulatively considerable. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-57.)
O. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools and Parks Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-60.)
Explanation:

Page 1016 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 147
As stated in this section, the proposed relocation of the PCL-1 alignment would not result in new development and the existing vacant undeveloped environment would remain as such.

The proposed PCL-1 alignment would not result in any development. The public services provided by the City would not be impacted with implementation of the relocation of PCL-1. Thus, public services would continue provide such services under the same conditions resulting in no demand increase on public services. Consequently, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to the environment associated with the construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-60.)

2. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in environmental impacts from increased demand on public services because no development is proposed. Cumulative impacts related to construction of new or renovated public facilities would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-60.)
P. RECREATION

1. Park Use and Park Expansion
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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? Would the Relocation of PCL-1 include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-62.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project consists of the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment. The Project does not propose any new development; therefore, Project implementation would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Project does not propose any recreational facilities and does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As such, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-62.)

2. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed under impact REC-1 and REC -2, the proposed Project does not propose new development nor the construction of a new or renovation of an existing park or recreational facility that would result in and impact to the environment. Therefore, the proposed Project would result

Page 1017 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 148
in no cumulative impacts associated with recreation. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-62.) Q. TRANSPORTATION

1. Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policies / CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) / Design Features / Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-64.)
Explanation:

No new construction would occur as part of the Project, thus construction or operational traffic related impacts would not occur. Therefore, the Project will not have an impact with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Additionally, the Project would not design or construct any new roadways, and there would be no sharp curves or dangerous intersections along local roadways used for the Project that would increase traffic safety hazards. With implementation of the proposed PCL-1 alignment, there would be no temporary road closures that could result in inadequate emergency access, nor would the Project induce large volumes of traffic which could pose a roadway restriction. As a result, transportation related impacts would not occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-64.)

2. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed previously, transportation impacts would not occur with implementation of the Project as construction and operational activities would not occur. Therefore, no cumulative transportation impacts would occur. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-64.) R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Park Use and Park Expansion

Page 1018 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 149
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 in a significant impact if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k)?
Would the Relocation of PCL-1 in a significant impact if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-66.)
Explanation:

As previously stated, the proposed Project would relocate the PCL-1 alignment to improve connectivity between designated wildlife habitats defined by the MSHCP. No development is proposed by the Project and no construction or groundbreaking activities would occur. Since no development ore construction is proposed as part of the relocation of the PCL-1 alignment, the potential for encountering tribal cultural resources would not occur. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource resulting in no impact and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-66.)

2. Cumulative Impacts
As described above, the proposed Project would not result in the disturbance of known or unknown tribal cultural resources, as ground disturbance activities would occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative loss of tribal cultural resources. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-

66.)
S. UTILITIES / SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Relocation or Construction

Page 1019 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 150
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-69.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project consists of the relocation of PCL-1 alignment, and does not propose any new development; thus, the Project will not utilize any utilities or require connection to utilities.

Therefore, the Project will not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water, drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-69.)

2. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-69.)
Explanation:

The proposed relocation of PCL-1 alignment does not include any new development. The DWP currently serves the Project vicinity. Due to the lack of development proposed by the Project, no water supplies are needed to support the Project nor the existing undeveloped conditions. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-69 – 5-

70.)

3. Wastewater
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing comments?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-70.)
Explanation:

The proposed relocation of PCL-1 alignment does not include any new development. The relocation of the alignment would not result in activity which will demand wastewater treatment

Page 1020 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 151
services that exceed the adequate capacity of providers. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-70.)

4. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-70.)
Explanation:

The proposed relocation of PCL-1 alignment does not include any new development. Thus, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-70.)

5. Solid Waste Management
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-70.)
Explanation:

The proposed relocation of PCL-1 alignment does not include any new development. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-70.)

6. Cumulative Impacts
Water
As described previously, the proposed relocation of PCL-1 alignment does not include any new development. As discussed above, the Project would not result in an increase in water demand.

Thus, potential cumulative impacts would not occur.

Wastewater
As described previously, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an increase flow impacting the sewer system and wastewater treatment plant capacity as no development is proposed. Cumulative impacts would not occur.

Stormwater
As described above, the proposed Project would not result in new development and would not include installation of a storm drain system. Thus, no increase in offsite stormwater flows would occur.

Page 1021 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 152
Solid Waste
As stated, the proposed Project would not result in construction or operational activities that would result in the generation of solid waste. Thus, impacts associated with solid waste would not occur and would not be cumulatively considerable.

Dry Utilities
As stated, no development would result from implementation of the proposed relocation of PCL1 alignment. Therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the provision of utility facilities to serve the proposed Project would not occur. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-70 – 5-71.) T. WILDFIRE

1. Emergency Response Plan
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-73.)
Explanation:

As previously stated, the Project alignment and the vicinity is located in a Very High FHSZ. The Project proposes no construction or development and would therefore not interfere with any public evacuation plans and would have no impact on police or fire services. The proposed Project would relocate a wildlife corridor and does not include any new development. No new construction that would require closure of nearby roadways that might otherwise block or affect evacuation routes would occur. Therefore, the Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required.. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-73.)

2. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Relocation of PCL-1 exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-73.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project would relocate a wildlife corridor and does not include any development.

Although the vacant undeveloped 711.28-acre Project alignment is within a Very High FHSZ, the proposed Project would relocate a wildlife corridor and does not include any new development.

Page 1022 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 153
The Project will not exacerbate wildfire risks, and will not expose project occupants or visitors to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Thus, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-73.)

3. Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 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: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-73.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project would relocate a wildlife corridor and does not include any development.

The proposed relocation of the wildlife alignment does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Thus, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-73 – 5-74.)

4. Landslides and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Relocation of PCL-1 expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-74.)
Explanation:

The proposed Project would relocate wildlife corridor and does not include any development. The Project would not expose people or structures to any more risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes, than is currently present within the Project area. Thus, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-74.)

5. Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in new development and would not result in impacts directly or indirectly to an emergency response or evacuation plan and mitigation is not required.

The nearest Fire Station is approximately a mile from the Project vicinity and would continue to adequately provide emergency services to the area. As discussed in Section 5.14, Public Services, the Project would not result in impacts on fire protection services. Thus, impacts would not occur

Page 1023 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 154
and would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-74.) SECTION IX.

FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented.

Generally, a Project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The Project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the Program would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The Program involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

The Modified Project would NOT involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely.

The Modified Project would not involve the utilization of nonrenewable resources in a manner that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely. Nonrenewable resources associated with the development of the Modified Project site would include fossil fuels. Fossil fuels would serve as energy sources during both construction and operations of the Modified Project. Fossil fuels would act as transportation energy sources for construction vehicles and heavy equipment during the construction period and by vehicles and equipment used during project operations.

Though the Modified Project would endeavor to utilize fossil fuels efficiently, their use would be vital for construction and operations activities, making their nonuse unlikely. However, the Modified Project would not require the continued use of fossil fuels at the end of its operational life. By nature of being a nonrenewable resource, fossil fuels, once consumed, cannot be replaced. Those fuels, once spent, may be transformed into another form of matter such as exhaust or smoke. Standard vehicles and equipment used by the Modified Project in both construction and operational phases would likely utilize fossil fuels. Some construction and operational equipment such as forklifts may be electrified and therefore not rely on fossil fuels. Energy-efficient equipment would be utilized according to their availability and in order to comply with energy regulations and policies for the Modified Project as a whole as it pertains to residential, office, hospitality, and commercial uses.

The Modified Project proposes the potential development of a fueling station; however such operations are highly regulated and would not likely store significant amounts of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels on-site

Page 1024 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 155
would be stored in a manner that would make their removal unlikely. No infrastructure is proposed to store fossil fuels in large amounts or without the ability of removal. The Modified Project would also require the commitment of land on which the Modified Project would be developed for a mixed-use of residential, office, hospitality, and commercial uses. Similarly, land is a finite resource in that once developed and in active use it removes the ability for that land to be used for other purposes. However, development of the Modified Project site would not eliminate the possibility of redevelopment in the future.
a) The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses.

Impacts associated with the Modified Project are largely less than significant with mitigation applied.

The majority of identified impacts, not adequately covered by the previous EIR, were anticipated to create a less than significant impact or no impact, with the exception of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Once development of the proposed Modified Project occurs, it would not be feasible to return the developed land to its existing (pre-project) condition. In addition, the redevelopment is proposed with the intent to last a long time. However, because the project site is already developed with urban uses, redevelopment under the Modified Project would not represent a substantial change in land use.

The Modified Project’s development is anticipated to produce significant and unavoidable impacts based on analyses conducted in Section 4.3, Air Quality and Section 4.17, Transportation. These impacts would also affect the surrounding environment.

The use of materials considered hazardous waste would be minimal; mostly used for cleaning, landscaping, and operational maintenance. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that the usage and storage of any hazardous materials and waste would be completed in the safest and most efficient manner. Similarly, the Modified Project would comply with any federal, state, and local air quality and water quality regulations to further ensure the least amount of environmental impact. The mixed-use nature of the Modified Project is unlikely to lead to impacts that would commit future generations and developments to similar uses. Therefore, the Modified Project would not influence future development in that land area as the existing land use designations would be unchanged.
b) The project would NOT involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.

The Modified Project is intended to develop warehouse, commercial, hospitality, office and residential facilities and is not anticipated to release hazardous material into the environment. Construction and operation of the Modified Project would utilize chemical substances common with typical construction, landscaping, and cleaning activities and do not generally pose a significant hazard to the public or environment. However, in the event that hazardous materials are either used or stored on the project site, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Occupational Safety and

Page 1025 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 156
Health Administration (OHSA) requirements would both reduce the significance of any impacts and ensure the Modified Project’s compliance with any Federal, State, and local policy regarding hazardous materials and accidents.
c) The proposed consumption of resources is justified (e.g., the project does NOT involve the wasteful use of energy).

The Modified Project would comply with any applicable federal, state, and local regulations and laws regarding the use of resources during both construction and operations. As established in Section 4.8, Utilities and Service Systems, development of the Modified Project would not significantly impact water, electricity, solid waste, and telecommunications resources. It was found that the Easter Municipal Water District (EMWD), the water supplier for the City and project site, is able to meet the Modified Project’s expanded demand. Further, development of the Modified Project would include the use of energy-efficient design and materials in accordance with the most recent Federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, resources used for the Modified Project, including energy, would be done in an efficient, justifiable manner.

SECTION X.

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Program could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Program would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment; • Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);
• Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial, and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the Modified Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Modified Project examined in the preceding sections of this Draft SEIR.

Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment

Page 1026 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 157
Growth inducement can be defined as the relationship between a project and growth within the surrounding area. This relationship is often difficult to establish with any degree of precision and cannot be measured on a numerical scale because there are many social, economic, and political factors associated with the rate and location of development. Accordingly, the CEQA Guidelines instruct that an EIR should focus on the way’s growth might be induced. This relationship is sometimes looked at as either one of facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth. Both types of growth, however, should be evaluated. Potential growth- inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions:

1. Would the project directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing?
NO. The Modified Project, when implemented, would directly induce population growth in the City through the development of 32 new dwelling units and commercial uses. The Modified Project would result in a similar level of development intensity as the Approved Project. Although the Modified Project would directly and indirectly induce economic and population growth, this growth is consistent with the City’s local plans including the existing GRRSP as well as regional planning documents and is therefore not considered a significant impact.

2. Would the project remove obstacles to population growth? NO. The Modified Project is located at the edge of the City’s limits, and adjacent to US National Forest land and unincorporated areas of Riverside County with limited development potential. Development of the Modified Project would not complete infrastructure gaps that impede development. For these reasons, the Modified Project would not remove an impediment to growth.

3. Would the project require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects?
NO. As discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the construction of utilities to the Modified Project site would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.

The Modified Project is not anticipated to require new or expanded off-site facilities that would result in significant environmental impacts.

4. Would the project encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively?
NO. Refer to Sections 4.1 through Section 4.20 of this Draft SEIR, which discusses reasonably foreseeable potential impacts of the Modified Project during construction and operation.

SECTION XI.

ALTERNATIVES
A. BACKGROUND

Page 1027 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 158
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Program as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Program’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Program’s objectives. The Agency finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below.

This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Program analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the Program objectives, as required by CEQA.

Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.

Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include

Page 1028 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 159
sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Program. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Program. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Program.

B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Projects:
• To provide for the orderly and efficient development of the Green River Ranch property.
• To implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Corona General Plan.
• To develop land uses which reflect sound economic, market, and financial consideration.
• To develop uses which will generate additional revenue for the City of Corona, and establish a strong tax base for the City.
• To sprovide convenient commercial and industrial services for the community, in addition to similar services for freeway oriented and generated visitors. • To promote organized and well-planned development within the Specific Plan area. • To provide guidance and direction for the future development of this property. • To create an aesthetically pleasing western gateway into the City of Corona.

C. 2001 EIR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
In the 2001 EIR, the following alternatives to the Approved Project were fully described and a qualitative analysis was provided for each environmental issue area evaluated in the 2001 EIR.

The following development scenarios were identified as potential alternatives to implementation of the Approved Project. The following provides a summary of each alternative including determination of the Environmentally Superior Alternative as analyzed in the 2001 EIR.

1. 2001 EIR Alternative 1: No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the Approved Project site would remain in its existing condition.

Under this Alternative, the 2001 EIR concluded that although the Project-related roadway improvements that would benefit existing and non-Project travel on Green River Road and access to and from Green River Road at the SR-91 ramps would no longer occur, impacts associated with

Page 1029 of 4376 ends

Corona City CouncilFebruary 5, 2025

Corona City Council
February 5, 2025