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.