5.18.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the relevant CEQA Guidelines as currently implemented by the City of Corona, significant tribal cultural resource impacts would occur if the proposed Project or any Projectrelated component 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 either:
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-66
Threshold TRC-1 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k); or
Threshold TRC-2 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
5.18.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT Result 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 either:
Impact TRC-1: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k); or
Impact TRC-2: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No Impact. 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.
5.18.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As described above, the proposed Project would not result in the disturbance of known or unknow 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 SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-67
5.18.7 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
5.18.8 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant environmental impacts occur with the proposed Project.
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-68
5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
5.19.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Water Service
Water service to the Project vicinity will be provided by the City of Corona Utilities Department.
Sewer System
Sewer and sanitation services to the Project vicinity will be provided by the City of Corona Utilities Department\.
Solid Waste Services
The Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR) is responsible for the efficient and effective landfill disposal of non-hazardous waste within the County, and operates six active landfills in addition to holding a contract agreement to dispose of waste at the private El Sobrante Landfill (Riverside County, 2015). The City of Corona contracts with Waste Management Inc. (WMI) for trash and recycling services.
Other Service
The Project vicinity is also located in the service territories of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) (natural gas) and Southern California Edison (electricity).
As stated in this section, no new development or construction activities would result from implementation of the proposed Project. The Project area would remain vacant and undeveloped.
For a in a more in-depth discussion of existing water service, sewer system, solid waste services, and other services within the existing alignment area, refer to Section 5.19.3.
5.19.2 EXISTING REGULATIONS, PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES Refer to the federal, State, regional, and local regulations previously referenced within Section
4.19.4 Utilities and Service Systems prepared for the Modified Project.
5.19.3 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES (PDF)
The proposed Project does not include PDFs.
5.19.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the relevant CEQA Guidelines as currently implemented by the City of Corona, significant utilities and service systems impacts would occur if the proposed Project or any Projectrelated component would:
Threshold USS-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-69
or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold USS-2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Threshold USS-3 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? Threshold USS-4 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?
Threshold USS-5 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of utilities identifies if utility demand from the proposed Project would be accommodated via existing utility infrastructure that would also be available to the proposed Project. The evaluation identifies if expansions would be required to serve the proposed Project, and if those expansions have the potential to result in an environmental impact. As stated, no development would result with implementation of the proposed Project and the undeveloped nature of the alignment would remain.
5.19.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT Impact USS-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? No Impact. 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.
Impact USS-2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No Impact. 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
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-70
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.
Impact USS-3: 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?
No Impact. 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 services that exceed the adequate capacity of providers. As a result, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
IMPACT USS-4: 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?
No Impact. 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.
IMPACT USS-5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. 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.
5.19.6 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.
Solid Waste
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-71
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.
5.19.7 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
5.19.8 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant environmental impacts occur with the proposed Project.
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-72
5.20 WILDFIRE
5.20.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed PCL-1 alignment encompasses 711.28 acres in the western portion of the City’s SOI. The alignment runs south to north from the Cleveland National Forest to SR-91. The Relocation of PCL-1 is located on property known as B Canyon and is approximately 711.28 acres, and consists of the parcels that would be added to the MSHCP as Additional Reserve Lands.
Elevations of the proposed Project range from approximately 525 feet AMSL at SR-91(west of Fresno Road) in the north to approximately 2,100 AMSL in the south. The northern portion of the Project is topographically oriented north to south along ridgelines and canyons, while the southern portion crosses a series of steep east-west canyons and ridgelines.
The proposed Project alignment is comprised of undeveloped lands with dirt access roads, and heavily vegetated with coastal sage scrub, chaparral, non-native grasslands, coast live oak woodland, and riparian forest, including access roads and canyon routes. Wildland fuels in the form of native vegetation in the foothills cover the PCL-1 alignment.
The proposed PCL-1 alignment is located outside of the Corona Fire Department’s response area.
According to CAL FIRE and the City’s Safety Element, the Project area is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) for wildfire and is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Area (FHSZ).
5.20.2 EXISTING REGULATIONS, PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES Refer to the federal, State, regional, and local regulations previously referenced within Section
4.20.4 Wildfire prepared for the Modified Project.
5.20.3 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES (PDF)
The proposed Project does not include PDFs.
5.20.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the relevant CEQA Guidelines as currently implemented by the City of Corona, significant wildfire impacts would occur if the proposed Project or any Project-related component would:
Threshold FIRE-1 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Threshold FIRE-2 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-73
Threshold FIRE-3 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?
Threshold FIRE-4 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?
5.20.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT Impact FIRE-1: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. 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.
Impact FIRE-2: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The proposed Project would relocate a wildlife corridor and does not include any development. Although the vacant undeveloped 711.28-acre Project alignment is withing a Very High FHSZ, the proposed Project would relocate a wildlife corridor and does not include any new development. 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.
Impact FIRE-3: 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?
No Impact. 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
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
PCL-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALSIS
ENPLANNERS
5-74
ongoing impacts to the environment. Thus, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
IMPACT FIRE-4: 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?
No Impact. 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.
5.20.6 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 and would not be cumulatively considerable.
5.20.7 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
5.20.8 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant environmental impacts occur with the proposed Project.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-1
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). As required by CEQA, this section identifies and evaluates potential alternatives to the Modified Project.
The proposed PCL-1 alignment analyzed in Section 5.0 would result in a superior wildlife corridor in comparison to the existing alignment. The PCL-1 alignment would: 1) result in a superior MSHCP Conservation Area configuration compared with the existing PCL-1 alignment; 2) result in an increase in conservation lands for the MSHCP Reserve, including an increase in native habitat types benefitting Covered Species; would indirectly benefit the existing Core Areas (A and B) by providing a less-constrained connection between the Core Areas; and 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. In addition, the proposed PCL-1 alignment would not generate any environmental impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary.
In conclusion, the proposed PCL-1 alignment is an environmentally superior alternative and the need to conduct an Alternative analysis would be pointless and therefore not necessary. For these reasons, the following Alternatives analysis focuses on alternatives to the Modified Project described in Section 3.0 of this SEIR.
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines explains the foundation and legal requirements for the alternative’s analysis in an EIR. Key provisions are:
• 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.” (Section 15126.6[b]) • “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (Section 15126.6[e][1])
• “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-2
identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (Section 15126.6[e][2])
• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (Section 15126.6[f]) • “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (Section 15126.6[f][1]).
• “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (Section 15126.6[f][2][A]) • “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (Section 15126.6[f][3]).
For each development alternative, this analysis:
• Describes the alternative.
• Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the Project. • Identifies the impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative.
• Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic Project objectives. • Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the Project.
According to Section 15126.6(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an alternative would cause…significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.”
6.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the following objectives have been established for the Project and would aid decision makers in their review of the Project, the Project alternatives and associated environmental impacts. • To provide for the orderly and efficient development of the Green River Ranch property.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-3
• 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 provide 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.
6.3 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.
6.3.1 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 the Approved Project would be avoided, especially the Approved Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality after mitigation.
Conclusion
The No Build Alternative would prohibit additional development, existing on-site uses would remain, and no further modification of topography or disturbance of existing biological, cultural, paleontological, or visual resources would be required. This Alternative would dramatically reduce the number of daily vehicle trips in the vicinity of the Project site, resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction and operational emissions, and noise. In addition, this Alternative was determined that it would neither alter existing geologic and hydrologic conditions nor require the implementation of mitigation to reduce potential impacts associated with these issues. Moreover, the 2001 EIR concluded the No Build Alternative would not
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-4
achieve the stated objectives of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan. Thus, this Alternative was rejected in the 2001 EIR.
6.3.2 2001 EIR Alternative 2: No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Approved Project as proposed would not occur, nor the improvements to the SR-91 ramps at Green River Road or Green River Road along the Project frontage. Consequently, this was determined to eliminate the areawide benefit that these roadway improvements would provide for existing and non-project travel on Green River Road and access to and from Green River Road at the SR-91 ramps. This alternative would result in development under the existing underlying County zoning at the time in place resulting in the potential for scattered residential development over the bulk of the Approved Project property.
Conclusion
Under this Alternative, the 2001 EIR determined impacts related to land use, traffic, air quality, and noise would be reduced, while impacts related with public service/utilities and visual resources would increase. In addition, impacts related to biological, cultural and paleontological resources, geology and soils, and hydrology would be similar to those identified with the Approved Project.
This Alternative would not achieve the stated objectives of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan and would not provide the same level of infrastructure, such as roadway improvements to Green River Road. Thus, this Alternative was rejected in the 2001 EIR.
6.3.3 2001 EIR Alternative 3 - Commercial-Industrial Alternative Under this Alternative, development of residential uses in PA 6 would not be implemented and development of approximately 520,900 square feet of mixed (commercial and industrial) uses and 150 hotel rooms would continue under this Alternative in the same manner as the Approved Project.
Conclusion
The scale and intensity of commercial-industrial development under this Alternative would be similar to that detailed for the Approve Project. The elimination of 32 residential units would incrementally reduce traffic, air quality, noise, and geologic impacts, and significantly reduce impacts related to the provision of public services and utilities. Furthermore, impacts related to all other issues would be similar to those identified with the Approved Project.
Under the Commercial-Industrial Alternative, the Project site would be developed with the same intensity of commercial and industrial uses in PAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 while PA 6 would remain undeveloped, and this Alternative would achieve the stated objectives of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan. This Alternative was considered as an Environmentally Superior Alternative in the 2001 EIR.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-5
6.3.4 2001 EIR Alternative 4 - Residential
Under this Alternative, the 167.8-acre Project site would be developed with residential uses.
This Alternative would develop PA 6 as stated in the Specific Plan with 32 single-family residential units on lots minimally sized at 3.0 acres each, while the northern 69.6 acres of the Project site would be developed with single-family residential units at a density of 2 dwelling units per acre, resulting in 139 dwellings. Thus, implementation of this Alternative would result in the development of 171 single-family dwelling units on the 167.8-acre project site.
Conclusion
The 2001 EIR determined impacts related to traffic and air quality would be reduced, while impacts related to noise, public service/utilities and visual resources would increase; however, impacts related to other issues would be similar to those identified with the Approved Project.
In addition, under the Residential Alternative, the Project site would be developed with singlefamily dwelling units, therefore this Alternative was determined to not achieve the stated objectives of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan. Thus, this Alternative was rejected in the 2001 EIR.
6.3.5 2001 EIR Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Build Alternative was the Environmentally Superior Alternative since no development would occur on the Project site; however it would not achieve the approved GRRSP objectives.
Thus, this Alternative would not result in traffic, air quality, or noise impacts, nor would this Alternative disturb the current on-site biological, cultural, paleontological condition of the site, or alter existing on-site topography and drainage.
In accordance with CEQA (Section 15126(d)(4), if a “No Build” Alternative is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, another must be selected from the remaining alternatives. The 2001 EIR identified the Commercial-Industrial Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Although the Commercial-Industrial Alternative would only incrementally reduce average daily trips and the amount of mobile source emissions, air pollution emissions, and associated impacts to transportation facilities and air quality, this Alternative would not generate noise or public service/utility impacts. In addition, this Alternative would also achieve the basic objectives of the Approved Project. Based on the preceding analysis as summarized in the 2001 EIR, the 2001 EIR identified the CommercialIndustrial Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, the City found that although the Commercial-Industrial Alternative was considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it was determined to be infeasible because it failed to meet all Project objectives.
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-6
6.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS SEIR
As stated above, the analysis of alternatives from the 2001 EIR is part of the “range of reasonable alternatives” to be considered per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). In addition to the alternatives evaluated under the 2001 EIR, the following alternatives are evaluated in this Draft SEIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative: Under this Alternative, the undeveloped site would remain vacant and unoccupied.
• Alternative 2: Mixed Use Alternative: Under this Alternative, PA 1 through 5 and PA 7 would be developed for mixed (commercial and industrial) use purposes only per the existing GRRSP design guidelines. This Alternative would require a specific plan amendment.
• Alternative 3: Residential Alternative: Under this Alternative, development of the Project site would be residential uses only per the existing GRRSP. PA 6 would be developed as stated in the Specific Plan with 32 single-family residential units on lots minimally sized at 3.0 acres each. The northern portion of the Project site would be developed with single-family residential units at a density of 2 dwelling units per acre, resulting in 139 dwellings. Thus, implementation of this Alternative would result in the development of 171 single-family dwelling units on the Project site.
Further details on these alternatives, and an evaluation of environmental effects relative to the Modified Project, are provided below. The analysis of these alternatives adds to the overall range of alternatives considered for the Modified Project as well as satisfying the State CEQA Guidelines requirements that the “no project” alternative be considered (CCR Section 15126.6[e]). The Modified Project itself is an Alternative approach to implementing the Approved Project and the analysis of environmental effects provided in Section 4.0 of which provides a detailed comparison of impacts under this “Modified” vs. the Approved Project in 2001. Therefore, the analysis of the Modified Project provided in Section 4 of this SEIR can be considered part of the overall evaluation of alternatives for the Approved Project.
6.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Project/No Build Alternative
Description
Under the No Build Alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition.
Potential impacts associated with the Modified Project would be avoided.
Under this Alternative, however, the Modified Project offer to widen Green River Road to a full six lane section along the Project frontage would not be provided. These Project- related roadway improvements would benefit existing and non-Project travel on Green River Road and access to and from Green River Road at the SR-91 ramps.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-7
Environmental Considerations
Continuation of the site as vacant and unoccupied would result in all environmental impacts being less than the Modified Project. There would be no changes to any of the existing conditions and there would be no impact to each of the 20 CEQA Checklist evaluation topics.
The No Project/No Build Alternative by definition would not meet the objectives of the Modified Project that were discussed earlier in this chapter.
Conclusion
The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in no development on the Project site. The existing vacant on-site setting would remain. No further modification of topography or disturbance of existing biological, cultural, paleontological, or visual resources would be required. This Alternative would dramatically reduce the number of daily vehicle trips in the vicinity of the Project site, resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction and operational emissions, and noise. This Alternative would neither alter existing geologic and hydrologic conditions nor require the implementation of mitigation to reduce potential impacts associated with these issues. The No Project/No Build Alternative by definition would not meet the objectives of the Modified Project that were discussed earlier in this chapter. Therefore, this Alternative is rejected.
6.4.2 Alternative 2 – Mixed Use Alternative
Description
Under the Mixed Use Alternative, PA 1 through 5 and PA 7 would be developed for mixed (commercial and industrial) use purposes only per the existing GRRSP design guidelines.
Similar to the Modified Project, this Alternative would develop all but the 98.2 acres of residential uses per the existing GRRSP. Because PA 1 (16.7 acres), PA 2 (10 acres), and PA 7 (4.8 acres) are zoned for commercial-industrial uses, a Specific Plan Amendment would be required to change the existing land uses within PA 3 Commercial-General (2.9 acres), PA 4 Commercial-General (2.1 acres), and PA 5 Hotel/Mixed Use Office (5.8 acres) to Mixed Use.
This Alternative would allow development of 42.3 acres according to the relevant policies stated in the GRRSP. Therefore, the industrial use acreage is reduced by approximately 7.22 acres when compared to the Modified Project’s 49.31 acres of BPI.
Environmental Considerations
As previously mentioned, this Alternative would create a less intensive industrial design when compared to the Modified Project, thereby would likely reduce impacts related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emission, noise, and transportation. While most of the environmental issues associated with this Alternative would be similar to those of the Modified Project, this Alternative does likely increase impacts to the following areas:
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-8
• Aesthetics: This Alternative would maintain residential development within 98.2-acre PA 6, thereby eliminating the proposed 83.34 acres of Open Space. Although PA 6 would be designed and built according to the GRRSP guidelines, this Alternative would significantly change the hillsides that is part of the western gateway into the City of Corona. The impacts to aesthetics would be increased.
• Biological Resources: As previously stated, this Alternative would maintain residential development within PA 6. As such, the potential residential development throughout the 98.2 acres would result in an increased potential to impact observed and unknown biological resources during construction. In addition, this Alternative would permanently eliminate the proposed 83.34 acres of Open Space designated for the MSHCP of which would support the local biological habitat. The impacts to biological resources would be increased.
• Cultural Resources / Paleontological Resources / Tribal Cultural Resources: As previously stated, this Alternative would maintain residential development within PA
6. As such, the potential residential development throughout the 98.2 acres would result in an increased potential to uncover unknown resources during construction activities.
Due to the increased acreage in development, impacts to unknown sensitive resources would be increased.
• Wildfire: As previously stated, this Alternative would maintain residential development within PA 6. As such, the potential residential development throughout the 98.2 acres would result in an increased potential to expose people or structures to the risk of wildfire. Because this Alternative eliminates the proposed PA 5 Estate Residential in a more confined 20.39 acres, development of this Alternative would extend further up the hillside and into the National Forest where there is an increase in risk wildfire. Although this Alternative would be designed built with the appropriate fire design elements and approved by the Corona Fire Department, impacts to Wildfire would increase.
Conclusion
The GRRSP establishes objectives that will guide development of the Project site. These objectives include providing for the efficient and orderly development of the Project site; developing land uses which reflect sound economic, market, and financial considerations; developing uses that will generate revenue for the City of Corona; and providing convenient commercial and industrial services for the local and regional consumers. Under the Mixed Use Alternative, the Project site would be developed with less intensity of commercial and industrial uses in PAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 while PA 6 would remain undeveloped for residential uses. This Alternative would achieve the stated objectives of the existing GRRSP, however it would not meet all the basic goals of the proposed GRRSP (i.e., Modified Project).
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-9
6.4.3 Alternative 3 – Residential Alternative
Description
Under this Alternative, the 160-acre Project site would be developed with residential uses and maintain the proposed Open Space. PA 5 would be developed as stated in the proposed GRRSPA with 32 single-family residential units, similar to the approved GRRSP. The northern
55.02 acres within the proposed PA 1 through 4 of the Project site would be developed with single-family residential units at a density of 2 dwelling units per acre, resulting in 110 dwellings. The 83.34 acres of PA 6 would maintain the proposed designated Open Space. Thus, implementation of this Alternative would result in the development of 142 single-family dwelling units within 76.85 acres and designate 83.34 acres Open Space within the 160-acre Project site.
Environmental Considerations
As previously stated, this Alternative would designate a majority of the site to open space and develop all the proposed industrial uses of the Modified Project with residential. Therefore, this Alternative would likely reduce impacts with the following environmental issues:
• Air Quality / Greenhouse Gases / Transportation: It is estimated the Modified Project will generate 4,370 two-way average daily trips, 429 A.M. peak hour trips, and 386 P.M. peak hour trips. Based on generation factors included in Trip Generation, 6th Edition, this Alternative would generate 1,339 average daily trips, 99 A.M. peak trips, and 134 P.M. peak trips. This represents a reduction of 65, 71, and 61 percent (respectively) in the number of ADT, A.M. peak trips, and P.M. peak trips. Such a decrease in traffic volumes would be anticipated to substantially reduce traffic related impacts from those identified with the Modified Project.
As a result of the reduced traffic related impacts, it is likely that the fewer number of vehicle trips would generate less air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. Therefore, impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation are reduced. • Noise: Because this Alternative envisions development of the Project site with residential uses only, noise impacts resulting from parking areas, loading docks, manufacturing processes, drive-through, and other sources are not anticipated.
Although short-term noise impacts are anticipated during construction of residential units, but the duration, intensity, and extent of this noise is not anticipated to be significant. It should be noted, the residential uses on the north side of the site adjacent to SR-91 would be designed with features to mitigate the freeway noise to less than significant levels. Impacts related to noise would be reduced.
Although this Alternative would reduce such environmental issues when compared to those of the Modified Project, this Alternative does likely increase impacts to the following areas:
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-10
• Population / Public Services / Utilities and Service Systems: This Alternative will result in the development of 142 single-family residential units. Based on an average of 3.42 persons per dwelling unit (Department of Finance), development of the Project site under this Alternative would result in a population increase of approximately 486 persons. This population increase would increase demand on sewer, water supplies, solid waste facilities, and school facilities. Impacts related to public services and utilities and service system requirements for this Alternative would increase.
Conclusion
Under this Alternative, impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation would be reduced, while impacts related to public services, utilities and service systems would increase. Impacts related to other issues would be similar to those identified with the Modified project.
The GRRSP establishes objectives that will guide development of the Project site. These objectives include providing for the efficient and orderly development of the Project site; developing land uses which reflect sound economic, market, and financial considerations; developing uses that will generate revenue for the City of Corona; and providing convenient commercial and industrial services for the local and regional consumers. Under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed with single-family dwelling units and designated open space. This Alternative would not achieve the basic stated objectives of the Green River Ranch Specific Plan and is, therefore, rejected.
6.5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 6.5-1 is a generalized comparative assessment of potential environmental impacts of the Alternatives as compared to the Modified Project.
Table 6.5-1 - Comparison of the Project Alternatives
Environmental
Issues
No Project/No Build
Alternative
Mixed Use
Alternative
Residential
Alternative
Aesthetics Reduced Increased Equal
Agricultural & Forest
Resources Similar Similar Similar
Air Quality Reduced Reduced Reduced
Biological Resources Reduced Increased Similar
Cultural Resources Reduced Increased Similar
Energy Reduced Reduced Reduced
Geology / Soils Reduced Similar Similar
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reduced Reduced Reduced
D R A F T S U B S E Q U E N T E I R
G R E E N R I V E R R A N C H S P A & B U S I N E S S P A R K
I N D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T A N D
R E L O C A T I O N O F P C L- 1
C I T Y O F C O R O N A
S E P T E M B E R 202 4
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-11
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Reduced Similar Similar
Hydrology / Water
Quality Reduced Similar Similar
Land Use and
Planning Reduced Similar Similar
Minerals Reduced Similar Similar
Noise Reduced Reduced Reduced
Population and
Housing Reduced Similar Increased
Public Services Reduced Similar Increased
Recreation Reduced Similar Increased
Transportation Reduced Reduced Reduced
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Reduced Increased Similar
Utilities / Service
Systems Reduced Reduced Increased
Wildfire Reduced Increased Similar
For comparison, Table 6.5-2 provides a generalized comparative assessment of potential environmental impacts of the Approved Project vs. the Modified Project.
Table 6.5-2 - Comparison of the Approved Project vs. Modified Project Environmental Issues
Approved Project
Significance
Modified Project
Comparison
Aesthetics Less than Significant with
Mitigation Similar
Agricultural & Forest Resources Less than Significant Similar Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable
after Mitigation Similar
Biological Resources Significant and Unavoidable
after Mitigation Reduced
Cultural Resources Less than Significant Similar
Energy Reduced Similar
Geology / Soils Less than Significant with
Mitigation Similar
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Not Addressed New Impact
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Similar Hydrology / Water Quality Less than Significant with
Mitigation Similar
Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Similar
Minerals Reduced Similar
C I T Y O F C O R O N A
S E P T E M B E R 202 4
D R A F T S U B S E Q U E N T E I R
G R E E N R I V E R R A N C H S P A & B U S I N E S S P A R K
I N D U S T R I A L D E V E L O P M E N T A N D
R E L O C A T I O N O F P C L- 1
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-12
Noise Significant and Unavoidable
after Mitigation Reduced
Population and Housing Less than Significant Similar
Public Services Less than Significant Similar
Recreation Less than Significant Similar
Transportation Significant and Unavoidable
after Mitigation Similar
Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant New Impact Utilities / Service Systems Less than Significant Similar Wildfire Less than Significant with
Mitigation Similar
6.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The No Build / No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative since no development would occur on the Project site. Unlike the Modified Project or the Project Alternatives 2 thru 3, the No Build / No Project Alternative would not result in traffic, air quality, or noise impacts, nor would this Alternative disturb the current on-site biological, cultural, paleontological condition of the site, or alter existing on-site topography and drainage.
As required by CEQA (Section 15126(d)(4), if a “No Build” Alternative is selected as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other Alternatives.
While both the No Build / No Project and Residential Alternative reduce traffic and air quality impacts, the reduction in daily vehicle trips (and, therefore, the generation of mobile-source emissions), each generated impacts to population and housing, public services, and utilities and service systems in excess of that identified with the Modified Project. In addition, the Residential Alternative would permit the construction and occupation of residential uses adjacent to Green River Road and SR-91, which would result in the exposure of sensitive uses (residential dwellings) to traffic noise generated on these roadways. However, such impacts would be reduced with implementation of appropriate Project Design Features and/or mitigation. Furthermore, neither of the two Alternatives fully implement the Project Objects as stated in the GRRSP or the Modified Project as previously stated. Therefore, these two alternatives are rejected as environmentally superior to the proposed project.
The Mixed Use Alternative only incrementally reduces average daily trips and thereby reducing air quality and greenhouse gas emission impacts. In addition, due to the Alternatives less dense industrial design, generate noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors would be reduced. The GRRSP establishes objectives that will guide development of the Project site.
This Alternative would achieve the stated objectives of the GRRSP and the Project Objectives.
Based on the preceding analysis, Alternative 2, Mixed Use Alternative has been selected as the
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-13
This Alternative would achieve the stated objectives of the GRRSP and the Project Objectives.
Based on the preceding analysis, Alternative 2, Mixed Use Alternative has been selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, under current state zoning laws, the City cannot approve projects that would result in fewer residences than under existing conditions and therefore this Alternative is rejected from consideration.
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
ALTERNATIVES
ENPLANNERS
6-14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
7-1
7.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) provides a discussion of additional CEQA impact considerations, including Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, Growth- Inducing Impacts, and any Mandatory Findings of Significance.
7.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Section 15126.2 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss any significant impacts associated with the Modified Project. In Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft SEIR, describes the potential environmental impacts of the Modified Project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, where feasible. Section 1.0, Executive Summary, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation.
7.2 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d), requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Generally, the section states that a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely;
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; and • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involved the wasteful use of energy).
The 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.
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
7-2
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 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
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
7-3
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 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.
7.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a project could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growthinducing” if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
7-4
area. The proposed Modified Project would therefore have a growth inducing impact if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
• Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental
• effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial, and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented 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 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 growthinducing 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.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
7-5
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.
7.4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA requires preparation of an EIR when certain specified impacts may result from construction or implementation of a project. An SEIR has been prepared for the Modified Project, which addresses the Mandatory Findings of Significance within Sections 4.1 through Section 4.20 including degradation of the environment, impacts to habitats or species, shortterm vs. long-term goals, cumulatively considerable impacts, and substantial adverse effects on human beings.
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ANALYSIS
ENPLANNERS
7-6
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
REFERENCES
ENPLANNERS
8-1
8.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective (2005). Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ ceqa/handbook/california-air-resourcesboard-air-quality-and-land-usehandbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf.
Accessed July 2023.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Cap and Trade Overview. California Air Resources Board (2015).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022).
California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11, Title 24 (2023). Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen. Accessed July 2023.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). California Important Farmland Finder (2022). Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed May 2023.
California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark (2023). Available at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-andhousing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/. Accessed June 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Corona – Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (n.d.). Available at: https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018- 8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/osfm-website/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/firehazard-severity-zones-map/upload1/corona.pdf?rev=1ec85f7d5f46442bb5b065da1b37539a&hash=8FDDA637553D7B 5119CDBE6014623E24. Accessed May 2022.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Disposal Rate Calculator – Corona 2022. (2022). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed May 2023.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. El Sobrante Landfill (2023). Available at:
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
REFERENCES
ENPLANNERS
8-2
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402.
Accessed June 2023.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Olinda Alpha Landfill (2023). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2757?siteID=2093.
Accessed June 2023.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Scenic Highway, State Scenic Highway Map (2019). Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed May 2023.
California Energy Commission. Building Energy Efficiency Standards (n.d.). Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energyefficiencystandards. Accessed July 2023.
California Energy Commission. Appliance Efficiency Regulations-Title 20 (2023). Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiencyregulationstitle-20 Accessed July 2023.
California Energy Commission. Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards to Improve Efficiency, Reduce Emissions From Homes and Businesses (2021). Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-08/energycommission-adopts-updatedbuilding-standards-improve-efficiency-reduce. Accessed July 2023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Criteria Air Pollutants (2023). Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. Accessed July 2023.
California Geologic Survey (CGS). California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (2021). Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed June 2023.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker (2019). Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=corona.
Accessed June 2022.
City of Corona. City of Corona, Climate Action Plan Update (2019). Available at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18422/6372393539620700
00. Accessed August 2023.
City of Corona. Corona General Plan Technical Update for the City of Corona, Draft Environmental Impact Report (2019). Available at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17290/6371227991571000
00. Accessed June 2023.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
REFERENCES
ENPLANNERS
8-3
City of Corona. City of City of Corona 2020 – 2040 General Plan (2020). Available at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17292/6373966484359700
00. Accessed June 2023.
City of Corona. City of Corona 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2021). Available at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/20292/6376124027134000
00. Accessed April 2023.
City of Corona. 2023. Corona, California, Municipal Code (2023). Available at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686.
Accessed June 2023.
Corona Fire Department (CFD). Corona Fire Department 2021 Annual Report (2021).
Available at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/21776/6378416616372000
00. Accessed June 2023.
Corona Police Department (CPD). Corona Police Department 2022 Annual Report (2022).
Available at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/23662/6381395416577700
00. Accessed May 2023.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Map 06065C0668G, 06065C0669G, 06065C1335G (2023). Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed June 2023.
Google, Inc. 2024. Google Earth Pro version 7.3.6.9796. Build date 02/22/2024. Accessed June 2024.
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). Maps and Schedules (2024). Available at:
https://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/route-info. Accessed June 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Significance Thresholds and Analysis (2022).
Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook. Accessed August 2023.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal, A Plan for Navigating a Brighter Future (2024). Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024- final-complete-040424.pdf?1714175547. Accessed May 2024.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020). Available at:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx. Accessed May 2023.
CITY OF CORONA
SEPTEMBER 202 4
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
GREEN RIVER RANCH SPA & BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
RELOCATION OF PCL - 1
REFERENCES
ENPLANNERS
8-4
United States Forest Service (USFS). Wildlife Hazard Potential, Version 2020 Classified (2020). Available at:
https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=552 26e8547f84a ae8965210a9801c357. Accessed May 2023.